Receive new Kbank debit card procedure 2024?

[Qent]

Since both Sjakie and I come from that wonderful country full of Dutch uncles, let me tell all here how 'we' do it

"The 75 members of the Senate (Eerste Kamer) of the Dutch Parliament (the States General) are elected by the members of the twelve Provincial Councils. These elections are indirect: the voters elect the members of the Provincial Councils, who in turn elect the members of the Senate.

As the members of the Senate are not elected directly by the voters, they are rather more remote from the realities of daily politics. They do not, for example, electioneer.

The criteria for membership are the same as those for the House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) of the Dutch Parliament."

http://www.eerstekamer.nl/begrip/english_2

The criteria are simple, as stated in the Constitution

"Article 56

To be eligible for membership of the Parliament, a person must be a Dutch national, must have attained the age of eighteen years and must not have been disqualified from voting."

Thank you for that.

So then, we've had France, Canada, UK, and Netherlands as all having their Senate (or equivalent) as being composed of indirectly elected Senators (or equivalent).

In the Netherlands, senators are indeed not voted in directly by the electorate.

Thanks for confirming that the Netherlands joins France, Canada, and the UK as a growing number of examples of other countires that indirectly elect Senators.

Seems to be quite a variety of methods for indirectly electing Senators as Thailand considers the move.

[tbthailand]

Since both Sjakie and I come from that wonderful country full of Dutch uncles, let me tell all here how 'we' do it

"The 75 members of the Senate (Eerste Kamer) of the Dutch Parliament (the States General) are elected by the members of the twelve Provincial Councils. These elections are indirect: the voters elect the members of the Provincial Councils, who in turn elect the members of the Senate.

As the members of the Senate are not elected directly by the voters, they are rather more remote from the realities of daily politics. They do not, for example, electioneer.

The criteria for membership are the same as those for the House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) of the Dutch Parliament."

http://www.eerstekamer.nl/begrip/english_2

The criteria are simple, as stated in the Constitution

"Article 56

To be eligible for membership of the Parliament, a person must be a Dutch national, must have attained the age of eighteen years and must not have been disqualified from voting."

Thank you for that.

So then, we've had France, Canada, UK, and Netherlands as all having their Senate (or equivalent) as being composed of indirectly elected Senators (or equivalent).

In the Netherlands, senators are indeed not voted in directly by the electorate.

Thanks for confirming that the Netherlands joins France, Canada, and the UK as a growing number of examples of other countires that indirectly elect Senators.

Seems to be quite a variety of methods for indirectly electing Senators as Thailand considers the move.

it rained in bangkok last week

it rained in amsterdam last week

has about as much to do with the constitutional issues in Thailand.

but you certainly try to find a way to legitimize the current proposals for the new Thai constitution. it's not a relevant argument.

what matters in thailand is that the coming constitution will cement into place the power of the elite and the proposal for a non-elected senate with significant powers is one of the many ways this will be achieved. just as the 2007 constitution added new levers for the elite and their military allies to pull.

what would be clearly more democratic would be to have a fully elected senate. but that is not been seriously discussed. do you understand why not?

[sjaak327]

Since both Sjakie and I come from that wonderful country full of Dutch uncles, let me tell all here how 'we' do it

"The 75 members of the Senate (Eerste Kamer) of the Dutch Parliament (the States General) are elected by the members of the twelve Provincial Councils. These elections are indirect: the voters elect the members of the Provincial Councils, who in turn elect the members of the Senate.

As the members of the Senate are not elected directly by the voters, they are rather more remote from the realities of daily politics. They do not, for example, electioneer.

The criteria for membership are the same as those for the House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) of the Dutch Parliament."

http://www.eerstekamer.nl/begrip/english_2

The criteria are simple, as stated in the Constitution

"Article 56

To be eligible for membership of the Parliament, a person must be a Dutch national, must have attained the age of eighteen years and must not have been disqualified from voting."

Thank you for that.

So then, we've had France, Canada, UK, and Netherlands as all having their Senate (or equivalent) as being composed of indirectly elected Senators (or equivalent).

In the Netherlands, senators are indeed not voted in directly by the electorate.

Thanks for confirming that the Netherlands joins France, Canada, and the UK as a growing number of examples of other countires that indirectly elect Senators.

Seems to be quite a variety of methods for indirectly electing Senators as Thailand considers the move.

I did nothing of the sort. I didn't even mention the other countries, as I don't know or care how those countries elect their senators.

I confirmed that whilst the Dutch senators are indirectly elected, the composition of the senate is a direct result of elections by the Dutch electorate. The numbers of senators per party is a direct result of the number of votes those parties received.

This is NOT what Thailand is trying to introduce and you know it.

[djjamie]

Thanks for confirming that the Netherlands joins France, Canada, and the UK as a growing number of examples of other countires that indirectly elect Senators.

Seems to be quite a variety of methods for indirectly electing Senators as Thailand considers the move.

it rained in bangkok last week

it rained in amsterdam last week

has about as much to do with the constitutional issues in Thailand.

but you certainly try to find a way to legitimize the current proposals for the new Thai constitution. it's not a relevant argument.

what matters in thailand is that the coming constitution will cement into place the power of the elite and the proposal for a non-elected senate with significant powers is one of the many ways this will be achieved. just as the 2007 constitution added new levers for the elite and their military allies to pull.

what would be clearly more democratic would be to have a fully elected senate. but that is not been seriously discussed. do you understand why not?

Can I answer that one.

The Thai senate boasted a compliment of experienced professionals. Elections would effectively eliminate their valuable expertise from the political process.

The appointed senators (A.S) were economists, scientists, businessmen, judges, lawyers, professors, engineers, social workers, doctors, public servants and consumer advocates. Lets have a look at a couple of elected senators from before in comparison. The Udon senator winning a senate seat when she had previously smuggled her husband across the border to Laos to escape the law and the Chiang Mai senator was affiliated with RCM51, a minority driven, violent terrorist group. When Thai's do not understand the ramifications of their votes opt course criminals will be voted in.

The elected senators will be spending more time garnering votes and gaining popularity with their parties backing while the A.S professionals would be unwilling to campaign and would have their seats filled by puppets funded with their parties money. So the senate would mirror parliament and would be a very ineffective assembly as they will all have an agenda. People argue it was DEM inclined senate before. Now they argue that being elected thus PT inclined is better. That is an irrational and undemocratic argument. The senate should be inclined in holding the parliament accountable with no hidden agendas.

An A.S reflects diversity of the Thai people. Women, visible minorities will be too often poorly represented if senators are elected. PTP despise the voice of minority groups. The ex Deputy PM called minority groups garbage.

An A.S will improve policy. An A.S could help ensure that policy is based on a wider variety of input based on compromise and consensus among diverse perspectives. PTP hate this fact. They want complete control. Imagine if the whole senate was full of PTP criminals, maids and cooks. The amnesty bill would have passed.

Balancing Power. An A.S serves as a check on the concentration of power in the hands of the PM. PTP hate this. They want complete control.

In summary an appointed Senate is essential to Thailand's democracy. The people appointed to the Senate were not usually professional politicians. They had actually done something with their lives. They didn't have constituencies to worry about or elections to win. They spend their time seriously reviewing legislation.

This is why Canada and these other countries have gone down this path. But maybe you will ignore this and prefer to discuss the weather in Bangkok and Amsterdam?

Edited December 26, 2014 by djjamie

[tbthailand]

Thanks for confirming that the Netherlands joins France, Canada, and the UK as a growing number of examples of other countires that indirectly elect Senators.

