Call for 'reforms before elections' forces a detour in PM's road map

[KarenBravo]

All votes in all countries are bought.

People vote for the party that is going to do best by them. Be that promised tax cuts, or, subsidized baby-care. Most voters ask themselves before voting, "what's in it for me?".

There have been many papers showing that vote-buying did not influence the results of the last election. In fact, the Democrats admitted to out-spending Phua Thai with vote buying.

Many people just took the money and voted for who they wanted, anyway.

Edited June 11, 2015 by KarenBravo

[phycokiller]

is not the idea behind the coup to prevent any reforms? the only real attempt at reform in Thailand was in 1932 and that didnt go too well

[phycokiller]

Who are they kidding. The new "Charter" is a blatant attempt at a power grab by the elite whereby key positions wouldn't be directly elected by the people.

Okay, so give all the Thai peoples a vote , and, What will they do..... Sell it to the highest bidder... Are you going to tell me that you believe Thai peoples who blatantly sell their very valuable vote, Are you going to tell me that those same peoples deserve a vote..? They have exactly what they deserve... A Military Junta... and luckily for them , what seems to be a caring one.... Lucky for us Farangs if we don't like it we can close the door behind us... But, as I see the countries infrastructure functioning better now than ever in my thirteen years of living in Thailand, I see happy peoples still working and still smiling, I see happy children still getting to school.... I see trains running, busses running, I see internal investment up and up... What I don't see are corrupt politicians with their noses deep in the trough of taxpayers moneys.... What did John Lennon say...."Give peace a chance"....... Stupid Farangs should keep their noses out of Thai business... and ...Give peace a chance...!! Pass a Chang please...

What a Thai choses to do with his vote should have no bearing on any farangs that doesn't have one, it's their country and if they vote Ronald MacDonald in as PM it's THEIR choice.

Why does it matter to you so much what or who a Thai votes for on their elections, you think the Thais gave a toss about how the farangs voted in the last UK election?

Leave them to it, their mess, they can clean it up.

All we can do is sit back and have opinions that are about as much use as water through a sieve trying to filter out goodness!!!

never mind

Edited June 11, 2015 by phycokiller

[Eric Loh]

Seems to me that they are desperate to stop the red-shirts gaining power again, as they would if there were free and fair elections.

The ruling elite are desperate.

Time and history is not on their side.

Think it is more than that especially the very fragile next 2 years. Everyone knows but can't talk. The military need to be in control or all hell will break loose which made the yellow and red shirts looks like a school boys brawl. Conclusive conclusion that the establishment cronies in the government will steal democracy for another 2 years of junta rule.

[Srikcir]

Some seem confuse as to what the Junta's reforms are. Let me summarize briefly:

2006 - Thaksin Enemy of the State

2014 - Yingluck Enemy of the State

2015 - 30 million Thai voters Enemy of the State

[heybruce]

I thought the reforms were in the undemocratic charter. What additional reforms do they intend to force on Thailand?

Not sure about the 'undemocratic charter', but the English version of the Draft Charter from April 2015 list reforms, but surely not in the level of details you require?

I didn't ask for detail, I asked what additional reforms, i.e. not in the unconstitutional charter, do they intend to force on Thailand. Was the meaning not clear to you?

The OP doesn't mention 'additional' reforms, only seeing reforms mentioned put through.

"4. What if the voters reject the draft constitution but support the "reforms before elections" concept in the referendum? What if it's the other way round?"

That suggests reforms independent of the draft constitution.

[heybruce]

Who are they kidding. The new "Charter" is a blatant attempt at a power grab by the elite whereby key positions wouldn't be directly elected by the people.

'blatant' attempt?

Anyway, what 'key positions' are you talking about? Anything to do with a referendum or a detour in the PM's roadmap?

"A proportional voting system would encourage smaller parties and coalition governments in the lower house of parliament, while the upper house would be filled with a mix of candidates nominated by committee or selected by professional groups, including one dominated by former military figures. Under certain circumstances, the prime minister could be appointed from outside parliament. Watchdog agencies perceived to be tied to the establishment would get new powers. Thus, unelected elites could mind the store, rather than ordinary voters -- thought to be too susceptible to populist blandishments." http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-20/thailand-needs-elected-leaders-not-a-new-constitution

Of course you already knew that, didn't you?

I knew about the 'perceived'. I also know about 'proportional representation', The Netherlands uses that, like about 95 other countries. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation ).

So, what 'key positions' ?

"Watchdog" agencies and unelected Senators, the ones who can prevent elected officials from governing.

I know lots of countries have tried proportional representation. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. In Thailand it hasn't worked:

"Such a system would hark back to Thailand's failed past. Earlier constitutions also featured an appointed prime minister and senate, along with a weak lower house. But the old system produced 25 coalition governments from 1979 until Thaksin's election in 2001." http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-20/thailand-needs-elected-leaders-not-a-new-constitution

So the proposed charter brings back the kind of governments that lasted, on average, less than a year. Is that how it works in the Netherlands?

Edited June 11, 2015 by heybruce

[rubl]

Not sure about the 'undemocratic charter', but the English version of the Draft Charter from April 2015 list reforms, but surely not in the level of details you require?

I didn't ask for detail, I asked what additional reforms, i.e. not in the unconstitutional charter, do they intend to force on Thailand. Was the meaning not clear to you?

The OP doesn't mention 'additional' reforms, only seeing reforms mentioned put through.

"4. What if the voters reject the draft constitution but support the "reforms before elections" concept in the referendum? What if it's the other way round?"

That suggests reforms independent of the draft constitution.

