NLA’s Surachai: Political parties to be asked to nominate prime ministerial candidates before the election

BANGKOK, 23 June 2016 (NNT) - A vice president of the National Legislative Assembly has confirmed that all political parties will be asked to submit their prime ministerial nomination before the election takes place.

NLA’s First Vice President Surachai Liengboonlertchai said that the reason behind the proposal of an additional question in the public referendum was because the Provisional Constitution stipulates that such an action is permissible, provided the opinion of the National Reform Steering Assembly is heard.

And because the new draft Constitution has made clear that the Senate will be responsible for the inspection and the direction of national reform efforts, while the government will have to keep updating progress being made to the Senate, the NLA had therefore decided to add the suspension clauses for short-term use of around five years from the day the charter is in effect, Mr. Surachai added.

As for the selection of a new prime minister, he said that nothing has changed and all contesting political parties will have to nominate their prime ministerial candidate along with the list of their election candidates.

-- NNT 2016-06-23

Then the coup was superfluous.

What's the point of the 3 billion baht referendum.

It is. Already.

So with Yingluk out of the running, will PTP's #2 be elevated to the top slot?

Chalerm for PM! Has a nice ring to it.

So with Yingluk out of the running, will PTP's #2 be elevated to the top slot?

Chalerm for PM! Has a nice ring to it.

To paraphrase, the PTP could run a door knob and it would still beat anyone from the army/Democrats combined such is their credibility. And they know this.

Nothing wrong with that. Seems like a good idea that's been in place overseas since Adam was a boy.

The PM nominee is otherwise known as 'the party leader'.

Interesting Thai innovation though... just a bit behind the times.

W

So with Yingluk out of the running, will PTP's #2 be elevated to the top slot?

Chalerm for PM! Has a nice ring to it.

To paraphrase, the PTP could run a door knob and it would still beat anyone from the army/Democrats combined such is their credibility. And they know this.

Yes they do.

But only a red doorknob.

The yellows don't know what doorknobs are, except in a rude context, they know plenty of ordinary knobs. a few spring to mind now...

W

So with Yingluk out of the running, will PTP's #2 be elevated to the top slot?

Chalerm for PM! Has a nice ring to it.

I suspect Thaksins other sister. Won't you be a happy little chappie if she runs and wins... Suicide is painless...

W

So with Yingluk out of the running, will PTP's #2 be elevated to the top slot?

Chalerm for PM! Has a nice ring to it.

To paraphrase, the PTP could run a door knob and it would still beat anyone from the army/Democrats combined such is their credibility. And they know this.

IIRC in the BKK governor's election it was a light pole - didn't turn out too well, did it? Most Thais that i know show one of two emotions regarding Chalerm, either disgust or embarrassment. It's not hard to work out why. That he was appointed DPM by his little mate was a disgrace, expecting him to run as PM candidate is a joke. But I hope that PTP, like you, don't see it that way.

BTW you don't need "door" when talking about Chalerm.

So with Yingluk out of the running, will PTP's #2 be elevated to the top slot?

Chalerm for PM! Has a nice ring to it.

I suspect Thaksins other sister. Won't you be a happy little chappie if she runs and wins... Suicide is painless...

W

.

Oh, now you remember her.

Not quite as photogenic as Yingluk. the other problem is that she carries a lot of political baggage, and has a history of murky deals. Yes, a lot of people suspect her. Of course, that wouldn't worry you, would it? She's a Shinawatra.

Hey, maybe they'll give Surapong a run.

Edited June 23, 201610 yr by halloween

Were I in Thai politics, I don't think I would field a candidate or contest the next election. What for, when the next government will be in place purely to execute junta policy and carry the can for any failures - 'Look, you see how bad these politicians are? The mess they have got us into again? This is why we told you Good People need to be at the helm.'

Cue another takeover for the public's own good...

I wonder how the Junta will handle the resumption of electoral politics?

First up, would be the repeal of the prohibition against political gatherings of more than 5 people.

Or maybe not.

Edited June 23, 201610 yr by phoenixdoglover

How can the parties nominate someone, as long as a party assembly is prohibited?

So with Yingluk out of the running, will PTP's #2 be elevated to the top slot?

Chalerm for PM! Has a nice ring to it.

I suspect Thaksins other sister. Won't you be a happy little chappie if she runs and wins... Suicide is painless...

W

.

Oh, now you remember her.

Not quite as photogenic as Yingluk. the other problem is that she carries a lot of political baggage, and has a history of murky deals. Yes, a lot of people suspect her. Of course, that wouldn't worry you, would it? She's a Shinawatra.

