Thai charter: Premier won't need to be an MP, drafters say

[webfact]

NEW CHARTER
Premier won't need to be an MP, drafters say
THE NATION

But candidate will need the backing of lower House Mps : CDC

BANGKOK: -- CHARTER writers yesterday agreed to allow a non-elected MP to become the prime minister, but only via election by the House of Representatives.

"We must leave room in case the country is hit by the same political impasse again,'' said Amorn Wanichwiwatana, spokesman for the Constitution Drafting Commission.

Apichart Sukhagganond, chairman of the sub-committee on executive structure, had submitted to the CDC his committee's analysis of the disadvantages and advantages of three executive systems - parliamentary, absolute separation of power, and a mixture of centralisation and absolute separation of power.

The CDC opted for the parliamentary system, with the premier as head of the executive branch. The prime minister can be either an MP or a non-elected individual supported by the House of Representatives.

The CDC believes that a new legal mechanism must be established to ensure that the lower house selects the prime minister. The CDC assigned the committee to look into suitable methods of selecting the prime minister and t submit its study later.

Amorn said the CDC could not rule out a recurrence of the political crisis that paralysed the country before the coup on May 22 of last year.

The new charter would not replicate Article 7 of the 2007 version that left open a legal avenue for a royally appointed prime minister.

The CDC had yet to decide how many MP votes would be needed to win the election for prime minister.

Some CDC members had pressed for both legislative chambers to vote on the prime minister.

Single-ballot electoral system

The CDC also decided to go with a single-ballot electoral system after reviewing the studies on one ballot versus two ballots presented by the committee on legislative structure.

The studies showed that, with a two-ballot system, constituents vote twice -- once for a constituency MP and once for their preferred party, which would determine party-list MPs.

The constituency MP can come from a different party than the preferred party.

This would weaken political parties because there is no link between them and constituency MPs.

Past elections showed that a winning constituency MP received up to 50,000-60,000 votes, but preferred party votes reached only about 10,000 in those constituencies.

Using a single ballot would strengthen the party system because voters would have to compare strengths and weaknesses between constituency MPs and parties.

Political parties must find the best candidates to field in constituencies. Both party-list and MP candidates must be strong.

Managing a single-ballot system is also convenient and efficient as it reduces the number of spoiled ballots. Having two ballots would result in more invalid voting cards in the case where a party fields only constituency MP candidates and not party-list candidates or vice versa. This is because voters tick boxes that have no candidates or parties.

Past elections showed that spoiled ballots number about two million in constituency voting and 1.7 million in party voting.

The single-ballot system needs only seven per polling station, not nine, as they do not have to count two ballots. That would save Bt200 million in personnel expenses.

Adding up to Bt66 million in savings on printing ballots and Bt10 million for ballot boxes and other expenses brings the total to Bt676 million.

Vote counting is also faster and opinion polls show people favour the single ballot system.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Probe-into-Army-park-30272683.html


-- The Nation 2015-11-11

[candide]

So it's back. What next? Dominantly unelected Senate? Appointed assemblies and committees ready for "coup without coup"? They tried to do something that looks innovative such as the MMA system, but soon the good old recipes come back....

[BSJ]

Stupid must be a mist that wafts through the minds of some people involved in this charter writing committee. There can be no other answer!

[FangFerang]

It's an imminence front, it's an imminence front--it's a put on...it's a put on -- Who said that?

Well, now it's clear that the political coup will reign supreme forever, amen.

Sutwerp got his wish after all.

Edited November 11, 2015 by FangFerang

[phoenixdoglover]

"We must leave room in case the country is hit by the same political impasse again,'' said Amorn Wanichwiwatana, spokesman for the Constitution Drafting Commission.

Ridiculous. The Charter need only specify that the PM be an MP (elected from the House). According to the draft Charter, there are between 450 and 470 members of the House. Surely there is no real impasse when there are potentially 450 choices for PM. There only needs to be a process for facilitating the selection should a simple vote be insufficient. For example, in the event the vote does not achieve a simple majority of eligible members, the vote could be recast as a simple majority of those present. This would prevent a boycott from indefinitely delaying the selection. Many similar options are available...none of them require the pool of candidates to extend beyond the elected House.