It would seem that the "what if" from the opinion piece you interpret as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but. Next you base your question on this 'what if' and suggesting there is indeed something.

"I thought the reforms were in the undemocratic charter. What additional reforms do they intend to force on Thailand?"

[rubl]

"A proportional voting system would encourage smaller parties and coalition governments in the lower house of parliament, while the upper house would be filled with a mix of candidates nominated by committee or selected by professional groups, including one dominated by former military figures. Under certain circumstances, the prime minister could be appointed from outside parliament. Watchdog agencies perceived to be tied to the establishment would get new powers. Thus, unelected elites could mind the store, rather than ordinary voters -- thought to be too susceptible to populist blandishments." http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-20/thailand-needs-elected-leaders-not-a-new-constitution

Of course you already knew that, didn't you?

I knew about the 'perceived'. I also know about 'proportional representation', The Netherlands uses that, like about 95 other countries. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation ).

So, what 'key positions' ?

"Watchdog" agencies and unelected Senators, the ones who can prevent elected officials from governing.

I know lots of countries have tried proportional representation. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. In Thailand it hasn't worked:

"Such a system would hark back to Thailand's failed past. Earlier constitutions also featured an appointed prime minister and senate, along with a weak lower house. But the old system produced 25 coalition governments from 1979 until Thaksin's election in 2001." http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-20/thailand-needs-elected-leaders-not-a-new-constitution

So the proposed charter brings back the kind of governments that lasted, on average, less than a year. Is that how it works in the Netherlands?

There doesn't seem to be much difference in the watchdog organisations apart from a few added. The Senate is indirectly elected. So what?

As for proportional representation, well the 'proportional' part should be universally liked. Proportional representation in proportion to votes received! If I remember correctly Thailand never had a real proportional system. Also the failures seem more a failure of the people voting for today rather than tomorrow or the day after.

Anyway, having experienced the system in the Netherlands with many small parties, always coalition governments and so, I wonder what people have against proportional representation. As if some think that some people are not educated enough to be proportionally represented.

So, calls for 'reforms' to be processed, progressed and firmly set to continue Whatever constitution, whenever elections. Sounds fine. Pity really that the sorry state Thailand was in requires more than one or two years to correct.

[Acharn]

"Reform...........Before elections"

The good ole' PDRC mantra.

But what is "Reform" in this context?

One would get a starkly opposite answer depending who is asked...Be it an anti-Democrat or a Democracy advocate.

This kerfuffle is all about one side trying to assert themselves.

I don't have to tell you which side that is.

I'd say the questions in the article, in answered fully and honestly, would answer all that. I've been wondering for a couple of years what people think this slogan means. The PDRC was completely vague on it. Completely appointed Senate and voting to be along occupational lines? Maybe. Only people who pay income taxes allowed to vote? Could be. Only people who have completed high school to vote? Meh. They've never said what "reform" means. This article expresses the problem very well.

[Acharn]

Who are they kidding. The new "Charter" is a blatant attempt at a power grab by the elite whereby key positions wouldn't be directly elected by the people.

Okay, so give all the Thai peoples a vote , and, What will they do..... Sell it to the highest bidder... Are you going to tell me that you believe Thai peoples who blatantly sell their very valuable vote, Are you going to tell me that those same peoples deserve a vote..? They have exactly what they deserve... A Military Junta... and luckily for them , what seems to be a caring one.... Lucky for us Farangs if we don't like it we can close the door behind us... But, as I see the countries infrastructure functioning better now than ever in my thirteen years of living in Thailand, I see happy peoples still working and still smiling, I see happy children still getting to school.... I see trains running, busses running, I see internal investment up and up... What I don't see are corrupt politicians with their noses deep in the trough of taxpayers moneys.... What did John Lennon say...."Give peace a chance"....... Stupid Farangs should keep their noses out of Thai business... and ...Give peace a chance...!! Pass a Chang please...

You sound to me like a farang who has never spent any time outside Bangkok. You form your opinion from what you read in The Nation and at Thai Visa Forums. Thirteen years? You don't remember what things in the countryside were like before Thaksin's reforms. You've only heard the self-satisfied upper classes complaining about stupid peasants. People stopped voting the way they were paid to when they realized they could take the money (and other goodies) and still vote the way they wanted. Oh, full disclosure, I'm a farang. Thaksin was pretty corrupt, but in my opinion couldn't hold a candle to Chatchai Choonhavan or General Suchinda.

[ExPratt]

"Reform...........Before elections"

The good ole' PDRC mantra.

But what is "Reform" in this context?

One would get a starkly opposite answer depending who is asked...Be it an anti-Democrat or a Democracy advocate.

This kerfuffle is all about one side trying to assert themselves.

I don't have to tell you which side that is.

I'd say the questions in the article, in answered fully and honestly, would answer all that. I've been wondering for a couple of years what people think this slogan means. The PDRC was completely vague on it. Completely appointed Senate and voting to be along occupational lines? Maybe. Only people who pay income taxes allowed to vote? Could be. Only people who have completed high school to vote? Meh. They've never said what "reform" means. This article expresses the problem very well.

I would say that many people in the UK and US are too thick to vote ( No offence to our American friends) But Political parties play up to it get people voting on Race and immigration , Religion and there own petty prejudices rather that trying to sort out the mess that those countries are in , in the long term. Borrowing heavily and low Tax to keep the electorate in Ipods and Galaxy Notes. Thais are no different if you want to vote for someone for stupid reasons then you are free to do so , Thansins mob were not stupid though were they , doesn't matter about the Debt they spent money on the poor not high speed Railways, which obviously didn't go down well with the elite

[rubl]

"Reform...........Before elections"

The good ole' PDRC mantra.