Hey, maybe they'll give Surapong a run.

That's it, off to the naughty step with you.

The redshirts could field a small brown dog and they'd still win. We all know you don't like it but that seems to be the reality. Like it or lump it. I can't take this swill seriously any more. Bye.

W

Libel post removed

.

Oh, now you remember her.

Not quite as photogenic as Yingluk. the other problem is that she carries a lot of political baggage, and has a history of murky deals. Yes, a lot of people suspect her. Of course, that wouldn't worry you, would it? She's a Shinawatra.

Hey, maybe they'll give Surapong a run.

That's it, off to the naughty step with you.

The redshirts could field a small brown dog and they'd still win. We all know you don't like it but that seems to be the reality. Like it or lump it. I can't take this swill seriously any more. Bye.

W

The red shirts are forming a political party? Thaksin won't like that.

How can the parties nominate someone, as long as a party assembly is prohibited?

Quite right! And, of course, the vote on the referendum has yet to come.....or should we assume that 'someone' will ensure a yes vote?

I wonder how the Junta will handle the resumption of electoral politics?

First up, would be the repeal of the prohibition against political gatherings of more than 5 people.

Or maybe not.

Repeal will require Senate approval. That is to say the Senate appointed by the NCPO, inclusive of members from the Four Rivers - essentially an alter ego for the NCPO. When elections for the House occur, the Senate will already be in place for the next five years.

So maybe not is not an issue. It's a guarantee.

Seems sensible, knowing the candidates for Prime Minister in advance I mean.

it will help the powers that be to make their decision as to who has won the election.

The thought of a election must be really hurting them

Wasn't the PM candidate required first to be an elected MP?

One of the objectives of the MMA system was to breakup the power of the large political parties and force more complex political coalitins that would dehabilitate cohesive governments. Because small parties could nominate the same PM as large parties, there is opportunity for backdoor political deals that would lead to an entirely different PM candidate than was presented to the electorate.

If none of the MP candidates wins a majority of lower house votes, both upper (Senate) and lower houses will convene a joint session to select a prime minister. Not only will the successful candidate not likely be the one designated by political parties prior to the election, but the PM might not be affiliated with any party.

Finally, should the House and Senate fail to agree to a PM candidate, the Constitutional Court could declare an unresolvable political conflict and appoint the PM who may not be associated with any registered party.

Truly a mess with an electoral system not found anywhere else.

So with Yingluk out of the running, will PTP's #2 be elevated to the top slot?

Chalerm for PM! Has a nice ring to it.

I suspect Thaksins other sister. Won't you be a happy little chappie if she runs and wins... Suicide is painless...

W

.

Oh, now you remember her.

Not quite as photogenic as Yingluk. the other problem is that she carries a lot of political baggage, and has a history of murky deals. Yes, a lot of people suspect her. Of course, that wouldn't worry you, would it? She's a Shinawatra.

Hey, maybe they'll give Surapong a run.

We all know who'll be running the country for the foreseeable future regardless of who's name is on the ballot papers, so why are we even having this discussion?

Wasn't the PM candidate required first to be an elected MP?

One of the objectives of the MMA system was to breakup the power of the large political parties and force more complex political coalitins that would dehabilitate cohesive governments. Because small parties could nominate the same PM as large parties, there is opportunity for backdoor political deals that would lead to an entirely different PM candidate than was presented to the electorate.

If none of the MP candidates wins a majority of lower house votes, both upper (Senate) and lower houses will convene a joint session to select a prime minister. Not only will the successful candidate not likely be the one designated by political parties prior to the election, but the PM might not be affiliated with any party.

Finally, should the House and Senate fail to agree to a PM candidate, the Constitutional Court could declare an unresolvable political conflict and appoint the PM who may not be associated with any registered party.

Truly a mess with an electoral system not found anywhere else.

Can't have that can we! It seems a 2 party system is all some Americans are capable of understanding. The aim here is to promote multiple parties and independents so that we don't get back to a situation where a billionaire can buy himself a government and call it democracy.

If it succeeds then there may well be a situation arise where a PM can't be agreed upon in the lower house, and this supplies a way to resolve that. It also puts pressure on MPs to resolve their differences and come to agreement before the decision is taken down this path. Of course, alarmists will prefer to concentrate on the ultimate (and unlikely ever to be used) step of resolution.

BTW any reason why your bold type excludes the significant "If"?

Edited June 24, 201610 yr by halloween

Wasn't the PM candidate required first to be an elected MP?