Seems to be quite a variety of methods for indirectly electing Senators as Thailand considers the move.

it rained in bangkok last week

it rained in amsterdam last week

has about as much to do with the constitutional issues in Thailand.

but you certainly try to find a way to legitimize the current proposals for the new Thai constitution. it's not a relevant argument.

what matters in thailand is that the coming constitution will cement into place the power of the elite and the proposal for a non-elected senate with significant powers is one of the many ways this will be achieved. just as the 2007 constitution added new levers for the elite and their military allies to pull.

what would be clearly more democratic would be to have a fully elected senate. but that is not been seriously discussed. do you understand why not?

Can I answer that one.

The Thai senate boasted a compliment of experienced professionals. Elections would effectively eliminate their valuable expertise from the political process.

The appointed senators (A.S) were economists, scientists, businessmen, judges, lawyers, professors, engineers, social workers, doctors, public servants and consumer advocates. Lets have a look at a couple of elected senators from before in comparison. The Udon senator winning a senate seat when she had previously smuggled her husband across the border to Laos to escape the law and the Chiang Mai senator was affiliated with RCM51, a minority driven, violent terrorist group. When Thai's do not understand the ramifications of their votes opt course criminals will be voted in.

The elected senators will be spending more time garnering votes and gaining popularity with their parties backing while the A.S professionals would be unwilling to campaign and would have their seats filled by puppets funded with their parties money. So the senate would mirror parliament and would be a very ineffective assembly as they will all have an agenda. People argue it was DEM inclined senate before. Now they argue that being elected thus PT inclined is better. That is an irrational and undemocratic argument. The senate should be inclined in holding the parliament accountable with no hidden agendas.

An A.S reflects diversity of the Thai people. Women, visible minorities will be too often poorly represented if senators are elected. PTP despise the voice of minority groups. The ex Deputy PM called minority groups garbage.

An A.S will improve policy. An A.S could help ensure that policy is based on a wider variety of input based on compromise and consensus among diverse perspectives. PTP hate this fact. They want complete control. Imagine if the whole senate was full of PTP criminals, maids and cooks. The amnesty bill would have passed.

Balancing Power. An A.S serves as a check on the concentration of power in the hands of the PM. PTP hate this. They want complete control.

In summary an appointed Senate is essential to Thailand's democracy. The people appointed to the Senate were not usually professional politicians. They had actually done something with their lives. They didn't have constituencies to worry about or elections to win. They spend their time seriously reviewing legislation.

This is why Canada and these other countries have gone down this path. But maybe you will ignore this and prefer to discuss the weather in Bangkok and Amsterdam?

In summary an appointed Senate is essential to Thailand's democracy.

well, that summarizes a completely anti-democratic perspective at least.

The Thai senate boasted a compliment of experienced professionals. Elections would effectively eliminate their valuable expertise from the political process.

legislatures are meant to be about representation. In democracies, that means representation selected by the electorate. Appointed Senates do not have anything to do with representation and only reflect one side's desire to maintain control.

[candide]

In other countries, indirectly elected means elected by people who have been themselves elected (usually at the local/regional level). They are often older experienced politicians (i.e. former MPs). What we can expect in Thailand is "appointed senators", not indirectly elected.

Then if appointed, comes naturally the question of who appoints them? We all know how it will be done....

If it is done in the same way as before, we can only expect a self-appointed and self-reproducing network without any control:

- different bodies, including courts, EC, NACC, etc... (the so called "independant organisations") elect senate members,

- in turn, the Senates approves new nominations in the independant organisations,

- next round those people approved by the senate will elect the next senate,

- etc...

In such a system, the only important point is from which political side are the people doing the initial appointments. Then this political side is sure to self-reproduce its domination over time without any control

Edited December 26, 2014 by candide

[djjamie]

Thanks for confirming that the Netherlands joins France, Canada, and the UK as a growing number of examples of other countires that indirectly elect Senators.

Seems to be quite a variety of methods for indirectly electing Senators as Thailand considers the move.

it rained in bangkok last week

it rained in amsterdam last week

has about as much to do with the constitutional issues in Thailand.

but you certainly try to find a way to legitimize the current proposals for the new Thai constitution. it's not a relevant argument.

what matters in thailand is that the coming constitution will cement into place the power of the elite and the proposal for a non-elected senate with significant powers is one of the many ways this will be achieved. just as the 2007 constitution added new levers for the elite and their military allies to pull.

what would be clearly more democratic would be to have a fully elected senate. but that is not been seriously discussed. do you understand why not?

Can I answer that one.

The Thai senate boasted a compliment of experienced professionals. Elections would effectively eliminate their valuable expertise from the political process.

The appointed senators (A.S) were economists, scientists, businessmen, judges, lawyers, professors, engineers, social workers, doctors, public servants and consumer advocates. Lets have a look at a couple of elected senators from before in comparison. The Udon senator winning a senate seat when she had previously smuggled her husband across the border to Laos to escape the law and the Chiang Mai senator was affiliated with RCM51, a minority driven, violent terrorist group. When Thai's do not understand the ramifications of their votes opt course criminals will be voted in.

The elected senators will be spending more time garnering votes and gaining popularity with their parties backing while the A.S professionals would be unwilling to campaign and would have their seats filled by puppets funded with their parties money. So the senate would mirror parliament and would be a very ineffective assembly as they will all have an agenda. People argue it was DEM inclined senate before. Now they argue that being elected thus PT inclined is better. That is an irrational and undemocratic argument. The senate should be inclined in holding the parliament accountable with no hidden agendas.

An A.S reflects diversity of the Thai people. Women, visible minorities will be too often poorly represented if senators are elected. PTP despise the voice of minority groups. The ex Deputy PM called minority groups garbage.

An A.S will improve policy. An A.S could help ensure that policy is based on a wider variety of input based on compromise and consensus among diverse perspectives. PTP hate this fact. They want complete control. Imagine if the whole senate was full of PTP criminals, maids and cooks. The amnesty bill would have passed.

Balancing Power. An A.S serves as a check on the concentration of power in the hands of the PM. PTP hate this. They want complete control.

In summary an appointed Senate is essential to Thailand's democracy. The people appointed to the Senate were not usually professional politicians. They had actually done something with their lives. They didn't have constituencies to worry about or elections to win. They spend their time seriously reviewing legislation.

This is why Canada and these other countries have gone down this path. But maybe you will ignore this and prefer to discuss the weather in Bangkok and Amsterdam?

In summary an appointed Senate is essential to Thailand's democracy.

well, that summarizes a completely anti-democratic perspective at least.

The Thai senate boasted a compliment of experienced professionals. Elections would effectively eliminate their valuable expertise from the political process.

legislatures are meant to be about representation. In democracies, that means representation selected by the electorate. Appointed Senates do not have anything to do with representation and only reflect one side's desire to maintain control.

Did you even read my post or just cherry pick my friend while ignoring the rest.

If you prefer a senate full of "representative" criminals that I had shown above (which you refused to address) than by all means defend your argument.

Edited December 26, 2014 by djjamie

[tbthailand]

it rained in bangkok last week

it rained in amsterdam last week

has about as much to do with the constitutional issues in Thailand.

but you certainly try to find a way to legitimize the current proposals for the new Thai constitution. it's not a relevant argument.

what matters in thailand is that the coming constitution will cement into place the power of the elite and the proposal for a non-elected senate with significant powers is one of the many ways this will be achieved. just as the 2007 constitution added new levers for the elite and their military allies to pull.

what would be clearly more democratic would be to have a fully elected senate. but that is not been seriously discussed. do you understand why not?

