Thai Protesters Accept Pm Abhisit Election Roadmap, but refuse to go home

[chadintheusa]

Red-shirt leaders demand PM to specify House dissolution date

The red-shirt leaders Tuesday demanded that the prime minister announce a specific day for House dissolution before they will join the government's roadmap for political resolution.

They announced that the prime minister had no authority to set the election date on November 14 as the power belongs to the Election Commission.

They demanded that the government must show its sincerity towards political reconciliation by halting all kinds of intimidation towards the red-shirt protesters.

-- The Nation 2010-05-04

I think we can close this thread until further notice. MYbe I am dumb, but why must there be a house dissolution before the the election.

BBC are reporting that the reds are unconcerned by the date of election, they want to know when the house will be dissolved

this is still in line with their previous demands, so nothings really changed

they want Abhisit to dissolve the house quickly, so that he cannot pass the 2011 budget, and more importantly so he cannot amend the constitution to keep Thaksin and his cronies out and so that he can oversee the military reshuffle to see Anapong retire, and install Thaksin hater General Prayuth who will be the hard man that will bring the Army back on track

the reds know that if Abhisit can achieve these items on his personal road map then the red cause will be all but over bar the shouting

The key issue for the Reds is the dissolution date, not the election date. For them, having the dissolution prior to this government submitting the names for the military reshuffle is paramount.

I am not so sure that one of the concerns is that Abhisit will amend the constitution to keep Thaksin out as mentioned above. The 2007 constitution was drawn up by the military following the 2006 coup and last I looked, Thaksin is already out. Instead, the Reds are looking for a way to amend the constitution to get Thaksin back in.

On the Red protest, if it truly was about democracy then getting another election would be the key issue, but this has never been about democracy. It is about power to a small select group who will continue to throw crumbs to the people they claim to represent. This is their roadmap.

Of course the house must be dissolved before an election, I imagine it would be around the beginning of November. I'm sure the election commission will go along with the PM's recommendation on a date. There is no reason to dissolve the house now and live without a functioning government for 6 months. Thaksin is always welcome back in Thailand, there is a prison cell already waiting. The reds will moan and complain for a couple more days then claim they have complete and total victory. I wonder how long before the Phrai start to demand that they be allowed to leave since they have an election coming. There is not need for their red overlords to keep them in Bangkok any longer. 2 months is long enough, I hope speeding up the elections by 90 days was worth all those lives that were lost.

[jcbangkok]

Please Snoopy! I am curious!

Can you point out for me where in the constitution you find about house dissolution and election. I try to read it and only find that only the king can do it, but I am sure where will be some other paragraf which tells otherwise

Section 108. The King has the prerogative to dissolve the House of Representatives for a new election of members of the House. The dissolution of the House of Representatives shall be made in the form of a Royal Decree in which the day for a new general election must be fixed within the period of not less than forty five days but not more than sixty days as from the date of the dissolution of the House of Representatives and such election day must be the same throughout the Kingdom. The dissolution of the House of Representatives may be made only once under the same circumstance

Wolf, if you have taken the time to scan through the constitution maybe you can explain to me why a house dissolution need to take place before elections.

That is an excellent question.

From reading the 2007 constitution (boring), under section 124, unless disqualified for a number of individual reasons (none of which apply here), it looks like the president and vice president of the house stay in office until the expiration of their term (4 years) or upon a dissolution. Hence, there must be some catalyst for a new national election to be called. Interestingly, only one elected government has made it through its 4 year term and that was Thaksin's government in 2001-2005.

Wow, there are just too many questions coming from an angle of only knowing US politics. I don't want to make you the answer man here but some things I wonder ... Assuming the PM still remains in power under house dissolution does this mean he has absolute power to pass bills and such or is he also out and if so, who runs the show. And why the heck would there be a minimum time before elections .. in other words why have a 45-day period that is required before elections resulting in leaving the country without a house of reps for 6-weeks plus whatever time needs to be lapsed before those elected take office? My guess is this is to allow them and others time to campaign.

But, I guess the only real question (not just wondering out loud) is if it would be possible, if everyone agreed, that there would be no house dissolution in these circumstances and simply to just have an election. I have to believe this is what the PM plans because the best I can tell is he made NO mention of dissolving The House. Clearly everyone who is on the side of Thailand have to believe this would be the best option. There is just no need for the government to try to function without a house of representatives for up to two months. The only people who seem to want this is the red leaders.

Edited May 4, 2010 by jcbangkok

[Neurath]

The red shirts haven't harmed anyone by running around the hospital, though I agree with you that it was inappropriate and that it shouldn't have happened.

You quoted me above and you didn't even bother to read it. It's right there in my quote where I said that it was inappropriate and I thought it was wrong.

