Public opinion to determine national reform strategy

BANGKOK, 11 January 2016 (NNT) - The National Reform Steering Assembly (NRSA) committee for state administration will collect public opinions as a way to determine the national strategy for Thailand's future.

The NRSA committee's chairperson Pol Maj Yongyuth Sarasombath will preside over a seminar held at Parliament on January 16. The seminar is expected to help the committee develop a clearer plan that will cover every aspect of national growth.

The plan must be accepted by all future governments and involve every sector to ensure continuous and successful development over a minimum period of two decades. To this end, Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha has endorsed the appointment of a committee to draft the national strategy.

Meanwhile, the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) will consider appointing 24 individuals to the standing committee for peaceful society this week. Four members of the committee will be selected from the legislature and the remaining 10 will come from other agencies. The committee will have 180 days to devise guidelines to promote peace and unity in Thai society.


-- NNT 2016-01-11

funny how it doesn't work to just use "public participation"...

funny how it doesn't work to just use "public participation"...

Well, the various commission asked for participation, but it would seem the political parties and grassroots like the UDD declined.

funny how it doesn't work to just use "public participation"...

Well, the various commission asked for participation, but it would seem the political parties and grassroots like the UDD declined.

Perhaps cos they don't want to be forced into/locked into policies for the next 20 years that they don't agree with.

I fail to see how a seminar at Parliament is collecting public opinions. This is just one Junta-appointed group getting input from another Junta-appointed group.

So they are saying even in this OP that this will never help or achieve anything when they say this plan must be accepted by all future governments. Hehee!

The plan must be accepted by all future governments!

funny how it doesn't work to just use "public participation"...

Well, the various commission asked for participation, but it would seem the political parties and grassroots like the UDD declined.

Perhaps cos they don't want to be forced into/locked into policies for the next 20 years that they don't agree with.

Perhaps because at least one side was ordered by an 'off shore' figure to non-obstruct by non-participation?

false front, ... again.

funny how it doesn't work to just use "public participation"...

Well, the various commission asked for participation, but it would seem the political parties and grassroots like the UDD declined.

Perhaps cos they don't want to be forced into/locked into policies for the next 20 years that they don't agree with.

Perhaps because at least one side was ordered by an 'off shore' figure to non-obstruct by non-participation?

And ? What about all the other political parties, are they being run from Dubai as well now ? Tatsujin makes an excellent point. Which as usual has been completely ignored by you. Everything is being done to make this joke acceptable, even if it quite clearly isn't.

Democracy Junta style.

Well, the various commission asked for participation, but it would seem the political parties and grassroots like the UDD declined.

Perhaps cos they don't want to be forced into/locked into policies for the next 20 years that they don't agree with.

Perhaps because at least one side was ordered by an 'off shore' figure to non-obstruct by non-participation?

And ? What about all the other political parties, are they being run from Dubai as well now ? Tatsujin makes an excellent point. Which as usual has been completely ignored by you. Everything is being done to make this joke acceptable, even if it quite clearly isn't.

Democracy Junta style.

There is a valid, alternative effort to draft a real constitution... just that the junta is not involved...

Well, the various commission asked for participation, but it would seem the political parties and grassroots like the UDD declined.

Perhaps cos they don't want to be forced into/locked into policies for the next 20 years that they don't agree with.

Perhaps because at least one side was ordered by an 'off shore' figure to non-obstruct by non-participation?

And ? What about all the other political parties, are they being run from Dubai as well now ? Tatsujin makes an excellent point. Which as usual has been completely ignored by you. Everything is being done to make this joke acceptable, even if it quite clearly isn't.

Democracy Junta style.

If I understand some posters correctly the Democrat Party has provided a lot of input in possible reforms through the PDRC. Of course it may well be that the government chose to ignore all those good ideas from the PDRC. The two other larger political parties seem either aligned with Pheu THai or with the Democrat Party.

Perhaps because at least one side was ordered by an 'off shore' figure to non-obstruct by non-participation?

