Panel proposes axing party-list MPs, expert doubts CDC will support it

[webfact]

Panel proposes axing party-list MPs, expert doubts CDC will support it
KASAMAKORN CHANWANPEN
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- THE political reform panel under the National Reform Steering Assembly (NSRA) proposed yesterday that party-list MPs be cut from politics to prevent influence from financiers. Chairman Seri Suwanpanont met Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) yesterday to submit the plan for consideration and inclusion in the new charter.

The Lower House, he said, should be made up of constituency MPs only, elected from large wards under single-member districts. That would, in theory, make vote-buying more difficult.

The party-list system should be dropped because lists were often filled with greedy people who invest to enter politics and seek to profit, he said.

The party-list system was introduced in the 1997 Constitution. The motive was to give decent and capable people, who are often politically naive and have a lower chance of winning than "professional" electoral candidates, a place in politics. It was believed that people like academics, activists and civil servants would be able to contribute greatly. Party-list MPs often got ministerial posts.

But the problem has been that political parties reserved places on the list for their financiers, who used ministerial positions to protect their interests rather than the public's. Hence, many believe the system could be a source of corruption.

A political scientist from Tham-masat University Attasit Pankaew said that it was usual to have groups who pursue personal interests in politics but it was a difficult issue to tackle. It was impossible to block them, he believed.

Despite the move to eliminate the party-list system, they could still find a way to retain influence, including via constituency MPs, he said. One way or another, it was inevitable that MPs would be connected with those interest groups. Thus, the political reform panel's proposal yesterday might not be the answer, he added.

Party-list MPs also are theoretically significant in national politics. They were supposed to make a difference as they have higher potential to implement policies with an impact on a greater number of people, because constituency MPs work more on a local level representing their geographic areas, Attasit said.

However, while it is natural that interest groups in politics will try to protect their interests, the practice could be limited with transparency, Attasit argued. Mechanisms to help protect the public interest could include reporting requirements about each party's financial sources, or other measures that would inform the public about who exactly benefits from each party's policies, he said.

But above everything, the composition of the House depends on the electoral system. Attasit said if the CDC were to recommend a Mixed-Member Apportionment system, MPs from both constituencies and the party lists would be required. A House composed solely of constituency MPs could only be allowed with a first-past-the-post system, he said. As a result, Attasit argued that the CDC would not adopt the proposal to drop the party-list system.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Panel-proposes-axing-party-list-MPs-expert-doubts--30275391.html


-- The Nation 2015-12-22

[billd766]

IMHO it would be one of the best things that could be done.

If you want to be an MP then stand for election in a constituency and if you win, good for you.

But to have someone as an MP representing nobody but the party, and with no political experience necessary, just being rich or having a "name or face" makes a mockery out of a "democratic" election.

[halloween]

IMHO it would be one of the best things that could be done.

If you want to be an MP then stand for election in a constituency and if you win, good for you.

But to have someone as an MP representing nobody but the party, and with no political experience necessary, just being rich or having a "name or face" makes a mockery out of a "democratic" election.

With a few billion baht, you can buy enough popular constituency candidates to join your party, and buy your way to be PM. Any additional votes can be used to appoint your criminal crony scum, and reward the mercenary agitators who push your propaganda to the populace. And call it democracy.

[billd766]

IMHO it would be one of the best things that could be done.

If you want to be an MP then stand for election in a constituency and if you win, good for you.

But to have someone as an MP representing nobody but the party, and with no political experience necessary, just being rich or having a "name or face" makes a mockery out of a "democratic" election.

With a few billion baht, you can buy enough popular constituency candidates to join your party, and buy your way to be PM. Any additional votes can be used to appoint your criminal crony scum, and reward the mercenary agitators who push your propaganda to the populace. And call it democracy.

At least you don't get in for free.

[Srikcir]

NSRA might as well recommend a one-party system led by a military politburo. It would at least be honest in the kind of governance it really wants for Thailand and one that keeps surfacing about every four years in any event.

[seajae]

seems the red/thaksin/ptp supporters will be the main ones complaining about this, thats how most of their criminal/terrorist members get into power. If they had to be voted in they would fail miserably, the people need representitives that will do what they want, not what the big boss wants

[scorecard]

IMHO it would be one of the best things that could be done.

If you want to be an MP then stand for election in a constituency and if you win, good for you.

But to have someone as an MP representing nobody but the party, and with no political experience necessary, just being rich or having a "name or face" makes a mockery out of a "democratic" election.

"IMHO it would be one of the best things that could be done.

If you want to be an MP then stand for election in a constituency and if you win, good for you".

Well said however I would like to add a bit more:

- All parties required to register a detailed manifesto of their beliefs and their objectives, with the party overall and all individual successful politicians required to lodge a compulsory public report of what has been achieved in line with their stated manifesto, perhaps every 6 months, and perhaps even explain why funds have been spent of items outside of the main big picture manifesto.