If I was nursing my critically ill mother at home and 200 uninvited guests started "running around" looking for people they didn't like I reckon I'd see it as a little more than inappropriate. So would you.

Snoopy dear, you're mental dexterity is that of a cigarette company lawyer.

[deadsnoopy]

I hope speeding up the elections by 90 days was worth all those lives that were lost.

90 days? Or 1 year? Without the protests, Abhisit and his cronies would have stayed until the end of 2011.

[chadintheusa]

Maybe the reds never anticipated having any success. So they never told their sheep what to do if they got new elections. So the protesters may be unaware that after you get what you claimed you wanted from a protest you go home.

Someone needs to tell them to each grab a used tire and get on a bus heading north.

[TheOldWolf]

Even the demand for House dissolution date is silly. They can just open the Constitution and count the days back from Nov 14.

FF

It's not silly. Because only once the date for the House dissolution has been set, the election date can be set. It's not in Abhisit's power to set an election date. Abhisit has to set a date to dissolve parliament (which he still hasn't done) and then the Election Commission (EC) will set the date for the new elections.

So either Abhisit doesn't understand the process -or- he's the one that's trying to play the crowd.

Again, Abhisit needs to confirm with the Election Commission the date he will dissolve parliament, then the Election Commission will set the date for the new election, and that's it. Before that, it's just a proposal. I understand however that this process may be a bit difficult to understand for some people here.

"Abhisit needs to confirm with the Election Commission the date he will dissolve parliament, then the Election Commission will set the date for the new election"

That's just wrong in fact and law and practice.

Can you point out for us what is the fact. I try to read the constituionen but can´t find it.

[deadsnoopy]

Maybe the reds never anticipated having any success. So they never told their sheep what to do if they got new elections. So the protesters may be unaware that after you get what you claimed you wanted from a protest you go home.

Someone needs to tell them to each grab a used tire and get on a bus heading north.

Someone needs to confirm the House dissolution date with the Election Commission and then the Election Commission can confirm the date for the election. When that happens, I'm sure the red shirts will go home. Makes sense?

[ThaiPauly]

Let's try go back on-topic with this new article from TheNation:

Timor and US urge govt and reds to talk on roadmap

I'm not sure if Thailand will listed to the US, but they will definitely listen to Timor.

Where did you come from DS?

You have not even been a memeber a week yet you have already amassed over 175 posts, must be a record in such a short space of time

So who's paying you to post?

Just curious

[deadsnoopy]

Someone needs to tell them to each grab a used tire and get on a bus heading north.

According to Suthep a statement made by Deputy PM Suthep, over 70% of the protesters are from Bangkok, not from the North, so could you explain why exactly they should head North?

[roamer]

The red shirts are going to want to have at least the chance of being in power for the September military reshuffle.

[otherstuff1957]

According to the 'other newspaper' Abhisit has already discussed this with the EC. Early elections must take place 45 to 60 days after House dissolution. So, the House will be dissolved sometime between Sept. 14 and Sept 30. A caretaker PM and Cabinet will run the county between the House dissolution and the new elections.

[jcbangkok]

Of course the house must be dissolved before an election, I imagine it would be around the beginning of November. I'm sure the election commission will go along with the PM's recommendation on a date. There is no reason to dissolve the house now and live without a functioning government for 6 months. Thaksin is always welcome back in Thailand, there is a prison cell already waiting. The reds will moan and complain for a couple more days then claim they have complete and total victory. I wonder how long before the Phrai start to demand that they be allowed to leave since they have an election coming. There is not need for their red overlords to keep them in Bangkok any longer. 2 months is long enough, I hope speeding up the elections by 90 days was worth all those lives that were lost.

Why do you say "Of course the house must be dissolved before an election"

What purpose does it serve beyond possibly being a point of law to have unscheduled elections? Unless I'm missing another reason, I'm fairly certain parliament, the EC and courts would not be opposed to requiring dissolution happen 30 or 45 days before the election or even at all.

It just seems you would be putting the country at great risk dissolving the house just because you want to have elections. Of course I am assuming a house dissolution doesn't take place every scheduled election cycle and also assuming since they will be reworking the constitution that they obviously would include a new election schedule otherwise the the new house and PM would simply be serving out the last year of Abhsits term.

[TheOldWolf]

Maybe the reds never anticipated having any success. So they never told their sheep what to do if they got new elections. So the protesters may be unaware that after you get what you claimed you wanted from a protest you go home.

Someone needs to tell them to each grab a used tire and get on a bus heading north.

Someone needs to confirm the House dissolution date with the Election Commission and then the Election Commission can confirm the date for the election. When that happens, I'm sure the red shirts will go home. Makes sense?

Is this facts? Or are you guessing? I serious try to find some source for what the constituion says and I can´t find it. Please give us your source som we don´t have to look anymore

[Chaimai]

Someone needs to tell them to each grab a used tire and get on a bus heading north.