Can I answer that one.

The Thai senate boasted a compliment of experienced professionals. Elections would effectively eliminate their valuable expertise from the political process.

The appointed senators (A.S) were economists, scientists, businessmen, judges, lawyers, professors, engineers, social workers, doctors, public servants and consumer advocates. Lets have a look at a couple of elected senators from before in comparison. The Udon senator winning a senate seat when she had previously smuggled her husband across the border to Laos to escape the law and the Chiang Mai senator was affiliated with RCM51, a minority driven, violent terrorist group. When Thai's do not understand the ramifications of their votes opt course criminals will be voted in.

The elected senators will be spending more time garnering votes and gaining popularity with their parties backing while the A.S professionals would be unwilling to campaign and would have their seats filled by puppets funded with their parties money. So the senate would mirror parliament and would be a very ineffective assembly as they will all have an agenda. People argue it was DEM inclined senate before. Now they argue that being elected thus PT inclined is better. That is an irrational and undemocratic argument. The senate should be inclined in holding the parliament accountable with no hidden agendas.

An A.S reflects diversity of the Thai people. Women, visible minorities will be too often poorly represented if senators are elected. PTP despise the voice of minority groups. The ex Deputy PM called minority groups garbage.

An A.S will improve policy. An A.S could help ensure that policy is based on a wider variety of input based on compromise and consensus among diverse perspectives. PTP hate this fact. They want complete control. Imagine if the whole senate was full of PTP criminals, maids and cooks. The amnesty bill would have passed.

Balancing Power. An A.S serves as a check on the concentration of power in the hands of the PM. PTP hate this. They want complete control.

In summary an appointed Senate is essential to Thailand's democracy. The people appointed to the Senate were not usually professional politicians. They had actually done something with their lives. They didn't have constituencies to worry about or elections to win. They spend their time seriously reviewing legislation.

This is why Canada and these other countries have gone down this path. But maybe you will ignore this and prefer to discuss the weather in Bangkok and Amsterdam?

In summary an appointed Senate is essential to Thailand's democracy.

well, that summarizes a completely anti-democratic perspective at least.

The Thai senate boasted a compliment of experienced professionals. Elections would effectively eliminate their valuable expertise from the political process.

legislatures are meant to be about representation. In democracies, that means representation selected by the electorate. Appointed Senates do not have anything to do with representation and only reflect one side's desire to maintain control.

Did you even read my post or just cherry pick my friend while ignoring the rest.

If you prefer a senate full of "representative" criminals that I had shown above (which you refused to address) than by all means defend your argument.

yep, read the whole thing.

see, politicians, like other professions might be criminal, but that is not a reason to restrict democracy. We just convicted the governor of Virginia in the USA on corruption charges. We have a congressman - still serving - who has just pleaded guilty to one of 20 indictments against him ...

Politics, like other professions, is never free of corruption. That's life. Falls under s+++ happens.

The key is to have an open society which can deal with it when it happens.

In Thailand, things are not open (LM, defamation, and now, martial law), and corruption is wide-spread. It would be naive to think that the supposed 'good people' are really less corrupt than others with money and power. At least that's not historically what has been seen.

so again, democracy is meant to be representative, not appointed.

There's no way around that.

[sjaak327]

Did you even read my post or just cherry pick my friend while ignoring the rest.

If you prefer a senate full of "representative" criminals that I had shown above (which you refused to address) than by all means defend your argument.

Why would people who are voted in by the electorate be "criminals".

Your post talks about senators that are "gaining popularity with their parties backing " even though the current senate is a non-partisan body.

There is nothing wrong with the elecorate being able to directly or indirectly determine the composition of the senate, in fact it should be a prerequisite for a functioning democracy.

Especially if the senate seems to get quite a bit more power, as this article seems to imply.

[Qent]

Thank you for that.

So then, we've had France, Canada, UK, and Netherlands as all having their Senate (or equivalent) as being composed of indirectly elected Senators (or equivalent).

In the Netherlands, senators are indeed not voted in directly by the electorate.

Thanks for confirming that the Netherlands joins France, Canada, and the UK as a growing number of examples of other countires that indirectly elect Senators.

Seems to be quite a variety of methods for indirectly electing Senators as Thailand considers the move.

but you certainly try to find a way to legitimize the current proposals for the new Thai constitution. it's not a relevant argument.

what would be clearly more democratic would be to have a fully elected senate. but that is not been seriously discussed. do you understand why not?

What is relevant in my posts is that a number of other countries also have indirectly elected Senators.

You should send your recommendation that these other countries should change their systems to be more democratic to their relevant embassies.

[djjamie]

In summary an appointed Senate is essential to Thailand's democracy.

well, that summarizes a completely anti-democratic perspective at least.

The Thai senate boasted a compliment of experienced professionals. Elections would effectively eliminate their valuable expertise from the political process.

legislatures are meant to be about representation. In democracies, that means representation selected by the electorate. Appointed Senates do not have anything to do with representation and only reflect one side's desire to maintain control.

Did you even read my post or just cherry pick my friend while ignoring the rest.

If you prefer a senate full of "representative" criminals that I had shown above (which you refused to address) than by all means defend your argument.

yep, read the whole thing.

see, politicians, like other professions might be criminal, but that is not a reason to restrict democracy. We just convicted the governor of Virginia in the USA on corruption charges. We have a congressman - still serving - who has just pleaded guilty to one of 20 indictments against him ...

Politics, like other professions, is never free of corruption. That's life. Falls under s+++ happens.

The key is to have an open society which can deal with it when it happens.

In Thailand, things are not open (LM, defamation, and now, martial law), and corruption is wide-spread. It would be naive to think that the supposed 'good people' are really less corrupt than others with money and power. At least that's not historically what has been seen.

so again, democracy is meant to be representative, not appointed.

There's no way around that.

"We just convicted the governor of Virginia in the USA on corruption charges."

​So one governor of 39 in America is corrupt. Seems like the system does not need changing then.

When a senate voted in by an electorate that have no idea what the senators job entails then that is an issue.

Would you feel comfortable having criminals in your senate with those criminals moulding laws of the country and being partisan towards the party that allowed them to stand for the senate. Not 1 in 39, but most of them. The electorate will be represented by criminals with an agenda.

Education my friend. Education. Strong democracies have an educated electorate. Weak democracies or failed ones don't. Trust me, I have spent a lot of time in Africa where they have a democracy albeit a criminally inclined one. Elections to not ensure legitimacy. It aint black and white mate.

Seems you are only addressing one point at a time.

A.S reflects diversity of the Thai people. Women, visible minorities will be too often poorly represented if senators are elected. Nothing to say on that? And if you do I will address my next point that you refuse to acknowledge.

And the most interesting thing is that democracies around the world have appointed or indirectly elected senators and you still say it is undemocratic with your argument to rebut that being the weather in Bangkok and Amsterdam!

Edited December 26, 2014 by djjamie

[Thai at Heart]

It all depends what you would like the senate to be.

The senate should be little more than a further debating chamber and a virtual independent rubber stamp to apply various rules to make sure the govt stays within the law and the constitution.

It should not be a brake on the lower house and its policy making . I think one of the best examples of the senate working well is the review of the hunting laws in the uk. The lower house passed the vote, and some quick witted lord noticed that this criminalised fishing also.

They sent it back because that wasn't the point of the law.

For example the senate in Thailand should have stopped the nonsensical booze laws in Thailand being passe whereby you cant buy a can but can buy a case.

[Qent]

Thank you for that.

So then, we've had France, Canada, UK, and Netherlands as all having their Senate (or equivalent) as being composed of indirectly elected Senators (or equivalent).

