CDC ponders capital punishment against politicians who sell political posts

[ChrisY1]

They can make as many laws as anyone else....capitol punishment, life sentences, massive fines and etc.....but nothing will change here....nepotism, cronyism, graft and job position sales or auctions, will simply be the norm for ages to come.

[NongKhaiKid]

1 minute ago, ChrisY1 said:

They can make as many laws as anyone else....capitol punishment, life sentences, massive fines and etc.....but nothing will change here....nepotism, cronyism, graft and job position sales or auctions, will simply be the norm for ages to come.

It doesn't matter how many laws and punishments are on the statute books as implementation will, as ever, be selective depending on who is in power and who the accused are.

[elgordo38]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

BANGKOK: -- Politicians are warned that they will face harsher penalties, including death, under the charter-mandated organic laws being drafted if they try to topple constitutional monarchy system of administration or engage in the trading of political portfolios for profits.

And who might the administrator be of this law. The color green comes to mind. This should be the final nail in the coffin for anyone worth their salt to enter politics. This is really getting scary folks.

[billd766]

4 hours ago, Bob12345 said:

How about getting your family member becoming chief of the army for profit?

Or how about his son getting government contracts for profit?

Or how about his wife flying around the country in military planes and acting like a royal for status and profit?

 

Just wondering...

 

How about letting your brother in law become PM or even better your totally unqualified sister become PM.

 

Just wondering....

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, elgordo38 said:

And who might the administrator be of this law. The color green comes to mind. This should be the final nail in the coffin for anyone worth their salt to enter politics. This is really getting scary folks.

 

Not necessarily true, maybe it will encourage the good Thai guys (knowledgeable, creative, experienced, sincere, good values and morals, committed, and there are plenty of them) to now join or preferably start new parties with stated manifestos all aligned to development of Thailand with same level of respect and opportunity for all Thais.

[elgordo38]

Just now, scorecard said:

 

Not necessarily true, maybe it will encourage the good Thai guys (knowledgeable, creative, experienced, sincere, good values and morals, committed, and there are plenty of them) to now join or preferably start new parties with stated manifestos all aligned to development of Thailand with same level of respect and opportunity for all Thais.

Good post but if I were a budding (honest) Thai politician I would not put my head on the chopping block if I knew who was holding the ax

[Jai Dee]

Troll posts and replies have been removed from this thread.

[NickJ]

Thailand will never submit to a one giant step for man or Thaikind..... 

[JAG]

5 hours ago, Tatsujin said:

This is targeted directly at one faction and one faction only.

 

and this "using power to topple constitutional monarchy", is again targeted at only one group, announced now as a deterrent for (soon) future events.

As ever, the reality will depend on the definition used.

 

Will "using power to topple the constitutional monarchy" include simply opposing or not agreeing with the military? 

[JAG]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

How about letting your brother in law become PM or even better your totally unqualified sister become PM.

 

Just wondering....

What's the qualification required to be prime minister?

 

Should having the electorate choose you be part of it?

 

Just wondering....

Edited November 3, 2016 by JAG

[Rorri]

5 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

"Selling" political positions - would that include allowing your non elected criminal brother to run the government, select and regularly reshuffle the cabinet, bring his mates back in when their 5 year corruption bans end etc etc etc.

 

Let's not pretend its all one sided.

And your point is? It seems to have nothing to do with my comment, but I guess you just had to throw a Shin comment in.

[Tatsujin]

48 minutes ago, JAG said:

As ever, the reality will depend on the definition used.

 

Will "using power to topple the constitutional monarchy" include simply opposing or not agreeing with the military? 

 

As always, it will mean whatever they deem it to mean at the time.

 

On the plus side, the Supreme Court did Andy a solid today and now he can legally go back after everyone that tried to smear him, perjured themselves and tampered with evidence and claim damages.

 

Hopefully the same will happen for the Burmese boys.

[Rorri]

5 hours ago, Mickmouse1 said:

Read the charter ...and coups do take place in some countries due to corrupt regimes  or are you insinuating / referringto the current temporary leadership which I openly support?

Not talking about "other" countries, so why bring them up, and I am NOT insinuating anything, in fact, declaring it, I can't help if you support coups, that is your problem, if there were no coups, then Thailand might have a chances to understand democracy and have a more stable government, this can NOT happen if, on a 4 year average, the military holds another coup... but hey, I guess that is too hard for you to understand.

[bangon04]

"Pondering" is the new "Mulling"

[nottocus]

Death penalty for all

[SOTIRIOS]

....miracles do happen......???

 

 

[heybruce]

10 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

But you don't seem to have a problem if an elected government panders to the whim of a crook who owns their political party and appoints them or constantly breaks the law?

