Thailand’s military, police on standby for protests if Pita’s PM bid blocked

[Eloquent pilgrim]

23 minutes ago, h90 said:

A majority in parliament is anti-democratic when it does not include the party you like???

A majority in parliament (not speaking about the Senators) is per definition democratic.

Absolute nonsense as usual; everyone has seen your history of anti-democratic comments, you have even on many occasions supported the despotic, anti-democratic, inhuman CCP

[Sydebolle]

Let's get the popcorn; it will be an interesting summer - me thinks! 

 

[Moonlover]

2 hours ago, h90 said:

What is vote Yellow? There was never any "yellow" party. Could mean to vote for the Democrats but they aren't yellow.

Yellow shirts. The People's Alliance for Democracy. Yellow shirts

[Surasak]

3 hours ago, Cat Boy said:

Despite the fact that they themselves were never elected by any votes, stollen or legitimate, and owe their tenure in office as senators to the aberration of Democracy by military rule rather than an actual vote by a living, breathing electorate 

Which should negate their right to pass judgement. But I guess ignorance is bliss.

Edited June 26, 2023 by Surasak

[bamnutsak]

6 minutes ago, Surasak said:

Which should negate their right to pass judgement. But I guess ignorance is bliss.

IMO senators should vote present or abstain in upcoming votes for Speaker and PM.

 

To ignore or go against the will of the people will have grave consequences, both in the short-term and in the long-term.

 

How can senators stand in front of the public and claim they know what's best for the country, and voters do not. And that voters wasted their vote for nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

[zzaa09]

44 minutes ago, clokwise said:

Maybe I'm an outlier, but I could see this turning out differently. If Pita/MF doesn't get the PM, their supporters will simply announce they will stop going to work. Shut down BKK and Phuket for a week, I am pretty certain they will win without a drop of blood or single shot fired.

 

But I agree with most, this is just some old ghouls trying to hang on to power, when this political theater is over, they will go away.

Yet, will anything change? 

[Surasak]

3 minutes ago, bamnutsak said:

IMO senators should vote present or abstain in upcoming votes for Speaker and PM.

 

To ignore or go against the will of the people will have grave consequences, both in the short-term and in the long-term.

 

How can senators stand in front of the public and claim they know what's best for the country, and voters do not. And that voters wasted their vote for nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

'IMO senators should vote present or abstain in upcoming votes for Speaker and PM'

 

Why? The senators were appointed not elected and the appointee is no longer a part of government, which effectively negates their positions.

[MikeandDow]

40 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Absolute nonsense as usual; everyone has seen your history of anti-democratic comments, you have even on many occasions supported the despotic, anti-democratic, inhuman CCP

Agree total nonsence, Ignore list is great

[brianthainess]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

reports that there are fears supporters of the Move Forward Party and its coalition partner Pheu Thai, could hold protests,

Dam right they will if Pita is denied he's rightful place as PM

[brianthainess]

2 hours ago, sandrew33 said:

5 hours ago, Expat68 said:

My wife and several Thai friends think the same way as your wife. 

Yes, many Thais are broken after 20+ years of this nonsense. 

I'll probably not see my wife for a few days after the buses leave. Oh dear 

[zzaa09]

20 minutes ago, Surasak said:

'IMO senators should vote present or abstain in upcoming votes for Speaker and PM'

 

Why? The senators were appointed not elected and the appointee is no longer a part of government, which effectively negates their positions.

Which should've nullified the the whole election process, as they were all participants. 

 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, Dcheech said:

 The Yellows were/are the alter ego of the Democratic Party of Thailand. A party which historically has had little to do with democracy. BTW if you are going to try to deflect, up your game.

Not trying to deflect. If that's what you think, your problem, not mine.

[Expat68]

1 hour ago, Arthur Mullard said:

What an utterly disillusioned race of people then... as undeserving as their northern neighbour-but-one. Where do those feelings go? Internalised. Demoralised. Dehumanised in the case of their northern neighbour.-but-one... Hopefully your wives will be wrong.  

