CDC agrees only House members are entitled to nominate prime minister

[smutcakes]

23 minutes ago, halloween said:

In your rush, did you neglect to read the OP.

"In case the prime minister cannot be selected from the party lists, at least half of the members of the House can nominate a new prime minister for submission to the parliament president who will seek approval from the parliament. At least two-thirds of the votes of the two chambers are required to endorse the prime minister."

You have a problem with that resolution method?

 

Yes i did, which is why i wrote what i wrote. There is no way on earth they are going to be able to agree on a PM.

[aussieinthailand]

2 minutes ago, halloween said:

You can't vote for your preferred candidate if you weren't able to nominate him, can you?

The whole question has been resolved in what I consider the most democratic option, where only the elected members of the house can nominate a PM, so what's the problem?

You would have preferred that the matter was resolved on the hypothetical assumption the extra question would be approved. That is not how things are done.

Every bloody time,,   each time you ignore my statement.   Do you do you not agree that the rules should have been in place before the CDC had to amend 272 the draft???

Because currently you have different people suggesting they can "nominate"saying no they can't.  Making up rules after the whistle has blown is not the way things should be done.  it's just as bad as retro-legislation, but hey much the same thing IMO.

[halloween]

5 minutes ago, aussieinthailand said:

Every bloody time,,   each time you ignore my statement.   Do you do you not agree that the rules should have been in place before the CDC had to amend 272 the draft???

Because currently you have different people suggesting they can "nominate"saying no they can't.  Making up rules after the whistle has blown is not the way things should be done.  it's just as bad as retro-legislation, but hey much the same thing IMO.

 If you continue to write incomprehensible sentences and resort to simplistic football analogies, I will continue to have difficulty understanding what you are attempting to say. At least you now understand some basic concepts, now try this one. Legislation is not passed on hypothetical situations in case they come to pass.

You are making arguments about a process which has produced the best possible result IMHO. If you have a result you prefer, please state it clearly and how it could have been brought about.

[halloween]

22 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

Yes i did, which is why i wrote what i wrote. There is no way on earth they are going to be able to agree on a PM.

Multi-party democracy works in many countries. As a solution here, it may not work - I would certainly prefer more far-reaching changes such as abolishing the party list - but it is certainly worth a try.

[smutcakes]

Just now, halloween said:

Multi-party democracy works in many countries. As a solution here, it may not work - I would certainly prefer more far-reaching changes such as abolishing the party list - but it is certainly worth a try.

 

It especially wont work when some of the parties  make it intentionally unworkable. I still cant get my head around why in this day of age you are going to have a number of 'appointed' persons be instrumental in appointing who will lead the country.  Its like going back 100 years!

 

As a matter of aside, why would you suppose that any of the appointed senators would be morally and ethically better than politicians? 

[halloween]

3 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

It especially wont work when some of the parties  make it intentionally unworkable. I still cant get my head around why in this day of age you are going to have a number of 'appointed' persons be instrumental in appointing who will lead the country.  Its like going back 100 years!

 

As a matter of aside, why would you suppose that any of the appointed senators would be morally and ethically better than politicians? 

As a matter of aside, it would be difficult for them not to be.

Why go back 100 years? Go back 10, and a billionaire bribed his way into the highest political office and appointed Chalerm as his #2. will the result of the next election give a worse result?

[aussieinthailand]

6 minutes ago, halloween said:

 If you continue to write incomprehensible sentences and resort to simplistic football analogies, I will continue to have difficulty understanding what you are attempting to say. At least you now understand some basic concepts, now try this one. Legislation is not passed on hypothetical situations in case they come to pass.

You are making arguments about a process which has produced the best possible result IMHO. If you have a result you prefer, please state it clearly and how it could have been brought about.

 

"At least you have some basic concepts, "

" Legislation is not passed on hypothetical situations in case they come to pass".      Are you serious???

Legislation often is passed so there is a rule/laws in place when hypothetical situations come to pass ,  Just as retro legislation is used when laws need (at the governments pleasure) to be changed, and not often to the likening of the people or many members of government.

