Meechai to rely on 1992 experience on 'outsider PM'

[Lite Beer]

NEW CHARTER
Meechai to rely on 1992 experience on 'outsider PM'
KASAMAKORN CHANWANPEN
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- THE idea of an "outsider", non-MP prime minister has not been ruled out by the new Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC), though chairman Meechai Ruchupan said he will use Black May as a lesson and a reminder. The Black May political crisis partially stemmed from the 1992 charter, which allowed a non-MP premier.

"But I'm not sure whether it was the principle of non-MP premier or the person that was opposed by the people at that time," he said.

Meechai had also chaired the 1992 charter drafting committee, which allowed then coup-maker General Suchinda Kraprayoon to become premier after election. However, the chairman refused to speculate on whether the new charter would share the same fate as the 1992 one, joking that he would first have to study astrology before he could foretell the future.

The CDC is sending out official invites to related agencies, such as the National Council for Peace and Order and the National Legislative Assembly, to submit their opinions on the charter, he said, adding that though everybody's voice would be considered, the real focus is the country and the people.

The CDC chairman also said that though his predecessor Borwornsak Uwanno had turned down the invitation to become an adviser to the CDC, he has recommended Jade Donavik, a member of the previous panel, for the job.

CDC spokesperson Norachit Sinhaseni said the panel had resolved yesterday to officially appoint three advisers: Jade, Somkit Lertpaithoon, and Kanchanarat Leeviroj. The latter two worked as secretaries of the 2007 and 2015 CDCs respectively.

He added that the panel had also decided to set up a subcommittee to help with the drafting, and appointed Ajaporn Jarujinda as chairman. The subcommittee's job is to come up with drafts for the CDC to choose from, Norachit said. However, he added, the chapters on the legislative and executive branches may be left up to the CDC, which would take into account studies done by other relevant subpanels.

Another subcommittee, which will be tasked with examining the structure of the legislative branch under different regimes, is to be chaired by Prapan Naikovit.

Prapan revealed that his panel planned to study the composition of the House of Representatives and the Senate, adding that it would also look into the mixed-member proportional system proposed by the last CDC.

As for the progress in charter writing, the CDC yesterday discussed the frameworks on which to base mechanisms to restructure and drive the economy and society, which includes a mechanism to prevent the use of any public administration as a means to develop political popularity or populist policies.

Another point discussed yesterday was the creation of a mechanism to keep an eye on government spending and debt, as well as the empowering of the Auditor-General.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Meechai-to-rely-on-1992-experience-on-outsider-PM-30270595.html

-- The Nation 2015-10-10

[Srikcir]

"But I'm not sure whether it was the principle of non-MP premier or the person that was opposed by the people at that time,"

Easy enough to find out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_May_%281992%29

If Meechai wants to repeat history for a failed charter, the coup-draft 1992 Constitution was perfect.

[chainarong]

Numb nuts Meechai is pulling on experience , some would say pulling on something, but it certainly isn't experience , meanwhile Thailand goes backwards and repeats another 1992 debacle, that under Thailand's current political climate can be easily arranged.

[Fat Haggis]

all they are doing is dragging things out till a certain day arrives, then the real nasty shit will start to show.

[Praematura]

"However, the chairman refused to speculate on whether the new charter would share the same fate as the 1992 one, joking that he would first have to study astrology before he could foretell the future."

Lol if I had to write this based on guidance from the pm to cater to the establishment and disenfranchise the majority I'm not sure astrology is my reference point.

[rubl]

"But I'm not sure whether it was the principle of non-MP premier or the person that was opposed by the people at that time,"

Easy enough to find out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_May_%281992%29

If Meechai wants to repeat history for a failed charter, the coup-draft 1992 Constitution was perfect.

In the OP k. Meechai only referred to the 1992 charter in relation to a non-MP, and/or appointed, PM.