But what is "Reform" in this context?

One would get a starkly opposite answer depending who is asked...Be it an anti-Democrat or a Democracy advocate.

This kerfuffle is all about one side trying to assert themselves.

I don't have to tell you which side that is.

I'd say the questions in the article, in answered fully and honestly, would answer all that. I've been wondering for a couple of years what people think this slogan means. The PDRC was completely vague on it. Completely appointed Senate and voting to be along occupational lines? Maybe. Only people who pay income taxes allowed to vote? Could be. Only people who have completed high school to vote? Meh. They've never said what "reform" means. This article expresses the problem very well.

I would say that many people in the UK and US are too thick to vote ( No offence to our American friends) But Political parties play up to it get people voting on Race and immigration , Religion and there own petty prejudices rather that trying to sort out the mess that those countries are in , in the long term. Borrowing heavily and low Tax to keep the electorate in Ipods and Galaxy Notes. Thais are no different if you want to vote for someone for stupid reasons then you are free to do so , Thansins mob were not stupid though were they , doesn't matter about the Debt they spent money on the poor not high speed Railways, which obviously didn't go down well with the elite

"they spent money on the poor not high speed Railways, which obviously didn't go down well with the elite"

You may want to do some reading to correct this. Afterwards you may contact Ms. Yingluck for your handsigned High-Speed Train Luncheon box personally designed and with contents selected by herself.

In the mean time we'll go on about reforms. At least there are some details in the English version of the draft charter and there's much more available in Thai on Thai sites.

Edited June 11, 2015 by rubl

[ExPratt]

"Reform...........Before elections"

The good ole' PDRC mantra.

But what is "Reform" in this context?

One would get a starkly opposite answer depending who is asked...Be it an anti-Democrat or a Democracy advocate.

This kerfuffle is all about one side trying to assert themselves.

I don't have to tell you which side that is.

I'd say the questions in the article, in answered fully and honestly, would answer all that. I've been wondering for a couple of years what people think this slogan means. The PDRC was completely vague on it. Completely appointed Senate and voting to be along occupational lines? Maybe. Only people who pay income taxes allowed to vote? Could be. Only people who have completed high school to vote? Meh. They've never said what "reform" means. This article expresses the problem very well.

I would say that many people in the UK and US are too thick to vote ( No offence to our American friends) But Political parties play up to it get people voting on Race and immigration , Religion and there own petty prejudices rather that trying to sort out the mess that those countries are in , in the long term. Borrowing heavily and low Tax to keep the electorate in Ipods and Galaxy Notes. Thais are no different if you want to vote for someone for stupid reasons then you are free to do so , Thansins mob were not stupid though were they , doesn't matter about the Debt they spent money on the poor not high speed Railways, which obviously didn't go down well with the elite

"they spent money on the poor not high speed Railways, which obviously didn't go down well with the elite"

You may want to do some reading to correct this. Afterwards you may contact Ms. Yingluck for your handsigned High-Speed Train Luncheon box personally designed and with contents selected by herself.

In the mean time we'll go on about reforms. At least there are some details in the English version of the draft charter and there's much more available in Thai on Thai sites.

Levels of poverty dropped quite significantly over their periods in Government. 30 baht health scheme which the new regime want to do away with as its "Unsustainable " strange thing ti say when you are Borrowing Billions to build Railways. Apparently they want the poor to pay 30 to 50% of their medical fees. So why do the poor and the ordinary people keep voting for them , because they have someone for once who represents their interests , which is considered by the aristocracy to be revolutionary

[heybruce]

"A proportional voting system would encourage smaller parties and coalition governments in the lower house of parliament, while the upper house would be filled with a mix of candidates nominated by committee or selected by professional groups, including one dominated by former military figures. Under certain circumstances, the prime minister could be appointed from outside parliament. Watchdog agencies perceived to be tied to the establishment would get new powers. Thus, unelected elites could mind the store, rather than ordinary voters -- thought to be too susceptible to populist blandishments." http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-20/thailand-needs-elected-leaders-not-a-new-constitution

Of course you already knew that, didn't you?

I knew about the 'perceived'. I also know about 'proportional representation', The Netherlands uses that, like about 95 other countries. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation ).

So, what 'key positions' ?

"Watchdog" agencies and unelected Senators, the ones who can prevent elected officials from governing.

I know lots of countries have tried proportional representation. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. In Thailand it hasn't worked:

"Such a system would hark back to Thailand's failed past. Earlier constitutions also featured an appointed prime minister and senate, along with a weak lower house. But the old system produced 25 coalition governments from 1979 until Thaksin's election in 2001." http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-20/thailand-needs-elected-leaders-not-a-new-constitution

So the proposed charter brings back the kind of governments that lasted, on average, less than a year. Is that how it works in the Netherlands?

There doesn't seem to be much difference in the watchdog organisations apart from a few added. The Senate is indirectly elected. So what?

As for proportional representation, well the 'proportional' part should be universally liked. Proportional representation in proportion to votes received! If I remember correctly Thailand never had a real proportional system. Also the failures seem more a failure of the people voting for today rather than tomorrow or the day after.

Anyway, having experienced the system in the Netherlands with many small parties, always coalition governments and so, I wonder what people have against proportional representation. As if some think that some people are not educated enough to be proportionally represented.

So, calls for 'reforms' to be processed, progressed and firmly set to continue Whatever constitution, whenever elections. Sounds fine. Pity really that the sorry state Thailand was in requires more than one or two years to correct.