[chainarong]

The CDC should be abolished , this is counter to what the people want , another stupid idea to be thrown out as the Junta stalls for more wasted time , it is disappointing that these people are charged with the Draft don't seem to get the message, and on top of that they talk of a Premier and a Prime Minister , are we talking of two individuals or one and it is a misinterpretation by the media, as sometimes the Prime Minister is ref to as Premier, however in this context it is important to get this right otherwise we might end up with 2 heads and they are silly enough now with one head..............

[sawadee1947]

"We must leave room in case the country is hit by the same political impasse again,'' said Amorn Wanichwiwatana, spokesman for the Constitution Drafting Commission.

Ridiculous. The Charter need only specify that the PM be an MP (elected from the House). According to the draft Charter, there are between 450 and 470 members of the House. Surely there is no real impasse when there are potentially 450 choices for PM. There only needs to be a process for facilitating the selection should a simple vote be insufficient. For example, in the event the vote does not achieve a simple majority of eligible members, the vote could be recast as a simple majority of those present. This would prevent a boycott from indefinitely delaying the selection. Many similar options are available...none of them require the pool of candidates to extend beyond the elected House.

I agree with you. It's common sense and normally no need to further discussions. However you forgot where you are. There are political parties and there is an army and there is a Higher One.. That does not implement all want to achieve same.

To keep power seems to be more important than anything else. I think the proposed way by drafters will be a dead end

[LannaGuy]

Here we go... recipe for disaster

[tbthailand]

Surprise...

The CDC might be "new" but the junta hasn't gone any where, so let's not expect anything different than another turd of a constitution to be rolled for the Thai people to swallow....

[halloween]

Here we go... recipe for disaster

You could be right. A stooge for a fugitive criminal certainly was.

[halloween]

At the moment, anybody with enough money to bribe popular politicians to join his party can nominate himself, or his proxy, as PM, and unelectable criminal scum as MPs. And it's all legal.So why moan about cutting out the charade?

Edited November 11, 2015 by halloween

[WitawatWatawit]

Isn't this the same system which the sly Suchinda used to become PM in 1991? And look what happened there a few months later. (And let's not forget after the dust had settled from Black May that the military vowed there would never be another coup. !!!!!!)

I think raising this topic again is a deliberate attempt to batter the people into submission, to tire them out, to back them continually into a corner with this concept until finally they shout "Enough!", you win, can we please move on.

[jayboy]

Here we go... recipe for disaster

You could be right. A stooge for a fugitive criminal certainly was.

Congratulations on a particularly irrelevant and facile introduction of a reference to Thaksin.What would the RWNJ do without him?

The pity of it is as current developments in Thailand presage disaster, the reaction of some is to whimper meaninglessly about Thaksin.

[halloween]

Here we go... recipe for disaster

You could be right. A stooge for a fugitive criminal certainly was.

Congratulations on a particularly irrelevant and facile introduction of a reference to Thaksin.What would the RWNJ do without him?

The pity of it is as current developments in Thailand presage disaster, the reaction of some is to whimper meaninglessly about Thaksin.

Yeah, right. There was nothing wrong with the electoral system that elected Yingluk, no need for improvement. You think the suggested changes presage disaster, while others ask "how could it be worse?"

[JAG]

Here we go... recipe for disaster

You could be right. A stooge for a fugitive criminal certainly was.

Congratulations on a particularly irrelevant and facile introduction of a reference to Thaksin.What would the RWNJ do without him?

The pity of it is as current developments in Thailand presage disaster, the reaction of some is to whimper meaninglessly about Thaksin.

But, but, but Thaksin, criminal fugitive, puppet, clone, shopping, Burberry wellies, give the good General time, agenda, if you don't like it leave, civil war imminent, Issan wives......

Fell free to join in if I have missed anything - I think I have covered all the bases!

[JAG]

Here we go... recipe for disaster

You could be right. A stooge for a fugitive criminal certainly was.

Congratulations on a particularly irrelevant and facile introduction of a reference to Thaksin.What would the RWNJ do without him?

The pity of it is as current developments in Thailand presage disaster, the reaction of some is to whimper meaninglessly about Thaksin.

Yeah, right. There was nothing wrong with the electoral system that elected Yingluk, no need for improvement. You think the suggested changes presage disaster, while others ask "how could it be worse?"

That system produced a government chosen by the people. Opposition to some policies resulted in them calling an election, which would allow the people to pass their judgement. The system then failed because that election failed due to a minority, tolerated ( encouraged?) by the military and the others within the establishment, using thuggish tactics to prevent voting. Instead of ensuring that the election happened the military staged a coup and installed themselves as a government. There are no real signs (intentions?) Of returning to a democratically chosen government.