[Alive]

All of the NLA and Prayut should be banned from the senate and PM positions. They should but I bet the NLA think they will take those seats. Prayuth tossed a load of cash at them for working in the NLA. I wonder how much the appointed senators will make? I bet this ripoff regime will hook them up too. All for the rich, powerful and connected.

[halloween]

6 minutes ago, aussieinthailand said:

 

"At least you have some basic concepts, "

" Legislation is not passed on hypothetical situations in case they come to pass".      Are you serious???

Legislation often is passed so there is a rule/laws in place when hypothetical situations come to pass ,  Just as retro legislation is used when laws need (at the governments pleasure) to be changed, and not often to the likening of the people or many members of government.

I'm sure you have examples you are just dying to show us.

Now about

" You are making arguments about a process which has produced the best possible result IMHO. If you have a result you prefer, please state it clearly and how it could have been brought about. "

because I am really having difficulty grasping the point of this conversation.

[aussieinthailand]

2 minutes ago, halloween said:

I'm sure you have examples you are just dying to show us.

Now about

" You are making arguments about a process which has produced the best possible result IMHO. If you have a result you prefer, please state it clearly and how it could have been brought about. "

because I am really having difficulty grasping the point of this conversation.

I have made my point several time's and even asked you a direct question which you continually refuse to answer, instead  you claim legislation is not passed before a "hypothetical situation comes to pass" is ignorant at best.  now are you able to admit you are wrong in this point???

[smedly]

2 hours ago, Plutojames88 said:

Don't waste your breathe ....some of these guys are Thais posing as westerners .

Some are just small and shallow

mirror mirror on the wall who is the shallowest of them all lol

 

The people voted, not much more to say, yingluc was a fine PM ....... right ? lol 

[smedly]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

In your rush, did you neglect to read the OP.

"In case the prime minister cannot be selected from the party lists, at least half of the members of the House can nominate a new prime minister for submission to the parliament president who will seek approval from the parliament. At least two-thirds of the votes of the two chambers are required to endorse the prime minister."

You have a problem with that resolution method?

of course they have a problem, none of it will ever involve the convicted criminal and their hero Thaksin

 

 

good riddance

[oxo1947]

5 hours ago, smedly said:

wow try breaking that one down to make any sense, read it 3 times and still couldn't

.

Yes I was (am) quite confused--also smedly, are the house members all elected by the people?

If so this is akin to the Westminster system----Unlike the USA--the People don't vote in a leader, the party members who were voted in, say who is going to be the leader, and have often sacked them and replace them half way through the term. In fact in Australia (they follow Westminster system also) they sacked & replaced the leader 3 times in 3 years, & the other side sacked their leader last year also.

 

So I am still not to clear ----- on what the workings of this are........

 

 

 

 

 

[halloween]

28 minutes ago, oxo1947 said:

.

Yes I was (am) quite confused--also smedly, are the house members all elected by the people?

If so this is akin to the Westminster system----Unlike the USA--the People don't vote in a leader, the party members who were voted in, say who is going to be the leader, and have often sacked them and replace them half way through the term. In fact in Australia (they follow Westminster system also) they sacked & replaced the leader 3 times in 3 years, & the other side sacked their leader last year also.

 

So I am still not to clear ----- on what the workings of this are........

 

 

 

 

 

You're pretty close. Some of the house members (1/4) are elected via the party list, so don't actually face the scrutiny of an electorate. In recent years, this system has been abused by a billionaire bribing MPs to join his party, votes for them allow him to appoint himself and other criminal scum to high office.

It comes as a take it or leave it package. If you like a party's policies (aka electoral bribes) then you accept the full list they nominate or vote for someone else who's party list could equally be on the nose.

There's no such thing as ejecting any MP including PM as in Oz.

[oxo1947]

Thanks for that clarification  halloween............

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, halloween said:

Yeah, a particularly intelligent response to ' Give me one valid reason why a controversial issue should be included or excluded from a charter by fiat rather than being put to a vote by the people. '

Give me one reason why a controversial issue should be included in a referendum promoted through government propaganda,  where debate is banned and where the choices are between a constitution that enshrines military rule or an unspecified constitution to be chosen by the military.

 

In short, give me one good reason why the referendum should be considered anything but a blatant fraud.