An appointed non-MP PM is not something one sees everyday, but other countries allow such. The Interim PM in Greece for example, top Supreme Court judge Vassiliki Thanou was named the head of the caretaker government to lead the country to elections. She seems to have done rather well that month she's been PM.

[jayboy]

"But I'm not sure whether it was the principle of non-MP premier or the person that was opposed by the people at that time,"

Easy enough to find out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_May_%281992%29

If Meechai wants to repeat history for a failed charter, the coup-draft 1992 Constitution was perfect.

In the OP k. Meechai only referred to the 1992 charter in relation to a non-MP, and/or appointed, PM.

An appointed non-MP PM is not something one sees everyday, but other countries allow such. The Interim PM in Greece for example, top Supreme Court judge Vassiliki Thanou was named the head of the caretaker government to lead the country to elections. She seems to have done rather well that month she's been PM.

I am sure Thailand could accept an appointed PM in an interim situation of less than a month prior to a democratic general election.

The suggestion that an non elected PM could serve longer than that would be completely unacceptable.

Meechai is quite correct to bear in mind the lessons of 1992.

[rubl]

"But I'm not sure whether it was the principle of non-MP premier or the person that was opposed by the people at that time,"

Easy enough to find out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_May_%281992%29

If Meechai wants to repeat history for a failed charter, the coup-draft 1992 Constitution was perfect.

In the OP k. Meechai only referred to the 1992 charter in relation to a non-MP, and/or appointed, PM.

An appointed non-MP PM is not something one sees everyday, but other countries allow such. The Interim PM in Greece for example, top Supreme Court judge Vassiliki Thanou was named the head of the caretaker government to lead the country to elections. She seems to have done rather well that month she's been PM.

I am sure Thailand could accept an appointed PM in an interim situation of less than a month prior to a democratic general election.

The suggestion that an non elected PM could serve longer than that would be completely unacceptable.

Meechai is quite correct to bear in mind the lessons of 1992.

Interesting you say that, jayboy. In discussions on the draft charter (which was rejected) a few vocal posters here tried to convince me that an appointed PM would never work in Thailand and be undemocratic as well. Same crowd tried to convince me proportional representation wouldn't work in Thailand and be undemocratic as well. It would seem Thailand need some special form of 'democracy'.

Anyway, even Thai like politicians from PTP were against an appointed PM. Something about undemocratic, only politicians had the 'right' knowledge, integrity, etc., etc.

The idea of a non-MP PM was indeed for situations where politicians failed to resolve conflicts and an outsider would be appointed. Of course selection criteria and who would select was another point of contention. 'obviously' only politicians who couldn't agree would be able to agree on a person for the job. Talk about being realistic.

Meechai is referring to the person selected as PM and the problems emerging in 1992. Of course 23 years later none of the 'power groups' have really evolved much, democracy wise.

[jayboy]

"But I'm not sure whether it was the principle of non-MP premier or the person that was opposed by the people at that time,"

Easy enough to find out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_May_%281992%29

If Meechai wants to repeat history for a failed charter, the coup-draft 1992 Constitution was perfect.

In the OP k. Meechai only referred to the 1992 charter in relation to a non-MP, and/or appointed, PM.

An appointed non-MP PM is not something one sees everyday, but other countries allow such. The Interim PM in Greece for example, top Supreme Court judge Vassiliki Thanou was named the head of the caretaker government to lead the country to elections. She seems to have done rather well that month she's been PM.

I am sure Thailand could accept an appointed PM in an interim situation of less than a month prior to a democratic general election.

The suggestion that an non elected PM could serve longer than that would be completely unacceptable.

Meechai is quite correct to bear in mind the lessons of 1992.

Interesting you say that, jayboy. In discussions on the draft charter (which was rejected) a few vocal posters here tried to convince me that an appointed PM would never work in Thailand and be undemocratic as well. Same crowd tried to convince me proportional representation wouldn't work in Thailand and be undemocratic as well. It would seem Thailand need some special form of 'democracy'.

