whybother

Ah, so that makes section 181 suddenly not applicable. Only in your dream world. Section 181 is crystal clear and Yingluck's government did follow it to the letter. They could not hand over power to an unelected body and they had to remain in office until a new council of ministers was installed. That council of ministers can only be installed after a general election and hence a new house of representatives.

It doesn't make section 181 not applicable. It just allows a caretaker government to resign. I'm not saying they should. I'm just saying they had the option.

Section 182 concerns the termination of a "ministership" (individual) rather than the termination of a "ministry" (group) that is to say "a government headed by" which is covered by section 180.

They could certainly have resigned en masse, thus bringing Section 181 into play. It requires them to caretake, they can't stop caretaking and go on holiday,

by law, until a new government is formed. They only start caretaking because they have resigned!

The purpose of section 181 is to avoid a disorderly power vacuum between the departure of one government and the arrival of the next.

Of course the army chose to move again, thus we arrive at the now, all to familiar, situation.

While they repeatedly behave in the way that they do we may all just as well shout at the wind.

As has been pointed out earlier in this thread the situation will keep returning as long as there is no knowledge of history or development of a "modern" political consciousness amongst a significant number, or cadre, of the Thais.

When they awake from their slumber, as all do eventually, the earth will move, as it always does.

If they resign they are no longer MPs or ministers, caretaker or otherwise. Dissolving parliament is not resigning.

Democrats? PT? It's all irrelevant as Prayuth and his Junta are going nowhere. They will not step down

Yes they will.

Ah, so that makes section 181 suddenly not applicable. Only in your dream world. Section 181 is crystal clear and Yingluck's government did follow it to the letter. They could not hand over power to an unelected body and they had to remain in office until a new council of ministers was installed. That council of ministers can only be installed after a general election and hence a new house of representatives.

It doesn't make section 181 not applicable. It just allows a caretaker government to resign. I'm not saying they should. I'm just saying they had the option.

Agreed, and that's the point, the government had already caved in and then stayed on a caretaker government (as Thai law dictates) until an election can be held. They tried for an election which was violently halted by the same thugs that were driving around Phuket on motorbikes and closed kids schools for some reason! The coup was not so much a coup just a simple grabbing of power as there was no government!

Which law dictates that a government HAS to stay on after they have dissolved parliament?

Chapter IX, section 181. Constitution of Thailand 2007.

Also apart from the above, there is no provision in that constitution that allow them to stand down for a non elected body such as Suthep and his buddies.

Section 182 (2) allows them to stand down.

That section handles resignation of individual ministers not the whole government.

So all of them individually could have resigned.

This thread is so full of BS and monstrous double-standards, it's not true.

I followed events very closely and what happened to cause the coup was pretty straightforward:

Pheu-Thai refused point blank to allow any political reform before a new election. They were 100% prepared to use every means in their power to prevent it. This slid into open terrorist attacks against innocent protestors of the WORST kind : grenades being firing randomly into crowds.

As things were getting more desperate, Prayuth got them all together (a deliberate act) and gave them a chance to back away from the killing. They refused and so he took control. They refused because they had no power to agree : that decision was taken from a luxury hotel room in Dubai long before the meeting.

The rest is all just a consequence of that decision. Once Prayuth had made the decision, he had no choice but to follow the current path, and to commit to it 100%.

I have no reason to prefer one side over another. I form my opinions by following the news over time and things become pretty clear if your glasses are not tinted red or yellow.

Nobody wants this Junta, but all you people whining about it are blaming the wrong people. Of course, there's nothing new there. I've met very few Thais who will accept the consequence of their actions : they always blame somebody else.

Unfortunately for this narrative you've left out the key player; yes, Suthep and his barmy army.

For six months they blocked the traffic, caused immense disruption to ordinary people going about their business, were guilty of just as much violence as the PTP people and ultimately obstructed and caused the abandonment of free elections. On the basis of Suthep's subsequent comments it is almost certain that the whole point of the exercise was to bring about the coup; ie he was simply acting as an agent provocateur for the military.