[halloween]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Give me one reason why a controversial issue should be included in a referendum promoted through government propaganda,  where debate is banned and where the choices are between a constitution that enshrines military rule or an unspecified constitution to be chosen by the military.

 

In short, give me one good reason why the referendum should be considered anything but a blatant fraud.

Up to you. Your opinion is of little importance to me and even less to the Thais.

[MZurf]

3 hours ago, halloween said:

It was a controversial issue that was decided by the people with the extra question. Isn't that the democratic method?

Oh, you've started caring about democratic methods?! Fantastic! Then tell me this:

Why should the result of this (severely restricted) vote be respected when the result of several elections were not respected??

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Give me one reason why a controversial issue should be included in a referendum promoted through government propaganda,  where debate is banned and where the choices are between a constitution that enshrines military rule or an unspecified constitution to be chosen by the military.

 

In short, give me one good reason why the referendum should be considered anything but a blatant fraud.

 

1 minute ago, halloween said:

Up to you. Your opinion is of little importance to me and even less to the Thais.

I stated facts, not opinion.  Do you deny the propaganda, the suppression of debate, that the referendum was a choice between continued military rule or continued military rule?

[MZurf]

5 minutes ago, halloween said:

Up to you. Your opinion is of little importance to me and even less to the Thais.

Actually, the opinion of Thais are of little importance as well. There is a junta in charge, remember? 

[sujoop]

1 hour ago, smutcakes said:

 

It especially wont work when some of the parties  make it intentionally unworkable. I still cant get my head around why in this day of age you are going to have a number of 'appointed' persons be instrumental in appointing who will lead the country.  Its like going back 100 years!

 

As a matter of aside, why would you suppose that any of the appointed senators would be morally and ethically better than politicians? 

The senate was designed to provide checks & balances to the governing party controlled house. However, during the years when Thaksin was prime minister, the senate became stacked with spouses and relatives from his political party and affiliated /purchased party MPs. This packing of the senate with the spouses of MPs from the ruling party meant that Thaksin’s political machine could override the intent of the constitution for a senate that could check the expected overreach of the elected.
   

Thus in the 2007 constitution following Thaksin's exile, the chamber was changed to a minority appointed Senate whereby 76 Senators were directly elected from the 76 Provinces and Bangkok, while the other 74 were appointed from various sectors by the Senate Selection Committee. In 2013 the upper house passed a bill for amnesty in the middle of the night (primarily designed to free Thaksin from charges and allow him to return). The Senate  which would likely have narrowly passed the bill ultimately rejected it following massive protests.
   

Also in 2013 the Thaksin-backed Govt tried to amend the constitution to return to of a fully elected Senate which again allowed husbands, wives and  relatives of ruling House MP's to become Senators (again effectively removing all impartiality, thus removing the very checks & balances to the governing party controlled house - the very purpose the Senate was meant for).  Further, the Thaksin-backed Puea Thai Govt proposed a bill which would remove the rights of citizens to petition the constitution court and instead all charges against the Govt would have to be lodged firstly to the Govt appointed Attorney General, who would then deem if a charge 'merited' being sent on to the court.
 

Thaksin also had relatives appointed to head / control both the Military and Police, plus appointed 'trusted' allies in key positions such as CHALERM as JUSTICE Minister... (however these appointments are within the purview of the ruling party, no matter how obviously controlling or repugnant).
   

Thus, this is just a small example of how various Thaksin controlled Govt's have systematically abused, diverted, subverted and corrupted not only the checks and balances of government but the very intent of democracy. This brings us to the current very sad state of affairs (brought upon by Mr Thaksin himself one might argue). As a result, the Senate will now be appointed for a period of 5 years preventing any further ram-rodding through self-serving bills in the wee hours. Meanwhile, the house majority can still choose it's PM and pass bills (whilst being baby-sat which unfortunately has been proven highly necessary).

 

[halloween]

1 hour ago, aussieinthailand said:

I have made my point several time's and even asked you a direct question which you continually refuse to answer, instead  you claim legislation is not passed before a "hypothetical situation comes to pass" is ignorant at best.  now are you able to admit you are wrong in this point???