That is how it could be worse.

Edited November 11, 2015 by JAG

[Baerboxer]

Here we go... recipe for disaster

You could be right. A stooge for a fugitive criminal certainly was.

Congratulations on a particularly irrelevant and facile introduction of a reference to Thaksin.What would the RWNJ do without him?

The pity of it is as current developments in Thailand presage disaster, the reaction of some is to whimper meaninglessly about Thaksin.

But, but, but Thaksin, criminal fugitive, puppet, clone, shopping, Burberry wellies, give the good General time, agenda, if you don't like it leave, civil war imminent, Issan wives......

Fell free to join in if I have missed anything - I think I have covered all the bases!

Effectively, Thailand under PTP governance was controlled by a non elected, non MP that wasn't even eligible to stand for elections due to jumping bail to flee a criminal conviction and all those outstanding serious court cases.

Or do you still want to pretend otherwise?

Appointing a proxy puppet PM is legitimate?

Maybe they should introduce a law, if one isn't on the books, that prohibits criminal fugitives from owning political parties and paying their MPs and ministers a salary to do as told. 314-0 - classic example.

[jayboy]

Here we go... recipe for disaster

You could be right. A stooge for a fugitive criminal certainly was.

Congratulations on a particularly irrelevant and facile introduction of a reference to Thaksin.What would the RWNJ do without him?

The pity of it is as current developments in Thailand presage disaster, the reaction of some is to whimper meaninglessly about Thaksin.

Yeah, right. There was nothing wrong with the electoral system that elected Yingluk, no need for improvement. You think the suggested changes presage disaster, while others ask "how could it be worse?"

All electoral systems are capable of being improved and to that extent democracy is always work in progress .However the election system that Thailand enjoyed and which resulted in Yingluck being able to form a government was fair and reasonable, and recognised as such by both domestic and international informed opinion.

For this reason Thailand had a government under Yingluck which was legitimate in every sense giving the country international respect and status.The contrast with the current government is rather striking.

The chief problem of the Thailand electoral system for the old elites is that the wrong party keeps on winning.Hence the need to direct the courts,launch military coups, rig the constitution and above all prevent the Thai people from exercising their full democratic rights.

To suggest that what faces the country now is somehow better than before requires myopia of the first order.The situation is of course infinitely worse and recent events suggest we are on a hellish path.God knows how it will be resolved.

But one thing is certain.It will all be much more painful for the feudalists, the military gangsters, the complacent Sino Thai middle class and the entrenched capitalists all of whom have fought against democracy than it would have been if they had even a glimmer of enlightened self interest.

[Baerboxer]

That system produced a government chosen by the people. Opposition to some policies resulted in them calling an election, which would allow the people to pass their judgement. The system then failed because that election failed due to a minority, tolerated ( encouraged?) by the military and the others within the establishment, using thuggish tactics to prevent voting. Instead of ensuring that the election happened the military staged a coup and installed themselves as a government. There are no real signs (intentions?) Of returning to a democratically chosen government.

That is how it could be worse.

No it didn't. The system produced a government, chosen by the people, who sold out their integrity to a criminal. The spark that created the mass opposition and protests was the ill contrived attempt to cheat a amnesty whitewash bill through parliament so said criminal could return, free of his conviction, sentence, bail jumping, 15+ outstanding court cases and anything that might come to light. His family, friends and lackey would also have been granted whitewashes.

The Shins thought they could fool the people, manipulate the system, ignore laws ad infinitum. They found out they couldn't.

The worse scenario would be Thaksin back, whitewashed and free to build his Lee / Hun Set style autocracy with Shins dominating all facets of public life, government and making sure all businesses paid them a patronage. A one party state, enjoying the sort of democratic elections associated with Zimbabwe and Cambodia, the red militia under his appointed leaders punishing any dissidents or opponents while the Shins got even more staggeringly wealthy at the expense of the country. Lies would be used to spread only good news, any other comment would be subject to threats, law suits, intimidation and outright violence.

The Shins, their red militia and the BiB in league and in control - a much worse scenario. They'd make Marcos look like an amateur.

[lucky11]

Here we go... recipe for disaster

You could be right. A stooge for a fugitive criminal certainly was.

Congratulations on a particularly irrelevant and facile introduction of a reference to Thaksin.What would the RWNJ do without him?