Your version of events is rather like the Second World War without Hitler.

Whoa! On this you are completely wrong. I was living off Sathorn in 2010 when Taksin's rent a rabble were hurling grenades and using rocket launchers to bring down Sala Daeng Sky Train. They also turned Central World to toast and made great use of gasoline tankers. In no way can that be compared with Suthep's popgun

Thaksins "rent a rabble"

" rocket launchers to bring down the sky train"

"turned Central World to toast"

Rather sad for your case that after all these years and so few accused, there are no convictions in the CW arson.

Rather begs the question, who actually did it, rather than who is it most convenient to blame.???

Let's not talk about medics and journalists being murdered and the use of snipers in demonstration control...... ( possibly a world first )

All is rosy, and "all for the best, in this best of all possible worlds" for the right whingers ( spot the typo) here.

Just because they haven't been able to convict individuals for the CW fire doesn't mean that it wasn't done by red shirts.

Section 182 (2) allows them to stand down.

But not for a non-elected body to take over. They stand down (and indeed, stood down) until a newly elected government takes over.

They didn't stand down. Parliament was dissolved. If the had stood down, ie resigned, they wouldn't have been the caretaker government.

There is nothing in the 2007 constitution to allow an unelected body to take over, but that doesn't stop them from resigning.

Agreed, and that's the point, the government had already caved in and then stayed on a caretaker government (as Thai law dictates) until an election can be held. They tried for an election which was violently halted by the same thugs that were driving around Phuket on motorbikes and closed kids schools for some reason! The coup was not so much a coup just a simple grabbing of power as there was no government!

Which law dictates that a government HAS to stay on after they have dissolved parliament?

Chapter IX, section 181. Constitution of Thailand 2007.

Also apart from the above, there is no provision in that constitution that allow them to stand down for a non elected body such as Suthep and his buddies.

Section 182 (2) allows them to stand down.

Agreed, and that's the point, the government had already caved in and then stayed on a caretaker government (as Thai law dictates) until an election can be held. They tried for an election which was violently halted by the same thugs that were driving around Phuket on motorbikes and closed kids schools for some reason! The coup was not so much a coup just a simple grabbing of power as there was no government!

Which law dictates that a government HAS to stay on after they have dissolved parliament?

I'm sure you're more than capable of doing your own homework?

I'll take that as you making things up then.

Agreed, and that's the point, the government had already caved in and then stayed on a caretaker government (as Thai law dictates) until an election can be held. They tried for an election which was violently halted by the same thugs that were driving around Phuket on motorbikes and closed kids schools for some reason! The coup was not so much a coup just a simple grabbing of power as there was no government!

Which law dictates that a government HAS to stay on after they have dissolved parliament?

They said the ban on alcohol sales to youths aged below 20 had proven to be a failure due to the fact that children were still able to buy liquor at general outlets.

So they want a ban on sales, even though a ban on sales hasn't worked.

The army has M16's field guns,tanks, modern fighter aircraft and they need a shield to protect themselves ?

I would think that is a perfect reason why they need martial law. Would you prefer them to use their armoury instead?

http://www.asean.org/resources/publications/asean-publications/item/asean-economic-community-scorecard-3

Just as an example, the "scorecard" (from 2012) indicates that the "Free Flow of Skilled Labour" is fully implemented.

The free flow of skilled labour for AEC is generally based around accreditations from one country being accepted in another. For Thais to use their skills, say for architecture, in another country, first they have to get accreditation from a central Thai based "architecture organisation". This is on top of having the relevant degree. There is no currently no central Thai organisation that gives this accreditation. The process to get accreditation is given hasn't even been worked out.

That would indicate to me that the "Free Flow of Skilled Labour" hasn't been fully implemented, in 2014, let alone 2012.

Thank you for making my point number one. It's amazing how little most people know about ASEAN. Maybe it's a technical thing like arguing over what makes a jet aircraft engine from Boeing better than an engine from a competitor? Maybe I should not be so critical of what people say about what is happening in ASEAN. For that I'm wrong. I apologize.

