Just as many precedents for MPs choosing premier
Play
Re: "Ample precedents for direct election of PM", Letters, December 23.
I usually have the greatest respect for Songdej’s views, but he is off-song with his support for the direct election of prime ministers. Thailand in recent years has had disastrous leaders, and that wouldn’t have changed with direct election. British prime ministers must be democratically elected MPs, and it is the MPs who choose the leader and who can unseat him at any time. A directly elected PM has too much power and is usually conservative in ideology. Logically, Thailand would have a left-wing premier. Would that be acceptable?
To suggest that any country should mimic the bellicose attitude toward neighbouring countries exhibited by Israel or Japan is a pretty poor argument.
Abe’s rise to power on the back of re-militarising Japan is a good argument against direct election.
The Charter Drafting Committee has gone halfway to a good decision by saying the House should elect the PM. What it clearly has not decided is whether to continue the practice of party-list MPs. The PM should have to go through the democratic process as a non-party-list MP.
The last government had a PM who was not elected as an MP and who ran the country through a nominee, so anything is possible.
Richard Bowler
Bangkok
