PDRC wants prime minister to be elected MP

[webfact]

PDRC wants prime minister to be elected MP
By Digital Content



BANGKOK, Jan 5 -- The People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) on Sunday proposed that any prime minister after the national reform is completed must be an elected member of parliament, saying it opposes a proposal by some members of the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) favouring a non-partisan candidate to become prime minister in case of a political deadlock after a future general election.

PDRC spokesman Akanat Promphan said his group come to its decision before the May 22 coup and sent its proposal on the distribution of political power, how to tackle Thailand's corruption, reforming the Royal Thai Police and to solve social disparity.

But the PDRC had never demanded or proposed that a prime minister must be a neutral person or not a member of the Lower House, he said.

During the previous government of Yingluck Shinawatra the committee requested that an outsider be invited to administer the country during the political turmoil, he said.

Therefore, the CDC should not tell the public that the idea of having a non-MP become prime minister is made by the PDRC grouping earlier, he said, adding that the country could face more danger if an outsider is allowed to become a prime minister.

“It would only give an opportunity to capitalists to administer the country through paying money to elected MPs and senators. This could cause more problems with corruption,” Mr Akanat said.

The PDRC is prepared to send its opinions to the Constitution Drafting Commoittee for consideration as he believed political problems in Thailand were “not caused by the system but rather from an individual.”

Therefore, a solution must be made regarding the individual while the political party system must be helped to become stronger so the public could depend on it, Mr Akanat added. (MCOT online news)


-- TNA 2015-01-05

[NextStationBangkok]

First time i see PRDC demand is reasonable to have a Prime Minister to be chosen by the Parliament. Probably British model two houses is better for better political stability.

[jpeg]

The PDRC is prepared to send its opinions to the Constitution Drafting Commoittee for consideration as he believed political problems in Thailand were “not caused by the system but rather from an individual.”

Well they shouldn't have allowed that 'individual' to do a runner go to view the Olympics in the expectation that such 'individual' would, as per Thai tradition, slink away and keep his nose out, should they. Som nom bloody na!

[ChrisY1]

If the PM is required to be elected, as a PM should, then the ongoing military influence would likely be hampered somewhat......

[Mango Bob]

The PDRC is singing a different tone now than they did while holding parts of Bangkok hostile during their protest. Back then they wanted someone appointed to take over the government before reforms.

[chotthee]

The PDRC is singing a different tone now than they did while holding parts of Bangkok hostile during their protest. Back then they wanted someone appointed to take over the government before reforms.

PDRC who?

[chainarong]

Of course the Prime Minister should be elected that should be the wishes of the people , not some trumped up load of Generals dictating to the people who will lead Thailand, that's what all this coup is about isn't it Prime Minister General Prayut - O the people first the army second , have I got it wrong or has the CDC, it might be an Idea Sir if you let the peasants know .

[stickyrice2000]

Everything is fine now. Happiness has been returned to the people. Just let the junta runs the country forever.

[Tatsujin]

The PDRC is singing a different tone now than they did while holding parts of Bangkok hostile during their protest. Back then they wanted someone appointed to take over the government before reforms.

Still trying to rewrite history I see.

At the time of the protests, I was of the understanding they had asked the Senate to nominate an interim PM (not affiliated with any party, a neutral candidate as it were) to get the country back on track and reforms started (this was prior to the coup).

What they are talking about NOW (and this was also proposed prior to the coup) is that "after reforms", the PM should be an elected member of parliament.

How is this them singing a different tune?

[retarius]

Look it really doesn't matter where the PM comes from. This is a straw man argument to get the public focussed on a controversy to keep them from thinking about other issues that will be in the draft constitution. We all know where the army's sympathies lie and so the focus of the constitution will be to dilute the voting power of the rural vote. They already do it by insisting that you return home from Bangkok, Pattaya or Phuket to vote, and most poor rural types don't have the money to get back and so are disenfranchised...but this isn't enough. We hear nothing in the press about the proposal to have all senators appointed which means that the upper house will always be able to block any legislation unfavorable to the elite.

[halloween]

Elected, yes, but by an electorate, and not a party list nominee. Any person that wants to lead a country should be willing to present himself to the people for close scrutiny of his honesty, rectitude, and other desirable qualities.

Until rich criminals are stopped from buying their way to power, corrupt governments will continue to pillage the country.

[sjaak327]

The PDRC is singing a different tone now than they did while holding parts of Bangkok hostile during their protest. Back then they wanted someone appointed to take over the government before reforms.

