When you look at the five groups that are proposed to do the appointing, you realise that feudalism is still very much alive in this country. The proposal is fatuous and farcical.

It isn't the "5 groups" that are doing the "appointing".

The senators will be "indirectly elected FROM 5 groups".

I haven't seen who will be doing the "electing" yet.

Not quite understand this.

The 5 groups are not appointing.

The Senate will be indirectly appointed by the 5 groups.

You don't know who will be doing the electing. ?

Quite? I don't there is any "quite" about it.

Well it's pretty obvious to most that the experiment of a fully elected senate didn't work here. It just became an extension of Parliament which defeated the purpose of having a 2nd chamber.

I think that the proposal for electing senators by a different electorate is a sound one. It actually mirrors how the senate is elected in my home country - Ireland.

However I do think that it should not include military commanders in the electorate, nor should it include any position appointed by the government.

Why they simply cannot follow the house of lords model I don't know.

An appointed upper house who have the right to hold the lower house to account and scrutiny, but cannot set or completely block legislation.

I guess that would mean they would have to do some work and do research and sit in committees producing reports and things like that. Much better just to veto and demand to be listened to.

I assume you're being serious here. Personally the house of lords is the last model I'd use. No amount of holding to account or scrutiny would work with Thai politicians without some form of vetoing included.

For example the amnesty bill would have become law without the senate's veto. If the constitution doesn't give the senate some teeth it's a waste of time having it.

Its all a matter of where the limits of both chambers ends. The upper house cannot set the law and impose on the lower house and the lower house should not be allowed to run rough shod over the upper house and constitution.

This can be done if there was a functioning legal system.

And I have said this before, that until they reform the legal judicial system them can have whatever system theyblike. It won't stand the test because it wont punish all comers pooyai or not.

Yes, I agree that the legal/judicial system needs reform but they haven't got round to that yet - it's been touched on but I suspect that elements of it are not going to be tackled.

Actually there is a functioning legal system with some serious flaws but it all falls down in enforcement.

Yes, the upper house cannot set the law but I maintain that they should have the power to strike down legislation. Maybe a two-thirds majority would be required to do it.

Neither house should be allowed to go beyond constitutional limits. Also amending the constitution should require more than a simple majority in both houses.

An unelected senate is 100% undemocratic. Giving them greater powers is so far away from Democracy it's a total farce. Somebody better get their head on straight or this country will go right down the tube.

So the UK and Canada are undemocratic!!!

But the greater powers I agree. Stupid idea!

Well it's pretty obvious to most that the experiment of a fully elected senate didn't work here. It just became an extension of Parliament which defeated the purpose of having a 2nd chamber.

I think that the proposal for electing senators by a different electorate is a sound one. It actually mirrors how the senate is elected in my home country - Ireland.

However I do think that it should not include military commanders in the electorate, nor should it include any position appointed by the government.

Why they simply cannot follow the house of lords model I don't know.

An appointed upper house who have the right to hold the lower house to account and scrutiny, but cannot set or completely block legislation.

I guess that would mean they would have to do some work and do research and sit in committees producing reports and things like that. Much better just to veto and demand to be listened to.

I assume you're being serious here. Personally the house of lords is the last model I'd use. No amount of holding to account or scrutiny would work with Thai politicians without some form of vetoing included.

For example the amnesty bill would have become law without the senate's veto. If the constitution doesn't give the senate some teeth it's a waste of time having it.

The amnesty bill would have become law in 180 days anyway. The senate could not have stopped this, only delayed the implementation.

Probably the catalyst to the coup.

From my point of view there is no democracy if the Senate is made up of none-elected people.

Well it's pretty obvious to most that the experiment of a fully elected senate didn't work here. It just became an extension of Parliament which defeated the purpose of having a 2nd chamber.

I think that the proposal for electing senators by a different electorate is a sound one. It actually mirrors how the senate is elected in my home country - Ireland.

However I do think that it should not include military commanders in the electorate, nor should it include any position appointed by the government.

Why they simply cannot follow the house of lords model I don't know.

An appointed upper house who have the right to hold the lower house to account and scrutiny, but cannot set or completely block legislation.

I guess that would mean they would have to do some work and do research and sit in committees producing reports and things like that. Much better just to veto and demand to be listened to.

I assume you're being serious here. Personally the house of lords is the last model I'd use. No amount of holding to account or scrutiny would work with Thai politicians without some form of vetoing included.