And ? What about all the other political parties, are they being run from Dubai as well now ? Tatsujin makes an excellent point. Which as usual has been completely ignored by you. Everything is being done to make this joke acceptable, even if it quite clearly isn't.

Democracy Junta style.

There is a valid, alternative effort to draft a real constitution... just that the junta is not involved...

An interesting alternative although the article is too short with not many details to judge if the result will be a 'real' constitution. It will be heavy on freedoms it seems, but nothing on duties.

Interesting is "how to ensure that court verdicts can be earnestly criticized". I assume they mean to suggest that the public has a better understanding of the law.

funny how it doesn't work to just use "public participation"...

Well, the various commission asked for participation, but it would seem the political parties and grassroots like the UDD declined.

Perhaps cos they don't want to be forced into/locked into policies for the next 20 years that they don't agree with.

Perhaps because at least one side was ordered by an 'off shore' figure to non-obstruct by non-participation?

The old "But but Thaksin" excuse again. Easy to say, now prove it!

Perhaps cos they don't want to be forced into/locked into policies for the next 20 years that they don't agree with.

Perhaps because at least one side was ordered by an 'off shore' figure to non-obstruct by non-participation?

The old "But but Thaksin" excuse again. Easy to say, now prove it!

Prove the Pheu Thai party chose not to participate? Prove the UDD chose not to participate?

Difficult, even in September 2015 the owner of Pheu Thai and de-facto leader of the red-shirts told his followers to 'play dead'. So, I'm having problems proving both Pheu Thai and red-shirts 'chose' rather than actually just followed orders.

I wonder if this emphasis on defining reform strategy for the next 20 years is not away to hide their inability to actually reform anything (apart for trying to reform the political system with the aim of giving more power to appointed people versus elected people). Kind of getting away from their political platform by stating very general directions such as "reduce inequality", "provide good and fair education", "promote harmony", blah blah etc...

We've seen the PDRC campaigning for "reform before election", followed by the military, and none of them ever explained the reforms they intended to implement.

My guess is that they had no idea of the reforms they were allegedly basing their political action on. And are still unable to reform anything for the same reason.

So they hide this inability by creating committees, defining principles for the next 20 years, etc....

I wonder if this emphasis on defining reform strategy for the next 20 years is not away to hide their inability to actually reform anything (apart for trying to reform the political system with the aim of giving more power to appointed people versus elected people). Kind of getting away from their political platform by stating very general directions such as "reduce inequality", "provide good and fair education", "promote harmony", blah blah etc...

We've seen the PDRC campaigning for "reform before election", followed by the military, and none of them ever explained the reforms they intended to implement.

My guess is that they had no idea of the reforms they were allegedly basing their political action on. And are still unable to reform anything for the same reason.

So they hide this inability by creating committees, defining principles for the next 20 years, etc....

With so many areas needing reform the acceptance of the population of reforms will take time. Same like reorganisations in companies. People know something needs to be done, but are reluctant to make the painful decisions. Also as a group people tend to be conservative in the sense of resisting changes.

A proper education model and proper execution of the education model seems the only way, but that's slow. In a way we're talking about a new generation.

There is a valid, alternative effort to draft a real constitution... just that the junta is not involved...

And ? What about all the other political parties, are they being run from Dubai as well now ? Tatsujin makes an excellent point. Which as usual has been completely ignored by you. Everything is being done to make this joke acceptable, even if it quite clearly isn't.

Democracy Junta style.

Agree with the 'how to ensure that court verdicts can be earnestly criticized (scrutinised) and more' disagree with the banning of the hijab being 'religious oppression'. Neither the hijab nor the burqa have anything whatsoever to do with the Muslim religion. It's a 'tribal' thing.

I wonder if this emphasis on defining reform strategy for the next 20 years is not away to hide their inability to actually reform anything (apart for trying to reform the political system with the aim of giving more power to appointed people versus elected people). Kind of getting away from their political platform by stating very general directions such as "reduce inequality", "provide good and fair education", "promote harmony", blah blah etc...

