Court rules independent candidates for Senate ‘not unconstitutional’

By THE NATION

 

File photo

 

A CONTROVERSIAL clause in the organic law on selection of senators is not unconstitutional, the Constitutional Court ruled yesterday.
 

The Court explained that the cause in question was merely provisional, not permanent.

 

The clause stipulates candidates for the Senate must be either “independent” or represent a professional association.

 

Opponents including the Constitution Drafting Commission said the clause violated the military-drafted Constitution, which only recognises members of professional guilds as legitimate Senate candidates.

 

The controversy led to some members of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) seeking the Court’s ruling to ensure the bill’s legality and prevent any future problems arising regarding the clause. The NLA was criticised loudly for the move by those concerned it would further delay an election.

 

The Court’s ruling that the clause is in harmony with the Constitution means the NLA can now proceed to submit the bill to the prime minister to present for royal endorsement.

 

Two more bills – on the election of MPs and on political parties – have been sent to the Constitutional Court for a ruling on their legality.

 

The Court yesterday announced it would deliver a judgement on the MPs election bill next Wednesday.

 

Contentious points in the bills are whether it is constitutional to ban eligible voters who fail to vote from taking up any political office, and provision of assistance for the disabled at polling booths.

 

On controversy surrounding the junta amending the political party law to set deadlines for party arrangements, the Court said it would discuss the issue next Wednesday and give a verdict later.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30346138

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-05-24

"merely provisional not permanent"

 

What the heck does that really mean?That some clauses are more 'permanent' than others?

 

How does anyone run a constitutional gov't on that basis?

Edited May 23, 20188 yr by Odysseus123

I can see them getting lost in the PMs In Tray for a couple of weeks, oooops...

3 hours ago, Odysseus123 said:

"merely provisional not permanent"

 

What the heck does that really mean?That some clauses are more 'permanent' than others?

 

How does anyone run a constitutional gov't on that basis?

 

I think (repeat "think") I get this, but would welcome anyone with a better answer.

 

The clue is in the word "provisional". I think what the court has said is that the Military can appoint whomever they want to the Senate despite the constitution saying that the appointee has to represent a professional association. And that while they can appoint anyone they want despite the appointee not meeting the professional qualification, it is valid as the power to appoint a Senator by the NCPO is temporary (5 years). Presumably, after the five year period has lapsed, then the appointee would have to be a member of "Professional Association".

 

I think (repeat "think") that the court is saying that as the power to appoint a Senator by the NCPO is temporary, then the permanent rules don't apply, yet. However, they will apply later, after the five year period.

 

Yes, this is weird and convoluted reasoning and an... unusual decision, but that is not unique to this or any other Thai court decision.

 

I sincerely would welcome a better answer than this...

 

Anyone? 

 

Edited May 24, 20188 yr by Samui Bodoh
Lack of coffee

Samui-I have been hit by the '520' bug and therefore I cannot either 'quote' or 'reply' nor 'edit' at times..so please bear with me.

 

Okay-if you are living in Shangri-La than that is a probable explanation.

 

Perhaps they can label the next constitution as "Lost Horizon' and be done with it.

So, special rule for NCPO?

Surprise!

There is no independent candidates if you examine the appointment process for senates. 

Senate candidates will be 'recruited' rather than open application and nomination by state agencies which was the original draft. Followed by a 'intra-group' voting system to short-list the candidates rather than cross candidate group voting. Shortlisted candidates will be presented to the NCPO who will pick 194 to be senators with 6 seats reserved for the armed forces. The NCPO will pick the rest 50 from a 'non-open' application. What a farce!!!!!!!