One of the objectives of the MMA system was to breakup the power of the large political parties and force more complex political coalitins that would dehabilitate cohesive governments. Because small parties could nominate the same PM as large parties, there is opportunity for backdoor political deals that would lead to an entirely different PM candidate than was presented to the electorate.

If none of the MP candidates wins a majority of lower house votes, both upper (Senate) and lower houses will convene a joint session to select a prime minister. Not only will the successful candidate not likely be the one designated by political parties prior to the election, but the PM might not be affiliated with any party.

Finally, should the House and Senate fail to agree to a PM candidate, the Constitutional Court could declare an unresolvable political conflict and appoint the PM who may not be associated with any registered party.

Truly a mess with an electoral system not found anywhere else.

Can't have that can we! It seems a 2 party system is all some Americans are capable of understanding. The aim here is to promote multiple parties and independents so that we don't get back to a situation where a billionaire can buy himself a government and call it democracy.

If it succeeds then there may well be a situation arise where a PM can't be agreed upon in the lower house, and this supplies a way to resolve that. It also puts pressure on MPs to resolve their differences and come to agreement before the decision is taken down this path. Of course, alarmists will prefer to concentrate on the ultimate (and unlikely ever to be used) step of resolution.

BTW any reason why your bold type excludes the significant "If"?

Designing an electoral system that ultimately puts the selection of the PM in the hands of the unelected Senate and Constitutional Court is not conducive to a truly democratic process.

PS: Sorry abut the different font. My s/w has protocol issues with TV. For your viewing pleasure I offer the following: IF

.

Oh, now you remember her.

Not quite as photogenic as Yingluk. the other problem is that she carries a lot of political baggage, and has a history of murky deals. Yes, a lot of people suspect her. Of course, that wouldn't worry you, would it? She's a Shinawatra.

Hey, maybe they'll give Surapong a run.

That's it, off to the naughty step with you.

The redshirts could field a small brown dog and they'd still win. We all know you don't like it but that seems to be the reality. Like it or lump it. I can't take this swill seriously any more. Bye.

W

The red shirts are forming a political party? Thaksin won't like that.

but... but... but...

you can't resist getting in your bile about Thaksin can you? the fact that, if there were a fair election, PTP would storm home winning again really get's to you and your love of the Junta doesn't it? change the tune

Edited June 24, 201610 yr by LannaGuy

So with Yingluk out of the running, will PTP's #2 be elevated to the top slot?

Chalerm for PM! Has a nice ring to it.

I suspect Thaksins other sister. Won't you be a happy little chappie if she runs and wins... Suicide is painless...

W

Thaksin's other sister, Yaowapa described as being too greedy by Thaksin's wife. Here is a little Nation article that appeared on TV that makes everything clear as mud. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/596507-thaksins-sister-yaowapa-big-winner-from-faction-merger/

Edited June 24, 201610 yr by ramrod711

The red shirts are forming a political party? Thaksin won't like that.

but... but... but...

you can't resist getting in your bile about Thaksin can you? the fact that, if there were a fair election, PTP would storm home winning again really get's to you and your love of the Junta doesn't it? change the tune

In your not-so-humble opinion. The topic of discussion was who PTP would nominate for PM, even though winnie has problems differentiating PTP, UDD and red shirts. Any suggestions? So far we have a door knob, the historical light pole, and a small brown dog.

BTW any reason why the mentioning of a major political figure sends you into gibbering paroxysms? (I was hesitant to use his name in case it set you twitching again) After all, he still owns the formerly largest political party and a supposedly independent propaganda organisation.

Wasn't the PM candidate required first to be an elected MP?

One of the objectives of the MMA system was to breakup the power of the large political parties and force more complex political coalitins that would dehabilitate cohesive governments. Because small parties could nominate the same PM as large parties, there is opportunity for backdoor political deals that would lead to an entirely different PM candidate than was presented to the electorate.

If none of the MP candidates wins a majority of lower house votes, both upper (Senate) and lower houses will convene a joint session to select a prime minister. Not only will the successful candidate not likely be the one designated by political parties prior to the election, but the PM might not be affiliated with any party.

Finally, should the House and Senate fail to agree to a PM candidate, the Constitutional Court could declare an unresolvable political conflict and appoint the PM who may not be associated with any registered party.

Truly a mess with an electoral system not found anywhere else.

Can't have that can we! It seems a 2 party system is all some Americans are capable of understanding. The aim here is to promote multiple parties and independents so that we don't get back to a situation where a billionaire can buy himself a government and call it democracy.

If it succeeds then there may well be a situation arise where a PM can't be agreed upon in the lower house, and this supplies a way to resolve that. It also puts pressure on MPs to resolve their differences and come to agreement before the decision is taken down this path. Of course, alarmists will prefer to concentrate on the ultimate (and unlikely ever to be used) step of resolution.