We've seen the PDRC campaigning for "reform before election", followed by the military, and none of them ever explained the reforms they intended to implement.

My guess is that they had no idea of the reforms they were allegedly basing their political action on. And are still unable to reform anything for the same reason.

So they hide this inability by creating committees, defining principles for the next 20 years, etc....

The reforms they're aiming for are obvious; A weak elected government controlled by unelected people.

I wonder if this emphasis on defining reform strategy for the next 20 years is not away to hide their inability to actually reform anything (apart for trying to reform the political system with the aim of giving more power to appointed people versus elected people). Kind of getting away from their political platform by stating very general directions such as "reduce inequality", "provide good and fair education", "promote harmony", blah blah etc...

We've seen the PDRC campaigning for "reform before election", followed by the military, and none of them ever explained the reforms they intended to implement.

My guess is that they had no idea of the reforms they were allegedly basing their political action on. And are still unable to reform anything for the same reason.

So they hide this inability by creating committees, defining principles for the next 20 years, etc....

I think you are correct. The lack of definition or accomplishment in the near term gives rise to all sorts of hand waving.

Moreover, what governments of the world actually plan and execute on a 20-year time scale? Even authoritarian governments (China!) tend to bite off only 5 year chunks. And what stakeholder group in Thailand actually asked for 20-year plans? I was not aware that there was much clamor for that.

The current government at times appears to not have the vaguest idea of how to govern, nor how other countries do things. Instead, it feels like the army internal management playbook is being force fit (poorly) to some general government situations.

I wonder if this emphasis on defining reform strategy for the next 20 years is not away to hide their inability to actually reform anything (apart for trying to reform the political system with the aim of giving more power to appointed people versus elected people). Kind of getting away from their political platform by stating very general directions such as "reduce inequality", "provide good and fair education", "promote harmony", blah blah etc...

We've seen the PDRC campaigning for "reform before election", followed by the military, and none of them ever explained the reforms they intended to implement.

My guess is that they had no idea of the reforms they were allegedly basing their political action on. And are still unable to reform anything for the same reason.

So they hide this inability by creating committees, defining principles for the next 20 years, etc....

With so many areas needing reform the acceptance of the population of reforms will take time. Same like reorganisations in companies. People know something needs to be done, but are reluctant to make the painful decisions. Also as a group people tend to be conservative in the sense of resisting changes.

A proper education model and proper execution of the education model seems the only way, but that's slow. In a way we're talking about a new generation.

I quite agree with you, but it is not really coherent with the "reform before election" they have tried to sell.

Collecting public opinion is pure political eye wash...the powers to be will likely get the more outrageous requests for reform out to read at meetings for a good humor moment...then do what unelected public officials do...which is what ever they want...

And ? What about all the other political parties, are they being run from Dubai as well now ? Tatsujin makes an excellent point. Which as usual has been completely ignored by you. Everything is being done to make this joke acceptable, even if it quite clearly isn't.

Democracy Junta style.

If I understand some posters correctly the Democrat Party has provided a lot of input in possible reforms through the PDRC. Of course it may well be that the government chose to ignore all those good ideas from the PDRC. The two other larger political parties seem either aligned with Pheu THai or with the Democrat Party.

The PDRC ? Isn't that Suthep's club ? Surely they aren't aligned with the democrats. Still ignoring the point that was being made I see.

By the way, here is to hoping none of the PDRC's ideas ever make it into a constitution.

These people have shown to have no idea about democracy and have tried to violate the very same constitution they claimed to defend. Very very nasty people. I wonder if even a single one will ever see jail for the disruption of a general election.

But of course we already know what sort of democracy Thailand is getting, and it will only be a democracy in name. Marketing talk but no actual democracy.

Maybe the drafters could reinstate the 1997 constitution and be done with it ? Oh no of course not, that would mean the PDRC and their friends in both the military and the 'democratic party' would be right back to square one. Not able to win an election, thus not able to run the country.

