The four questions that prompt 400 answers

[webfact]

OPINION

The four questions that prompt 400 answers
By Suthichai Yoon
The Nation

 

BANGKOK: -- If Premier Prayut Chan-o-cha was trying to stir up a political hornet’s nest by throwing in four questions for the public to respond to, he found his target with unerring accuracy. But then, that same tactic may also boomerang – and cause unnecessary harm to his political standing.

 

In his weekly televised address to the nation last Friday, the prime minister set off a storm by announcing he wanted to conduct a “public opinion poll” of his own with four basic questions, asking people all the way down to the district level to offer their responses.

 

Key figures from the country’s major political parties were quick to voice the obvious suspicion – that General Prayut’s latest move was clearly aimed at testing the water. 

 

Is the ruling junta – the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) – making moves to extend its stay in power? 

 

Wary politicians called for Prayut to clarify whether the general election would be held as scheduled.

 

The PM shot back with a vengeance, saying he wasn’t talking to the politicians. He was asking the people to consider the future.

 

“Did I ask whether they wanted an election? No. Everything is still on track. The road map is still on,” he told reporters in what was supposed to sound like an angry tone.

 

In his televised address, Prayut cautioned that the Thai people should be able to answer these four questions before the country can go to the polls.

 

The controversial questions: 

1.     Do you think the next election will get us a government with good governance? 

2.     If that is not the case, what will you do? 

3.     Elections are an integral part of democracy but are elections alone with no regard for the country’s future and others right or wrong? 

4.     Do you think bad politicians should be given a chance to come back, and if conflict re-emerges, who will solve it and by what means?

 

The PM insisted that he did not want to see democracy fail in Thailand but would rather see a democratic government that practises good governance and is capable of leading the country towards sustainable prosperity and stability.

 

He then went on to say that he wanted to cultivate the values of democracy in the mindset of the Thai people, in order to help set a precedent for the country.

 

Stung by the “leading questions”, politicians of all shades reacted with thinly veiled scepticism – verging on anger and disillusionment.

 

Phumtham Wechayachai, secretary-general of former ruling party Pheu Thai, said General Prayut did not seem to believe in voters’ judgement or their ability to select a good government.

 

The politician said the problem with the country’s governance system was caused by weak check-and-balance mechanisms.

 

He also had his own question for the public: Is it really desirable for the country to continue without an election? 

 

Democrat Party politician Watchara Petthong also asked the junta head to “tell the public straightforwardly” if there would be a national poll, as required by the new Constitution.

 

“Why did the prime minister have to ask people? The Constitution sets all the necessary details,” Watchara said. “I understand that the PM’s move was aimed at sounding out the public and benefiting someone. Is it part of an attempt to stay on in power?”

 

Chart Thai Pattana Party key figure Nikorn Jamnong said yesterday he didn’t think the four questions posed by the prime minister would bring any benefit to the government. He said the PM’s move could very well raise political tension instead of encouraging “reform and reconciliation”, which has been the main pledge of the coup leaders.

 

The implication was clear. The veteran politician said General Prayut and the NCPO’s move could not be interpreted in any other way except that they were intent upon retaining power even after the next polls.

 

“You can get the clearest answers to those questions from the results of a general election,” Nikorn said.

 

You can take it as a warning, a threat or a promise, but the most striking remark from the prime minister was when he told reporters: “If the country fails again, who will you ask to come to our rescue? Not me.”

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/opinion/suthichaiyoon/30316894

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-06-01

[Bob12345]

Quote

The politician said the problem with the country’s governance system was caused by weak check-and-balance mechanisms.

Exactly.

Unfortunately this is the same all around the country, at every level, and parts of Thailand's culture.

And I have not seen any proposals to change this yet, as it will mean that the person proposing it will lose power.

[YetAnother]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

The veteran politician said General Prayut and the NCPO’s move could not be interpreted in any other way except that they were intent upon retaining power even after the next polls.

so the professional politicians are saying this is political

[robblok]

50 minutes ago, Bob12345 said:

Exactly.

Unfortunately this is the same all around the country, at every level, and parts of Thailand's culture.

And I have not seen any proposals to change this yet, as it will mean that the person proposing it will lose power.

Yes, checks and balances are what is needed. Remember what the PTP wanted last time.. now family members could not be senators. The PTP wanted that rule to be scrapped (creating even less checks and balances), slashed funding to the NACC with 50% Seems the politicians want total power and no accountability. In the current constitution there are more checks and balances (yes they help the army but they also check the politicians more). Lets see how it goes now I hope the mechanisms are strong enough. 

 

But it really seems that nobody ever wants to give up power once they are in power. 