Anyway, even Thai like politicians from PTP were against an appointed PM. Something about undemocratic, only politicians had the 'right' knowledge, integrity, etc., etc.

The idea of a non-MP PM was indeed for situations where politicians failed to resolve conflicts and an outsider would be appointed. Of course selection criteria and who would select was another point of contention. 'obviously' only politicians who couldn't agree would be able to agree on a person for the job. Talk about being realistic.

Meechai is referring to the person selected as PM and the problems emerging in 1992. Of course 23 years later none of the 'power groups' have really evolved much, democracy wise.

Obviously a non elected PM is undemocratic.There are two aspects here - elected by a constituency and having majority support in parliament.Personally I would be relaxed about a PM who was not elected (whether appointed or party list) provided he could command majority support in a parliament where the great proportion of members had been democratically elected.However it remains the case that a non elected PM is not ideal

Proportional representation isn't really relevant.There can be democracy with or without it.

Thailand must get away from the poisonous idea ( given the disastrous record ) that outsiders can step in to solve political disputes.However messy it's up to elected representatives to solve problems.

[rubl]

In the OP k. Meechai only referred to the 1992 charter in relation to a non-MP, and/or appointed, PM.

An appointed non-MP PM is not something one sees everyday, but other countries allow such. The Interim PM in Greece for example, top Supreme Court judge Vassiliki Thanou was named the head of the caretaker government to lead the country to elections. She seems to have done rather well that month she's been PM.

I am sure Thailand could accept an appointed PM in an interim situation of less than a month prior to a democratic general election.

The suggestion that an non elected PM could serve longer than that would be completely unacceptable.

Meechai is quite correct to bear in mind the lessons of 1992.

Interesting you say that, jayboy. In discussions on the draft charter (which was rejected) a few vocal posters here tried to convince me that an appointed PM would never work in Thailand and be undemocratic as well. Same crowd tried to convince me proportional representation wouldn't work in Thailand and be undemocratic as well. It would seem Thailand need some special form of 'democracy'.

Anyway, even Thai like politicians from PTP were against an appointed PM. Something about undemocratic, only politicians had the 'right' knowledge, integrity, etc., etc.

The idea of a non-MP PM was indeed for situations where politicians failed to resolve conflicts and an outsider would be appointed. Of course selection criteria and who would select was another point of contention. 'obviously' only politicians who couldn't agree would be able to agree on a person for the job. Talk about being realistic.

Meechai is referring to the person selected as PM and the problems emerging in 1992. Of course 23 years later none of the 'power groups' have really evolved much, democracy wise.

Obviously a non elected PM is undemocratic.There are two aspects here - elected by a constituency and having majority support in parliament.Personally I would be relaxed about a PM who was not elected (whether appointed or party list) provided he could command majority support in a parliament where the great proportion of members had been democratically elected.However it remains the case that a non elected PM is not ideal

Proportional representation isn't really relevant.There can be democracy with or without it.

Thailand must get away from the poisonous idea ( given the disastrous record ) that outsiders can step in to solve political disputes.However messy it's up to elected representatives to solve problems.

May I suggest a small, but I think important change to the last sentence?

Elected representatives are responsible for preventing messy situations through dialogue and consensus.

Mind you, I doubt Thailand is ready to adopt the Dutch "Polder Model"

[jayboy]

Interesting you say that, jayboy. In discussions on the draft charter (which was rejected) a few vocal posters here tried to convince me that an appointed PM would never work in Thailand and be undemocratic as well. Same crowd tried to convince me proportional representation wouldn't work in Thailand and be undemocratic as well. It would seem Thailand need some special form of 'democracy'.

Anyway, even Thai like politicians from PTP were against an appointed PM. Something about undemocratic, only politicians had the 'right' knowledge, integrity, etc., etc.