Make the electorate matter less is what is being played out here.

get ready for twenty years of puppet democracy, thats if it goes to plan, theres a lot of opposition by Thais outside Thailand, of course inside Thailand they have to remain silent

funny how it doesn't work to just use "public participation"...

They are not allowed to participate. What do you think this is, a democracy?

Collecting public opinion is pure political eye wash...the powers to be will likely get the more outrageous requests for reform out to read at meetings for a good humor moment...then do what unelected public officials do...which is what ever they want...

Who said anything about collecting public opinion, they just said public opinion to determine national reform strategy...which translates to them doing the opposite of public opinion.

I wonder if this emphasis on defining reform strategy for the next 20 years is not away to hide their inability to actually reform anything (apart for trying to reform the political system with the aim of giving more power to appointed people versus elected people). Kind of getting away from their political platform by stating very general directions such as "reduce inequality", "provide good and fair education", "promote harmony", blah blah etc...

We've seen the PDRC campaigning for "reform before election", followed by the military, and none of them ever explained the reforms they intended to implement.

My guess is that they had no idea of the reforms they were allegedly basing their political action on. And are still unable to reform anything for the same reason.

So they hide this inability by creating committees, defining principles for the next 20 years, etc....

With so many areas needing reform the acceptance of the population of reforms will take time. Same like reorganisations in companies. People know something needs to be done, but are reluctant to make the painful decisions. Also as a group people tend to be conservative in the sense of resisting changes.

A proper education model and proper execution of the education model seems the only way, but that's slow. In a way we're talking about a new generation.

I quite agree with you, but it is not really coherent with the "reform before election" they have tried to sell.

With posters telling me there will be no elections in the forseable future I guess it is coherent.

And ? What about all the other political parties, are they being run from Dubai as well now ? Tatsujin makes an excellent point. Which as usual has been completely ignored by you. Everything is being done to make this joke acceptable, even if it quite clearly isn't.

Democracy Junta style.

If I understand some posters correctly the Democrat Party has provided a lot of input in possible reforms through the PDRC. Of course it may well be that the government chose to ignore all those good ideas from the PDRC. The two other larger political parties seem either aligned with Pheu THai or with the Democrat Party.

The PDRC ? Isn't that Suthep's club ? Surely they aren't aligned with the democrats. Still ignoring the point that was being made I see.

By the way, here is to hoping none of the PDRC's ideas ever make it into a constitution.

These people have shown to have no idea about democracy and have tried to violate the very same constitution they claimed to defend. Very very nasty people. I wonder if even a single one will ever see jail for the disruption of a general election.

But of course we already know what sort of democracy Thailand is getting, and it will only be a democracy in name. Marketing talk but no actual democracy.

Maybe the drafters could reinstate the 1997 constitution and be done with it ? Oh no of course not, that would mean the PDRC and their friends in both the military and the 'democratic party' would be right back to square one. Not able to win an election, thus not able to run the country.

Make the electorate matter less is what is being played out here.

I agree that the drafters should have taken a previous constitution, although I think they should have started with the 2007 version. It did have improvements over the 1997 version and with having been 'valid' for seven years it is known which parts are contentious.

As for 'actual democracy', well there wasn't much in the first place. Still there's hope. The government bureaucracy really needs to be tackled though, just like in Europe.

Formost seems education, make people aware of their rights and duties. Make then self-reliant, improve self-entitlement, diminish the explicit and implicit power of the local 'big' people. Takes time though.

And ? What about all the other political parties, are they being run from Dubai as well now ? Tatsujin makes an excellent point. Which as usual has been completely ignored by you. Everything is being done to make this joke acceptable, even if it quite clearly isn't.

Democracy Junta style.

If I understand some posters correctly the Democrat Party has provided a lot of input in possible reforms through the PDRC. Of course it may well be that the government chose to ignore all those good ideas from the PDRC. The two other larger political parties seem either aligned with Pheu THai or with the Democrat Party.