The best way to prove ignorance is an example, which you seem unable to provide. I have no idea what your question is/was, and have spent half the morning explaining to you the difference between nominate and vote. Was it back in that quagmire?

It seems you still have some problems with the process, but refuse to tell me what result you would prefer to that arrived at.

My question is "why am I wasting my time?"

[halloween]

10 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

I stated facts, not opinion.  Do you deny the propaganda, the suppression of debate, that the referendum was a choice between continued military rule or continued military rule?

I know that you don't accept the result of the referendum. And that you violently oppose changes to limit the power of a US-backed criminal. Bad luck, they will happen anyway.

[heybruce]

19 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

I stated facts, not opinion.  Do you deny the propaganda, the suppression of debate, that the referendum was a choice between continued military rule or continued military rule?

 

5 minutes ago, halloween said:

I know that you don't accept the result of the referendum. And that you violently oppose changes to limit the power of a US-backed criminal. Bad luck, they will happen anyway.

Well duh!  Do you accept the results of a referendum with propaganda, suppression of debate and no meaningful choice?

 

Your final sentence is, not to mince words, BS, a lie, libel, propaganda, evidence that you'll post any nonsense that supports your narrow-minded autocratic views.  When have I ever used or advocated violence in opposition to the junta?  I support democracy, and fear denying it to the Thai people may lead to violence, but I never advocated violence. 

 

You support military rule, put in place and maintained with force and the threat of violence.

[halloween]

8 minutes ago, sujoop said:

The senate was designed to provide checks & balances to the governing party controlled house. However, during the years when Thaksin was prime minister, the senate became stacked with spouses and relatives from his political party and affiliated /purchased party MPs. This packing of the senate with the spouses of MPs from the ruling party meant that Thaksin’s political machine could override the intent of the constitution for a senate that could check the expected overreach of the elected.
   

Thus in the 2007 constitution following Thaksin's exile, the chamber was changed to a minority appointed Senate whereby 76 Senators were directly elected from the 76 Provinces and Bangkok, while the other 74 were appointed from various sectors by the Senate Selection Committee. In 2013 the upper house passed a bill for amnesty in the middle of the night (primarily designed to free Thaksin from charges and allow him to return). The Senate  which would likely have narrowly passed the bill ultimately rejected it following massive protests.
   

Also in 2013 the Thaksin-backed Govt tried to amend the constitution to return to of a fully elected Senate which again allowed husbands, wives and  relatives of ruling House MP's to become Senators (again effectively removing all impartiality, thus removing the very checks & balances to the governing party controlled house - the very purpose the Senate was meant for).  Further, the Thaksin-backed Puea Thai Govt proposed a bill which would remove the rights of citizens to petition the constitution court and instead all charges against the Govt would have to be lodged firstly to the Govt appointed Attorney General, who would then deem if a charge 'merited' being sent on to the court.
 

Thaksin also had relatives appointed to head / control both the Military and Police, plus appointed 'trusted' allies in key positions such as CHALERM as JUSTICE Minister... (however these appointments are within the purview of the ruling party, no matter how obviously controlling or repugnant).
   

Thus, this is just a small example of how various Thaksin controlled Govt's have systematically abused, diverted, subverted and corrupted not only the checks and balances of government but the very intent of democracy. This brings us to the current very sad state of affairs (brought upon by Mr Thaksin himself one might argue). As a result, the Senate will now be appointed for a period of 5 years preventing any further ram-rodding through self-serving bills in the wee hours. Meanwhile, the house majority can still choose it's PM and pass bills (whilst being baby-sat which unfortunately has been proven highly necessary).

 

The opponents of an appointed senate have yet to answer how an elected senate is any better at protecting the nation from a predatory government than an appointed, simply claiming it is more democratic. The elected senates in the US and Oz are far from democratic (named "unrepresentative swill" by an Oz PM) with small states having far fewer voters per member compared to larger (e.g. RI/CA or Tas/NSW)

Elected senates can also lead to balance of power situations which occur regularly in Oz, where a senator (usually TAS) is given huge influence over government policy. For years, AusAid could not include birth control, even during the AIDS crisis, because of the religious views of a single senator. 

[halloween]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

Well duh!  Do you accept the results of a referendum with propaganda, suppression of debate and no meaningful choice?