 

Hmmm. Corruption is like the pox - happy to infect anyone.

 

Let's see, a corrupt elected government that can be replaced in an internationally monitored election, or a corrupt military government that only does an election without impartial monitoring and with a fixed outcome. 

 

The choice isn't that difficult.

[tbthailand]

17 hours ago, webfact said:

Politicians are warned that they will face harsher penalties, including death, under the charter-mandated organic laws being drafted if they try to topple constitutional monarchy system of administration or engage in the trading of political portfolios for profits.

 

of the <deleted> irony of this... 

 

Meechai appears to have no self-awareness...

[scorecard]

4 hours ago, Rorri said:

Not talking about "other" countries, so why bring them up, and I am NOT insinuating anything, in fact, declaring it, I can't help if you support coups, that is your problem, if there were no coups, then Thailand might have a chances to understand democracy and have a more stable government, this can NOT happen if, on a 4 year average, the military holds another coup... but hey, I guess that is too hard for you to understand.

 

 

Actually it's not difficult to understand and your words are just deliberately sarcastic rather than a structured and valid comment.:

 

You (deliberately) and others maintain a fixation that all coups are the same, all violent, all have the same purpose, same prior background, etc etc.

 

It's simply not true. Yes Thailand has had some nasty / very nasty and violent coups, and yes some have had no violence at all.

 

Given the disgraceful, no morals, massively corrupt, cronyism '''elected'''  government just before the last coup, a government of 'deliberately recruited yes men', a mob who had no respect for the law, no morals and no respect for the tenants, pillars, check and balances of democracy, and a government who did very little to develop Thailand infrastructure* are you really all that surprised another coup happened?  

 

*Oh yes they did try to get approval for a 3 Trillion no records no transparency fund for infrastucture etc

 

So now a few posters are going to say 'but they could been elected out at the next election'. Get serious it wasn't going to happen, never, and you know it.

 

Is the current gov't perfect? No, not at all, they have lots of problems, but they are slowly (too slowly, with way too many bumps) trying to recreate a playing field where all concerned are forced to abide by some valid rules.

 

Is the military the most appropriate 'force' to attempt the changes? Is the military free of 'baggage'?  Well that's all doubtful but what other force is appropriate? 

 

Is there focus very accurate? No. Two examples, I'm personally very disappointed regarding the lack of reform of the police and education.

[tbthailand]

3 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Is the current gov't perfect? No, not at all, they have lots of problems, but they are slowly (too slowly, with way too many bumps) trying to recreate a playing field where all concerned are forced to abide by some valid rules.

 

Is the military the most appropriate 'force' to attempt the changes? Is the military free of 'baggage'?  Well that's all doubtful but what other force is appropriate? 

for your first point, most observers understand that your claim is just not at all true. The military are embedding their control over all domestic affairs for the foreseeable future.

 

As for the second point, that force would be the people. The people have the right to self-determination. They have the right to decide what is best for their country. That right does not reside with a general except through force and oppression ... and force and oppression are the only things that we have witnessed over the last 2.5 years. ... 

[billd766]

6 hours ago, JAG said:

What's the qualification required to be prime minister?

 

Should having the electorate choose you be part of it?

 

Just wondering....

 

The closest I can find after ploughing through Google seems to be here.

 

http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/01361009.pdf

 

286

Electoral Politics in Southeast and East Asia

Conditions of Candidature

Candidates standing for election to the HoR must have the following

qualifications: (1) have Thai nationality by birth; (2) be at least 25 years on the

election day; (3) hold a degree not lower than a bachelor’s degree or equivalent,

except in the case of former members of the HoR or former members of the

Senate; or (4) be a member of any and only one political party for a consecutive

period of not less than 90 days prior to the date of applying for candidacy in an

election.

 

Moreover, candidates in a constituency election must possess one or

more of the following qualifications: (1) have had his/her name included in the

house register in the provinces where he/she is standing for election for a

consecutive period of not less than one year up to the date of applying for

candidacy; (2) have been a member of the HoR in the province where he/she is

standing for election, or a member of a local assembly, or a local administrator

of his/her province; (3) have been born in the province where he/she is standing

for an election; (4) have studied in any education institution situated in the

province where he/she is standing for election for a consecutive period of not

less than two academic years; or (5) have been in official service before, or have

had his/her name appear in the house register in the province where he/she is

standing for election for a consecutive period of not less than two years.

 

HoR I think is the House of Representatives.

 

It looks as though the Party list MPs only need to qualify for the first part and not the second which is the constituency part.