[Bob12345]

Yes, checks and balances are what is needed. Remember what the PTP wanted last time.. now family members could not be senators. The PTP wanted that rule to be scrapped (creating even less checks and balances), slashed funding to the NACC with 50% Seems the politicians want total power and no accountability. In the current constitution there are more checks and balances (yes they help the army but they also check the politicians more). Lets see how it goes now I hope the mechanisms are strong enough. 

 

But it really seems that nobody ever wants to give up power once they are in power. 

You can point out an example how PTP wanted less checks and balances, but the junta cannot be outdone by granting themselves amnesty for everything done in the past and whatever they plan on doing in the future.

 

Bottom line is that neither party (army and politicians) is making any serious proposal to put in real checks and balances. The only time they do is when they appoint themselves as overseeing the other party without anyone checking or balancing them.

 

Hope the new generations can come with some serious proposals because the current dinosaurs will never limit their own income stream and power.

 

[Chris Lawrence]

This guy just ain't got the numbers and he knows it. Running scared. The General is acting like the leader of a far-out "mind group", the need for everyone to have similar thoughts for the winning of an election. The report card will say 'tried hard but couldn't get the 50% needed to be well liked in class.'

[robblok]

38 minutes ago, Bob12345 said:

You can point out an example how PTP wanted less checks and balances, but the junta cannot be outdone by granting themselves amnesty for everything done in the past and whatever they plan on doing in the future.

 

Bottom line is that neither party (army and politicians) is making any serious proposal to put in real checks and balances. The only time they do is when they appoint themselves as overseeing the other party without anyone checking or balancing them.

 

Hope the new generations can come with some serious proposals because the current dinosaurs will never limit their own income stream and power.

 

There are now new checks and balances in place.. and your 100% right about the amnesty of the generals.. that is bad too. I do feel they should have an amnesty for the coup.. but not for all the other stuff. 

[Smarter Than You]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Yes, checks and balances are what is needed. Remember what the PTP wanted last time.. now family members could not be senators. The PTP wanted that rule to be scrapped (creating even less checks and balances), slashed funding to the NACC with 50% Seems the politicians want total power and no accountability. In the current constitution there are more checks and balances (yes they help the army but they also check the politicians more). Lets see how it goes now I hope the mechanisms are strong enough. 

 

But it really seems that nobody ever wants to give up power once they are in power. 

So PTP want family members of MP's to be eligible to be Senators - big deal.

Look at the history of the Thai Senate and tell me which side doesn't want impartial, elected Senators keeping an eye on things.

 

Wiki on the history of the Thai Senate

 

The idea of bicameralism first permeated Thai politics with the Constitution of 1946, when the government of Pridi Panomyong introduced a senate modelled on the British House of Lords. For the first time, an upper house came into existence in Thailand. The Senate was to be fully elected, however, the elections would be indirect, as the House of Representatives would elect the senators, for six-year terms. The 1946 Constitution was soon abrogated in a military coup. Subsequent constitutions saw only occasional bicameralism, and when it did exist, the Senate was always filled with appointees from the military and the elite. The 1997 Constitution saw a return to a fully elected Senate. That constitution was abrogated after the 2006 coup, and replaced with one calling for a half-elected/half-appointed Senate.

• 1947 – First Thai Senate established with 100 members, all royally appointed.
• 1952 – Establishment of a unicameral National Assembly with 123 members.
• 1968 – Re-establishment of the Senate with 164 royally-appointed members.
• 1972 - The Thai Legislature is banned by Thanom Kittikachorn.
• 1974 – Return of the royally-appointed Senate.
• 1976 – Re-establishment of a unicameral National Assembly with 360 members, all royally appointed.
• 1978 – Return of a Senate with 225 royally-appointed members.
• 1991 – Establishment of a unicameral National Assembly with 292 royally-appointed members.
• 1997 – Establishment for the first time of a fully and directly elected Senate with 200 members for a 6-year term.
• 2006 – Following the coup, an interim charter was signed establishing a 250-member National Legislative Assembly.
• 2007 – Half of the Senate is appointed, half is elected as established by referendum under the 2007 Constitution.
• 2014 – Abolished as a result of the 2014 Thai coup d'état.

You should also note the fact that what PTP were trying to achieve with their amendment was to return the senate to a fully elected body after the 2007 coup constitution made it a half elected, half elite appointed senate.

So you might as well stop waffling on about "family members being in the Senate" as it is an irrelevancy.

 

Lets see how it goes now you ask - look at how it went from 1947 - 1997 and you'll get a fair understanding of how it will go.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Smarter Than You
.

[seajae]

"should bad politicians be allowed back", this one question would cause more conflict than any other with all the thai politicians  because most politicians are bad, if they banned them from ever being a politician again as in most countries the current parties would have bugger all members. Why cant they simply make it that any politician committing offences is black banned for life, would remove all the garbage people that cause most of the problems. It should also apply to anyone wanting to be part of any political process(reds/yellows etc), then maybe they would start getting people that were half decent and did the right thing for the country instead of themselves

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

So PTP want family members of MP's to be eligible to be Senators - big deal.

