Thai Charter writing: House to pick the PM, CDC decides

[webfact]

CHARTER WRITING
House to pick the PM, CDC decides
KHANITTHA THEPPHAJORN,
NITIPOL KIRAVANICH
THE NATION

Simple majority of MPs, not direct election, to decide on country's head of govt

BANGKOK: -- The Constitution Drafting Committee decided yesterday that the House of Representatives would be authorised to choose the country's prime minister, but did not seem clear on whether the PM would be an elected member of the lower house.

The 36-member CDC reached a consensus that the House would vote by a simple majority to install the head of the government, according to deputy chairman Suchit Bunbongkarn.

No decision has been made on the qualifications of the prime minister, as there are two opposing ideas on whether non-elected persons could head the government in case there is a need to break a political impasse, he said.

The CDC will meet again today to consider such issues as the number of MPs, he said. The committee will also consider the relationship between the legislative and executive branches as well as checks and balances, Suchit added.

However, the CDC's decision yesterday went against the recommendations from the National Reform Council (NRC) and the National Legislative Assembly (NLA).

Suchit said the CDC owed an apology to the NRC and other bodies for not including their proposals in the constitution.

"Though the parliamentary system that we have used for 82 years - since the 1932 revolution - might have some problems, we can adjust and correct them," he said. "But we have no guarantee that the new system would not cause any problems.

"We believe the old system has fewer risks than the [proposed] new one," he said.

However, the CDC did take many proposals from the NRC and the NLA into consideration and will put them into the constitution, he said.

Opinions divided

The CDC met yesterday to discuss the hot issue of setting up an executive branch. During the meeting, the chairman of NRC's panel on political reform, Sombat Thamrongthanyawong, said directly electing the prime minister would result in a better kind of democracy.

Sombat reasoned that his proposal would also help the prime minister gain more support from MPs, including on tackling the issue of buying votes.

However, some CDC members, many NRC members and also leaders of political parties opposed Sombat's proposal.

"Even though the previous election system had many problems, we can find ways to solve those problems rather than creating a new system," said CDC spokesman General Lertrat Ratanavanich. He suggested that a completely new system could create more problems than it solved.

He said the 36-member CDC spent more than a month studying the positive and negative sides of all proposals before making its decision.

Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam told Patrick Murphy, the charge d'affaires ad interim at the US Embassy, in a meeting yesterday that Thailand would hold a general election by February 2016.

Asked whether the new constitution needed a referendum before taking effect, Wissanu said it would be the military's ruling National Council for Peace and Order that made the decision on that matter. If the junta decided it wanted a referendum, it would have to amend the interim constitution to authorise it, he said.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/House-to-pick-the-PM-CDC-decides-30250548.html


-- The Nation 2014-12-24

[Suriya4]

Pick pm? Then pick prayuth.

[smedly]

"However, the CDC's decision yesterday went against the recommendations from the National Reform Council (NRC) and the National Legislative Assembly (NLA)."

So basically this process has broken down and the CDC has done their own thing regardless of what anyone else thinks - what was the point of having NRC and NLA ? at this point it seems to have been a waste

"Though the parliamentary system that we have used for 82 years - since the 1932 revolution - might have some problems, we can adjust and correct them," he said. "But we have no guarantee that the new system would not cause any problems.

"We believe the old system has fewer risks than the [proposed] new one," he said."

This has got to be the stupidest statement I have ever read from a Thai official, does this guy actually believe that the political system has worked here at any point in the last 30 years - he needs a history lesson

"However, the CDC did take many proposals from the NRC and the NLA into consideration and will put them into the constitution, he said."

Maybe I've got this all wrong here but it seems to me that the CDC is overstepping their authority and remit, I thought they were tasked with implementing the proposals conclusions that came from the NRC and managing the actual wording of the new Constitution to reflect their wishes, who gave the CDC the ultimate authority to make these decisions and blatantly ignore the proposals from the NRC, what was the point of having the NRC, it seems to me that the CDC has the ultimate power to do as they wish - a very powerful position to be in, some intervention is required here to put this process back on the rails otherwise it's all just hogwash.

Shocking

[whybother]

"However, the CDC's decision yesterday went against the recommendations from the National Reform Council (NRC) and the National Legislative Assembly (NLA)."

So basically this process has broken down and the CDC has done their own thing regardless of what anyone else thinks - what was the point of having NRC and NLA ? at this point it seems to have been a waste

"Though the parliamentary system that we have used for 82 years - since the 1932 revolution - might have some problems, we can adjust and correct them," he said. "But we have no guarantee that the new system would not cause any problems.

"We believe the old system has fewer risks than the [proposed] new one," he said."