The idea of a non-MP PM was indeed for situations where politicians failed to resolve conflicts and an outsider would be appointed. Of course selection criteria and who would select was another point of contention. 'obviously' only politicians who couldn't agree would be able to agree on a person for the job. Talk about being realistic.

Meechai is referring to the person selected as PM and the problems emerging in 1992. Of course 23 years later none of the 'power groups' have really evolved much, democracy wise.

Obviously a non elected PM is undemocratic.There are two aspects here - elected by a constituency and having majority support in parliament.Personally I would be relaxed about a PM who was not elected (whether appointed or party list) provided he could command majority support in a parliament where the great proportion of members had been democratically elected.However it remains the case that a non elected PM is not ideal

Proportional representation isn't really relevant.There can be democracy with or without it.

Thailand must get away from the poisonous idea ( given the disastrous record ) that outsiders can step in to solve political disputes.However messy it's up to elected representatives to solve problems.

May I suggest a small, but I think important change to the last sentence?

Elected representatives are responsible for preventing messy situations through dialogue and consensus.

Mind you, I doubt Thailand is ready to adopt the Dutch "Polder Model"

I don't necessarily agree your amendment.Obviously elected representatives must do their best to avoid conflict and messy situations.But sometimes consensus is the wrong way.Consensus (Butskellism) took Britain close to economic disaster in the 1960's.Sometimes an adversarial approach is appropriate where there are major differences between political sides representing major differences in the country at large..The great thing about a democracy is that ultimately the people will take a view, and determine through their elected representatives whether a consensual or more adversarial approach is required.The Polder Model worked in Holland because the country is a small homogeneous highly developed country with relatively little inequality.Thailand isn't quite there yet.

Edited October 11, 2015 by jayboy

[sjaak327]

Not to mention that the 'polder model' is all but dead nowadays, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. As long as the losers in elections respect the outcome and don't stage coups or disrupt elections.

[pmugghc]

all they are doing is dragging things out till a certain day arrives, then the real nasty shit will start to show.

Yes I think this back and forth of details is just to pass time until the day comes. But I have no clue what will happen then.

[tbthailand]

Meechai had also chaired the 1992 charter drafting committee

such pedigree in writing constitutions for the Generals...

[tbthailand]

I am sure Thailand could accept an appointed PM in an interim situation of less than a month prior to a democratic general election.

The suggestion that an non elected PM could serve longer than that would be completely unacceptable.

Meechai is quite correct to bear in mind the lessons of 1992.

Interesting you say that, jayboy. In discussions on the draft charter (which was rejected) a few vocal posters here tried to convince me that an appointed PM would never work in Thailand and be undemocratic as well. Same crowd tried to convince me proportional representation wouldn't work in Thailand and be undemocratic as well. It would seem Thailand need some special form of 'democracy'.

Anyway, even Thai like politicians from PTP were against an appointed PM. Something about undemocratic, only politicians had the 'right' knowledge, integrity, etc., etc.

The idea of a non-MP PM was indeed for situations where politicians failed to resolve conflicts and an outsider would be appointed. Of course selection criteria and who would select was another point of contention. 'obviously' only politicians who couldn't agree would be able to agree on a person for the job. Talk about being realistic.

Meechai is referring to the person selected as PM and the problems emerging in 1992. Of course 23 years later none of the 'power groups' have really evolved much, democracy wise.

Obviously a non elected PM is undemocratic.There are two aspects here - elected by a constituency and having majority support in parliament.Personally I would be relaxed about a PM who was not elected (whether appointed or party list) provided he could command majority support in a parliament where the great proportion of members had been democratically elected.However it remains the case that a non elected PM is not ideal

Proportional representation isn't really relevant.There can be democracy with or without it.

Thailand must get away from the poisonous idea ( given the disastrous record ) that outsiders can step in to solve political disputes.However messy it's up to elected representatives to solve problems.

The outsider PM is another lever for the military/elite to pull, ... that's all. That's why they won't "get away" from it as you say.