For example the amnesty bill would have become law without the senate's veto. If the constitution doesn't give the senate some teeth it's a waste of time having it.

Its all a matter of where the limits of both chambers ends. The upper house cannot set the law and impose on the lower house and the lower house should not be allowed to run rough shod over the upper house and constitution.

This can be done if there was a functioning legal system.

And I have said this before, that until they reform the legal judicial system them can have whatever system theyblike. It won't stand the test because it wont punish all comers pooyai or not.

Yes, I agree that the legal/judicial system needs reform but they haven't got round to that yet - it's been touched on but I suspect that elements of it are not going to be tackled.

Actually there is a functioning legal system with some serious flaws but it all falls down in enforcement.

Yes, the upper house cannot set the law but I maintain that they should have the power to strike down legislation. Maybe a two-thirds majority would be required to do it.

Neither house should be allowed to go beyond constitutional limits. Also amending the constitution should require more than a simple majority in both houses.

This works to me. It doesn't matter if the upper house is elected or not, as long as it fulfills a specific role.

Now for composition.

Much like the UK, the sitting govt should be able to nominate people for appointment. There can e declared political appointments and independents.

The sitting govt can nominate say 1 or 2% new senantors every year, but that cannot be allowed to make up more than 55% of the sitting majority in the upper house. Compulsory retirement after 3 lower parliaments. I.e. 15 years. Declared independents can make up 15% by nominations for services to the country or business etc.

Etc etc. It can be done by nomination and appointmemt to create a useful, varied and strong 2 and chamber.

It isnt an absolute for the senate to be elected to perform its role. What it can't become is completely politicised and a complete brake on functioning govt.

Well it's pretty obvious to most that the experiment of a fully elected senate didn't work here. It just became an extension of Parliament which defeated the purpose of having a 2nd chamber.

I think that the proposal for electing senators by a different electorate is a sound one. It actually mirrors how the senate is elected in my home country - Ireland.

However I do think that it should not include military commanders in the electorate, nor should it include any position appointed by the government.

Why they simply cannot follow the house of lords model I don't know.

An appointed upper house who have the right to hold the lower house to account and scrutiny, but cannot set or completely block legislation.

I guess that would mean they would have to do some work and do research and sit in committees producing reports and things like that. Much better just to veto and demand to be listened to.

I assume you're being serious here. Personally the house of lords is the last model I'd use. No amount of holding to account or scrutiny would work with Thai politicians without some form of vetoing included.

For example the amnesty bill would have become law without the senate's veto. If the constitution doesn't give the senate some teeth it's a waste of time having it.

The amnesty bill would have become law in 180 days anyway. The senate could not have stopped this, only delayed the implementation.

Probably the catalyst to the coup.

the amnesty bill would not have (automatically as you imply) become law after 180 days.

Well it's pretty obvious to most that the experiment of a fully elected senate didn't work here. It just became an extension of Parliament which defeated the purpose of having a 2nd chamber.

I think that the proposal for electing senators by a different electorate is a sound one. It actually mirrors how the senate is elected in my home country - Ireland.

However I do think that it should not include military commanders in the electorate, nor should it include any position appointed by the government.

Why they simply cannot follow the house of lords model I don't know.

An appointed upper house who have the right to hold the lower house to account and scrutiny, but cannot set or completely block legislation.

I guess that would mean they would have to do some work and do research and sit in committees producing reports and things like that. Much better just to veto and demand to be listened to.

I assume you're being serious here. Personally the house of lords is the last model I'd use. No amount of holding to account or scrutiny would work with Thai politicians without some form of vetoing included.

For example the amnesty bill would have become law without the senate's veto. If the constitution doesn't give the senate some teeth it's a waste of time having it.

The amnesty bill would have become law in 180 days anyway. The senate could not have stopped this, only delayed the implementation.

Probably the catalyst to the coup.

the amnesty bill would not have (automatically as you imply) become law after 180 days.

It would have returned to Parliament for enactment. The Parliament that voted it in originally!

Well it's pretty obvious to most that the experiment of a fully elected senate didn't work here. It just became an extension of Parliament which defeated the purpose of having a 2nd chamber.

I think that the proposal for electing senators by a different electorate is a sound one. It actually mirrors how the senate is elected in my home country - Ireland.