 

There is quite a bit more about the amount of party list seats and how many each party is allowed but from what I can see it basically means that each party who wins in the constituency election is allotted a certain number of party list seats and the party allots numbers to each MP from 1 down to whatever so whoever is allotted #1 gets the first party list seat and so on down the list 

.

How they are selected is down to party politics and democratic voting. OTOH  if somebody owns the party then they get to choose who goes where, so assuming that each candidate meets the requirements then they will be given a slot #.

 

IIRC if an MP becomes a minister then they resign from the MP list and the next person in line becomes an MP.

 

IMHO there should be NO party list seats at all. If you want to be an MP that much, then get out there and stake your claim. Then of course part 2 comes into force which may cause some problems.

 

[tomta]

35 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

 

 

You (deliberately) and others maintain a fixation that all coups are the same, all violent, all have the same purpose, same prior background, etc etc.

 

 

 

All coups are violent.They depend for their success on the implicit threat that any action against the coup will be met with force. The soldiers carry guns and would use them if they felt it was necessary.If someone says "Hand over your wallet or I will beat you up" the fact that you submissively hand over your wallet and do not get beaten up does not mean that the act was not violent. The same with coups.

[tomta]

18 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Candidates standing for election to the HoR must have the following

qualifications: ...(3) hold a degree not lower than a bachelor’s degree or equivalent,

except in the case of former members of the HoR or former members of the

Senate; or

 

A bit of a digression but this business of having to hold a degree is totally anti-democratic and discriminates against that section of the population that is more likely not to have degrees - the farmers and the working class. Having a degree indicates nothing about intelligence, morality, integrity etc. I know from experience. I have a PhD.

 

[tbthailand]

25 minutes ago, tomta said:

 

A bit of a digression but this business of having to hold a degree is totally anti-democratic and discriminates against that section of the population that is more likely not to have degrees - the farmers and the working class. Having a degree indicates nothing about intelligence, morality, integrity etc. I know from experience. I have a PhD.

 

The degree requirement is 100% anti-democratic and just another means to disenfranchise people from their own democracy. 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

 

 

Actually it's not difficult to understand and your words are just deliberately sarcastic rather than a structured and valid comment.:

 

You (deliberately) and others maintain a fixation that all coups are the same, all violent, all have the same purpose, same prior background, etc etc.

 

It's simply not true. Yes Thailand has had some nasty / very nasty and violent coups, and yes some have had no violence at all.

 

Given the disgraceful, no morals, massively corrupt, cronyism '''elected'''  government just before the last coup, a government of 'deliberately recruited yes men', a mob who had no respect for the law, no morals and no respect for the tenants, pillars, check and balances of democracy, and a government who did very little to develop Thailand infrastructure* are you really all that surprised another coup happened?  

 

*Oh yes they did try to get approval for a 3 Trillion no records no transparency fund for infrastucture etc

 

So now a few posters are going to say 'but they could been elected out at the next election'. Get serious it wasn't going to happen, never, and you know it.

 

Is the current gov't perfect? No, not at all, they have lots of problems, but they are slowly (too slowly, with way too many bumps) trying to recreate a playing field where all concerned are forced to abide by some valid rules.

 

Is the military the most appropriate 'force' to attempt the changes? Is the military free of 'baggage'?  Well that's all doubtful but what other force is appropriate? 

 

Is there focus very accurate? No. Two examples, I'm personally very disappointed regarding the lack of reform of the police and education.

 

"So now a few posters are going to say 'but they could been elected out at the next election'. Get serious it wasn't going to happen, never, and you know it."

 

Actually I don't know it, and neither do you.  If the 2014 election had been held it would have been during a low point in popularity for both the PTP and the misnamed Democrats.  It could have provided a badly needed democratic shake-up to the political situation.

 

However even if the election had resulted in another PTP victory (and made it difficult for the military to stage a coup) it should have been held.  True democrats understand that democracy requires that they accept election results they don't like and work to get better results in the next election.  Anti-democrats (including the anti-Democrat party in Thailand) believe that if they can't win an election it's acceptable to seize power by other means.

[waldroj]

10 hours ago, JAG said:

What's the qualification required to be prime minister?

 

Should having the electorate choose you be part of it?

 

Just wondering....

 

In Thailand, once the "people's" Constitution is finally promulgated, that will be determined under Sections 159 and 160!

[billd766]

13 hours ago, tomta said:

 

A bit of a digression but this business of having to hold a degree is totally anti-democratic and discriminates against that section of the population that is more likely not to have degrees - the farmers and the working class. Having a degree indicates nothing about intelligence, morality, integrity etc. I know from experience. I have a PhD.

 

 

I agree with you 100% but unfortunately they are the rules laid down and I dont think that any political party would ever want to change them as it would interfere with the cosy cartel that they already have.