'Public wants party-list MPs retained'

[rooster59]

'Public wants party-list MPs retained'

BANGKOK: Survey also finds that people prefer elected senators

MOST people favour having party-list MPs and want senators who are directly elected, according to a Bangkok Poll released yesterday.

The survey titled "What do the people think about party-list MPs and the election of senators?"' was conducted on 1,192 people and found that 57 per cent of respondents do not want to have party-list MPs abolished. They reasoned that the system helps people who are knowledgeable but no good at winning MP seats through election campaigning.

Some 31 per cent of respondents said they wanted party-list MPs scrapped, as they did not want capitalists supporting political parties, while 11 per cent were not sure.

For senators, 58 per cent believed they should be directly elected by the people, 25 per cent said they should be both directly and indirectly elected, nine per cent said they should be indirectly elected by professional groups, 4 per cent want them appointed and 3 per cent said they were not sure.

Some 61 per cent believed having direct elections for senators was a better way to get competent and qualified people than indirect elections, 24 per cent believed indirect elections were better, while 14 per cent were not sure.

Asked who should have the duty to impeach political office holders, 52 per cent said related independent agencies, 35 per cent said senators and 13 per cent were unsure.

Former charter writer Paiboon Nititawan supports the Constitution Drafting Commission's move to have senators indirectly elected by diverse groups of legal bodies and professionals, reasoning that this method would help get senators with a great diversity and not only those from the military and police force.

He said the CDC should follow what was stipulated in the rejected charter draft by the Borwornsak CDC - that legal bodies with the right to elect senators must have been established no less than three years. This would prevent politicians from establishing new legal bodies to have the right to elect senators, he said.

Paiboon said the qualifications of senators should be as stipulated in the 2007 Charter and the term limited to three years so they do not serve longer than MPs.

Senators should not be allowed to serve two consecutive terms. They should be allowed to rerun after taking one term off, he added.

He said an indirect election of senators by legal bodies and professional groups should materialise immediately after the charter takes effect and not as stipulated in the provisional chapter - that the first set of senators should be appointed according to the CDC's wishes.

Paiboon supports the move to deprive senators of the right to impeach politicians and give that right to the Constitutional Court.

Former Senate speaker Nikom Wairatpanij disapproves of the proposal to have senators indirectly elected by legal bodies and professional groups, reasoning that he would be concerned that people nominated by these groups would be unqualified and incompetent.

He said these groups should nominate senators and let the public decide.

The Election Commission must clearly identify the qualifications needed to be a Senate candidate.

Nikom agreed with depriving the Senate of the right to impeach politicians but did not want the Constitutional Court to have the power.

He said the Supreme Court's Political Division for Political Officer Holders should have this responsibility because the Supreme Court had clearer court procedures than the Constitutional Court.

Meanwhile CDC member Thitipan Chuabunchai said a public hearing on the charter draft to be held in Hat Yai today would seek opinions on key issues: desired rights; the liberty and duties of the people; the desired responsibilities of the state; the desired election systems; the desired distribution of power; and the desired national reforms.

An online survey will be conducted so that people who do not attend the public hearing can offer their opinion.

Thitipan said the CDC would not seek opinions about charter content that have been settled or are being considered such as how to calculate the number of MPs for each party from the one-ballot election system.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Public-wants-party-list-MPs-retained-30273923.html

-- The Nation 2015-11-29

[NongKhaiKid]

How convenient and of course 1,192 people are highly representative.

It helps people who are knowledgeable but no good at winning seats through election campaigning.

Yes, and it helps people like Chalerm who are just no good.

[worgeordie]

Most of these party-list MPs would be party financiers,who

i am sure would be there to recoup any outlay,and more,

having un-elected MPs,is just not Democratic,and surely

the people must know this,or is that just expecting a bit too

much,when so much money is spent buying votes.and accepting

the bribes.

regards Worgeordie

[Wombat6]

Supporting the "Party List" system of MP's is supporting cronyism,probable corruption and is totally undemocratic. The last PM was a Party list person and she was totally incpmpetant to perform the required duries. Does Thailand really want 200 bumbling MP's who bought their seats to be in Government. The only way forward is for all members of Parliament to be elected by the citizens of Thailand.

[pedro01]

60.000,000 in the country. The opinions of 1192 do not represent "what the public wants".

Utter nonsense.