Still trying to rewrite history I see.

At the time of the protests, I was of the understanding they had asked the Senate to nominate an interim PM (not affiliated with any party, a neutral candidate as it were) to get the country back on track and reforms started (this was prior to the coup).

What they are talking about NOW (and this was also proposed prior to the coup) is that "after reforms", the PM should be an elected member of parliament.

How is this them singing a different tune?

The requirement for the PM to be an MP WAS part of the 2007 constitution, hence their request wasn't possible and would be unconstitutional.

In fact their request then would be possible by the suggestions now, but suddenly they are against it. They must believe they don't need to make the request ever again, I wonder why.

Edited January 5, 2015 by sjaak327

[halloween]

The requirement for the PM to be an MP WAS part of the 2007 constitution, hence their request wasn't possible and would be unconstitutional.

In fact their request then would be possible by the suggestions now, but suddenly they are against it. They must believe they don't need to make the request ever again, I wonder why.

Yingluk should have had PM tattooed in big letters on her forehead. Then when she looked in the mirror each morning, she would remember that she was a Member of Parliament and had somewhere to go that day.

[Tatsujin]

The PDRC is singing a different tone now than they did while holding parts of Bangkok hostile during their protest. Back then they wanted someone appointed to take over the government before reforms.

Still trying to rewrite history I see.

At the time of the protests, I was of the understanding they had asked the Senate to nominate an interim PM (not affiliated with any party, a neutral candidate as it were) to get the country back on track and reforms started (this was prior to the coup).

What they are talking about NOW (and this was also proposed prior to the coup) is that "after reforms", the PM should be an elected member of parliament.

How is this them singing a different tune?

The requirement for the PM to be an MP WAS part of the 2007 constitution, hence their request wasn't possible and would be unconstitutional.

In fact their request then would be possible by the suggestions now, but suddenly they are against it. They must believe they don't need to make the request ever again, I wonder why.

You lost me ... what was unconstitutional, and when? And who's against what?

[Thailand]

PDRC popping up a lot recently aren't they?

Preparing for what wonder? Perhaps someone is preparing to give up their religious calling!

[sjaak327]

The PDRC is singing a different tone now than they did while holding parts of Bangkok hostile during their protest. Back then they wanted someone appointed to take over the government before reforms.

Still trying to rewrite history I see.

At the time of the protests, I was of the understanding they had asked the Senate to nominate an interim PM (not affiliated with any party, a neutral candidate as it were) to get the country back on track and reforms started (this was prior to the coup).

What they are talking about NOW (and this was also proposed prior to the coup) is that "after reforms", the PM should be an elected member of parliament.

How is this them singing a different tune?

The requirement for the PM to be an MP WAS part of the 2007 constitution, hence their request wasn't possible and would be unconstitutional.

In fact their request then would be possible by the suggestions now, but suddenly they are against it. They must believe they don't need to make the request ever again, I wonder why.

You lost me ... what was unconstitutional, and when? And who's against what?

Sorry. You claimed "they had asked the senate to nominate an interim PM (not affiliated with any Party)". That request was unconstitutional, the senate didn't have the authority and the constitution specifically stated that the PM has to be a member of parliament.

Apart from some of their other highly unconstitutional requests (which basically came down to "hand power to the PDRC), the request that you stated wasn't possible, as the constitution didn't allow it,

Now the drafters of the new constitution seem to partially make the request stated by you a possibility and now they are against it.

[Eric Loh]

Can see the beginning of strain relationship between PDRC and the military. All the 7 months of nothing for their southern farmers and sharp retorts from the General PM for tying to associate them with the military must have left the PDRC totally frustrated that their heavy lifting have not benefitted them. Now they openly quarreling with the CDC. The PDRC is now a spent force and their followers will be more discerning if called to rally by Suthep.

[tullynagardy]

The penny has finally dropped for all the sheep that spent months sleeping rough that they were just a small pawn in a much bigger game.

I`m excited about 2015. I think it will be the year a broad anti-coup consensus emerges, with certain elements of red and yellow uniting to show discontent at the current situation.

[MaxLee]

PDRC wants prime minister to be elected MP

Election Collection???..... You lose for sure.....