The pity of it is as current developments in Thailand presage disaster, the reaction of some is to whimper meaninglessly about Thaksin.

Yeah, right. There was nothing wrong with the electoral system that elected Yingluk, no need for improvement. You think the suggested changes presage disaster, while others ask "how could it be worse?"

I just don't understand a majority of the poster's reservations about this. Surely, if the country is in crisis (just as it was when the justified bloodless coup took place following Yingluck's divisive and bloody tenure) then a 'neutral' (non-elected) citizen should be allowed to step in provided he has the majority vote of the house of representatives!! So what, if the people haven't directly elected that person by voting her/him in at the ballot box. If they are needed to sort the country out during turmoil whereby there is virtually a civil war going on between the government and opposition then does it matter whether they are an MP or not.

What it boils down to is whether they have the ability to stabilise the situation and prior experience in politics doesn't come into it.

[Baerboxer]

Yeah, right. There was nothing wrong with the electoral system that elected Yingluk, no need for improvement. You think the suggested changes presage disaster, while others ask "how could it be worse?"

All electoral systems are capable of being improved and to that extent democracy is always work in progress .However the election system that Thailand enjoyed and which resulted in Yingluck being able to form a government was fair and reasonable, and recognised as such by both domestic and international informed opinion.

For this reason Thailand had a government under Yingluck which was legitimate in every sense giving the country international respect and status.The contrast with the current government is rather striking.

The chief problem of the Thailand electoral system for the old elites is that the wrong party keeps on winning.Hence the need to direct the courts,launch military coups, rig the constitution and above all prevent the Thai people from exercising their full democratic rights.

To suggest that what faces the country now is somehow better than before requires myopia of the first order.The situation is of course infinitely worse and recent events suggest we are on a hellish path.God knows how it will be resolved.

But one thing is certain.It will all be much more painful for the feudalists, the military gangsters, the complacent Sino Thai middle class and the entrenched capitalists all of whom have fought against democracy than it would have been if they had even a glimmer of enlightened self interest.

You are either joking or deluding yourself. No country believed Yingluck was anything other than a puppet for her brother. International respect and status - more like a mixture of laughing stock and concern about where the corruption would end.

Yingluck did nothing about anything - other than be a pretty for her brothers gang.

Yes, things don't look good for the future. There needs to be massive changes in society, the justice system, and those at the top, including the Shin, don't want to give up their places in the elite strata. Fighting for the spoils is fine, but only among themselves. Actually doing something to break that model isn't happening.

The Shins are not, never will be, interested in democracy, law, justice or a fair society. Just another bunch of gangsters made good on the plight of others.

[halloween]

Yeah, right. There was nothing wrong with the electoral system that elected Yingluk, no need for improvement. You think the suggested changes presage disaster, while others ask "how could it be worse?"

All electoral systems are capable of being improved and to that extent democracy is always work in progress .However the election system that Thailand enjoyed and which resulted in Yingluck being able to form a government was fair and reasonable, and recognised as such by both domestic and international informed opinion.

For this reason Thailand had a government under Yingluck which was legitimate in every sense giving the country international respect and status.The contrast with the current government is rather striking.

The chief problem of the Thailand electoral system for the old elites is that the wrong party keeps on winning.Hence the need to direct the courts,launch military coups, rig the constitution and above all prevent the Thai people from exercising their full democratic rights.

To suggest that what faces the country now is somehow better than before requires myopia of the first order.The situation is of course infinitely worse and recent events suggest we are on a hellish path.God knows how it will be resolved.

But one thing is certain.It will all be much more painful for the feudalists, the military gangsters, the complacent Sino Thai middle class and the entrenched capitalists all of whom have fought against democracy than it would have been if they had even a glimmer of enlightened self interest.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with MPs accepting payments to vote to order, happens everywhere. Nor is there a problem with parties offering uncosted electoral bribes, allowing criminals access to cabinet meetings, nominating those facing serious charges and notoriously corrupt politicians tp party list seats.

Myopia is thinking anybody is suggesting the current government is the final result. The changes in progress are to select the next democratic government.

Edited November 11, 2015 by halloween

[jayboy]

Yeah, right. There was nothing wrong with the electoral system that elected Yingluk, no need for improvement. You think the suggested changes presage disaster, while others ask "how could it be worse?"