In the Netherlands, senators are indeed not voted in directly by the electorate.

Thanks for confirming that the Netherlands joins France, Canada, and the UK as a growing number of examples of other countires that indirectly elect Senators.

Seems to be quite a variety of methods for indirectly electing Senators as Thailand considers the move.

I did nothing of the sort. I didn't even mention the other countries, as I don't know or care how those countries elect their senators.

The other countries mentioned were from all different posters. Sorry if you somehow misunderstood my post as thinking I meant it was you who mentioned them all.

If you review the thread, you will see that different posters all mentioned the commonality that all these other countries all had indirectly elected Senators and that a variety of methods were utilized to reach the same end result of indirectly elected Senators.

[Qent]

What we can expect in Thailand is "appointed senators", not indirectly elected.

From the OP:

Khamnoon Sitthisaman, committee spokesman, said the panel reached a consensus that 200 senators would be indirectly elected

[heybruce]

In summary an appointed Senate is essential to Thailand's democracy.

well, that summarizes a completely anti-democratic perspective at least.

The Thai senate boasted a compliment of experienced professionals. Elections would effectively eliminate their valuable expertise from the political process.

legislatures are meant to be about representation. In democracies, that means representation selected by the electorate. Appointed Senates do not have anything to do with representation and only reflect one side's desire to maintain control.

Did you even read my post or just cherry pick my friend while ignoring the rest.

If you prefer a senate full of "representative" criminals that I had shown above (which you refused to address) than by all means defend your argument.

yep, read the whole thing.

see, politicians, like other professions might be criminal, but that is not a reason to restrict democracy. We just convicted the governor of Virginia in the USA on corruption charges. We have a congressman - still serving - who has just pleaded guilty to one of 20 indictments against him ...

Politics, like other professions, is never free of corruption. That's life. Falls under s+++ happens.

The key is to have an open society which can deal with it when it happens.

In Thailand, things are not open (LM, defamation, and now, martial law), and corruption is wide-spread. It would be naive to think that the supposed 'good people' are really less corrupt than others with money and power. At least that's not historically what has been seen.

so again, democracy is meant to be representative, not appointed.

There's no way around that.

"We just convicted the governor of Virginia in the USA on corruption charges."

​So one governor of 39 in America is corrupt. Seems like the system does not need changing then.

When a senate voted in by an electorate that have no idea what the senators job entails then that is an issue.

Would you feel comfortable having criminals in your senate with those criminals moulding laws of the country and being partisan towards the party that allowed them to stand for the senate. Not 1 in 39, but most of them. The electorate will be represented by criminals with an agenda.

Education my friend. Education. Strong democracies have an educated electorate. Weak democracies or failed ones don't. Trust me, I have spent a lot of time in Africa where they have a democracy albeit a criminally inclined one. Elections to not ensure legitimacy. It aint black and white mate.

Seems you are only addressing one point at a time.

A.S reflects diversity of the Thai people. Women, visible minorities will be too often poorly represented if senators are elected. Nothing to say on that? And if you do I will address my next point that you refuse to acknowledge.

And the most interesting thing is that democracies around the world have appointed or indirectly elected senators and you still say it is undemocratic with your argument to rebut that being the weather in Bangkok and Amsterdam!

"So one governor of 39 in America is corrupt"

Where did you get 39?

"Would you feel comfortable having criminals in your senate with those criminals moulding laws of the country and being partisan towards the party that allowed them to stand for the senate."

I'm not aware of a democracy in which elected officials are not partisan towards their parties. Regarding criminals molding laws, in Thailand investigations and prosecutions are done done selectively, usually to benefit whoever is currently in charge. In fact, if it were not for blanket pardons, the 2007 constitution would have been written at the direction of criminals, as well as the one currently in work.

"Education my friend. Education. Strong democracies have an educated electorate. Weak democracies or failed ones don't."

Do you think the "Twelve principles" brainwashing will further democratic education?

"Women, visible minorities will be too often poorly represented if senators are elected."

I'm sure the appointed Senate will have as much diversity and as many women and minorities as the junta leadership.

"And the most interesting thing is that democracies around the world have appointed or indirectly elected senators and you still say it is undemocratic with your argument to rebut that being the weather in Bangkok and Amsterdam!"

As has been repeatedly pointed out, and ignored by you, indirectly elected Senates in functioning democracies are always chosen by people who are answerable to the voters.

Edited December 26, 2014 by heybruce

[candide]

What we can expect in Thailand is "appointed senators", not indirectly elected.

From the OP:

Khamnoon Sitthisaman, committee spokesman, said the panel reached a consensus that 200 senators would be indirectly elected

"Indirect election is a process in which voters in an election do not choose between candidates for an office but rather elect persons who will then make the choice. It is one of the oldest form of elections and is still used today for many upper houses and presidents."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_election

For example, in France, Senators are elected indirectly by approximately 150,000 officials ("grands électeurs"), including regional councilors, department councilors, mayors, city councilors in large towns, and members of the National Assembly. All elected people.

The differents groups cited in the OP are not elected by citizens, so it's not indirect election.

"They are the group of former members of the executive, the judiciary and the legislature, the group of former key government officials like former armed forces chiefs and former permanent secretaries, the group of chairpersons at legalized professional organizations such as the Thai Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Thai Industries, a group of people's organizations and the group of various professional organizations"

[djjamie]

yep, read the whole thing.

see, politicians, like other professions might be criminal, but that is not a reason to restrict democracy. We just convicted the governor of Virginia in the USA on corruption charges. We have a congressman - still serving - who has just pleaded guilty to one of 20 indictments against him ...

Politics, like other professions, is never free of corruption. That's life. Falls under s+++ happens.

The key is to have an open society which can deal with it when it happens.

In Thailand, things are not open (LM, defamation, and now, martial law), and corruption is wide-spread. It would be naive to think that the supposed 'good people' are really less corrupt than others with money and power. At least that's not historically what has been seen.

so again, democracy is meant to be representative, not appointed.

There's no way around that.

"We just convicted the governor of Virginia in the USA on corruption charges."

​So one governor of 39 in America is corrupt. Seems like the system does not need changing then.

When a senate voted in by an electorate that have no idea what the senators job entails then that is an issue.

Would you feel comfortable having criminals in your senate with those criminals moulding laws of the country and being partisan towards the party that allowed them to stand for the senate. Not 1 in 39, but most of them. The electorate will be represented by criminals with an agenda.

Education my friend. Education. Strong democracies have an educated electorate. Weak democracies or failed ones don't. Trust me, I have spent a lot of time in Africa where they have a democracy albeit a criminally inclined one. Elections to not ensure legitimacy. It aint black and white mate.

Seems you are only addressing one point at a time.

A.S reflects diversity of the Thai people. Women, visible minorities will be too often poorly represented if senators are elected. Nothing to say on that? And if you do I will address my next point that you refuse to acknowledge.

And the most interesting thing is that democracies around the world have appointed or indirectly elected senators and you still say it is undemocratic with your argument to rebut that being the weather in Bangkok and Amsterdam!

"So one governor of 39 in America is corrupt"

Where did you get 39?

"Would you feel comfortable having criminals in your senate with those criminals moulding laws of the country and being partisan towards the party that allowed them to stand for the senate."

I'm not aware of a democracy in which elected officials are not partisan towards their parties. Regarding criminals molding laws, in Thailand investigations and prosecutions are done done selectively, usually to benefit whoever is currently in charge. In fact, if it were not for blanket pardons, the 2007 constitution would have been written at the direction of criminals, as well as the one currently in work.