It's interesting that vote-buying, which clearly does not work, is so lampooned by the royalist elites, when it is clearly so much easier to buy-off MPs in order to change the government. The former doesn't work, and the latter worked rather well in 2008.

[Fat Haggis]

all they are doing is dragging things out till a certain day arrives, then the real nasty shit will start to show.

Yes I think this back and forth of details is just to pass time until the day comes. But I have no clue what will happen then.

It doesn't bear thinking about but people need to be prepared for all sorts of shit when it does

[rubl]

I am sure Thailand could accept an appointed PM in an interim situation of less than a month prior to a democratic general election.

The suggestion that an non elected PM could serve longer than that would be completely unacceptable.

Meechai is quite correct to bear in mind the lessons of 1992.

Interesting you say that, jayboy. In discussions on the draft charter (which was rejected) a few vocal posters here tried to convince me that an appointed PM would never work in Thailand and be undemocratic as well. Same crowd tried to convince me proportional representation wouldn't work in Thailand and be undemocratic as well. It would seem Thailand need some special form of 'democracy'.

Anyway, even Thai like politicians from PTP were against an appointed PM. Something about undemocratic, only politicians had the 'right' knowledge, integrity, etc., etc.

The idea of a non-MP PM was indeed for situations where politicians failed to resolve conflicts and an outsider would be appointed. Of course selection criteria and who would select was another point of contention. 'obviously' only politicians who couldn't agree would be able to agree on a person for the job. Talk about being realistic.

Meechai is referring to the person selected as PM and the problems emerging in 1992. Of course 23 years later none of the 'power groups' have really evolved much, democracy wise.

Obviously a non elected PM is undemocratic.There are two aspects here - elected by a constituency and having majority support in parliament.Personally I would be relaxed about a PM who was not elected (whether appointed or party list) provided he could command majority support in a parliament where the great proportion of members had been democratically elected.However it remains the case that a non elected PM is not ideal

Proportional representation isn't really relevant.There can be democracy with or without it.

Thailand must get away from the poisonous idea ( given the disastrous record ) that outsiders can step in to solve political disputes.However messy it's up to elected representatives to solve problems.

The outsider PM is another lever for the military/elite to pull, ... that's all. That's why they won't "get away" from it as you say.

It's interesting that vote-buying, which clearly does not work, is so lampooned by the royalist elites, when it is clearly so much easier to buy-off MPs in order to change the government. The former doesn't work, and the latter worked rather well in 2008.

The outsider PM worked well a month ago in Greece, fully democratic as well.

Anyway, the vote buying seems to have moved from payment now to payment later. That's regarding the voters, lured by unsustainable policies like the RPPS. Politicians in Thailand have always been bought before and after elections. Before by being 'induced' to join a party, after by having the 'freedom' to 'recover' costs incured while 'serving' the public.

Served rather well in 2011. Of course for some that's still no reason to reform the system.

[phoenixdoglover]

I thought this was odd in the OP:

"As for the progress in charter writing, the CDC yesterday discussed the frameworks on which to base mechanisms to restructure and drive the economy and society, which includes a mechanism to prevent the use of any public administration as a means to develop political popularity or populist policies."

As always, it's difficult to know if the translation missed something. But I would like to point out that it is a main feature of most democracies (probably most governments of any type) that the people in power use "public administration" to institute their favored policies, which they hope will benefit the electorate, and thus lead to popularity and the people in power being re-elected. I also think there is no clear distinction between a good idea that benefits a large group of citizens, and a "populist policy" that benefits a large group as well.

After all, the definition of populist is simply: "a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people", and "of or relating to a populist or populists."

The distinction should be between successful and unsuccessful policies, whether populist or not.

And the primary balancing act for unsuccessful policy is the rejection of bad policy-makers at the ballot box; something which might take a few election cycles to achieve.

Edited October 18, 2015 by phoenixdoglover