The majority of the Senate is to be elected by unelected appointees. They will be no more elected than Prayuth is. The watchdog agencies, also unelected, are to be strengthened, at the expense of elected government. It's a big step away from democracy, hence an undemocratic charter.

If you remember correctly? I can understand not keeping count of 25 coalition governments in 22 years, but surely you must remember that the turnover of these weak coalition governments was too high to accomplish much. That was the reason for the 1997 constitution, to have a stronger elected government. Unfortunately the minority in Bangkok decided they didn't approve of how the majority of the country voted.

Regarding the sorry state of Thailand, I agree it's a pity there is an endemically corrupt military in charge and in no hurry to leave. Strangely enough, some people seem to like it that way.

[heybruce]

The OP doesn't mention 'additional' reforms, only seeing reforms mentioned put through.

"4. What if the voters reject the draft constitution but support the "reforms before elections" concept in the referendum? What if it's the other way round?"

That suggests reforms independent of the draft constitution.

It would seem that the "what if" from the opinion piece you interpret as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but. Next you base your question on this 'what if' and suggesting there is indeed something.

"I thought the reforms were in the undemocratic charter. What additional reforms do they intend to force on Thailand?"

I read the OP and see a discussion of reforms independent of elections and regardless of whether the charter is approved, suggesting reforms independent of the draft charter. I don't know what you see.

Let's try this: What reforms do you want to see even if the charter is rejected and there are no elections?

[jesimps]

I thought the reforms were in the undemocratic charter. What additional reforms do they intend to force on Thailand?

Not sure about the 'undemocratic charter', but the English version of the Draft Charter from April 2015 list reforms, but surely not in the level of details you require?

I didn't ask for detail, I asked what additional reforms, i.e. not in the unconstitutional charter, do they intend to force on Thailand. Was the meaning not clear to you?

The OP doesn't mention 'additional' reforms, only seeing reforms mentioned put through.

examples of reforms might be bodies like the Police - DSI - NACC - Judicial system, not only the bodies themselves but also how they are controlled, no government should be able to take control of a police force or investigating dept like the DSI or be able to influence offices like the Attorney General - they should all be able to work independently freely without government influence or interference, their primary objective - enforcing the law to all on an equal unhindered basis

Oh good! That means the amart/yellow shirts won't be able to have control of the army then.

[rubl]

I'd say the questions in the article, in answered fully and honestly, would answer all that. I've been wondering for a couple of years what people think this slogan means. The PDRC was completely vague on it. Completely appointed Senate and voting to be along occupational lines? Maybe. Only people who pay income taxes allowed to vote? Could be. Only people who have completed high school to vote? Meh. They've never said what "reform" means. This article expresses the problem very well.

I would say that many people in the UK and US are too thick to vote ( No offence to our American friends) But Political parties play up to it get people voting on Race and immigration , Religion and there own petty prejudices rather that trying to sort out the mess that those countries are in , in the long term. Borrowing heavily and low Tax to keep the electorate in Ipods and Galaxy Notes. Thais are no different if you want to vote for someone for stupid reasons then you are free to do so , Thansins mob were not stupid though were they , doesn't matter about the Debt they spent money on the poor not high speed Railways, which obviously didn't go down well with the elite

"they spent money on the poor not high speed Railways, which obviously didn't go down well with the elite"

You may want to do some reading to correct this. Afterwards you may contact Ms. Yingluck for your handsigned High-Speed Train Luncheon box personally designed and with contents selected by herself.

In the mean time we'll go on about reforms. At least there are some details in the English version of the draft charter and there's much more available in Thai on Thai sites.

Levels of poverty dropped quite significantly over their periods in Government. 30 baht health scheme which the new regime want to do away with as its "Unsustainable " strange thing ti say when you are Borrowing Billions to build Railways. Apparently they want the poor to pay 30 to 50% of their medical fees. So why do the poor and the ordinary people keep voting for them , because they have someone for once who represents their interests , which is considered by the aristocracy to be revolutionary

Levels of poverty dropped significantly in the early 2000 after austerity measures were dropped and there was a global economical boom. As for the 30Baht scheme, it was never fully funded. The Surayut government dropped the 30-Baht as it cost more to administer. The Yingluck government 're-instated' the 30-Baht scheme as is reminded people of Thaksin, but even they ended up making the 30-Baht mostly notmandatory (never really understood all ingenious constructions). The current government is confronted with staggering cost of the Medical Service. They already put stricter measures in place to prevent government employees to misuse the system (something which had gone on for decades).

Of course it's nice to have a fully funded medical system, but even in the 'rich' West that starts to be no longer feasable. Not even when people see their legal pension age rise to 67 years or more.

So, drop the intrastructure plans which will help the country progress and ensure money is available 'up-to-a-point' to finance Healthcare. Keep paying tax as well, we need it.

[rubl]

I knew about the 'perceived'. I also know about 'proportional representation', The Netherlands uses that, like about 95 other countries. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation ).

So, what 'key positions' ?

"Watchdog" agencies and unelected Senators, the ones who can prevent elected officials from governing.

I know lots of countries have tried proportional representation. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. In Thailand it hasn't worked:

"Such a system would hark back to Thailand's failed past. Earlier constitutions also featured an appointed prime minister and senate, along with a weak lower house. But the old system produced 25 coalition governments from 1979 until Thaksin's election in 2001." http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-20/thailand-needs-elected-leaders-not-a-new-constitution

So the proposed charter brings back the kind of governments that lasted, on average, less than a year. Is that how it works in the Netherlands?