According to Suthep a statement made by Deputy PM Suthep, over 70% of the protesters are from Bangkok, not from the North, so could you explain why exactly they should head North?

Obviously, to dump the tyres in Isaan.

(Oh! - and also to see how the rural poor people actually live)

Edited May 4, 2010 by Chaimai

[jcbangkok]

According to the 'other newspaper' Abhisit has already discussed this with the EC. Early elections must take place 45 to 60 days after House dissolution. So, the House will be dissolved sometime between Sept. 14 and Sept 30. A caretaker PM and Cabinet will run the county between the House dissolution and the new elections.

Can you PM me the link or give me a hint as to the title of the article. I just scanned four and don't see this.

I'm very confused because if this is considered an unscheduled election requiring dissolution then we will still have another election approx. a year from this one. If they change the law to reflect the new election cycle, I am assuming no house dissolution is needed and having one would make no sense ... unless somebody can tell me what I am missing.

[Neurath]

Even the demand for House dissolution date is silly. They can just open the Constitution and count the days back from Nov 14.

FF

It's not silly. Because only once the date for the House dissolution has been set, the election date can be set. It's not in Abhisit's power to set an election date. Abhisit has to set a date to dissolve parliament (which he still hasn't done) and then the Election Commission (EC) will set the date for the new elections.

So either Abhisit doesn't understand the process -or- he's the one that's trying to play the crowd.

Again, Abhisit needs to confirm with the Election Commission the date he will dissolve parliament, then the Election Commission will set the date for the new election, and that's it. Before that, it's just a proposal. I understand however that this process may be a bit difficult to understand for some people here.

"Abhisit needs to confirm with the Election Commission the date he will dissolve parliament, then the Election Commission will set the date for the new election"

That's just wrong in fact and law and practice.

Can you point out for us what is the fact. I try to read the constituionen but can´t find it.

The Election Commission has no power to tell a government the date on which an election is held. A government decides on an election date and that date must be no sooner than 40 days from dissolution and no later than 60. Election date comes first, request for dissolution from the Head of State next, agreement from Head of State, Election commission organizes State functions for elections. Just go back from the election date and count. This from your quote earlier Wolf.

[wayfarer108]

Red-shirt leaders demand PM to specify House dissolution date

The red-shirt leaders Tuesday demanded that the prime minister announce a specific day for House dissolution before they will join the government's roadmap for political resolution.

They announced that the prime minister had no authority to set the election date on November 14 as the power belongs to the Election Commission.

They demanded that the government must show its sincerity towards political reconciliation by halting all kinds of intimidation towards the red-shirt protesters.

-- The Nation 2010-05-04

I think we can close this thread until further notice. MYbe I am dumb, but why must there be a house dissolution before the the election.

BBC are reporting that the reds are unconcerned by the date of election, they want to know when the house will be dissolved

this is still in line with their previous demands, so nothings really changed

they want Abhisit to dissolve the house quickly, so that he cannot pass the 2011 budget, and more importantly so he cannot amend the constitution to keep Thaksin and his cronies out and so that he can oversee the military reshuffle to see Anapong retire, and install Thaksin hater General Prayuth who will be the hard man that will bring the Army back on track

the reds know that if Abhisit can achieve these items on his personal road map then the red cause will be all but over bar the shouting

he can dissolve parliament almost when he chooses to

Gordon Brown dissolved the UK parliament on April 6th 2010 and the elections are the day after tomorrow

so a month is feasable and would be good news for Abhisit

get everything passed, in the meantime get the red shirt leaders, their associates and the Phua Thai Mp's charged with terrorism, lesse majeste, treason and murder

get the Phua Thai party dissolved for treason,

Thaksin will be proven to be a murderous, traiterous conspirator

there will be more trials here than there were in Salem

Abhisit will romp home with Korn as deputy in the biggest landslide this country has ever seen

Let's hope so.

[jcbangkok]

Someone needs to tell them to each grab a used tire and get on a bus heading north.

According to Suthep a statement made by Deputy PM Suthep, over 70% of the protesters are from Bangkok, not from the North, so could you explain why exactly they should head North?

Obviously, to dump the tyres in Isaan.

(Oh! - and also to see how the rural poor people actually live)

I just wish the red mob apologists and sympathizers would stick to one 'fact" instead of jumping all over the place. Every day the reasons for the lawless mob as well as who makes up the lawless mob seems to change depending on the argument.

Edited May 4, 2010 by jcbangkok

[321niti123]

I hope speeding up the elections by 90 days was worth all those lives that were lost.

90 days? Or 1 year? Without the protests, Abhisit and his cronies would have stayed until the end of 2011.