 

Your final sentence is, not to mince words, BS, a lie, libel, propaganda, evidence that you'll post any nonsense that supports your narrow-minded autocratic views.  When have I ever used or advocated violence in opposition to the junta?  I support democracy, and fear denying it to the Thai people may lead to violence, but I never advocated violence. 

 

You support military rule, put in place and maintained with force and the threat of violence.

Apologies, I meant to type virulently. Yes, I accept the referendum with suppression of the Shinawatra propaganda machine and people being urged to make up their own mind. the choice was there, PTP and its leaders urged No, and didn't get it.

 

I don't support military rule, I support REAL democracy. I tolerate military rule while necessary changes are made, because despite the BS claims of evolution, it won't happen any other way.

How is military rule, put in place and maintained with force and the threat of violence any different to a political party maintaining their own private militia to suppress opposition. Like it not, there is LESS violence now.

[sjaak327]

4 hours ago, halloween said:

It was a controversial issue that was decided by the people with the extra question. Isn't that the democratic method?

Haha, you junta supporters really crack me up. For years you have been trying to downplay Thaksin's electoral success. and now you play the democracy card ?

 

So now all of a sudden you do respect the will of the Thai electorate, how noble of you. Of course there is a tiny difference, the elections that Thaksin did win were free, fair and observable by international observers that were allowed to follow the whole process. In those elections, debate, campaiging were also allowed, there wasn't a draconian law that could land people in jail for ten years just for stating an opinion either.

 

And more importantly, those elections offered a choice, the referendum did not, because voting no would have meant they would still enact a constitution but now without "approval" (note the quotations marks, they are there for a reason..).

 

Besides the fact that the referendum was conducted by ignoring almost all democratic principles, the actual question never mentioned Senators being allowed to nominate a candidate for PM. Yet the NLA and the three rivers (whatever happened to the other two is not clear) went beyond the question and are now pressing for the ability for the senate to nominate their own candidate, which again was not mentioned in the question anywhere.

 

Now of course the caveat is whenever there is a deadlock, but with 2/3 majority of both houses, that deadlock is seemingly simple to achieve.

 

There is nothing democratic about this, and no the Thai electorate has not approved this either.

 

But then again, they have never approved the NLA, the CDC the NCPO or Prayuth either....

 

 

Edited August 25, 2016 by sjaak327

[sjaak327]

10 minutes ago, halloween said:

Apologies, I meant to type virulently. Yes, I accept the referendum with suppression of the Shinawatra propaganda machine and people being urged to make up their own mind. the choice was there, PTP and its leaders urged No, and didn't get it.

 

I don't support military rule, I support REAL democracy. I tolerate military rule while necessary changes are made, because despite the BS claims of evolution, it won't happen any other way.

How is military rule, put in place and maintained with force and the threat of violence any different to a political party maintaining their own private militia to suppress opposition. Like it not, there is LESS violence now.

The democrats were against the referendum as well, yet their political stronghold voted yes. hmm, strange, almost unbelieveable.

 

Íf you support REAL democracy you cannot possibly support the junta, and you cannot possibly support the result of the referendum, it wasn't conducted using democratic principles and the resulting charter will not lead to real democracy either. And as people that are not utterly gullible already know, that was never the goal.

Edited August 25, 2016 by sjaak327

[Eric Loh]

35 minutes ago, sujoop said:

The senate was designed to provide checks & balances to the governing party controlled house. 
 

 

 

A long essay trying to make justification of appointed senators when history of similar systems failed to improve anything and civil disorders and coups still persist. The establishment keep going back to their old bag of tricks with the fully appointed senators  like in 1947, 1968, 1974 and 1978. What makes you think it will work this time?

[halloween]

1 minute ago, sjaak327 said:

The democrats were against the referendum as well, yet their political stronghold voted yes.

 

Íf you support REAL democracy you cannot possibly support the junta, and you cannot possibly support the result of the referendum, it wasn't conducted using democratic principles and the resulting charter will not lead to real democracy either. And as people that are not utterly gullible already know, that was never the goal.

In other words, I should reject change because of how it is achieved, regardless of how beneficial it may be? Perhaps you think the previous democracy was good enough.