Probably just realistic 

[BenStark]

2 hours ago, bamnutsak said:

Prayuth did not stand for election, hence he did not receive any votes.

I, and others, have told him that umpteen times in the past 2 months. Yet he keeps coming with that drivel.

 

You think he clicks the heels of his boots in the morning?

Edited June 26, 2023 by BenStark

[metisdead]

A post using oversized bold font has been removed.

 

A post trolling about Putin has been removed.

[Gknrd]

And as the military rolls in to stop the democratic elected PM protests. A heart broken ex PM steps in to take the reign for another four yeas of military rule. He had been looking forward to enjoying his long awaited retirement and say's he is pro democracy and will fight to help democracy prevail in the next election, and the next election, and the next election.  

Edited June 26, 2023 by Gknrd

[sammieuk1]

Shipping container shortage alert ????

[tomacht8]

If Pita's PM bid blocked,

there will definitely be mass protests. Any protester would know that they are part of the vast majority calling for the end of the ruling army clan. Then the supporters of the two major parties would protest together side by side. 

[WHansen]

5 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Absolute nonsense as usual; everyone has seen your history of anti-democratic comments, you have even on many occasions supported the despotic, anti-democratic, inhuman CCP

Well said. Won't be long before there is no one left to see the troll posts.

[herfiehandbag]

8 hours ago, JackGats said:

Do we have a stake? More democratic, ie weed  back into the narcotic list? Misandric anti-sex laws? There isn't much "damacracy" has done for me up to now anywhere, except criminalising my fun.

Your "principles" come cheap don't they!

[conimex]

13 hours ago, hughrection said:

Not forgetting the Future Forward won all the seats in Bangkok. This is the heart of the country where industry resides.

 

They wouldn't dare not allow him to be the PM - would they!

Move Forward not Future Forward 

[Maestro]

14 hours ago, webfact said:

...The 8-party coalition of 313 MPs needs the support of 63 senators or MPs in order for Pita to be elected as PM. However, a number of senators say they won’t vote for him...

I am sure that the Senate has a role in the appointment of the Prime Minister because I have seen many news articles saying so, but try as I might I can find nothing about it in the constitution. I should be very grateful if somebody could point me in the right direction.

 

All I have found are the sections 158 and 159, which do not mention the Senate.

 

Quote

 

Section 158. The King appoints the Prime Minister and not more than thirty five other Ministers to constitute the Council of Ministers having the duties to carry out the administration of the State affairs in accordance with the principle of collective responsibility.

The Prime Minister must be appointed from a person who is approved by the House of Representatives under section 159.

The President of the House of Representatives shall countersign the Royal Command appointing the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister shall not hold office for more than eight years in total, whether or not consecutively. However, it shall not include the period during which the Prime Minister carries out duties after vacating office.

 

Section 159. The House of Representatives shall complete its consideration for approval of the person suitable to be appointed as Prime Minister from a person who has the qualifications and is not under any of the prohibitions under section 160, and is a person listed by a political party under section 88, only with respect to the list of names of political parties whose members have been elected as Members of the House of Representatives constituting not less than five per cent of the total number of existing Members of the House of Representatives.

The nomination under paragraph one shall be endorsed by members comprising not less than one tenth of the total number of the existing Members of the House of Representatives.

The resolution of the House of Representatives approving the appointment of a person as Prime Minister shall be passed by open votes and by the votes of more than one half of the total number of the existing Members of the House of Representatives.

 

 

[bamnutsak]

12 hours ago, Surasak said:

'IMO senators should vote present or abstain in upcoming votes for Speaker and PM'

 

Why? The senators were appointed not elected and the appointee is no longer a part of government, which effectively negates their positions.