All electoral systems are capable of being improved and to that extent democracy is always work in progress .However the election system that Thailand enjoyed and which resulted in Yingluck being able to form a government was fair and reasonable, and recognised as such by both domestic and international informed opinion.

For this reason Thailand had a government under Yingluck which was legitimate in every sense giving the country international respect and status.The contrast with the current government is rather striking.

The chief problem of the Thailand electoral system for the old elites is that the wrong party keeps on winning.Hence the need to direct the courts,launch military coups, rig the constitution and above all prevent the Thai people from exercising their full democratic rights.

To suggest that what faces the country now is somehow better than before requires myopia of the first order.The situation is of course infinitely worse and recent events suggest we are on a hellish path.God knows how it will be resolved.

But one thing is certain.It will all be much more painful for the feudalists, the military gangsters, the complacent Sino Thai middle class and the entrenched capitalists all of whom have fought against democracy than it would have been if they had even a glimmer of enlightened self interest.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with MPs accepting payments to vote to order, happens everywhere. Nor is there a problem with parties offering uncosted electoral bribes, allowing criminals access to cabinet meetings, nominating those facing serious charges and notoriously corrupt politicians tp party list seats.

Myopia is thinking anybody is suggesting the current government is the final result. The changes in progress are to select the next democratic government.

Have you never heard of the whipping system?

I have never suggested that the form of democracy in Thailand was ideal - far from it.But compared to the current nightmare it is so much more preferable.

And if you believe that the current government has a "reform" agenda that is going to result in a democratic system acceptable to all Thais and consistent with international standards, that is an interesting point of view.Actually it is somewhat pitiable because it reveals an abysmal ignorance - possibly just denial - of what is shaping behind the scenes and beyond the scope of this forum.

[thelonius]

Yeah, right. There was nothing wrong with the electoral system that elected Yingluk, no need for improvement. You think the suggested changes presage disaster, while others ask "how could it be worse?"

I just don't understand a majority of the poster's reservations about this. Surely, if the country is in crisis (just as it was when the justified bloodless coup took place following Yingluck's divisive and bloody tenure) then a 'neutral' (non-elected) citizen should be allowed to step in provided he has the majority vote of the house of representatives!! So what, if the people haven't directly elected that person by voting her/him in at the ballot box. If they are needed to sort the country out during turmoil whereby there is virtually a civil war going on between the government and opposition then does it matter whether they are an MP or not.

What it boils down to is whether they have the ability to stabilise the situation and prior experience in politics doesn't come into it.

The country was perceived to be in "crisis" and the "solution" provided, being a supposedly "necessary" "military intervention", by the very people who had precipitated the conditions for that "crisis" in the first place.

A far better solution would have been for the Election Commission to do their job and for the courts to have allowed the caretaker government to have done theirs - and what was that job? Hold an election without interference. Simple, .................................or it should have been.

Edited November 11, 2015 by thelonius

[Thai at Heart]

Here we go... recipe for disaster

You could be right. A stooge for a fugitive criminal certainly was.

Congratulations on a particularly irrelevant and facile introduction of a reference to Thaksin.What would the RWNJ do without him?

The pity of it is as current developments in Thailand presage disaster, the reaction of some is to whimper meaninglessly about Thaksin.

Yeah, right. There was nothing wrong with the electoral system that elected Yingluk, no need for improvement. You think the suggested changes presage disaster, while others ask "how could it be worse?"

I just don't understand a majority of the poster's reservations about this. Surely, if the country is in crisis (just as it was when the justified bloodless coup took place following Yingluck's divisive and bloody tenure) then a 'neutral' (non-elected) citizen should be allowed to step in provided he has the majority vote of the house of representatives!! So what, if the people haven't directly elected that person by voting her/him in at the ballot box. If they are needed to sort the country out during turmoil whereby there is virtually a civil war going on between the government and opposition then does it matter whether they are an MP or not.

What it boils down to is whether they have the ability to stabilise the situation and prior experience in politics doesn't come into it.

Wit a weak coalition, a few promises here and there for payment to various Swiss bank accounts and hey presto a new PM can be born in a second.

How about a PM can only be appointed having previously sat as an MP before. That gets around appointing Yingluck in a trice.

[halloween]

Of course, there is nothing wrong with MPs accepting payments to vote to order, happens everywhere. Nor is there a problem with parties offering uncosted electoral bribes, allowing criminals access to cabinet meetings, nominating those facing serious charges and notoriously corrupt politicians tp party list seats.