Also - funny how we never get to hear how the question was phrased, what other questions were asked, who carried out the poll (and who funds them) etc...

And this passes for news/journalism in this country? Pathetic.

[Srikcir]

60.000,000 in the country. The opinions of 1192 do not represent "what the public wants".

Utter nonsense.

Also - funny how we never get to hear how the question was phrased, what other questions were asked, who carried out the poll (and who funds them) etc...

And this passes for news/journalism in this country? Pathetic.

Notice that there is only a reference to "The survey?"

Usually the surveys are conducted by NIDA that always seem to produce Junta favorable responses. Unlike this survey. So who conducted this survey? The only further reference I can find is a "Bangkok poll."

[Srikcir]

"the CDC would not seek opinions about charter content that have been settled"

Charter content will not be settled until it passes a public referendum.

[oztaurus]

60.000,000 in the country. The opinions of 1192 do not represent "what the public wants".

Utter nonsense.

Also - funny how we never get to hear how the question was phrased, what other questions were asked, who carried out the poll (and who funds them) etc...

And this passes for news/journalism in this country? Pathetic.

While I agree that the way the question was phrased will significantly modify the outcome, a properly randomized sample of 1192 people would actually give a statistically relevant result.

The question is of course - how did they select the sample?

http://www.pollingreport.com/ncpp.htm

This website explains it well.

"There are about 200 million adult or voting-age Americans. But the average poll has a sample size of 1,000 adults."

"A reliable sample selects poll respondents randomly or in a manner that insures that everyone in the area being surveyed has a known chance of being selected."

"Conducting a poll only between 9 AM and 5 PM, which excludes the opinions of most working people. Another is a poll based on a sample that selects itself, such as a radio station call-in poll, which rules out people not caring to respond or not even listening to the station. Other examples of self-selected samples are poll questions that appear in newspapers, on web pages, and in magazines, or any poll likely to have a high percentage of members of the general public not able or not motivated to make the effort to respond. In these cases, people who choose to respond are likely to differ from others who do not respond. "

[Stan7444]

60.000,000 in the country. The opinions of 1192 do not represent "what the public wants".

Utter nonsense.

Also - funny how we never get to hear how the question was phrased, what other questions were asked, who carried out the poll (and who funds them) etc...

And this passes for news/journalism in this country? Pathetic.

While I agree that the way the question was phrased will significantly modify the outcome, a properly randomized sample of 1192 people would actually give a statistically relevant result.

The question is of course - how did they select the sample?

http://www.pollingreport.com/ncpp.htm

This website explains it well.

"There are about 200 million adult or voting-age Americans. But the average poll has a sample size of 1,000 adults."

"A reliable sample selects poll respondents randomly or in a manner that insures that everyone in the area being surveyed has a known chance of being selected."

"Conducting a poll only between 9 AM and 5 PM, which excludes the opinions of most working people. Another is a poll based on a sample that selects itself, such as a radio station call-in poll, which rules out people not caring to respond or not even listening to the station. Other examples of self-selected samples are poll questions that appear in newspapers, on web pages, and in magazines, or any poll likely to have a high percentage of members of the general public not able or not motivated to make the effort to respond. In these cases, people who choose to respond are likely to differ from others who do not respond. "

Good comments. Only issue which I have is after spending over 50 years in the US I have never been contacted in any way to participate in a poll nor have any of my friends or family consisting of close to 100 different people. Seems like the odds of participation in any poll are slim and never.

[thelonius]

Supporting the "Party List" system of MP's is supporting cronyism,probable corruption and is totally undemocratic. The last PM was a Party list person and she was totally incpmpetant to perform the required duries. Does Thailand really want 200 bumbling MP's who bought their seats to be in Government. The only way forward is for all members of Parliament to be elected by the citizens of Thailand.

Abhisit was on the party list for the 2001 and 2005 elections. He lost a parliamentary vote to become PM to Samak 310 - 163, and when they got rid of him, Abhisit went on to lose to Somchai 298 - 163. He only became PM after Army General Anupong engineered the defection of the Friends of Newin Group. Abhisit amended the constitution increasing the number of party list MP's from 80 to 125 just before the 2011 Election in an attempt to heighten the Dems chances of winning it and then he managed to lose that as well.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of a parliamentary success, Party List MP or not, and yet you choose to focus on Yingluck Shinawatra?