"Education my friend. Education. Strong democracies have an educated electorate. Weak democracies or failed ones don't."

Do you think the "Twelve principles" brainwashing will further democratic education?

"Women, visible minorities will be too often poorly represented if senators are elected."

I'm sure the appointed Senate will have as much diversity and as many women and minorities as the junta leadership.

"And the most interesting thing is that democracies around the world have appointed or indirectly elected senators and you still say it is undemocratic with your argument to rebut that being the weather in Bangkok and Amsterdam!"

As has been repeatedly pointed out, and ignored by you, indirectly elected Senates in functioning democracies are always chosen by people who are answerable to the voters.

Where did you get 39?

Here.

"Would you feel comfortable having criminals in your senate with those criminals moulding laws of the country and being partisan towards the party that allowed them to stand for the senate."

You did not address this issue. Would you prefer the Udon and CM senators that were involved in criminal activity or the senators that represented a cross section of society?

Do you understand that the electorate do not understand the ramifications of their vote regarding senators ergo why criminals were being voted in? Do you like criminals in the senate?

"Women, visible minorities will be too often poorly represented if senators are elected."

I'm sure the appointed Senate will have as much diversity and as many women and minorities as the junta leadership.

Agreed. As has been shown through elected senators the diversity is focused on a PTP agenda and because an uneducated and naive electorate will vote for someone that gives em a great rice price irrespective of criminal history. Heck, I would to the same if I was uneducated and poor. Africa does it and look at their "democracy"

As has been repeatedly pointed out, and ignored by you, indirectly elected Senates in functioning democracies are always chosen by people who are answerable to the voters.

Great so, lets adopt a democratic Canadian system of appointed senators. to allow the points I highlighted to be administered.

In summery do you prefer a senator that smuggled a husband across the border to escape prosecution and a senator that was involved in a terrorist organization or a senator that represented minority groups? Remember elections are only one principle of 15 when it comes to democracy….

Edited December 26, 2014 by djjamie

[heybruce]

yep, read the whole thing.

see, politicians, like other professions might be criminal, but that is not a reason to restrict democracy. We just convicted the governor of Virginia in the USA on corruption charges. We have a congressman - still serving - who has just pleaded guilty to one of 20 indictments against him ...

Politics, like other professions, is never free of corruption. That's life. Falls under s+++ happens.

The key is to have an open society which can deal with it when it happens.

In Thailand, things are not open (LM, defamation, and now, martial law), and corruption is wide-spread. It would be naive to think that the supposed 'good people' are really less corrupt than others with money and power. At least that's not historically what has been seen.

so again, democracy is meant to be representative, not appointed.

There's no way around that.

"We just convicted the governor of Virginia in the USA on corruption charges."

​So one governor of 39 in America is corrupt. Seems like the system does not need changing then.

When a senate voted in by an electorate that have no idea what the senators job entails then that is an issue.

Would you feel comfortable having criminals in your senate with those criminals moulding laws of the country and being partisan towards the party that allowed them to stand for the senate. Not 1 in 39, but most of them. The electorate will be represented by criminals with an agenda.

Education my friend. Education. Strong democracies have an educated electorate. Weak democracies or failed ones don't. Trust me, I have spent a lot of time in Africa where they have a democracy albeit a criminally inclined one. Elections to not ensure legitimacy. It aint black and white mate.

Seems you are only addressing one point at a time.

A.S reflects diversity of the Thai people. Women, visible minorities will be too often poorly represented if senators are elected. Nothing to say on that? And if you do I will address my next point that you refuse to acknowledge.

And the most interesting thing is that democracies around the world have appointed or indirectly elected senators and you still say it is undemocratic with your argument to rebut that being the weather in Bangkok and Amsterdam!

"So one governor of 39 in America is corrupt"

Where did you get 39?

"Would you feel comfortable having criminals in your senate with those criminals moulding laws of the country and being partisan towards the party that allowed them to stand for the senate."

I'm not aware of a democracy in which elected officials are not partisan towards their parties. Regarding criminals molding laws, in Thailand investigations and prosecutions are done done selectively, usually to benefit whoever is currently in charge. In fact, if it were not for blanket pardons, the 2007 constitution would have been written at the direction of criminals, as well as the one currently in work.

"Education my friend. Education. Strong democracies have an educated electorate. Weak democracies or failed ones don't."

Do you think the "Twelve principles" brainwashing will further democratic education?

"Women, visible minorities will be too often poorly represented if senators are elected."

I'm sure the appointed Senate will have as much diversity and as many women and minorities as the junta leadership.

"And the most interesting thing is that democracies around the world have appointed or indirectly elected senators and you still say it is undemocratic with your argument to rebut that being the weather in Bangkok and Amsterdam!"

As has been repeatedly pointed out, and ignored by you, indirectly elected Senates in functioning democracies are always chosen by people who are answerable to the voters.

Where did you get 39?

Here.

"Would you feel comfortable having criminals in your senate with those criminals moulding laws of the country and being partisan towards the party that allowed them to stand for the senate."

You did not address this issue. Would you prefer the Udon and CM senators that were involved in criminal activity or the senators that represented a cross section of society?

Do you understand that the electorate do not understand the ramifications of their vote regarding senators ergo why criminals were being voted in? Do you like criminals in the senate?

"Women, visible minorities will be too often poorly represented if senators are elected."

I'm sure the appointed Senate will have as much diversity and as many women and minorities as the junta leadership.

Agreed. As has been shown through elected senators the diversity is focused on a PTP agenda and because an uneducated and naive electorate will vote for someone that gives em a great rice price irrespective of criminal history. Heck, I would to the same if I was uneducated and poor. Africa does it and look at their "democracy"

As has been repeatedly pointed out, and ignored by you, indirectly elected Senates in functioning democracies are always chosen by people who are answerable to the voters.

Great so, lets adopt a democratic Canadian system of appointed senators. to allow the points I highlighted to be administered.

In summery do you prefer a senator that smuggled a husband across the border to escape prosecution and a senator that was involved in a terrorist organization or a senator that represented minority groups? Remember elections are only one principle of 15 when it comes to democracy….

"Where did you get 39?

Here."

I see, you added up 28 Republican governors, 21 Democrat governors, and 1 independent and arrived at 39.

"You did not address this issue."

You did not address the issue of the selective nature of political prosecutions in Thailand, or the fact that the coup leaders make themselves legal by routinely granting themselves pardons. Regarding criminals becoming Senators, it depends on their crimes. However I would rather have an elected criminal in office than a pardoned criminal appointed to office by an unelected junta.

"I'm sure the appointed Senate will have as much diversity and as many women and minorities as the junta leadership.

Agreed. As has been shown through elected senators the diversity is focused on a PTP agenda and because an uneducated and naive electorate will vote for someone that gives em a great rice price irrespective of criminal history. Heck, I would to the same if I was uneducated and poor. Africa does it and look at their "democracy" "

Are you now coming out against diversity, after initially stating "A.S. reflects diversity of the Thai people."?

"Great so, lets adopt a democratic Canadian system of appointed senators. to allow the points I highlighted to be administered."

As I pointed out before, and you ignored, the Canadian Senators are appointed to reflect regional interests, not military or bureaucratic interests, and the Canadian Senate has much less power than the proposed Thai Senate.

"In summery do you prefer a senator that smuggled a husband across the border to escape prosecution and a senator that was involved in a terrorist organization or a senator that represented minority groups?"

I've already addressed the first part, I prefer elected over junta appointed. Regarding the second part, what minority interests are you referring to? Do you regard the military, the judiciary, professional organizations, etc. as minorities?

