PM says there must be political reforms before an election

 

 

BANGKOK: -- Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha said on Tuesday that political reforms must be undertaken before there is an election.

 

He stressed the need of an effective screening mechanism to prevent “bad people” from entering politics or to weed out “bad people” from politics and, in the meantime, to encourage “good people” or a new-generation of politicians to enter politics.

 

The Constitution Drafting Committee, the National Legislative Assembly and the National Reform Steering Assembly have been working together to come up with a blueprint on political reforms, said the prime minister.

 

However, he admitted that it was difficult to attract “good people” or talented young people to enter politics because these people are afraid that, once they are in politics, they will lose their privacy and they will be subjected to public scrutiny.

 

For instances, they will be required to declare their assets and that they will have to give up their posts in the private sector, said the prime minister, adding that he has been receiving help from these people but are reluctant to join the government.

 

The prime minister admitted he didn’t understand why politicians have to spend a lot of money in order to be in politics while he himself has not spent any money to buy favour from the people.

 

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/pm-says-must-political-reforms-election/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2016-08-31

"while he himself has not spent any money to buy favour from the people." No need to buy anything when you take it by military force.

Yes indeed full disclosure.

Lead by example. You first!

your money is your guns......Mr. Know it all

I wonder what he was thinking when he picked out that shirt?

Yes the ability to hand pick the Senate of non elected people, select and appoint your own unelected P.M all of whom will be totally controlled and take orders from the military puppet masters.  Yes your reforms prior to a pointless election are coming along nicely where the military will forever have total control.

17 minutes ago, Shot said:

I wonder what he was thinking when he picked out that shirt?

Can't touch this

And some military reform would also be helpful but as we know you cant teach old dogs new tricks.

51 minutes ago, webfact said:

The prime minister admitted he didn’t understand why politicians have to spend a lot of money in order to be in politics while he himself has not spent any money to buy favour from the people.

 

Yeah he should have a look at the Trump Clinton spending.

He who has the big guns does not need to spend money to curry favour with those under the rule of those big guns.  

"Good people, bad people,  screening" ;who is to define that?

 

What he means is no election until they have completed the process of stripping the franchise from those who do not vote for "their side:.

1 hour ago, Shot said:

I wonder what he was thinking when he picked out that shirt?

 

Happiness is blue.

Quote 

""mechanism to prevent “bad people” from entering politics or to weed out “bad people” from politics and, in the meantime, to encourage “good people”

UnQuote ...

Taking over a democracy by gun is considered not so good.

The world needs now to respond to such people.
Certainly , when selecting a holiday destination people should keep in mind Thailand is not free and being oppressed.

Bad people gaol opponents including young and old.
Bad people add to the computer crimes act making ""like "" on Facebook a possible crime.
Bad people forbid discourse in charter debates.
Bad people hold a Nation hostage .

Even criticism is outlawed.
Disgraceful BS 

As for winning over the people ....the man would be torn apart in public without security

Just wondering if PTP are regretting their decision to grant amnesty to themselves and their absent leader yet. All this could have been avoided. Laughable.

Which is worse? Someone who influences with money, or someone who influences with guns.

8 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Which is worse? Someone who influences with money, or someone who influences with guns.

One can be removed , even after doing some good to disadvantaged ....even raising the growth to 7% ( Like Cambodia is now) 

 

And the gun guys can't be removed.....and the poor see nothing ...the economy is the worst in the entire region and still they stay.

10 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Which is worse? Someone who influences with money, or someone who influences with guns.

 

Neither. They're both symptoms of a severely dysfunctional society that we can't discuss (for 112 reasons).

What a wonderful example of democracy he is to inspire the young. I salute you sir.

28 minutes ago, ramrod711 said:

Just wondering if PTP are regretting their decision to grant amnesty to themselves and their absent leader yet. All this could have been avoided. Laughable.

Ah yes. The logic of the wifebeater and so very apt: 'You know what I am like when I have had a few, so why do you wind me up make me give you a slap?'

Politics and bad people go hand in hand the world over. Stop that combination and there is no government of any kind

So who decide what a bad person look like and how a good person look like ? All humans have good and bad in them so no one will pass his test. Now he not only have written the new consitution he now will decide who the voters can vote for. 

3 hours ago, Reigntax said:

And some military reform would also be helpful but as we know you cant teach old dogs new tricks.

but i thought that was what he meant, surely political reform means military reform,it's one and the same

Especially now the police are on their way to a 20 year reform

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

Which is worse? Someone who influences with money, or someone who influences with guns.

Let me think now what would influence me more,a 50 million Baht bribe or an M16 pushed into my mouth, it's difficult i must admit.

1 hour ago, ramrod711 said:

Just wondering if PTP are regretting their decision to grant amnesty to themselves and their absent leader yet. All this could have been avoided. Laughable.

This would have happened even if PTP had proved to the best most enlightened,  economically proficient and least corrupt government in SE Asia ( admittedly  unlikely)..

 

This happened because for the last 20 yeqrs or so the old guard have seen/sensed power slipping away from them. Overthrowing Thaksin,  and gerrymandering  Abhisit into Government House didn't work, so it had to to be stopped. A permanent Junta seems the only solution. 

 

They're dinosaurs.

 

A sudden cataclysmic event struck the dinosaurs and rendered them extinct.

thought he reformed everything and now has complete control. whats the point in delaying future elections? maybe he thinks they will incite violence. wonder how many years he can postpone them.

"...However, he admitted that it was difficult to attract “good people” or talented young people to enter politics because these people are afraid that, once they are in politics, they will lose their privacy and they will be subjected to public scrutiny..."

 

Not bad for someone protected by a 44!

 

But, regardless of this fool's rhetoric, people who choose to go into politics must do so without any illusions that what is considered private for private citizens becomes a matter of reasonable public interest when politicians and public figures are concerned.

 

The basic tenet must always be that the public's interest is put ahead ahead of those (who, by their own choice) seek to enter public life!

 

Section's 25, 26, 27, 32, 34, 43,  44, 45, 213, of the "people's Constitution" provides reasonable privacy protection for private citizens. Meanwhile Section's 27 and 45 also provide appropriate protection for public officials.

 

But, Section 45 also includes an obligation on public officials and aspiring politicians. As does Section's 79, 87, 97, 98, 107, 108, 113, 114, 115, 124, 150, 184, 185, 202, 232, 235, 252, 267, and 277. 

 

So, if the “good people” or talented young people are not prepared to play by their own Constitutional rules, maybe they are not really “good people” after all.

 

In any case, what Prayut has suggested is to be addressed under a national reform as defined in Section 258 (A) Politics.

 

3 hours ago, jamesbrock said:

 

Yes, staggering isn't it? I just don't know what to say anymore on verbal ejaculations like this ...!