There doesn't seem to be much difference in the watchdog organisations apart from a few added. The Senate is indirectly elected. So what?

As for proportional representation, well the 'proportional' part should be universally liked. Proportional representation in proportion to votes received! If I remember correctly Thailand never had a real proportional system. Also the failures seem more a failure of the people voting for today rather than tomorrow or the day after.

Anyway, having experienced the system in the Netherlands with many small parties, always coalition governments and so, I wonder what people have against proportional representation. As if some think that some people are not educated enough to be proportionally represented.

So, calls for 'reforms' to be processed, progressed and firmly set to continue Whatever constitution, whenever elections. Sounds fine. Pity really that the sorry state Thailand was in requires more than one or two years to correct.

The majority of the Senate is to be elected by unelected appointees. They will be no more elected than Prayuth is. The watchdog agencies, also unelected, are to be strengthened, at the expense of elected government. It's a big step away from democracy, hence an undemocratic charter.

If you remember correctly? I can understand not keeping count of 25 coalition governments in 22 years, but surely you must remember that the turnover of these weak coalition governments was too high to accomplish much. That was the reason for the 1997 constitution, to have a stronger elected government. Unfortunately the minority in Bangkok decided they didn't approve of how the majority of the country voted.

Regarding the sorry state of Thailand, I agree it's a pity there is an endemically corrupt military in charge and in no hurry to leave. Strangely enough, some people seem to like it that way.

You seem to forget the endemic corrupt democratically elected governments. Now that's somewhat hypocritical.

Seems time to get on with reforms. Just electing another corrupt bunch won't do much good.

[rubl]

The OP doesn't mention 'additional' reforms, only seeing reforms mentioned put through.

"4. What if the voters reject the draft constitution but support the "reforms before elections" concept in the referendum? What if it's the other way round?"

That suggests reforms independent of the draft constitution.

It would seem that the "what if" from the opinion piece you interpret as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but. Next you base your question on this 'what if' and suggesting there is indeed something.

"I thought the reforms were in the undemocratic charter. What additional reforms do they intend to force on Thailand?"

I read the OP and see a discussion of reforms independent of elections and regardless of whether the charter is approved, suggesting reforms independent of the draft charter. I don't know what you see.

Let's try this: What reforms do you want to see even if the charter is rejected and there are no elections?

I do not see the government suggesting additional reforms, or even giving any indication of "intending to force through" some.

As for the "let's try this", well thank you, but no, too much speculation here already.

[heybruce]

"Watchdog" agencies and unelected Senators, the ones who can prevent elected officials from governing.

I know lots of countries have tried proportional representation. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. In Thailand it hasn't worked:

"Such a system would hark back to Thailand's failed past. Earlier constitutions also featured an appointed prime minister and senate, along with a weak lower house. But the old system produced 25 coalition governments from 1979 until Thaksin's election in 2001." http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-20/thailand-needs-elected-leaders-not-a-new-constitution

So the proposed charter brings back the kind of governments that lasted, on average, less than a year. Is that how it works in the Netherlands?

There doesn't seem to be much difference in the watchdog organisations apart from a few added. The Senate is indirectly elected. So what?

As for proportional representation, well the 'proportional' part should be universally liked. Proportional representation in proportion to votes received! If I remember correctly Thailand never had a real proportional system. Also the failures seem more a failure of the people voting for today rather than tomorrow or the day after.

Anyway, having experienced the system in the Netherlands with many small parties, always coalition governments and so, I wonder what people have against proportional representation. As if some think that some people are not educated enough to be proportionally represented.

So, calls for 'reforms' to be processed, progressed and firmly set to continue Whatever constitution, whenever elections. Sounds fine. Pity really that the sorry state Thailand was in requires more than one or two years to correct.

The majority of the Senate is to be elected by unelected appointees. They will be no more elected than Prayuth is. The watchdog agencies, also unelected, are to be strengthened, at the expense of elected government. It's a big step away from democracy, hence an undemocratic charter.

If you remember correctly? I can understand not keeping count of 25 coalition governments in 22 years, but surely you must remember that the turnover of these weak coalition governments was too high to accomplish much. That was the reason for the 1997 constitution, to have a stronger elected government. Unfortunately the minority in Bangkok decided they didn't approve of how the majority of the country voted.

Regarding the sorry state of Thailand, I agree it's a pity there is an endemically corrupt military in charge and in no hurry to leave. Strangely enough, some people seem to like it that way.

You seem to forget the endemic corrupt democratically elected governments. Now that's somewhat hypocritical.

Seems time to get on with reforms. Just electing another corrupt bunch won't do much good.

You favor a corrupt military government over a corrupt elected government and accuse me of hypocrisy for favoring the reverse. Are there any depths to which you won't sink?

As I've stated many times before, voters can change a corrupt system by demanding change of elected officials. It doesn't happen quickly, but that's the only way I know that has allowed other countries to get corruption under control.

How do you propose ending a corrupt military government that is under the leadership of generals who did very well using the corrupt system?

[tbthailand]

I'd say the questions in the article, in answered fully and honestly, would answer all that. I've been wondering for a couple of years what people think this slogan means. The PDRC was completely vague on it. Completely appointed Senate and voting to be along occupational lines? Maybe. Only people who pay income taxes allowed to vote? Could be. Only people who have completed high school to vote? Meh. They've never said what "reform" means. This article expresses the problem very well.

