Movement for change Democracy in Thailand
The Parliament in Thailand comprise of 250 appointed senators and 500 MPs elected by the people. 

Some people criticize this system for being "undemocratic". I hold a different view. I am in favor of this type of "not truly democratic" system. 

I like to give my reasons.

Mr. Lee Kuan Yew was worried that UK parliamentary system used by Singapore could result, one day, in a complete change of government. This could be harmful to Singapore. 

I share the same concern. I have also seen changes of government through democratic elections in several countries that do not produce stability or a good future for the people. I will not quote specific examples, because I face the risk of being inaccurate or controversial.

To address LKY's concerns, the government made the following changes to the constitution:

a) Introduce the system of group representative constituency (GRC)
b) Introduce the elected president (EP) to hold some powers over the elected government. 

I hold the view that both of these changes were not effective and had created more harm than good. They did not result in the right people being elected or selected to run the country. They are the privileged people. I have seen governance in Singapore turn to be rather bad under this modified system. 

I find the system adopted in Thailand to have several advantages over the GRC/EP system adopted in the constitution of Singapore. Here are the advantages:

a) Instead of having one powerful "elected president", we have 250 appointed senators.
b) The appointed senators can provide a stabilizing force from a large scale change of government policies following a major swing produced by a general election.
c) If the new government is elected because of "populist policies" or "unjustified promises given at election time", the sitting senators can provide some checks and balances.

I do not see the senators as being a negative obstructive force to the democratic wishes of the people. If the elected government acts sensibly and the senators obstruct the process of change, the people will be able to see what is happening. The public opinion will prevent this negative tendency. 

An advantage of the system in Thailand is that the discussions are carried out in Parliament and is open to the public. This is better than the system in Singapore where the deliberations of the Council of Presidential Advisers (members are appointed) are kept secret and the decisions of the Elected President are not explained. 

There is also the issue of how the senators in Thailand are appointed.  I like to think that they are appointed from the more qualified people in the country based on their knowledge and experience and past service to the country. The ordinary citizens will be able to see if the right people are appointed as senators.

Given the choice of the Thailand constitution and the Singapore constitution, I prefer the former.

Of course, I could be mistaken about how the Thailand system will eventually work out. I wish them all the best. 

Tan Kin Lian

Add Comment

---