[rubl]

May I conclude with

indirect election is only acceptable when it's of the right kind, but not if it is of the wrong kind.

The Thai version might be right or wrong, but as details are still to be worked out, one may only speculate.

[englishoak]

May I conclude with

indirect election is only acceptable when it's of the right kind, but not if it is of the wrong kind.

The Thai version might be right or wrong, but as details are still to be worked out, one may only speculate.

One can speculate simply based on who holds the cards.

We all know who holds the rule making cards and it will most certainly be of the wrong kind if we base the speculation on the success of all previous constitutions and tweaks from the past and self admitted failures.

Hong Kong issues etc here we come and exactly the route some have been expecting for some time ever since the coup.

[djjamie]

"So one governor of 39 in America is corrupt"

Where did you get 39?

"Would you feel comfortable having criminals in your senate with those criminals moulding laws of the country and being partisan towards the party that allowed them to stand for the senate."

I'm not aware of a democracy in which elected officials are not partisan towards their parties. Regarding criminals molding laws, in Thailand investigations and prosecutions are done done selectively, usually to benefit whoever is currently in charge. In fact, if it were not for blanket pardons, the 2007 constitution would have been written at the direction of criminals, as well as the one currently in work.

"Education my friend. Education. Strong democracies have an educated electorate. Weak democracies or failed ones don't."

Do you think the "Twelve principles" brainwashing will further democratic education?

"Women, visible minorities will be too often poorly represented if senators are elected."

I'm sure the appointed Senate will have as much diversity and as many women and minorities as the junta leadership.

"And the most interesting thing is that democracies around the world have appointed or indirectly elected senators and you still say it is undemocratic with your argument to rebut that being the weather in Bangkok and Amsterdam!"

As has been repeatedly pointed out, and ignored by you, indirectly elected Senates in functioning democracies are always chosen by people who are answerable to the voters.

Where did you get 39?

Here.

"Would you feel comfortable having criminals in your senate with those criminals moulding laws of the country and being partisan towards the party that allowed them to stand for the senate."

You did not address this issue. Would you prefer the Udon and CM senators that were involved in criminal activity or the senators that represented a cross section of society?

Do you understand that the electorate do not understand the ramifications of their vote regarding senators ergo why criminals were being voted in? Do you like criminals in the senate?

"Women, visible minorities will be too often poorly represented if senators are elected."

I'm sure the appointed Senate will have as much diversity and as many women and minorities as the junta leadership.

Agreed. As has been shown through elected senators the diversity is focused on a PTP agenda and because an uneducated and naive electorate will vote for someone that gives em a great rice price irrespective of criminal history. Heck, I would to the same if I was uneducated and poor. Africa does it and look at their "democracy"

As has been repeatedly pointed out, and ignored by you, indirectly elected Senates in functioning democracies are always chosen by people who are answerable to the voters.

Great so, lets adopt a democratic Canadian system of appointed senators. to allow the points I highlighted to be administered.

In summery do you prefer a senator that smuggled a husband across the border to escape prosecution and a senator that was involved in a terrorist organization or a senator that represented minority groups? Remember elections are only one principle of 15 when it comes to democracy….

"Where did you get 39?

Here."

I see, you added up 28 Republican governors, 21 Democrat governors, and 1 independent and arrived at 39.

"You did not address this issue."

You did not address the issue of the selective nature of political prosecutions in Thailand, or the fact that the coup leaders make themselves legal by routinely granting themselves pardons. Regarding criminals becoming Senators, it depends on their crimes. However I would rather have an elected criminal in office than a pardoned criminal appointed to office by an unelected junta.

"I'm sure the appointed Senate will have as much diversity and as many women and minorities as the junta leadership.

Agreed. As has been shown through elected senators the diversity is focused on a PTP agenda and because an uneducated and naive electorate will vote for someone that gives em a great rice price irrespective of criminal history. Heck, I would to the same if I was uneducated and poor. Africa does it and look at their "democracy" "

Are you now coming out against diversity, after initially stating "A.S. reflects diversity of the Thai people."?

"Great so, lets adopt a democratic Canadian system of appointed senators. to allow the points I highlighted to be administered."

As I pointed out before, and you ignored, the Canadian Senators are appointed to reflect regional interests, not military or bureaucratic interests, and the Canadian Senate has much less power than the proposed Thai Senate.

"In summery do you prefer a senator that smuggled a husband across the border to escape prosecution and a senator that was involved in a terrorist organization or a senator that represented minority groups?"

I've already addressed the first part, I prefer elected over junta appointed. Regarding the second part, what minority interests are you referring to? Do you regard the military, the judiciary, professional organizations, etc. as minorities?

Might be good to agree to disagree here.

WOW my math was bad. If I spelt my name wrong I assume that is a personal attack as well. The belittling is a frustrating effort because you are unable to rebut my statements.

I prefer a senate full of representatives that adhere to a democratic ergo Canadians form of government, where you prefer a senate full of criminals elected by uneducated farmers. Remember the elected senators where convicted of crimes where there as the appointed senators where upstanding citizens of the community.

As long as peace and stability is concurrent as it is now under the current peaceful government then I am appreciative of your viewpoint yet fearful of the violence that your viewpoint will instigate.

I fear you more than I respect you my friend,

Why? You would prefer 2 criminals from the PTP that are elected by people that have no idea what a senators job does as opposed to senators than are appointed because they are intelligent, representative of minorities and will not represent an agenda of the party in power.

Kinda like Canada, Another democratic country.

Edited December 26, 2014 by djjamie

[candide]

May I conclude with

indirect election is only acceptable when it's of the right kind, but not if it is of the wrong kind.

The Thai version might be right or wrong, but as details are still to be worked out, one may only speculate.

OK let's start again:

"Indirect election is a process in which voters in an election do not choose between candidates for an office but rather elect persons who will then make the choice. It is one of the oldest form of elections and is still used today for many upper houses and presidents."

http://en.wikipedia....direct_election

So it is clear, the people who make the choice have been elected by direct universal suffrage

In the OP the words "indirectly elected" are used (or translated this way), but the system which is described is not indirect election system, it's an apointment system. The different groups that should appoint senate members are not elected by citizen, it is not an unkown detail, it is clearly stated in the OP and other articles.

[candide]

"So one governor of 39 in America is corrupt"

Where did you get 39?

"Would you feel comfortable having criminals in your senate with those criminals moulding laws of the country and being partisan towards the party that allowed them to stand for the senate."

I'm not aware of a democracy in which elected officials are not partisan towards their parties. Regarding criminals molding laws, in Thailand investigations and prosecutions are done done selectively, usually to benefit whoever is currently in charge. In fact, if it were not for blanket pardons, the 2007 constitution would have been written at the direction of criminals, as well as the one currently in work.

"Education my friend. Education. Strong democracies have an educated electorate. Weak democracies or failed ones don't."

Do you think the "Twelve principles" brainwashing will further democratic education?

"Women, visible minorities will be too often poorly represented if senators are elected."

I'm sure the appointed Senate will have as much diversity and as many women and minorities as the junta leadership.

"And the most interesting thing is that democracies around the world have appointed or indirectly elected senators and you still say it is undemocratic with your argument to rebut that being the weather in Bangkok and Amsterdam!"

As has been repeatedly pointed out, and ignored by you, indirectly elected Senates in functioning democracies are always chosen by people who are answerable to the voters.

Where did you get 39?

Here.

"Would you feel comfortable having criminals in your senate with those criminals moulding laws of the country and being partisan towards the party that allowed them to stand for the senate."