However I do think that it should not include military commanders in the electorate, nor should it include any position appointed by the government.

Why they simply cannot follow the house of lords model I don't know.

An appointed upper house who have the right to hold the lower house to account and scrutiny, but cannot set or completely block legislation.

I guess that would mean they would have to do some work and do research and sit in committees producing reports and things like that. Much better just to veto and demand to be listened to.

I assume you're being serious here. Personally the house of lords is the last model I'd use. No amount of holding to account or scrutiny would work with Thai politicians without some form of vetoing included.

For example the amnesty bill would have become law without the senate's veto. If the constitution doesn't give the senate some teeth it's a waste of time having it.

The amnesty bill would have become law in 180 days anyway. The senate could not have stopped this, only delayed the implementation.

Probably the catalyst to the coup.

the amnesty bill would not have (automatically as you imply) become law after 180 days.

It would have returned to Parliament for enactment. The Parliament that voted it in originally!

technically, a bill could be taken up again by parliament after the 180 days.

There is nothing automatic about it.

Yingluck, as I recall, asked the Senate to vote against it and promised that the bill would not be reconsidered.

The original point here was that it was claimed that the bill would (implied) automatically become law after 180 days. That was not the case and in fact, the opposite had been 'promised'.

^ Not only that, the lower house was abolished in December, kind of hard to have them re-enact a law when they have all been sent home.

The coup was not staged to prevent the amnesty bill.

An unelected senate is 100% undemocratic. Giving them greater powers is so far away from Democracy it's a total farce. Somebody better get their head on straight or this country will go right down the tube.

So the UK and Canada are undemocratic!!!

But the greater powers I agree. Stupid idea!

Neither the UK or Canada systems would work in Thailand.

The issue in Thailand's case is not democratic but ethical.

For example the Canadian appointer is the PM, so under that system any of the previous Thaksin proxies would have delivered a Thaksin Senate and total dictatorial power.

The UK system is not relevant to Thailand either for the obvious reasons that system is currently being over hauled.

The problem Thailand has is it is politically unethical and morally corrupt. Until politicians have learnt their democratic role then they should have some controls over them. Many of our current western democracies had controls over them until they learnt ethical behavior. Some of the latest posts by KhunKen, Thai At Heart and KiwiRobbie are getting to a workable solution somewhere around appointing the Senate but limiting their jurisdiction. The key is who appoints them. So far the ideal of provincial representation has the most merit, appointment should not come from political parties nor Military fields.

An unelected senate is 100% undemocratic. Giving them greater powers is so far away from Democracy it's a total farce. Somebody better get their head on straight or this country will go right down the tube.

So the UK and Canada are undemocratic!!!

But the greater powers I agree. Stupid idea!

Neither the UK or Canada systems would work in Thailand.

The issue in Thailand's case is not democratic but ethical.

For example the Canadian appointer is the PM, so under that system any of the previous Thaksin proxies would have delivered a Thaksin Senate and total dictatorial power.

The UK system is not relevant to Thailand either for the obvious reasons that system is currently being over hauled.

The problem Thailand has is it is politically unethical and morally corrupt. Until politicians have learnt their democratic role then they should have some controls over them. Many of our current western democracies had controls over them until they learnt ethical behavior. Some of the latest posts by KhunKen, Thai At Heart and KiwiRobbie are getting to a workable solution somewhere around appointing the Senate but limiting their jurisdiction. The key is who appoints them. So far the ideal of provincial representation has the most merit, appointment should not come from political parties nor Military fields.

It is nonsnesical to expect all senators to be apolitical. There should be a limit on the number of politically appointed senators so that one party cannot get over 55% domination and there is a requirement for s super majority to get any major changed enacted.

As I said the senate can be appointed but in a balanced way, not solely to block the lower house. I don't know why you consider the possibility that the lower house is more corrupted than the upper house.

Edited December 28, 201411 yr by Thai at Heart

Proposal to have senate all appointed making the real decisions reminds me of "student government" in 3rd grade. "Let's pretend it is democracy". One reason coup happened was audacious proposal that ALL senate seats be elected. Can't have that!

Proposal to have senate all appointed making the real decisions reminds me of "student government" in 3rd grade.

Reminds me of the Canadian senate. Canada is a democracy.

Canada is a little more responsible, been an established democracy for a long time and most of all is not a cesspool of corruption.