[Wombat6]

Supporting the "Party List" system of MP's is supporting cronyism,probable corruption and is totally undemocratic. The last PM was a Party list person and she was totally incpmpetant to perform the required duries. Does Thailand really want 200 bumbling MP's who bought their seats to be in Government. The only way forward is for all members of Parliament to be elected by the citizens of Thailand.

Abhisit was on the party list for the 2001 and 2005 elections. He lost a parliamentary vote to become PM to Samak 310 - 163, and when they got rid of him, Abhisit went on to lose to Somchai 298 - 163. He only became PM after Army General Anupong engineered the defection of the Friends of Newin Group. Abhisit amended the constitution increasing the number of party list MP's from 80 to 125 just before the 2011 Election in an attempt to heighten the Dems chances of winning it and then he managed to lose that as well.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of a parliamentary success, Party List MP or not, and yet you choose to focus on Yingluck Shinawatra?

i wouldn't like any MP to be elected via the Party list including Abhisit. Even so, the reason why I mention Yingluck is that she is/ was the least qualified and incompetant person to be placed on a Party list and an example of what is not needed in this form of election.

[Thai at Heart]

Oh really. And do they have any real understanding of the rights and wrongs of such a system.

Who cooks up these polls. All the people are so ill informed it's ridiculous.

Compare this with the massive coverage of Corbyn deciding what to do with voting on Syria. Newspapers, TV, radio all devoted to the process and consequences of this decision for days.

But, ok, Thais like party list Mps.... Why? Mai roo krapom.

[billd766]

Supporting the "Party List" system of MP's is supporting cronyism,probable corruption and is totally undemocratic. The last PM was a Party list person and she was totally incpmpetant to perform the required duries. Does Thailand really want 200 bumbling MP's who bought their seats to be in Government. The only way forward is for all members of Parliament to be elected by the citizens of Thailand.

Abhisit was on the party list for the 2001 and 2005 elections. He lost a parliamentary vote to become PM to Samak 310 - 163, and when they got rid of him, Abhisit went on to lose to Somchai 298 - 163. He only became PM after Army General Anupong engineered the defection of the Friends of Newin Group. Abhisit amended the constitution increasing the number of party list MP's from 80 to 125 just before the 2011 Election in an attempt to heighten the Dems chances of winning it and then he managed to lose that as well.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of a parliamentary success, Party List MP or not, and yet you choose to focus on Yingluck Shinawatra?

At least Abhisit has had experience both as an MP and a PM.

Yingluck Shinawatra had 2 things going for her.

1 Her family name

2 Her brother owned the PTP

As for parliamentary experience, she had none.

IMHO the party list MP system should be abandoned completely and every person who wishes to become an MP must stand for an election in a constituency. Ministers and the PM must come from elected MPs, ( they keep their constituency seat and NO replacements would be allowed) and if any MP wants to jump parties they should first resign the constituency seat, then stand in a bye election, the cost of which should be paid for personally

by the resigning MP.

[halloween]

Supporting the "Party List" system of MP's is supporting cronyism,probable corruption and is totally undemocratic. The last PM was a Party list person and she was totally incpmpetant to perform the required duries. Does Thailand really want 200 bumbling MP's who bought their seats to be in Government. The only way forward is for all members of Parliament to be elected by the citizens of Thailand.

Abhisit was on the party list for the 2001 and 2005 elections. He lost a parliamentary vote to become PM to Samak 310 - 163, and when they got rid of him, Abhisit went on to lose to Somchai 298 - 163. He only became PM after Army General Anupong engineered the defection of the Friends of Newin Group. Abhisit amended the constitution increasing the number of party list MP's from 80 to 125 just before the 2011 Election in an attempt to heighten the Dems chances of winning it and then he managed to lose that as well.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of a parliamentary success, Party List MP or not, and yet you choose to focus on Yingluck Shinawatra?

At least Abhisit has had experience both as an MP and a PM.

Yingluck Shinawatra had 2 things going for her.

1 Her family name

2 Her brother owned the PTP

As for parliamentary experience, she had none.

IMHO the party list MP system should be abandoned completely and every person who wishes to become an MP must stand for an election in a constituency. Ministers and the PM must come from elected MPs, ( they keep their constituency seat and NO replacements would be allowed) and if any MP wants to jump parties they should first resign the constituency seat, then stand in a bye election, the cost of which should be paid for personally

by the resigning MP.

Given her parliamentary attendance, her experience rating would now stand at "very little".