You did not address this issue. Would you prefer the Udon and CM senators that were involved in criminal activity or the senators that represented a cross section of society?

Do you understand that the electorate do not understand the ramifications of their vote regarding senators ergo why criminals were being voted in? Do you like criminals in the senate?

"Women, visible minorities will be too often poorly represented if senators are elected."

I'm sure the appointed Senate will have as much diversity and as many women and minorities as the junta leadership.

Agreed. As has been shown through elected senators the diversity is focused on a PTP agenda and because an uneducated and naive electorate will vote for someone that gives em a great rice price irrespective of criminal history. Heck, I would to the same if I was uneducated and poor. Africa does it and look at their "democracy"

As has been repeatedly pointed out, and ignored by you, indirectly elected Senates in functioning democracies are always chosen by people who are answerable to the voters.

Great so, lets adopt a democratic Canadian system of appointed senators. to allow the points I highlighted to be administered.

In summery do you prefer a senator that smuggled a husband across the border to escape prosecution and a senator that was involved in a terrorist organization or a senator that represented minority groups? Remember elections are only one principle of 15 when it comes to democracy….

"Where did you get 39?

Here."

I see, you added up 28 Republican governors, 21 Democrat governors, and 1 independent and arrived at 39.

"You did not address this issue."

You did not address the issue of the selective nature of political prosecutions in Thailand, or the fact that the coup leaders make themselves legal by routinely granting themselves pardons. Regarding criminals becoming Senators, it depends on their crimes. However I would rather have an elected criminal in office than a pardoned criminal appointed to office by an unelected junta.

"I'm sure the appointed Senate will have as much diversity and as many women and minorities as the junta leadership.

Agreed. As has been shown through elected senators the diversity is focused on a PTP agenda and because an uneducated and naive electorate will vote for someone that gives em a great rice price irrespective of criminal history. Heck, I would to the same if I was uneducated and poor. Africa does it and look at their "democracy" "

Are you now coming out against diversity, after initially stating "A.S. reflects diversity of the Thai people."?

"Great so, lets adopt a democratic Canadian system of appointed senators. to allow the points I highlighted to be administered."

As I pointed out before, and you ignored, the Canadian Senators are appointed to reflect regional interests, not military or bureaucratic interests, and the Canadian Senate has much less power than the proposed Thai Senate.

"In summery do you prefer a senator that smuggled a husband across the border to escape prosecution and a senator that was involved in a terrorist organization or a senator that represented minority groups?"

I've already addressed the first part, I prefer elected over junta appointed. Regarding the second part, what minority interests are you referring to? Do you regard the military, the judiciary, professional organizations, etc. as minorities?

Might be good to agree to disagree here.

WOW my math was bad. If I spelt my name wrong I assume that is a personal attack as well. The belittling is a frustrating effort because you are unable to rebut my statements.

I prefer a senate full of representatives that adhere to a democratic ergo Canadians form of government, where you prefer a senate full of criminals elected by uneducated farmers. Remember the elected senators where convicted of crimes where there as the appointed senators where upstanding citizens of the community.

As long as peace and stability is concurrent as it is now under the current peaceful government then I am appreciative of your viewpoint yet fearful of the violence that your viewpoint will instigate.

I fear you more than I respect you my friend,

Why? You would prefer 2 criminals from the PTP that are elected by people that have no idea what a senators job does as opposed to senators than are appointed because they are intelligent, representative of minorities and will not represent an agenda of the party in power.

Kinda like Canada, Another democratic country.

What is proposed cannot be compared to the case of Canada either.

The Senate in Canada consists of 105 members appointed by the governor general (representing the Monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II) on the advice of the prime minister. Prime ministers normally choose members of their own parties to be senators, though they sometimes nominate independents or members of opposing parties. The governor general, must select as prime minister the person most likely to command the confidence of the elected House of Commons; this individual is typically the leader of the political party that holds the largest number of seats in that chamber. (summarised from wikipedia pages).

So it is not at all a self-reproducing network as is proposed for thailand.

The senate has also far less power than what is currently proposed in the case of Thailand

[heybruce]

"So one governor of 39 in America is corrupt"

Where did you get 39?

"Would you feel comfortable having criminals in your senate with those criminals moulding laws of the country and being partisan towards the party that allowed them to stand for the senate."

I'm not aware of a democracy in which elected officials are not partisan towards their parties. Regarding criminals molding laws, in Thailand investigations and prosecutions are done done selectively, usually to benefit whoever is currently in charge. In fact, if it were not for blanket pardons, the 2007 constitution would have been written at the direction of criminals, as well as the one currently in work.

"Education my friend. Education. Strong democracies have an educated electorate. Weak democracies or failed ones don't."

Do you think the "Twelve principles" brainwashing will further democratic education?

"Women, visible minorities will be too often poorly represented if senators are elected."

I'm sure the appointed Senate will have as much diversity and as many women and minorities as the junta leadership.

"And the most interesting thing is that democracies around the world have appointed or indirectly elected senators and you still say it is undemocratic with your argument to rebut that being the weather in Bangkok and Amsterdam!"

As has been repeatedly pointed out, and ignored by you, indirectly elected Senates in functioning democracies are always chosen by people who are answerable to the voters.

Where did you get 39?

Here.

"Would you feel comfortable having criminals in your senate with those criminals moulding laws of the country and being partisan towards the party that allowed them to stand for the senate."

You did not address this issue. Would you prefer the Udon and CM senators that were involved in criminal activity or the senators that represented a cross section of society?

Do you understand that the electorate do not understand the ramifications of their vote regarding senators ergo why criminals were being voted in? Do you like criminals in the senate?

"Women, visible minorities will be too often poorly represented if senators are elected."

I'm sure the appointed Senate will have as much diversity and as many women and minorities as the junta leadership.

Agreed. As has been shown through elected senators the diversity is focused on a PTP agenda and because an uneducated and naive electorate will vote for someone that gives em a great rice price irrespective of criminal history. Heck, I would to the same if I was uneducated and poor. Africa does it and look at their "democracy"

As has been repeatedly pointed out, and ignored by you, indirectly elected Senates in functioning democracies are always chosen by people who are answerable to the voters.

Great so, lets adopt a democratic Canadian system of appointed senators. to allow the points I highlighted to be administered.

In summery do you prefer a senator that smuggled a husband across the border to escape prosecution and a senator that was involved in a terrorist organization or a senator that represented minority groups? Remember elections are only one principle of 15 when it comes to democracy….

"Where did you get 39?

Here."

I see, you added up 28 Republican governors, 21 Democrat governors, and 1 independent and arrived at 39.

"You did not address this issue."

You did not address the issue of the selective nature of political prosecutions in Thailand, or the fact that the coup leaders make themselves legal by routinely granting themselves pardons. Regarding criminals becoming Senators, it depends on their crimes. However I would rather have an elected criminal in office than a pardoned criminal appointed to office by an unelected junta.

"I'm sure the appointed Senate will have as much diversity and as many women and minorities as the junta leadership.

Agreed. As has been shown through elected senators the diversity is focused on a PTP agenda and because an uneducated and naive electorate will vote for someone that gives em a great rice price irrespective of criminal history. Heck, I would to the same if I was uneducated and poor. Africa does it and look at their "democracy" "

Are you now coming out against diversity, after initially stating "A.S. reflects diversity of the Thai people."?

"Great so, lets adopt a democratic Canadian system of appointed senators. to allow the points I highlighted to be administered."