However, the AEC Blueprint is a pretty technical document that is easily misunderstood if a person does not have an international business background. And then again, most of the business instructors and academics at my university are clueless as well about ASEAN and the AEC. Maybe working knowledge of the WTO, international trade theory, and ASEAN would be the best combination.

About your comments....the scorecard reports on measures identified in the AEC Blueprint. There are 4 Phases to the AEC Blueprint. The document you pointed out only deals with Phases 1 and 2. We are now in Phase 4 of the AEC Blueprint. The measure from Phase II is fully implemented. No where in the AEC Scorecard that you pointed states that the "Free Flow of Skilled Labor" is fully implemented. However, it is schedule to be complete this year.

The "Free Flow of Skilled Labor" is based on visa arrangements between the ASEAN countries. See paraghraph A5 in the AEC Blueprint.

What you were talking about is one of the most misunderstood aspects of the AEC Integration process. The "Free Flow of Services" includes Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRA) for 8 service sectors. MRAs are covered by Article VII of the GATS agreement. Seven of the ASEAN MRAs are administered by the ASEAN economic ministers of the 10 ASEAN countries. The 8th, the MRA for tourism is handled by the tourism ministers of all 10 ASEAN countries.

For the Free Flow of Services...A service sector is defined by the World Trade Organization's (WTO) General Agreement for Trade in Services (GATS). Specifically, GATS W/120 universe of classification. There are 12 service sectors which contain sub-sectors containing other sub-sectors which leads to all the service jobs in the world. For example, teaching, banking, accounting, working in hotels, etc. are services covered by GATS. GATS identifies 4 modes of delivering a service to a consumer: (1) Cross border supply; Such as providing streaming internet service from the USA to Thailand such as GamePass from the NFL. (2) Consumption Abroad such as when a tourist from the USA comes to Thailand and stays in a Thai hotel. (3) Commercial presence is when a someone from one country invest in some form in another country such as a joint venture (FDI) (4) Presence of natural persons is when a person from one country comes to work in another country such as farangs working in Thai schools as English teachers.

I'm only familiar with the tourism aspect of the Mutual Recognition Arrangement for Tourism Professionals. (MRA-TP). The MRA-TP is administered in Thailand by the Ministry of Tourism and Sports. They are also the organization that issues the accreditation in Thailand as well as verifies accreditation from other ASEAN countries for the 32 tourism certificates under the MRA-TP. Just because you're not aware of these Thai offices existing does not mean it hasn't happened yet. It only means you, and most everyone else, doesn't know about it.

"No where in the AEC Scorecard that you pointed states that the "Free Flow of Skilled Labor" is fully implemented."

Page 11, Table 1, 5th row, green column - "Free Flow of Skilled Labor" "Fully Implemented - 1" "Not Fully Implemented - 0"

I already aware of that, however my point was well, its been made.

OK. Hopefully I can find someone to explain your point to me, because I have no idea what it was.

I think it's amazing how little most people know about Asean. Most of the AEC objectives have already been met. While there is still work to do, compared to what has already been accomplished, there is not much left to do in accordance with the AEC Blueprint. Speaking of the AEC Blueprint, if there is an objective that people think should be a part of the AEC and it is not in the AEC Blueprint, then it is not part part of the Asean Integration process for the AEC.

I am not sure where you get your information from, but from what I understand, there are things that were due to be implemented in 2008 that still haven't been implemented, and they're still a long way from having all the laws and processes in place that they need for the start of AEC at the end of this year.

AEC Scorecard

http://www.asean.org/resources/publications/asean-publications/item/asean-economic-community-scorecard-3

Just as an example, the "scorecard" (from 2012) indicates that the "Free Flow of Skilled Labour" is fully implemented.

The free flow of skilled labour for AEC is generally based around accreditations from one country being accepted in another. For Thais to use their skills, say for architecture, in another country, first they have to get accreditation from a central Thai based "architecture organisation". This is on top of having the relevant degree. There is no currently no central Thai organisation that gives this accreditation. The process to get accreditation is given hasn't even been worked out.