I would say that many people in the UK and US are too thick to vote ( No offence to our American friends) But Political parties play up to it get people voting on Race and immigration , Religion and there own petty prejudices rather that trying to sort out the mess that those countries are in , in the long term. Borrowing heavily and low Tax to keep the electorate in Ipods and Galaxy Notes. Thais are no different if you want to vote for someone for stupid reasons then you are free to do so , Thansins mob were not stupid though were they , doesn't matter about the Debt they spent money on the poor not high speed Railways, which obviously didn't go down well with the elite

"they spent money on the poor not high speed Railways, which obviously didn't go down well with the elite"

You may want to do some reading to correct this. Afterwards you may contact Ms. Yingluck for your handsigned High-Speed Train Luncheon box personally designed and with contents selected by herself.

In the mean time we'll go on about reforms. At least there are some details in the English version of the draft charter and there's much more available in Thai on Thai sites.

Levels of poverty dropped quite significantly over their periods in Government. 30 baht health scheme which the new regime want to do away with as its "Unsustainable " strange thing ti say when you are Borrowing Billions to build Railways. Apparently they want the poor to pay 30 to 50% of their medical fees. So why do the poor and the ordinary people keep voting for them , because they have someone for once who represents their interests , which is considered by the aristocracy to be revolutionary

The 30 bhat program has proven it's value.

More should be done to extend and improve it. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/app.6.1.91

This paper analyzes Thailand's 2001 healthcare reform, "30 Baht." The program increased funding available to hospitals to care for the poor and reduced copays to 30 Baht (~$0.75). Our estimates suggest the supply-side funding of the program increased healthcare utilization, especially among the poor. Moreover, we find significant impacts on infant mortality. Prior to 30 Baht, poorer provinces had significantly higher infant mortality rates than richer provinces. After 30 Baht, this correlation evaporates to zero. The results suggest that increased access to healthcare among the poor can significantly reduce their infant mortality rates.

[smedly]

You favor a corrupt military government over a corrupt elected government and accuse me of hypocrisy for favoring the reverse. Are there any depths to which you won't sink?

As I've stated many times before, voters can change a corrupt system by demanding change of elected officials. It doesn't happen quickly, but that's the only way I know that has allowed other countries to get corruption under control.

How do you propose ending a corrupt military government that is under the leadership of generals who did very well using the corrupt system?

a corrupt military government

what evidence/examples do you have that the current government is corrupt

Are there any depths to which you won't sink?

taking it to a personal level again - discuss the post not the poster

voters can change a corrupt system by demanding change of elected officials

yes they can but rarely does it happen, this country is so entrenched in corruption that a few rule the roost via various scams mafias organisations all backed by key officials and police - until now

incidentally - last year in Thailand the people rose up on the streets of Bangkok because they had had enough of corruption, they were then systematically slaughtered while the police stood by and did nothing under instruction of the PTP governemnt

that's the only way I know that has allowed other countries to get corruption under control

really ? and these countries are ?

How do you propose ending a corrupt military government

according to you, I have yet to see anything to complain about - I hope they get to stay in office as long as it takes to cleanse this country and put all the twisted cheats in jail and seize all the stolen money and assets and give it back to the people

who are you anyway ?

[smedly]

The 30 bhat program has proven it's value.

More should be done to extend and improve it. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/app.6.1.91

This paper analyzes Thailand's 2001 healthcare reform, "30 Baht." The program increased funding available to hospitals to care for the poor and reduced copays to 30 Baht (~$0.75). Our estimates suggest the supply-side funding of the program increased healthcare utilization, especially among the poor. Moreover, we find significant impacts on infant mortality. Prior to 30 Baht, poorer provinces had significantly higher infant mortality rates than richer provinces. After 30 Baht, this correlation evaporates to zero. The results suggest that increased access to healthcare among the poor can significantly reduce their infant mortality rates.

I agree that Thailand needs some sort of health system - but the bottom line is - who is going to pay for it, it is clear that the country cannot afford it as things are, perhaps if all the money thieved - wasted on stupid election bribes for votes - first car schemes etc etc then just maybe there might be a few billion left in the money pot to support a health scheme.

The Thai people have got to realise that there are limits and also they need to realise just how much money is being thieved through corruption, the guy that is telling them how to vote - check his bank balance and then where he got it from

[rubl]

There doesn't seem to be much difference in the watchdog organisations apart from a few added. The Senate is indirectly elected. So what?

As for proportional representation, well the 'proportional' part should be universally liked. Proportional representation in proportion to votes received! If I remember correctly Thailand never had a real proportional system. Also the failures seem more a failure of the people voting for today rather than tomorrow or the day after.

Anyway, having experienced the system in the Netherlands with many small parties, always coalition governments and so, I wonder what people have against proportional representation. As if some think that some people are not educated enough to be proportionally represented.

So, calls for 'reforms' to be processed, progressed and firmly set to continue Whatever constitution, whenever elections. Sounds fine. Pity really that the sorry state Thailand was in requires more than one or two years to correct.

The majority of the Senate is to be elected by unelected appointees. They will be no more elected than Prayuth is. The watchdog agencies, also unelected, are to be strengthened, at the expense of elected government. It's a big step away from democracy, hence an undemocratic charter.

If you remember correctly? I can understand not keeping count of 25 coalition governments in 22 years, but surely you must remember that the turnover of these weak coalition governments was too high to accomplish much. That was the reason for the 1997 constitution, to have a stronger elected government. Unfortunately the minority in Bangkok decided they didn't approve of how the majority of the country voted.

Regarding the sorry state of Thailand, I agree it's a pity there is an endemically corrupt military in charge and in no hurry to leave. Strangely enough, some people seem to like it that way.

You seem to forget the endemic corrupt democratically elected governments. Now that's somewhat hypocritical.