BTW any reason why your bold type excludes the significant "If"?

Designing an electoral system that ultimately puts the selection of the PM in the hands of the unelected Senate and Constitutional Court is not conducive to a truly democratic process.

PS: Sorry abut the different font. My s/w has protocol issues with TV. For your viewing pleasure I offer the following: IF

Well you proved my point about alarmists, concentrating on the final solution used only IF the house can't agree on a PM, and then IF a joint sitting of house and senate can't agree on a candidate.

Assuming we end up with 15-20 parties of varying size and a dozen or so independents, how would you resolve an impasse on PM selection?

Wasn't the PM candidate required first to be an elected MP?

One of the objectives of the MMA system was to breakup the power of the large political parties and force more complex political coalitins that would dehabilitate cohesive governments. Because small parties could nominate the same PM as large parties, there is opportunity for backdoor political deals that would lead to an entirely different PM candidate than was presented to the electorate.

If none of the MP candidates wins a majority of lower house votes, both upper (Senate) and lower houses will convene a joint session to select a prime minister. Not only will the successful candidate not likely be the one designated by political parties prior to the election, but the PM might not be affiliated with any party.

Finally, should the House and Senate fail to agree to a PM candidate, the Constitutional Court could declare an unresolvable political conflict and appoint the PM who may not be associated with any registered party.

Truly a mess with an electoral system not found anywhere else.

Can't have that can we! It seems a 2 party system is all some Americans are capable of understanding. The aim here is to promote multiple parties and independents so that we don't get back to a situation where a billionaire can buy himself a government and call it democracy.

If it succeeds then there may well be a situation arise where a PM can't be agreed upon in the lower house, and this supplies a way to resolve that. It also puts pressure on MPs to resolve their differences and come to agreement before the decision is taken down this path. Of course, alarmists will prefer to concentrate on the ultimate (and unlikely ever to be used) step of resolution.

BTW any reason why your bold type excludes the significant "If"?

Designing an electoral system that ultimately puts the selection of the PM in the hands of the unelected Senate and Constitutional Court is not conducive to a truly democratic process.

PS: Sorry abut the different font. My s/w has protocol issues with TV. For your viewing pleasure I offer the following: IF

Well you proved my point about alarmists, concentrating on the final solution used only IF the house can't agree on a PM, and then IF a joint sitting of house and senate can't agree on a candidate.

Assuming we end up with 15-20 parties of varying size and a dozen or so independents, how would you resolve an impasse on PM selection?

By making sure such unresolvable fragmentation of the electorate, 80% whom aligned themselves with the two biggest parties in the 2011 election doesn't happen - I would vote against the use of the MMA to preempt such an impasse - in other words against the draft charter.

Can't have that can we! It seems a 2 party system is all some Americans are capable of understanding. The aim here is to promote multiple parties and independents so that we don't get back to a situation where a billionaire can buy himself a government and call it democracy.

If it succeeds then there may well be a situation arise where a PM can't be agreed upon in the lower house, and this supplies a way to resolve that. It also puts pressure on MPs to resolve their differences and come to agreement before the decision is taken down this path. Of course, alarmists will prefer to concentrate on the ultimate (and unlikely ever to be used) step of resolution.

BTW any reason why your bold type excludes the significant "If"?

Designing an electoral system that ultimately puts the selection of the PM in the hands of the unelected Senate and Constitutional Court is not conducive to a truly democratic process.

PS: Sorry abut the different font. My s/w has protocol issues with TV. For your viewing pleasure I offer the following: IF

Well you proved my point about alarmists, concentrating on the final solution used only IF the house can't agree on a PM, and then IF a joint sitting of house and senate can't agree on a candidate.

Assuming we end up with 15-20 parties of varying size and a dozen or so independents, how would you resolve an impasse on PM selection?

By making sure such unresolvable fragmentation of the electorate, 80% whom aligned themselves with the two biggest parties in the 2011 election doesn't happen - I would vote against the use of the MMA to preempt such an impasse - in other words against the draft charter.

And we come full circle. You don't understand multi-party democracy, so it shouldn't be an option, or is it that you can't come up with a better impasse resolution than the one you criticize?

Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, and Philippines are examples of nations that have used a multi-party system effectively in their democracies. In these countries, usually no single party has a parliamentary majority by itself. Instead, multiple political parties form coalitions for the purpose of developing power blocks for governing.

You might note that 8 of those countries have a democracy rating higher than the US. But you think 2 party is the way to go, despite the farce we have observed.