This has got to be the stupidest statement I have ever read from a Thai official, does this guy actually believe that the political system has worked here at any point in the last 30 years - he needs a history lesson

"However, the CDC did take many proposals from the NRC and the NLA into consideration and will put them into the constitution, he said."

Maybe I've got this all wrong here but it seems to me that the CDC is overstepping their authority and remit, I thought they were tasked with implementing the proposals conclusions that came from the NRC and managing the actual wording of the new Constitution to reflect their wishes, who gave the CDC the ultimate authority to make these decisions and blatantly ignore the proposals from the NRC, what was the point of having the NRC, it seems to me that the CDC has the ultimate power to do as they wish - a very powerful position to be in, some intervention is required here to put this process back on the rails otherwise it's all just hogwash.

Shocking

The CDC is mostly NRC members. They're the ones drafting the new constitution. They take recommendations from the NRC, but that doesn't mean they have to implement those recommendations. The recommendation for a directly elected PM came from one part of the NRC. There were many other recommendations, it's just that the "directly elected PM" got the most news.

[chainarong]

I have been watching this particular episode with interest , these people can not help themselves , all along the angle has been what's in it for us, sneaking around the perimeters , playing their tune, they are setting up the system where the people who this COUP was actually for don't participate in the PM ( Leader ) election process, bearing in mind the PM is generally the leader of the winning team, now, we can have a house of reps full of Democrats with a PTP Prime minister, depending on the voting by the people , the minor parties can gang up against the Democrats ,along with a slight of hand shakes , we need this like a hole in the head. The comedy script should read, the leader of the Democratically elected winning Party is the P.M. the people wishes, not the ruling elite.

[whybother]

I have been watching this particular episode with interest , these people can not help themselves , all along the angle has been what's in it for us, sneaking around the perimeters , playing their tune, they are setting up the system where the people who this COUP was actually for don't participate in the PM ( Leader ) election process, bearing in mind the PM is generally the leader of the winning team, now, we can have a house of reps full of Democrats with a PTP Prime minister, depending on the voting by the people , the minor parties can gang up against the Democrats ,along with a slight of hand shakes , we need this like a hole in the head. The comedy script should read, the leader of the Democratically elected winning Party is the P.M. the people wishes, not the ruling elite.

I don't really know what you're getting so upset about.

It was only the 1997 constitution that brought in that the PM had to be an MP. But even then, he was still selected by parliament (ie the MPs elected by the people).

The PM has for a long time been effectively elected by the majority of MPs. He hasn't always been the leader of the "winning" party, but unless the "winning" party gets a majority of seats, that doesn't mean anything.

This decision is basically confirming that process, but they haven't decided whether the PM has to be an MP. I expect that they will make that happen too.

[Laughing Gravy]

Pick pm? Then pick prayuth.

Why? Becase he has done the bidding of his masters.

Another mess which could backfire in Thailands face one they follow this route of picking Prime Ministers. The argument about democracy here keeps going on and on and it would seem that it just isn't going to happen with the ruling elite. At least other countries let the people vote and they feel they have the choice of selecting the prime minister. here they are blatant, the common person just isn't going to get the chance and it would seem they will have to do what they are told.

Once the country goes down this path it can be difficult to get back. It certainly can't be called a democratic country. You might as well keep it as a military rules country and be open and honest about it.

[Eric Loh]

Pick pm? Then pick prayuth.

How did you know that Prayuth will join PT.

[whybother]

Pick pm? Then pick prayuth.

Why? Becase he has done the bidding of his masters.

Another mess which could backfire in Thailands face one they follow this route of picking Prime Ministers. The argument about democracy here keeps going on and on and it would seem that it just isn't going to happen with the ruling elite. At least other countries let the people vote and they feel they have the choice of selecting the prime minister. here they are blatant, the common person just isn't going to get the chance and it would seem they will have to do what they are told.

Once the country goes down this path it can be difficult to get back. It certainly can't be called a democratic country. You might as well keep it as a military rules country and be open and honest about it.

You do know that the 1997 and 2007 constitution had MPs "picking" the Prime Minister don't you? Do you also know that in the UK, Aus, and many other countries that use the Westminster system, that Thailand also uses, they also "pick" their PM.

[Roadman]

Pick pm? Then pick prayuth.

Why? Becase he has done the bidding of his masters.

Another mess which could backfire in Thailands face one they follow this route of picking Prime Ministers. The argument about democracy here keeps going on and on and it would seem that it just isn't going to happen with the ruling elite. At least other countries let the people vote and they feel they have the choice of selecting the prime minister. here they are blatant, the common person just isn't going to get the chance and it would seem they will have to do what they are told.