Seems time to get on with reforms. Just electing another corrupt bunch won't do much good.

You favor a corrupt military government over a corrupt elected government and accuse me of hypocrisy for favoring the reverse. Are there any depths to which you won't sink?

As I've stated many times before, voters can change a corrupt system by demanding change of elected officials. It doesn't happen quickly, but that's the only way I know that has allowed other countries to get corruption under control.

How do you propose ending a corrupt military government that is under the leadership of generals who did very well using

the corrupt system?

Oh come on Heybruce, I know you don't like Arrmy Generals. Maybe only Police Generals?

So, you tell me I favour a corrupt military government over a corrupt elected government and therefore I sink low? Because you tell me so? Nice in a topic of a military government cracking down on corruption a bit more clearly than the previous elected government which 'took special care' of corruption. Of cause they were not really democratic with a criminal fugitive running the show. Old chap must be getting impatient what with many defenders of the faith suddenly emerging.

BTW do you accuse the PM of having done very well in a corrupt system? The PM who is working on curbing and cracking down on corruption to the point people get nervous?

[rubl]

I would say that many people in the UK and US are too thick to vote ( No offence to our American friends) But Political parties play up to it get people voting on Race and immigration , Religion and there own petty prejudices rather that trying to sort out the mess that those countries are in , in the long term. Borrowing heavily and low Tax to keep the electorate in Ipods and Galaxy Notes. Thais are no different if you want to vote for someone for stupid reasons then you are free to do so , Thansins mob were not stupid though were they , doesn't matter about the Debt they spent money on the poor not high speed Railways, which obviously didn't go down well with the elite

"they spent money on the poor not high speed Railways, which obviously didn't go down well with the elite"

You may want to do some reading to correct this. Afterwards you may contact Ms. Yingluck for your handsigned High-Speed Train Luncheon box personally designed and with contents selected by herself.

In the mean time we'll go on about reforms. At least there are some details in the English version of the draft charter and there's much more available in Thai on Thai sites.

Levels of poverty dropped quite significantly over their periods in Government. 30 baht health scheme which the new regime want to do away with as its "Unsustainable " strange thing ti say when you are Borrowing Billions to build Railways. Apparently they want the poor to pay 30 to 50% of their medical fees. So why do the poor and the ordinary people keep voting for them , because they have someone for once who represents their interests , which is considered by the aristocracy to be revolutionary

The 30 bhat program has proven it's value.

More should be done to extend and improve it. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/app.6.1.91

This paper analyzes Thailand's 2001 healthcare reform, "30 Baht." The program increased funding available to hospitals to care for the poor and reduced copays to 30 Baht (~$0.75). Our estimates suggest the supply-side funding of the program increased healthcare utilization, especially among the poor. Moreover, we find significant impacts on infant mortality. Prior to 30 Baht, poorer provinces had significantly higher infant mortality rates than richer provinces. After 30 Baht, this correlation evaporates to zero. The results suggest that increased access to healthcare among the poor can significantly reduce their infant mortality rates.

No one is saying that a healthcare system was not really needed. The foundations were already prepared by the Chuan government and passed by the Thaksin government. It's just that the scheme was never funded sufficiently, 30-Baht fee cost 80 Baht to manage and after a while the underfunding led to drop in service (please wait here, we'll get to you when it's your turn on of these days) and a move of good personel to private clinics.

Of course that has nothing to do with either High-Speed rail link, lunchboxes or corruption. Did you check what is in the draft constitution regarding Healthcare reform, assume there is something ?

BTW you quote the abstract of the article. For the rest you must be a AEA member or pay. Diminishes the value of the unaccessable article somewhat, at least for the off topic discussion here.

Edited June 12, 2015 by rubl

[phoenixdoglover]

Out of the Smedly "Gish Gallop" (look it up), I thought this was an interesting question:

that's the only way I know that has allowed other countries to get corruption under control

really ? and these countries are ?

So I took a look at the 2014 Corruption Perception Index rankings from Transparency International. While "correlation is not causation"...

The top ten least corrupt countries are:

Denmark

New Zealand

Finland

Sweden

Norway

Switzerland

Singapore

Netherlands

Luxembourg

Canada

All of them has a predominantly democratic form of government determined by free elections, with some notable quibbles for Singapore (with a history of one party domination), and Luxembourg (with an elected parliament, but monarch as head of State)

None of them is run by the military.

Now let's turn to the bottom ten in terms of corruption:

Eritrea - rebel army leader in power since 1993, no elections

Libya - currently riven by armed factions

Uzbekistan - fake democracy, strongman government (elections routinely declared as "not free")

Turkmenistan - until very recently, an undemocratic strongman state

Iraq - former strongman state, now nominally elected PM, in war with ISIS

South Sudan - new country, led by former rebel army commander

Afghanistan - elected President, government propped up by foreign military presence

Sudan - army officer, led coup

North Korea - strongman government, hereditary leader

Somalia - highly fragmented country with various forms of government, central government is a parliament selected through a "power sharing" agreement among regional tribal leaders

That's a different kettle of fish. Note that all the "strongman" governments are also military governments, as there is virtually no distinction between a strongman president and the head of the military.

So what I draw from this is that there is an obvious relationship between war, military leaders, other autocrats, and endemic corruption.

[rubl]

Out of the Smedly "Gish Gallop" (look it up), I thought this was an interesting question:

that's the only way I know that has allowed other countries to get corruption under control

really ? and these countries are ?

So I took a look at the 2014 Corruption Perception Index rankings from Transparency International. While "correlation is not causation"...