[h90]

The PDRC is singing a different tone now than they did while holding parts of Bangkok hostile during their protest. Back then they wanted someone appointed to take over the government before reforms.

yes to stop the violence on the street as a short time solution to the big problem, not as permanent solution

[h90]

Can see the beginning of strain relationship between PDRC and the military. All the 7 months of nothing for their southern farmers and sharp retorts from the General PM for tying to associate them with the military must have left the PDRC totally frustrated that their heavy lifting have not benefitted them. Now they openly quarreling with the CDC. The PDRC is now a spent force and their followers will be more discerning if called to rally by Suthep.

My guess the Prayuth is equally making problems for yellow and red corruption.....That will make him more popular with the rest of Thailand.

PDRC isn't a spent force. Just flying back from the South to Bangkok. Before Suthep was well regarded. Now he is something like a war-hero. If there is reason enough the could resurrect.

[Tatsujin]

The PDRC is singing a different tone now than they did while holding parts of Bangkok hostile during their protest. Back then they wanted someone appointed to take over the government before reforms.

Still trying to rewrite history I see.

At the time of the protests, I was of the understanding they had asked the Senate to nominate an interim PM (not affiliated with any party, a neutral candidate as it were) to get the country back on track and reforms started (this was prior to the coup).

What they are talking about NOW (and this was also proposed prior to the coup) is that "after reforms", the PM should be an elected member of parliament.

How is this them singing a different tune?

The requirement for the PM to be an MP WAS part of the 2007 constitution, hence their request wasn't possible and would be unconstitutional.

In fact their request then would be possible by the suggestions now, but suddenly they are against it. They must believe they don't need to make the request ever again, I wonder why.

You lost me ... what was unconstitutional, and when? And who's against what?

Sorry. You claimed "they had asked the senate to nominate an interim PM (not affiliated with any Party)". That request was unconstitutional, the senate didn't have the authority and the constitution specifically stated that the PM has to be a member of parliament.

Apart from some of their other highly unconstitutional requests (which basically came down to "hand power to the PDRC), the request that you stated wasn't possible, as the constitution didn't allow it,

Now the drafters of the new constitution seem to partially make the request stated by you a possibility and now they are against it.

Ah, I see what you mean, but I think that suggestion was made following some equally if not blatantly illegal and unconstitutional moves made by PT, which caused the political impasse and ultimately ended with the coup.

If I remember correctly however, if PT had stood down from Govt, as PDRC were suggesting, the Senate could then have appointed an interim PM which is how that whole topic kicked off.

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The PDRC is singing a different tone now than they did while holding parts of Bangkok hostile during their protest. Back then they wanted someone appointed to take over the government before reforms.

Still trying to rewrite history I see.

At the time of the protests, I was of the understanding they had asked the Senate to nominate an interim PM (not affiliated with any party, a neutral candidate as it were) to get the country back on track and reforms started (this was prior to the coup).

What they are talking about NOW (and this was also proposed prior to the coup) is that "after reforms", the PM should be an elected member of parliament.

How is this them singing a different tune?

Having the Senate (prior to the coup) choose an Interim PM would be unconstitutional according to the 2007 Constitution. Apparently, the Senate wasn't willing to violate the Constitution any more than Yingluck who became the Interim PM after dissolution of the House. The PDRC gets their coup, Constitution is abolished, but the PDRC still wants the PM elected in the same manner as specified under the 2007 Constitution.

After the "reforms" are established by the Junta, the PDRC seems to think that it will then have the political advantage to gain control of parliament in an election. So then the PDRC would not want a "free agent" to be selected for PM. It's not a different tune. The PDRC/Democrats want to control the Head of Government by whatever means possible.

[EnglishJohn]

And tell me, what contribution has your beloved Jatuporn made to the current situation ?. Any constructive comments ?. No because that thug can only speak with violence.

The PDRC wanted an interim PM while reforms were implemented because Pheu-Thai made the explicit condition that the final proposals must be approved by the cabinet. And we had already seen that it basically meant sending it to Thaksin for approval. Does anyone seriously think that would have worked ?. Did any of you bother to follow the reconciliation forum ?. They let everyone speak then did exactly the opposite.

The only other option to the temporary PM was what we have now.

This is what happened, not what I have twisted with my spite and my hate. You people blame everybody except yourselves for this situation. Remember the amnesty disgrace ?. The small matter of gross-abuse of power for personal benefit which started it all off ?.

[candide]

I think that this elected PM topic is just used by CDC and its allies to keep media and minds busy with this debate.

They hope that it will help more important subjects such as appointed senate with high power to be more unnoticed and less debated.....

Edited January 5, 2015 by candide