Myopia is thinking anybody is suggesting the current government is the final result. The changes in progress are to select the next democratic government.

Have you never heard of the whipping system?

I have never suggested that the form of democracy in Thailand was ideal - far from it.But compared to the current nightmare it is so much more preferable.

And if you believe that the current government has a "reform" agenda that is going to result in a democratic system acceptable to all Thais and consistent with international standards, that is an interesting point of view.Actually it is somewhat pitiable because it reveals an abysmal ignorance - possibly just denial - of what is shaping behind the scenes and beyond the scope of this forum.

The current government is an interim while necessary reform is carried out. Why compare it? While you have doubts about the reform result, can you seriously suggest that those formerly in power would have allowed change to the way they were perverting the democratic system?

BTW condescendingly suggesting you so much more than other posters makes for poor argument. Put up or shut up.

[Wilsonandson]

Of course, there is nothing wrong with MPs accepting payments to vote to order, happens everywhere. Nor is there a problem with parties offering uncosted electoral bribes, allowing criminals access to cabinet meetings, nominating those facing serious charges and notoriously corrupt politicians tp party list seats.

Myopia is thinking anybody is suggesting the current government is the final result. The changes in progress are to select the next democratic government.

Have you never heard of the whipping system?

I have never suggested that the form of democracy in Thailand was ideal - far from it.But compared to the current nightmare it is so much more preferable.

And if you believe that the current government has a "reform" agenda that is going to result in a democratic system acceptable to all Thais and consistent with international standards, that is an interesting point of view.Actually it is somewhat pitiable because it reveals an abysmal ignorance - possibly just denial - of what is shaping behind the scenes and beyond the scope of this forum.

The current government is an interim while necessary reform is carried out. Why compare it? While you have doubts about the reform result, can you seriously suggest that those formerly in power would have allowed change to the way they were perverting the democratic system?

BTW condescendingly suggesting you so much more than other posters makes for poor argument. Put up or shut up.

Not much choice these days, so shut up we will. Carry on making up the rules as you go along. I think people are past caring, just get on with the election so we don't have to listen to anymore reform Krap.

[lucky11]

Yeah, right. There was nothing wrong with the electoral system that elected Yingluk, no need for improvement. You think the suggested changes presage disaster, while others ask "how could it be worse?"

I just don't understand a majority of the poster's reservations about this. Surely, if the country is in crisis (just as it was when the justified bloodless coup took place following Yingluck's divisive and bloody tenure) then a 'neutral' (non-elected) citizen should be allowed to step in provided he has the majority vote of the house of representatives!! So what, if the people haven't directly elected that person by voting her/him in at the ballot box. If they are needed to sort the country out during turmoil whereby there is virtually a civil war going on between the government and opposition then does it matter whether they are an MP or not.

What it boils down to is whether they have the ability to stabilise the situation and prior experience in politics doesn't come into it.

The country was perceived to be in "crisis" and the "solution" provided, being a supposedly "necessary" "military intervention", by the very people who had precipitated the conditions for that "crisis" in the first place.

A far better solution would have been for the Election Commission to do their job and for the courts to have allowed the caretaker government to have done theirs - and what was that job? Hold an election without interference. Simple, .................................or it should have been.

For whatever reason, the country WAS in a bloody crisis and it was no time for holding an election - enough people clearly thought that to be the case.

Shall we get back on topic now. Please state your reasons for questioning the charter writers inclusion of a clause that stipulates that in a crisis, someone who has not been elected an MP by the people at the ballot box should be allowed to administer the country provided they are suitably qualified and receive a majority vote of the house of representatives!!

[khunken]

Yeah, right. There was nothing wrong with the electoral system that elected Yingluk, no need for improvement. You think the suggested changes presage disaster, while others ask "how could it be worse?"

All electoral systems are capable of being improved and to that extent democracy is always work in progress .However the election system that Thailand enjoyed and which resulted in Yingluck being able to form a government was fair and reasonable, and recognised as such by both domestic and international informed opinion.

For this reason Thailand had a government under Yingluck which was legitimate in every sense giving the country international respect and status.The contrast with the current government is rather striking.

The chief problem of the Thailand electoral system for the old elites is that the wrong party keeps on winning.Hence the need to direct the courts,launch military coups, rig the constitution and above all prevent the Thai people from exercising their full democratic rights.

To suggest that what faces the country now is somehow better than before requires myopia of the first order.The situation is of course infinitely worse and recent events suggest we are on a hellish path.God knows how it will be resolved.