 

FWIW, a "present" vote is not a vote for or against a candidate. It merely indicates that the legislator was present. An abstention is also not a vote for or against a candidate.

 

My point was that honest, sincere, noble Senators would recognize that they really shouldn't take the power of the people away from them. It's no better than a coup as both can be labelled as "legal".

 

4 hours ago, Maestro said:

I am sure that the Senate has a role in the appointment of the Prime Minister because I have seen many news articles saying so, but try as I might I can find nothing about it in the constitution. I should be very grateful if somebody could point me in the right direction.

 

Interesting point.

 

I was under the impression that a vote required a majority of the National Legislative Assembly, which is made up of the House of Representatives (500 MPs) and the Senate (250 Senators). 

 

Section 79 The National Assembly consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

 

But you are correct, only the House of Representatives is mentioned.

 

It's not mentioned under Joint Sittings (Sec. 156)

 

In 2019 Senators had a vote, they voted unanimously for General Prayuth.

 

I can only think this is an issue with the translations? Or the versions used for the translations? For example all the versions I see mention the 350/150 split rather than the 400/100 split now used. Or that we're missing something.

[zzaa09]

11 hours ago, Gknrd said:

And as the military rolls in to stop the democratic elected PM protests. A heart broken ex PM steps in to take the reign for another four yeas of military rule. He had been looking forward to enjoying his long awaited retirement and say's he is pro democracy and will fight to help democracy prevail in the next election, and the next election, and the next election.  

Had a hunch it was going to work out this way.

Difficult to break tradition.

[SABloke]

14 hours ago, h90 said:

A majority in parliament is anti-democratic when it does not include the party you like???

A majority in parliament (not speaking about the Senators) is per definition democratic.

Exactly, MFP already have a majority coalition which is democratic. Even you have to add the caveat about the senators because you know the current Thai system isn't demoractic, no matter how hard you try and spin it.

[h90]

4 minutes ago, SABloke said:

Exactly, MFP already have a majority coalition which is democratic. Even you have to add the caveat about the senators because you know the current Thai system isn't demoractic, no matter how hard you try and spin it.

No the MFP has no majority coalition yet. They have a majority coalition after the vote. That some party boss tells that they intend to vote for them is meaningless. The actual vote is what counts. After the vote the have a majority government. Before it is only hot air.

[RocketDog]

16 hours ago, JackGats said:

Do we have a stake? More democratic, ie weed  back into the narcotic list? Misandric anti-sex laws? There isn't much "damacracy" has done for me up to now anywhere, except criminalising my fun.

If you don't feel that you have a stake in a freer and more prosperous society, then you don't.

 

Leave it to others to determine their own destiny.

[h90]

14 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Absolute nonsense as usual; everyone has seen your history of anti-democratic comments, you have even on many occasions supported the despotic, anti-democratic, inhuman CCP

CCP? I didn't know that you can vote for the CCP in Thailand....

What on the workings of the parliament is what you don't understand? The election of the government is done by the parliament not in twitter. The majority there counts. MFP and PTP are almost the same strength they can both form a government without the other or they can form one together. So there are 3 different coalitions possible and an infinity amount on how they share the positions together. Coalitions between the second and the third party with the 3rd having the Prime Minister happens in other countries. No one would call a >50% coalition undemocratic

[h90]

12 minutes ago, RocketDog said:

If you don't feel that you have a stake in a freer and more prosperous society, then you don't.

 

Leave it to others to determine their own destiny.

Determine their own destiny=Freedom: If you don't like Marijuana: don't use it.

Tyranny...can be also tyranny of the majority against a minority: Force people to do or not to do something. Less free society.

[Ginner]

15 hours ago, StayinThailand2much said:

They would. (Doesn't mean that they actually will, but I give Pita a 55% chance to become PM at best; certainly under current political conditions.)

Investment is already steading off, and Thai Bhat is suffering. Thai Bhat now  £1 == B44. From B39 last month.