The top ten least corrupt countries are:

Denmark

New Zealand

Finland

Sweden

Norway

Switzerland

Singapore

Netherlands

Luxembourg

Canada

All of them has a predominantly democratic form of government determined by free elections, with some notable quibbles for Singapore (with a history of one party domination), and Luxembourg (with an elected parliament, but monarch as head of State)

None of them is run by the military.

Now let's turn to the bottom ten in terms of corruption:

Eritrea - rebel army leader in power since 1993, no elections

Libya - currently riven by armed factions

Uzbekistan - fake democracy, strongman government (elections routinely declared as "not free")

Turkmenistan - until very recently, an undemocratic strongman state

Iraq - former strongman state, now nominally elected PM, in war with ISIS

South Sudan - new country, led by former rebel army commander

Afghanistan - elected President, government propped up by foreign military presence

Sudan - army officer, led coup

North Korea - strongman government, hereditary leader

Somalia - highly fragmented country with various forms of government, central government is a parliament selected through a "power sharing" agreement among regional tribal leaders

That's a different kettle of fish. Note that all the "strongman" governments are also military governments, as there is virtually no distinction between a strongman president and the head of the military.

So what I draw from this is that there is an obvious relationship between war, military leaders, other autocrats, and endemic corruption.

With the exception of North Korea one may be excused to think that one element in the relation is missing and some others are less important.

Anyway, call for reforms before elections.

PS excuses that I wrote you as American not to know about corruption, I may have been wrong.

[tbthailand]

The 30 bhat program has proven it's value.

More should be done to extend and improve it. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/app.6.1.91

This paper analyzes Thailand's 2001 healthcare reform, "30 Baht." The program increased funding available to hospitals to care for the poor and reduced copays to 30 Baht (~$0.75). Our estimates suggest the supply-side funding of the program increased healthcare utilization, especially among the poor. Moreover, we find significant impacts on infant mortality. Prior to 30 Baht, poorer provinces had significantly higher infant mortality rates than richer provinces. After 30 Baht, this correlation evaporates to zero. The results suggest that increased access to healthcare among the poor can significantly reduce their infant mortality rates.

I agree that Thailand needs some sort of health system - but the bottom line is - who is going to pay for it, it is clear that the country cannot afford it as things are, perhaps if all the money thieved - wasted on stupid election bribes for votes - first car schemes etc etc then just maybe there might be a few billion left in the money pot to support a health scheme.

The Thai people have got to realise that there are limits and also they need to realise just how much money is being thieved through corruption, the guy that is telling them how to vote - check his bank balance and then where he got it from

a functional healthcare system and paying for it is good for the country in many ways. and it is not the net-expense that it might seem like.

paying for a good healthcare system has been shown to reduce overall costs and save money, in other words, how can the country not afford to pay for it is a better question.

other aspects include the need to educate and develop more healthcare professionals and related fields. This means an investment in the education infrastructure that pays back the country and the people many times over.

that's just the tip of the iceberg on the benefits of "paying" for it. There are many projects on the table now that are over-priced, vanity projects that benefit individual businesses and business sectors, but are little more than money-pits with respect to the Thai people. Bullet trains come to mind.

[rubl]

The 30 bhat program has proven it's value.

More should be done to extend and improve it. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/app.6.1.91

This paper analyzes Thailand's 2001 healthcare reform, "30 Baht." The program increased funding available to hospitals to care for the poor and reduced copays to 30 Baht (~$0.75). Our estimates suggest the supply-side funding of the program increased healthcare utilization, especially among the poor. Moreover, we find significant impacts on infant mortality. Prior to 30 Baht, poorer provinces had significantly higher infant mortality rates than richer provinces. After 30 Baht, this correlation evaporates to zero. The results suggest that increased access to healthcare among the poor can significantly reduce their infant mortality rates.

I agree that Thailand needs some sort of health system - but the bottom line is - who is going to pay for it, it is clear that the country cannot afford it as things are, perhaps if all the money thieved - wasted on stupid election bribes for votes - first car schemes etc etc then just maybe there might be a few billion left in the money pot to support a health scheme.

The Thai people have got to realise that there are limits and also they need to realise just how much money is being thieved through corruption, the guy that is telling them how to vote - check his bank balance and then where he got it from

a functional healthcare system and paying for it is good for the country in many ways. and it is not the net-expense that it might seem like.

paying for a good healthcare system has been shown to reduce overall costs and save money, in other words, how can the country not afford to pay for it is a better question.

other aspects include the need to educate and develop more healthcare professionals and related fields. This means an investment in the education infrastructure that pays back the country and the people many times over.

that's just the tip of the iceberg on the benefits of "paying" for it. There are many projects on the table now that are over-priced, vanity projects that benefit individual businesses and business sectors, but are little more than money-pits with respect to the Thai people. Bullet trains come to mind.

Absolutely! Certainly as American you know the advantage of a good Healthcare System.

Interesting is that in many European countries the Healthcare system is becoming unaffordable with the life expectancy haven risen. In The Netherlands the legal pension age is rising from 65 years now to 67 years 3 months in five years time. That to be able to pay for both pensions and the Healthcare System.

Anyway, vanity projects like high-speed tracks to ChiangMai because of the many poor commuters who want to go to Bangkok and get a Ms. Yingluck lunchbox are dropped. Speed reduced and priority to dual track links which can be used for both cargo and people.

Mind you, a proper infrastructure to connect the NorthEast with the Seaside will surely help to stimulate businesses to invest in the NorthEast. The money flow will then help to pay for healthcare and education.