But one thing is certain.It will all be much more painful for the feudalists, the military gangsters, the complacent Sino Thai middle class and the entrenched capitalists all of whom have fought against democracy than it would have been if they had even a glimmer of enlightened self interest.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with MPs accepting payments to vote to order, happens everywhere. Nor is there a problem with parties offering uncosted electoral bribes, allowing criminals access to cabinet meetings, nominating those facing serious charges and notoriously corrupt politicians tp party list seats.

Myopia is thinking anybody is suggesting the current government is the final result. The changes in progress are to select the next democratic government.

Have you never heard of the whipping system?

I have never suggested that the form of democracy in Thailand was ideal - far from it.But compared to the current nightmare it is so much more preferable.

And if you believe that the current government has a "reform" agenda that is going to result in a democratic system acceptable to all Thais and consistent with international standards, that is an interesting point of view.Actually it is somewhat pitiable because it reveals an abysmal ignorance - possibly just denial - of what is shaping behind the scenes and beyond the scope of this forum.

No constitution or electoral system is going to be acceptable to all Thais but they will have a chance to accept it or not. Nor does it have to conform to 'international standards' because there aren't any.

What is pitiable is that you have to resort to accusing others of not knowing what is 'shaping behind the scenes' - a cowardly way of avoiding discussion based on what's out in the open.

I don't like the latest system of voting but I do think the focus on an unelected PM (not a million miles from a party-list PM) is just an excuse for junta-bashing.

[jayboy]

Yeah, right. There was nothing wrong with the electoral system that elected Yingluk, no need for improvement. You think the suggested changes presage disaster, while others ask "how could it be worse?"

All electoral systems are capable of being improved and to that extent democracy is always work in progress .However the election system that Thailand enjoyed and which resulted in Yingluck being able to form a government was fair and reasonable, and recognised as such by both domestic and international informed opinion.

For this reason Thailand had a government under Yingluck which was legitimate in every sense giving the country international respect and status.The contrast with the current government is rather striking.

The chief problem of the Thailand electoral system for the old elites is that the wrong party keeps on winning.Hence the need to direct the courts,launch military coups, rig the constitution and above all prevent the Thai people from exercising their full democratic rights.

To suggest that what faces the country now is somehow better than before requires myopia of the first order.The situation is of course infinitely worse and recent events suggest we are on a hellish path.God knows how it will be resolved.

But one thing is certain.It will all be much more painful for the feudalists, the military gangsters, the complacent Sino Thai middle class and the entrenched capitalists all of whom have fought against democracy than it would have been if they had even a glimmer of enlightened self interest.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with MPs accepting payments to vote to order, happens everywhere. Nor is there a problem with parties offering uncosted electoral bribes, allowing criminals access to cabinet meetings, nominating those facing serious charges and notoriously corrupt politicians tp party list seats.

Myopia is thinking anybody is suggesting the current government is the final result. The changes in progress are to select the next democratic government.

Have you never heard of the whipping system?

I have never suggested that the form of democracy in Thailand was ideal - far from it.But compared to the current nightmare it is so much more preferable.

And if you believe that the current government has a "reform" agenda that is going to result in a democratic system acceptable to all Thais and consistent with international standards, that is an interesting point of view.Actually it is somewhat pitiable because it reveals an abysmal ignorance - possibly just denial - of what is shaping behind the scenes and beyond the scope of this forum.

No constitution or electoral system is going to be acceptable to all Thais but they will have a chance to accept it or not. Nor does it have to conform to 'international standards' because there aren't any.

What is pitiable is that you have to resort to accusing others of not knowing what is 'shaping behind the scenes' - a cowardly way of avoiding discussion based on what's out in the open.

I don't like the latest system of voting but I do think the focus on an unelected PM (not a million miles from a party-list PM) is just an excuse for junta-bashing.

It's clear you simply don't grasp the issues here relating to the appointment of a non elected PM.If you are suggesting that Yingluck as a party list member is more or less the same as a non elected PM that verges on the absurd - because it avoids the reality that the people of Thailand voted in a government of which they knew Yingluck would be the leader.Slightly different from having some stooge of the elites thrust into office without legitimacy or accountability.

And as for cowardice on my part don't be a jerk.It's difficult enough to attempt a rational political discussion on this forum without breaking the rules or bothering the mods.Some things just can't be discussed here.