bannork

A senior figure at one of the Thai banks posted this on his Facebook page: The rejection of MF is not about loyalty. It's because you want to reduce the army, reduce the number of generals and civil servants. Scrap some laws, reduce power, reduce monopolies, reduce all personal privileges. The only thing you're going to increase are taxes on the rich Who can accept you?

I concur, PT and MF must stick together. If the senators refuse to approve of Settha, their bias will be seen to be intolerable. If PT break away and form an alliance with Bhumjaithai and Pravit, they deserve to be hammered at the next election. Thaksin, where do you stand on this? (on the fence).

Over 72% of the voting electorate chose one of the parties in the proposed coalition. Many of them are PT supporters. The talk in my village shop ( in a PT constituency), was disgust with the senators. Of course they have had bitter experiences before with the Constitutional Court dissolving two of their parties so their sympathy for MF is natural. They won't gloating, seeing an opportunity for Settha, rather they expressed more outrage and bitterness at the establishment.

'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel'.

They hammered Thanathorn down and Pita emerged. Hammer Pita down and another intelligent, articulate leader will emerge. There's plenty of them in MF, it's the only party to belong to if you believe in progress rather than clan politics.

MF were by far the winner in votes, 14 million compared to PT's ten million. The election was for both MPs and the PM. Otherwise, why would parties have to name their PM candidates first? I wager many voters chose Pita for MF's policies, and his own eloquence.

Oh the irony of the spectre of Prayuth's senators, anti Thaksin to the man, voting for his party's candidate. Will they do it or will they insist MF are removed from the coalition first, either by PT or the court?

There's speculation on the internet that government MPs and some senators will walk out this afternoon before the vote, thus ensuring a quorum of members cannot be met and hence the vote for PM is cancelled. The reason is to let the Constitutional Court consider Pita's case first before Parliament's second vote on the 19th. No doubt they're all hoping he gets suspended so they're not faced with having to explain why they rejected the election winner.

They propose to reform 112, not abolish it In 10 years time, their position will be considered the norm.

Yup, no BP. Perhaps they're all out busy buying supplies before the next Bangkok shutdown

Ask Jim. He surfaces from time to time- mrmojorisin.. Shhh- he's got his bags ready in Singapore, waiting for a deadlock regarding non selection of PM . Then lo and behold, he returns as an outsider PM! ( allowed under the constitution if cannot choose PM from Parliament). Bananas all round for the military backed parties to vote the right way. Sorry, that was just a bad dream I had last night, too many chillis in the shrimp salad, phew!

It will be on TV, probably.NBT. MPs have four hours for debate, senators two

Prayuth could have used the 1959 constitution if the public rejected the 2017 one Wikipedia - A temporary charter was promulgated in February 1959 and remained in place for nine years, even after Sarit's death in 1964. The charter has been called "perhaps the most repressive in Thailand's history."[19] It granted the premier near absolute power, including the authority to order summary executions.[26] It banned political parties and called for an appointed unicameral parliament, consisting of 240 mostly military appointees.[19] It contained only 20 articles, making it the shortest charter in Thai history.

If they did not vote for the 2017 Constitution, Prayuth was going to impose an older, likely a more repressive constitution. Where is the choice in this devil or the deep blue sea alternatives?

They had a Hobson's choice: Vote for the 2017 Constitution with no public criticism/ debate allowed of its contents.. Reject or not vote for the 2017 Constitution and then an unknown previous constitution would be imposed. That's not a genuine choice, the public have no input/ say in the constitution .

From Wikipedia National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) unveiled a draft constitution on 29 March 2016.[65] In the run-up to the 7 August 2016 referendum on the new constitution, the army conducted a "grassroots information campaign." There was no debate permitted on its merits.[66] Under the junta's rules, "people who propagate information deemed distorted, violent, aggressive, inciting or threatening so that voters do not vote or vote in a particular way" faced up to 10 years in jail and a fine of up to 200,000 baht.[67] The 105-page, 279-article constitution[2][3] was approved by 61.4 percent of Thai voters on 7 August 2016 with 59.4 percent of the public

Let me help you "The government had previously made a new constitution a prerequisite for a general election, but Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha said a vote would go ahead in mid-2017, even if it had to be held under an old constitution.' I've told you this before. Prayuth threatened to use an old constitution if the 2017 one did not pass He didn't specify which one but as a junta leader he would obviously choose one benefitting an authoritarian government. The people had no choice in 2017.

It was illegal for the population to debate the constitution ratified by the junta after seizing power in 2114. It was illegal for political parties to debate the 2017 constitution.

And who would choose the constitution to revert to, and how many more years down the road? The junta

Absolutely.

It was a Hobson's choice for Gawd's sake. After the coup, the junta wrote a constitution in 2015 which their own council rejected. It was forbidden to criticise the 2017 constitution, if the public rejected it, who knows how many more years before a third would be written? All the while, the junta remained in power, using their ' emergency ' constitution post coup. The public had no choice. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34149523

h90 is fond of saying in his country ( Austria) governments are often composed of coalitions from parties that came second, third, fourth. So it's no surprise the party that won the most seats cannot form a government. However, as far as I know, Austria doesn't have 250 senators, all personally appointed by the previous PM / government, able to vote in the selection of the following PM.

Wow!

Yesterday there was a big crowd to welcome him in Supanburi. Today it's Pathum Thani .