That would indicate to me that the "Free Flow of Skilled Labour" hasn't been fully implemented, in 2014, let alone 2012.

I think it's amazing how little most people know about Asean. Most of the AEC objectives have already been met. While there is still work to do, compared to what has already been accomplished, there is not much left to do in accordance with the AEC Blueprint. Speaking of the AEC Blueprint, if there is an objective that people think should be a part of the AEC and it is not in the AEC Blueprint, then it is not part part of the Asean Integration process for the AEC.

I am not sure where you get your information from, but from what I understand, there are things that were due to be implemented in 2008 that still haven't been implemented, and they're still a long way from having all the laws and processes in place that they need for the start of AEC at the end of this year.

So the idea that the CDC will recommend Germany's Multi-Member Party system to the NRC has NOT been accepted after all. Now suddenly there are more discussions to make Thai MP's more controlled independent from political parties. For every turn towards a participatory democratic process, there are two turns against. It would appear that the Junta cannot accept any existing democratic electoral system in the world for Thailand. That's understandable as those systems do not lend themselves to military coups. That's hardly what I'd call REFORM.

I'm not sure how making MPs more independent means that the MMP system has not been accepted.

People behind rice scheme will be sued to cover losses, Prayut says

No, they won't. 'Prayuth poot maak'.

Who are the people behind the rice scheme?

Why do you claim they won't be sued?

Because they have yet to have a proven case?

Don't you sue them and then prove your case in court? If you prove it before you sue them, you don't need the court.

Critics see proposal as a move to extend junta's tenure;

That's why the Germans use the system, right?

Thats a gross excuse for argument, in fact it is beneath you. Care to explain how german electoral systems are relevant to the desire of the Thai people it would appear to avoid having to rely anything but the vote. More simply, to decide on the system that works for them, not dependent on "Good People" Or the powers that be?

I could be wrong, though it appears to be the case that Germany is not Thailand, nor is Thailand a clone of Germany now or at anytime.

Maybe you missed the news, but the CDC are proposing to use a system used in Germany for the lower house.

Critics see proposal as a move to extend junta's tenure;

That's why the Germans use the system, right?

come on, this isn't really the German system, right?

The MMP part is the German system.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Critics see proposal as a move to extend junta's tenure;

That's why the Germans use the system, right?

I can't tell the direction of your comment. It could be read in support of or and against the thread. If one notes some of the major differences between Germany's electoral system and the CDC/NCR proposed electoral system, your comment may be perplexing at best. The CDC is not recommending full adoption of the German system of government for Thailand.

There is no German monarchy as Head of State - unlike Thailand. That means the German military is under the control of the German government with the Chancellor as both Head of State and Head of Government. There is no mechanism by which the military can operate independently to overthrow the government - unlike Thailand.

The German legislature is single body and 100% elected. There is no Senate and House as proposed by the CDC. The CDC proposal is to adopt the MMP only for directly electing MP's in the House but require an appointed Senate.

The German Head of State/Head of Government is elected by the legislature, usually through a political party coalition. The CDC will allow a nonparty PM to come "legally" to power with no mention as to the mechanism or process to such ascedency but a military coup would be consistent with such as action - unlike German's electroral system.

it would be very ambitious and brave if the CDC did fully adopt the German electoral system. But being a creature of the NCPO, it can only be expected to accomodate its current masters.

My comment was in relation to the MMP portion. That's the only part of the proposed system that the Germans are using.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Can you can tell us what other PM has achieved what he has in a few months, what others haven't achieved in a few years?

What other PM had the military behind him, what other PM used martial law to stay in power, what other PM was non-elected. None except from a coup.

Somchai was "non-elected"?

He came to power by a "special method," but this "little known" Thai media group says three more years. Why not PM for Life.

I'm sure they could find 3 unknown groups that say he should be PM for life, just to get everyone worked up.

Critics see proposal as a move to extend junta's tenure;

That's why the Germans use the system, right?

Is The Nation trolling?