Jump to content

Senate clarifies absence of 33 senators during last Thursday’s prime ministerial vote


Recommended Posts

Posted
57 minutes ago, bob smith said:

That lazyitus is a killer you know!

I thought it was a back problem, similar to a backache when trying to get out of the mia noi's bed in the morning.  ????

Posted
5 hours ago, webfact said:

Addressing reports of senators being intimidated or having their privacy compromised, the president of the Senate said he has asked the police to provide protection for senate members and their families.

Hmmm.  Is that helpful or dangerous?

Posted
4 hours ago, ikke1959 said:

Why did he not clarify why so many senators abstained from voting..

That is their choice and it is not  his role to apply hearsay to that decision.....

 

So  what did I read....11 were on  junkets, 6 found something else more important to do than vote for a PM, and 16 weren't feeling well. (No effort to turn up in hospital pajamas then like Naz Shah in the UK....)

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Myran said:

"6 senators who were senior armed forces figures were absent because of other important duties"

 

If their other duties are so important that they can't attend to their duties as senators, perhaps they shouldn't be senators?

They have cited their own conflict of interests.

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted

It could not be more Thai than this. If they have to take a position or decide on something else but food or fun, then they love to be ........ absent. 

Unless in an ICU on life support, all those absentees should be fired immediately without any possibility of ever taking a political position ever again. 

How can you be absent during such an important meeting, really! 

  • Thumbs Up 2
Posted
7 hours ago, anchadian said:

16 of the senators were sick, wow that's 6.4% of the total senate.

 

I hope they all received sickness benefit.

And did they bring a sick report or a note from their mother?

  • Haha 1
Posted
5 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

Furthermore. If Senators or MPs are not present at the vote, the simple majority should be based only on the total number of people present. Example of 750 eligible voters only 600 are present. Then the simple majority would be 301 and no longer 376.

You mean the senatorial component of any vote should be prorated? Makes all sorts of sense but probably because isn't specifically stated in the current (or any) Constitution, it doesn't matter. Even if it was, all you would probably get is more abstentions. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...