Once the country goes down this path it can be difficult to get back. It certainly can't be called a democratic country. You might as well keep it as a military rules country and be open and honest about it.

You do know that the 1997 and 2007 constitution had MPs "picking" the Prime Minister don't you? Do you also know that in the UK, Aus, and many other countries that use the Westminster system, that Thailand also uses, they also "pick" their PM.

You have been blessed with patience and diplomacy Whybother. Edited December 24, 2014 by Roadman

[binjalin]

Pick pm? Then pick prayuth.

Considering Prayuth is not even an MP or elected that would be difficult anyway you don't need to pick a 'D' (censored) he picked himself or are you suggesting Mark will give way? I mean the Dems (in name only) are the yellow party.

[tomross46]

This system of picking the PM, has worked for decades, in many democratic through the world. It works but, as long as the voters can be bought by promises of corrupt politicians, no system will work.

Edited December 24, 2014 by tomross46

[DaffyDuck]

You do know that the 1997 and 2007 constitution had MPs "picking" the Prime Minister don't you? Do you also know that in the UK, Aus, and many other countries that use the Westminster system, that Thailand also uses, they also "pick" their PM.

Stop it with those pesky facts, whybother, before you embarrass the other guy too much ;-) damn you! ;-)

[chotthee]

Pick pm? Then pick prayuth.

How did you know that Prayuth will join PT.

When Thaksin paid enough.

[metisdead]

Please use discretion in your references to the government. Phrases which can be considered as anti-coup will be removed. Referring to Thailand or the government as a dictatorship, military dictatorship or other such terms will be removed.

[bangon04]

Pick pm? Then pick prayuth.

Why? Becase he has done the bidding of his masters.

Another mess which could backfire in Thailands face one they follow this route of picking Prime Ministers. The argument about democracy here keeps going on and on and it would seem that it just isn't going to happen with the ruling elite. At least other countries let the people vote and they feel they have the choice of selecting the prime minister. here they are blatant, the common person just isn't going to get the chance and it would seem they will have to do what they are told.

Once the country goes down this path it can be difficult to get back. It certainly can't be called a democratic country. You might as well keep it as a military rules country and be open and honest about it.

You do know that the 1997 and 2007 constitution had MPs "picking" the Prime Minister don't you? Do you also know that in the UK, Aus, and many other countries that use the Westminster system, that Thailand also uses, they also "pick" their PM.

Yes, a directly elected national leader would be a "President", not a Prime Minister, and that sounds awfully close to a head of state.... not the way Thailand wants to go...

[Trouble]

This system of picking the PM, has worked for decades, in many democratic through the world. It works but, as long as the voters can be bought by promises of corrupt politicians, no system will work.

Isn't vote buying in one form or another done in every election in every country regardless of the system? Whomever promises the most for the masses generally gets elected. People, in general, vote for the party/candidate whom they think will benefit them the most. If one promises lower taxes or tax the rich the masses will vote for that candidate. If one promises free health care, subsidies for rice or rubber farmers they will vote for that party. It is really no different in Thailand than anywhere else. The voters will vote for what is in their personal best interest, not what is necessarily fair or best for the nation as a whole. One might ask oneself why some of the European countries like Greece are in such a mess with budgets that have broken down because of the social subsidies. Rioting in the streets happens when the people become so dependent on the state that they expect everything, including their livelihood from the state.

[jayboy]

Pick pm? Then pick prayuth.

Why? Becase he has done the bidding of his masters.

Another mess which could backfire in Thailands face one they follow this route of picking Prime Ministers. The argument about democracy here keeps going on and on and it would seem that it just isn't going to happen with the ruling elite. At least other countries let the people vote and they feel they have the choice of selecting the prime minister. here they are blatant, the common person just isn't going to get the chance and it would seem they will have to do what they are told.

Once the country goes down this path it can be difficult to get back. It certainly can't be called a democratic country. You might as well keep it as a military rules country and be open and honest about it.

You do know that the 1997 and 2007 constitution had MPs "picking" the Prime Minister don't you? Do you also know that in the UK, Aus, and many other countries that use the Westminster system, that Thailand also uses, they also "pick" their PM.

It's already been explained to you how the PM is selected under the Westminster system yet you persist in misleading.Once again then.MPs do not pick the PM.The sovereign asks the leader of the party with largest number of seats to form an administration.The key point is that the PM must be able to command support in the House of Commons and if necessary he must form a coalition.At no point do MPs have a vote to select the PM.

[whybother]

You do know that the 1997 and 2007 constitution had MPs "picking" the Prime Minister don't you? Do you also know that in the UK, Aus, and many other countries that use the Westminster system, that Thailand also uses, they also "pick" their PM.