The PDRC ? Isn't that Suthep's club ? Surely they aren't aligned with the democrats. Still ignoring the point that was being made I see.

By the way, here is to hoping none of the PDRC's ideas ever make it into a constitution.

These people have shown to have no idea about democracy and have tried to violate the very same constitution they claimed to defend. Very very nasty people. I wonder if even a single one will ever see jail for the disruption of a general election.

But of course we already know what sort of democracy Thailand is getting, and it will only be a democracy in name. Marketing talk but no actual democracy.

Maybe the drafters could reinstate the 1997 constitution and be done with it ? Oh no of course not, that would mean the PDRC and their friends in both the military and the 'democratic party' would be right back to square one. Not able to win an election, thus not able to run the country.

Make the electorate matter less is what is being played out here.

I agree that the drafters should have taken a previous constitution, although I think they should have started with the 2007 version. It did have improvements over the 1997 version and with having been 'valid' for seven years it is known which parts are contentious.

As for 'actual democracy', well there wasn't much in the first place. Still there's hope. The government bureaucracy really needs to be tackled though, just like in Europe.

Formost seems education, make people aware of their rights and duties. Make then self-reliant, improve self-entitlement, diminish the explicit and implicit power of the local 'big' people. Takes time though.

Well not the 2007 constitution of course, as it was yet another coup fuelled constitution. As to hope, there is little hope that Thailand returns to a democracy that resembles the one they had after 2007 let alone the one they had after 1997. And it is clear to see that whilst both had their flaws, they are much more democratic than the one on the horizon, that much is absolutely clear.

One just needs the ability to read between the lines to come to that conclusion. Actually, they don't really try to hide their true intentions, so just reading will do nicely.

Maybe in 20 years they can return to a true democracy, where a government with a clear mandate actually can make a difference.

If I understand some posters correctly the Democrat Party has provided a lot of input in possible reforms through the PDRC. Of course it may well be that the government chose to ignore all those good ideas from the PDRC. The two other larger political parties seem either aligned with Pheu THai or with the Democrat Party.

The PDRC ? Isn't that Suthep's club ? Surely they aren't aligned with the democrats. Still ignoring the point that was being made I see.

By the way, here is to hoping none of the PDRC's ideas ever make it into a constitution.

These people have shown to have no idea about democracy and have tried to violate the very same constitution they claimed to defend. Very very nasty people. I wonder if even a single one will ever see jail for the disruption of a general election.

But of course we already know what sort of democracy Thailand is getting, and it will only be a democracy in name. Marketing talk but no actual democracy.

Maybe the drafters could reinstate the 1997 constitution and be done with it ? Oh no of course not, that would mean the PDRC and their friends in both the military and the 'democratic party' would be right back to square one. Not able to win an election, thus not able to run the country.

Make the electorate matter less is what is being played out here.

I agree that the drafters should have taken a previous constitution, although I think they should have started with the 2007 version. It did have improvements over the 1997 version and with having been 'valid' for seven years it is known which parts are contentious.

As for 'actual democracy', well there wasn't much in the first place. Still there's hope. The government bureaucracy really needs to be tackled though, just like in Europe.

Formost seems education, make people aware of their rights and duties. Make then self-reliant, improve self-entitlement, diminish the explicit and implicit power of the local 'big' people. Takes time though.

Well not the 2007 constitution of course, as it was yet another coup fuelled constitution. As to hope, there is little hope that Thailand returns to a democracy that resembles the one they had after 2007 let alone the one they had after 1997. And it is clear to see that whilst both had their flaws, they are much more democratic than the one on the horizon, that much is absolutely clear.

One just needs the ability to read between the lines to come to that conclusion. Actually, they don't really try to hide their true intentions, so just reading will do nicely.

Maybe in 20 years they can return to a true democracy, where a government with a clear mandate actually can make a difference.

Well why not the 2007 constitution as starting point. It did have various improvements even real lawyers agreed on. The only blob you might call the last article (amnesty for some).

I do disagree that Thailand can return to a true democracy, it never was one.