Look at the history of the Thai Senate and tell me which side doesn't want impartial, elected Senators keeping an eye on things.

 

Wiki on the history of the Thai Senate

 

The idea of bicameralism first permeated Thai politics with the Constitution of 1946, when the government of Pridi Panomyong introduced a senate modelled on the British House of Lords. For the first time, an upper house came into existence in Thailand. The Senate was to be fully elected, however, the elections would be indirect, as the House of Representatives would elect the senators, for six-year terms. The 1946 Constitution was soon abrogated in a military coup. Subsequent constitutions saw only occasional bicameralism, and when it did exist, the Senate was always filled with appointees from the military and the elite. The 1997 Constitution saw a return to a fully elected Senate. That constitution was abrogated after the 2006 coup, and replaced with one calling for a half-elected/half-appointed Senate.

• 1947 – First Thai Senate established with 100 members, all royally appointed.
• 1952 – Establishment of a unicameral National Assembly with 123 members.
• 1968 – Re-establishment of the Senate with 164 royally-appointed members.
• 1972 - The Thai Legislature is banned by Thanom Kittikachorn.
• 1974 – Return of the royally-appointed Senate.
• 1976 – Re-establishment of a unicameral National Assembly with 360 members, all royally appointed.
• 1978 – Return of a Senate with 225 royally-appointed members.
• 1991 – Establishment of a unicameral National Assembly with 292 royally-appointed members.
• 1997 – Establishment for the first time of a fully and directly elected Senate with 200 members for a 6-year term.
• 2006 – Following the coup, an interim charter was signed establishing a 250-member National Legislative Assembly.
• 2007 – Half of the Senate is appointed, half is elected as established by referendum under the 2007 Constitution.
• 2014 – Abolished as a result of the 2014 Thai coup d'état.

You should also note the fact that what PTP were trying to achieve with their amendment was to return the senate to a fully elected body after the 2007 coup constitution made it a half elected, half elite appointed senate.

So you might as well stop waffling on about "family members being in the Senate" as it is an irrelevancy.

 

Lets see how it goes now you ask - look at how it went from 1947 - 1997 and you'll get a fair understanding of how it will go.

Big deal.. one of the most important parts of the senate is that they should not be linked to the MP's as its their job to check them. No wonder you like the PTP you never fault them for anything. For you voting alone means democracy...  but believe it or not most countries believe the senate should not be linked to MP's otherwise they can't do their job of checking them. It would create conflicts of interests. 

 

You feel its irrelevant, just like you feel that the Thaksin amnesty that should only be for political problems would also have included corruption cases. You always feel like this.. PTP can do what they want.. others are bad but PTP never.

[robblok]

9 minutes ago, seajae said:

"should bad politicians be allowed back", this one question would cause more conflict than any other with all the thai politicians  because most politicians are bad, if they banned them from ever being a politician again as in most countries the current parties would have bugger all members. Why cant they simply make it that any politician committing offences is black banned for life, would remove all the garbage people that cause most of the problems. It should also apply to anyone wanting to be part of any political process(reds/yellows etc), then maybe they would start getting people that were half decent and did the right thing for the country instead of themselves

Indeed.. would be a good thing.. but then you get proxies like YL who are just puppets for the one really controlling it. So in a way being a puppet is a way around the ban. 

[smutcakes]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

Big deal.. one of the most important parts of the senate is that they should not be linked to the MP's as its their job to check them. No wonder you like the PTP you never fault them for anything. For you voting alone means democracy...  but believe it or not most countries believe the senate should not be linked to MP's otherwise they can't do their job of checking them. It would create conflicts of interests. 

 

You feel its irrelevant, just like you feel that the Thaksin amnesty that should only be for political problems would also have included corruption cases. You always feel like this.. PTP can do what they want.. others are bad but PTP never.

And is the military appointing 250 of their nearest and dearest friends any better? those 250 will automatically be beholden to those who appointed them.

Everything you relentlessly bash PTP for can be equally said for the military.

[Smarter Than You]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Big deal.. one of the most important parts of the senate is that they should not be linked to the MP's as its their job to check them. No wonder you like the PTP you never fault them for anything. For you voting alone means democracy...  but believe it or not most countries believe the senate should not be linked to MP's otherwise they can't do their job of checking them. It would create conflicts of interests. 

 

You feel its irrelevant, just like you feel that the Thaksin amnesty that should only be for political problems would also have included corruption cases. You always feel like this.. PTP can do what they want.. others are bad but PTP never.

Name another country in the world that bans relatives of MP's from becoming Senators?

 

"Most countries in the world believe that Senators should not be linked to MP's"

What gives you this idea?