It's already been explained to you how the PM is selected under the Westminster system yet you persist in misleading.Once again then.MPs do not pick the PM.The sovereign asks the leader of the party with largest number of seats to form an administration.The key point is that the PM must be able to command support in the House of Commons and if necessary he must form a coalition.At no point do MPs have a vote to select the PM.

Where did I say that they voted to select a PM?

But, how does a head of state know that someone has the support of parliament without there being some sort of election? Sure, if a party has a majority of seats, it's pretty obvious, but if it's a coalition, there needs to be some sort of indication in parliament, otherwise the head of state is just guessing.

Besides that, I was responding to a post where they were suggesting that some third party was going appoint the PM regardless of parliamentary support. Maybe you should respond to that and tell them how the Westminster system works.

[jayboy]

You do know that the 1997 and 2007 constitution had MPs "picking" the Prime Minister don't you? Do you also know that in the UK, Aus, and many other countries that use the Westminster system, that Thailand also uses, they also "pick" their PM.

It's already been explained to you how the PM is selected under the Westminster system yet you persist in misleading.Once again then.MPs do not pick the PM.The sovereign asks the leader of the party with largest number of seats to form an administration.The key point is that the PM must be able to command support in the House of Commons and if necessary he must form a coalition.At no point do MPs have a vote to select the PM.

Where did I say that they voted to select a PM?

But, how does a head of state know that someone has the support of parliament without there being some sort of election? Sure, if a party has a majority of seats, it's pretty obvious, but if it's a coalition, there needs to be some sort of indication in parliament, otherwise the head of state is just guessing.

Besides that, I was responding to a post where they were suggesting that some third party was going appoint the PM regardless of parliamentary support. Maybe you should respond to that and tell them how the Westminster system works.

Mostly it isn't an issue who the sovereign should ask to form a government because the choice is obvious , ie when there is a party with a majority or the largest number of seats.

Sometimes there is some ambiguity as in 1964 when Lord Home was asked to form a government.However this was because his party had not selected a leader ( always the key election any potential PM must face ) after the retirement for health reasons of Macmillan.The monarch took the decision on the basis of advice from Privy Counsellors ( in practice Macmillan called the shots).This was controversial at the time because Lord Home was not a member of the House of Commons.

Anyway the key point is that the monarch is advised by " wise men".Great care is taken to ensure the monarch is not put in a position where he/she is seen to be exercising an overtly political role.Hence the need for very clear rules. Incidentally there can be no coalition before the monarch asks the future PM to form a government.After the monarch has made the request the future PM will make the formal approach to other parties if necessary.If he can't manage it the monarch will ask someone else.

Obviously with the monarch involved everybody is keen to keep surprises to a minimum.Therefore there's a huge amount of consultation in advance between the monarch's advisers and everybody else concerned.

[cocopops]

Pick pm? Then pick prayuth.

Why? Becase he has done the bidding of his masters.

Another mess which could backfire in Thailands face one they follow this route of picking Prime Ministers. The argument about democracy here keeps going on and on and it would seem that it just isn't going to happen with the ruling elite. At least other countries let the people vote and they feel they have the choice of selecting the prime minister. here they are blatant, the common person just isn't going to get the chance and it would seem they will have to do what they are told.

Once the country goes down this path it can be difficult to get back. It certainly can't be called a democratic country. You might as well keep it as a military rules country and be open and honest about it.

You do know that the 1997 and 2007 constitution had MPs "picking" the Prime Minister don't you? Do you also know that in the UK, Aus, and many other countries that use the Westminster system, that Thailand also uses, they also "pick" their PM.

It's already been explained to you how the PM is selected under the Westminster system yet you persist in misleading.Once again then.MPs do not pick the PM.The sovereign asks the leader of the party with largest number of seats to form an administration.The key point is that the PM must be able to command support in the House of Commons and if necessary he must form a coalition.At no point do MPs have a vote to select the PM.

John Major became PM as a direct result of enough conservative MPs voting for him...

[rametindallas]

OMG! If they are just now deciding how the PM is to be chosen, then I expect the new Charter will be available for viewing in about twenty, or more, years.

Remember, they said they wanted to build the new Charter from the 'ground up' and not use any previous Charter. I imagine all their time is taken up with all the niceties one has to go through before one can say anything resembling explicit thought or opinion. I'm sure the rest of the time is taken up with 'making face', 'saving face', and being 'krieng jai' (not saying anything to make someone else feel uncomfortable). I can also imagine that, once the 'pecking' order was established, there were a lot fewer speakers so I don't think every person on the commissions is being allowed to express themselves freely.

[mikemac]

I like the way the Shin parties decide who is the PM - Thaksin sends a message via Skype that so-and-so is the PM and that is it.