As I pointed out before, and you ignored, the Canadian Senators are appointed to reflect regional interests, not military or bureaucratic interests, and the Canadian Senate has much less power than the proposed Thai Senate.

"In summery do you prefer a senator that smuggled a husband across the border to escape prosecution and a senator that was involved in a terrorist organization or a senator that represented minority groups?"

I've already addressed the first part, I prefer elected over junta appointed. Regarding the second part, what minority interests are you referring to? Do you regard the military, the judiciary, professional organizations, etc. as minorities?

Might be good to agree to disagree here.

WOW my math was bad. If I spelt my name wrong I assume that is a personal attack as well. The belittling is a frustrating effort because you are unable to rebut my statements.

I prefer a senate full of representatives that adhere to a democratic ergo Canadians form of government, where you prefer a senate full of criminals elected by uneducated farmers. Remember the elected senators where convicted of crimes where there as the appointed senators where upstanding citizens of the community.

As long as peace and stability is concurrent as it is now under the current peaceful government then I am appreciative of your viewpoint yet fearful of the violence that your viewpoint will instigate.

I fear you more than I respect you my friend,

Why? You would prefer 2 criminals from the PTP that are elected by people that have no idea what a senators job does as opposed to senators than are appointed because they are intelligent, representative of minorities and will not represent an agenda of the party in power.

Kinda like Canada, Another democratic country.

"you are unable to rebut my statements."

Really? I and others have pointed out that there is little similarity between the Thai and Canadian version of unelected Senators. Just because you choose to ignore rebuttals doesn't mean they didn't happen.

"I prefer a senate full of representatives that adhere to a democratic ergo Canadians form of government, where you prefer a senate full of criminals elected by uneducated farmers."

Once again, what is proposed is not the Canadian version of unelected Senators, and there is nothing democratic about it. I said I preferred elected Senators, while you clearly prefer Senators selected by an unelected military junta.

"Why? You would prefer 2 criminals from the PTP that are elected by people that have no idea what a senators job does as opposed to senators than are appointed because they are intelligent, representative of minorities and will not represent an agenda of the party in power."

Once again, you ignore the fact that the only thing that makes the junta "legal" is that they granted themselves pardons for the coup. It's also clear that the junta you prefer to an elected government either has not idea what democracy is, or has not respect for democratic government. Finally, what minorities are you referring to? What elected officials in any country do not represent the agenda of their party?

"Kinda like Canada, Another democratic country."

Are you actually suggesting that Thailand is like Canada? Thailand is currently not a democracy, and will not be anything like Canada under the system being constructed by the junta.

[tbthailand]

In summary an appointed Senate is essential to Thailand's democracy.

well, that summarizes a completely anti-democratic perspective at least.

The Thai senate boasted a compliment of experienced professionals. Elections would effectively eliminate their valuable expertise from the political process.

legislatures are meant to be about representation. In democracies, that means representation selected by the electorate. Appointed Senates do not have anything to do with representation and only reflect one side's desire to maintain control.

Did you even read my post or just cherry pick my friend while ignoring the rest.

If you prefer a senate full of "representative" criminals that I had shown above (which you refused to address) than by all means defend your argument.

yep, read the whole thing.

see, politicians, like other professions might be criminal, but that is not a reason to restrict democracy. We just convicted the governor of Virginia in the USA on corruption charges. We have a congressman - still serving - who has just pleaded guilty to one of 20 indictments against him ...

Politics, like other professions, is never free of corruption. That's life. Falls under s+++ happens.

The key is to have an open society which can deal with it when it happens.

In Thailand, things are not open (LM, defamation, and now, martial law), and corruption is wide-spread. It would be naive to think that the supposed 'good people' are really less corrupt than others with money and power. At least that's not historically what has been seen.

so again, democracy is meant to be representative, not appointed.

There's no way around that.

"We just convicted the governor of Virginia in the USA on corruption charges."

​So one governor of 39 in America is corrupt. Seems like the system does not need changing then.

When a senate voted in by an electorate that have no idea what the senators job entails then that is an issue.

Would you feel comfortable having criminals in your senate with those criminals moulding laws of the country and being partisan towards the party that allowed them to stand for the senate. Not 1 in 39, but most of them. The electorate will be represented by criminals with an agenda.

Education my friend. Education. Strong democracies have an educated electorate. Weak democracies or failed ones don't. Trust me, I have spent a lot of time in Africa where they have a democracy albeit a criminally inclined one. Elections to not ensure legitimacy. It aint black and white mate.

Seems you are only addressing one point at a time.

A.S reflects diversity of the Thai people. Women, visible minorities will be too often poorly represented if senators are elected. Nothing to say on that? And if you do I will address my next point that you refuse to acknowledge.

And the most interesting thing is that democracies around the world have appointed or indirectly elected senators and you still say it is undemocratic with your argument to rebut that being the weather in Bangkok and Amsterdam!

dj, I should mention something. although I don't agree at all with your politics and seldom with your arguments to support your position, it is nice that you actually formulate a position unlike others who attempt to pass off illegitimate comparisons as logical arguments.

As for cherry picking, I find a couple of points that represent (for me) the core issue. In this case here, the quality & characteristics of the candidates is where you focus, and I focus on the system. Just like the PDRC propaganda, we would all like to see 'good people' in government... here and in our own countries.

Thailand - or at least a few in Thailand - are considering a constitution. By definition, the constitution is a framework, a structure for governance. This is why I look at the structure and not at the people who have been in past governments or might be in a future government.

As for the USA and the governor example, it is an example. There is currently a serving congressman from Staten Island who has pleaded guilty to at least 1 of 20 indictments against him. He was recently re-elected and has said that he will not resign. Something like 5 of the last 7 governors of Illinois have served time in prison. The fact is that there is corruption in politics just as there is corruption in private industry. Yeah, not just in Thailand.

And while we would all like 'good people' in government who debate civilly and pass good laws, that is not the reality of democracy anywhere in the world. Democracy is a messy, get-your-hands-dirty, let's-hash-it-out form of governance. Critically, it is self-governance. It is participatory. In the USA, we have issues with maintaining 'real democracy' - things like money in politics where a billionaire can literally buy a candidate, or gerrymandering of districts so that the lower house of congress is guaranteed to have a Republican majority. But what is excellent about the system in the USA is that it is participatory down to the local level. People can and do get involved in the politics of their communities, counties, states, and even country. You don't need to be special to get involved. You just need to jump in and take action.

In Thailand, the current process to create a structure of governance is being done by a small group of powerful people. They have an agenda which is obvious but one that they deny. The goal is to 'fix' the weaknesses in the 2007 constitution so that these folks can continue to run the country as they see fit and to their own benefit just as they have in an almost uninterrupted fashion for the last 70 years.

More and more everyday Thai people have tasted self-governance and have seen other parts of the world and understand what this means. In my opinion, these people will eventually refuse to accept the solution that the traditional Thai elite / military want to impose on the country. I also believe that time will not be very coming in the near future. Unfortunately.

In summary, politicians reflect the societies in which they live. They are not more or less corrupt than their society as a whole. They are in the spotlight, and it is good to diligently uncover and punish corruption in politics, but a system which tries to naturally 'select' the 'good people' is impossible. The important point in a governing framework is to have a good structure and - if you want to have participatory self-governance - then you need a structure that provides good proportional representation with guaranteed protections of rights.

[rubl]

If politicians reflect a Nation, I'm afraid for Thailand. Also I see one more argument for 'reforms first'

[tbthailand]

If politicians reflect a Nation, I'm afraid for Thailand. Also I see one more argument for 'reforms first'

you would, rubl, you would.