Political parties that field candidates for the lower house also field candidates for the upper house.

(e.g. in the US there are both Democrat and Republican Congressmen and Senators, in Australia there are both Labor and Liberal MP's and Senators or in Thailand there were both PTP and Democrat MP's and Senators).

You are completely wrong when you say they are not linked in other countries.

What makes a bicameral system work is not whether Senators are related to MP's or not, it is that MP's and Senators are elected under a different electoral process 

 

How is a Senate that may or may not contain relatives of sitting MP's worse than no Senate at all or a Senate fully appointed by a small unelected and unaccountable clique.

The answer is its not - what we have here is you applying your double standards again.

 

I'd be willing to bet PTP couldn't really give a toss about relatives being allowed in the Senate or not and would gladly concede the point in exchange for a return to a fully elected Senate.

Do you think the Junta would agree to this - of course not, because the real issue is nothing at all to do with relatives of MP's being Senators.

 

I see you couldn't help slipping in the old "voting alone means democracy " gem.

Lets go over it again shall we.

Democracy with elections is better than democracy without elections.

 

Voting alone may not be all there is to democracy, but it is the most important part of democracy - so much so that without it you don't have democracy.

With voting, democracy exists, it may be imperfect, but it exists.

Without voting, democracy does not exist - end of story.

 

Thaksin doesn't have amnesty, the Generals do - your thoughts on this?

 

 

Edited June 1, 2017 by Smarter Than You
.

[Baerboxer]

5 hours ago, robblok said:

Yes, checks and balances are what is needed. Remember what the PTP wanted last time.. now family members could not be senators. The PTP wanted that rule to be scrapped (creating even less checks and balances), slashed funding to the NACC with 50% Seems the politicians want total power and no accountability. In the current constitution there are more checks and balances (yes they help the army but they also check the politicians more). Lets see how it goes now I hope the mechanisms are strong enough. 

 

But it really seems that nobody ever wants to give up power once they are in power. 

 

Had Thaksin got his whitewash and come back he would have somehow wangled his way back as PM. Next all the checks and balances would be watered down and family members and loyal cronies put into all key positions so actions could be controlled. The defamation laws are already there and were already used to deal with pesky journalists and critics. A 2.2 trillion loan, off the books, out of parliamentary scrutiny, with no accounts available and no accountability, would have funded and strengthened the corruption based kleptocracy with huge amounts siphoned to those lovely BVI private accounts.  That was leading to a Lee style domination of Singapore only this would be the Shins; and without the consideration for the country's welfare Lee showed. 

 

Democracy is a fragile flower and needs the protection of a strong justice system with robust checks and balances. Sadly, those areas are somewhat lacking.

[55Jay]

The 4 questions, while relevant and spot on, were rhetorical.  The PM must be annoyed with the intentionally obtuse cheeky monkeys who are pretending they were real questions, and an invitation to an impromptu national dialogue.   The annoying media is facilitating it too, like so many biting flies harassing the powerful buffalo.  PM is feeling the mounting pressure, but has got to be thinking, "Why couldn't I just keep my big mouth shut!".

 

The questions lay bare the loyalist and elite caste's contempt for the democratic experiment foisted upon Thailand many decades ago, thinking how many times will the peasant dopes insist on this failed, western system of government, expecting different results.

 

Thai Rak Thai but they also know the true, corrupt nature of themselves.  Takes one to know one, so Prayuth's questions address that elephant in the room. This is the point when explaining the current state of affairs to foreign diplomats.  Thailand and Thais need a firm hand and I think, deep down, most are fairly content with that kind of structure, as long as the firm hand doesn't get too carried away.

 

Maybe Thailand will eventually tell the "international community" to bugger off, and finish getting in line with the regional neighbors.  A Hybrid system with a burgeoning middle class.  Communism-Lite.

Edited June 1, 2017 by 55Jay

[Srikcir]

6 hours ago, robblok said:

now family members could not be senators.

Can you reference that?

The Nation 2015-12-27: "the CDC proposed in the charter draft that family members of MPs can apply to be Senate candidates." http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/national/aec/30275747

 

 

[smutcakes]

16 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Can you reference that?

The Nation 2015-12-27: "the CDC proposed in the charter draft that family members of MPs can apply to be Senate candidates." http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/national/aec/30275747

 

 

Old Rob is going to have to be a contortionist to wiggle his way out off that. lol

[mtls2005]

"Reforms before elections", so says Suthep.

 

The PMs questions weren't meant to get feedback from the public. They were statements in the form of rhetorical questions meant to highlight that the masses are just not yet ready for democracy. Soon, maybe 2025 or 2030 after the masses have been suitably subjugated, and the remaining populists have been run to ground. 

 

 

 

Edited June 2, 2017 by mtls2005