Wow...i didnt think you were this red

Maybe you suffer from amnesia but if i remember correctly the house dissolution was proposed at 9 months (1 year already reduced from that) even before any people died, before any crack downs, before all the illegal activities, before any break in of hospital property, private property, and any invasion of public rights was committed, so yes the prolonged 2 month protest causing the deaths of more than 20 people was in fact not worth it in anyway, 25 lives for 90 days is 1 life for less than 4 days. I don't know about any of you but i place the value of human life much higher than any value of money can buy, and definitely much higher than 4 days worth.

If anyone should think that 1 live for every 4 days is worth it then shame on you.

BTW this does not contradict my previous statements...reds caused deaths therefore reds should pay <snip>

Edited May 5, 2010 by soundman
Removed comment advocating violent means to an end.

[Old Man River]

Wow, there are just too many questions coming from an angle of only knowing US politics. I don't want to make you the answer man here but some things I wonder ... Assuming the PM still remains in power under house dissolution does this mean he has absolute power to pass bills and such or is he also out and if so, who runs the show. And why the heck would there be a minimum time before elections .. in other words why have a 45-day period that is required before elections resulting in leaving the country without a house of reps for 6-weeks plus whatever time needs to be lapsed before those elected take office? My guess is this is to allow them and others time to campaign.

But, I guess the only real question (not just wondering out loud) is if it would be possible, if everyone agreed, that there would be no house dissolution in these circumstances and simply to just have an election. I have to believe this is what the PM plans because the best I can tell is he made NO mention of dissolving The House. Clearly everyone who is on the side of Thailand have to believe this would be the best option. There is just no need for the government to try to function without a house of representatives for up to two months. The only people who seem to want this is the red leaders.

How does the US get involved in a discussion about the Thai constitution? No mention of the US was made until you brought it up (again).

Upon a dissolution the existing government operates as a caretaker government until the national election takes place. As a caretaker government, I am not sure it would have the same rights as an undissolved house would have. I am too lazy to look for it now, but perhaps you can dig it out first.

I think you are right that the interim period gives the EC time to set the election up and also gives the political parties time to campaign.

I cannot recall a national election taking place (these things are expensive) without some catalyst such as a party dissolution or house dissolution first taking place and I can't find in the constitution where it is covered. I guess that means a case can be made that it isn't prohibited, but also, post election, a case could be made that the election was illegal, meaning, it best to follow tradition and dissolve first.

[wayfarer108]

It is amazing some people here and within the red group are so delusional that they actually think there is some sort of agreement that has transpired or will between the reds and the government. WAKE UP, the red mob is done and have no say so in this road map except to either accept it or not and then face the consequences that Thailand will have no sympathy in seeing happen and that will also increase Abhisit's popularity.

This road map has to do with all the people of Thailand and not the red mob. This is basically the same offer the PM gave right of the bat during the negotiations the red mob walked away from and then went on to cause untold injuries and numerous deaths and destruction in Thailand as well as putting a big dent into the economy and putting 60k+ people out of work.

If anybody is truly a red sympathizer they should be screaming for new leadership. The three stooges they had sitting down with the PM, before things got completely out of hand with their mob, could have walked away as winner but instead now they have lost face all over the world and GUARANTEED you will see a mass exodus of red supporters from the land they have seized.

As the PM stated weeks ago ... be patient, he has a plan to seprate the hardcore violent group from the followers in the lawless violent mob who has been hel_l bent on tearing Thailand apart and forcing authorities to crack down so they can cry "we are victims" to the world. But now, the have lost all credibility and the world sees them for what they are ... thugs and terrorists.

Truth be spoken. I wish the red sympathisers would come down and listen to the speeches Nattawut, Weng and Jatuporn have been giving for the last month. Hateful, violence-promoting rhetoric. I don't like mobs in the streets, yellow or red but the PAD never openly advocated violence to this degree and they never took an entire neighborhood hostage or built lethal stockpiled with LPG gas tanks, kerosene, gasoline etc (and last Songkran, an entire gas truck). I suppose a lot of foreigners remain naive simply because they don't understand Thai well enough to comprehend the context. Anyone who does understand Thai, and who thinks the red leadership has peaceful intentions needs to come down and spend a day or two listening to them and watching them posturing and beating their chests like Neanderthals. One doesn't come away impressed that they (the leaders) have any understanding of democracy, freedom or peaceful resistance.

They're practically begging for violence. Now that they have been given a way out, my guess is they will find some way to incite more violence regardless, in order to embarrass the gov't. I don't think Abhisit et al will fall for it however. He knows it's better simply to contain them and let them find ways to disgrace themselves and their ignoble cause further.

Edited May 4, 2010 by wayfarer108

[jcbangkok]

Wow, there are just too many questions coming from an angle of only knowing US politics. I don't want to make you the answer man here but some things I wonder ... Assuming the PM still remains in power under house dissolution does this mean he has absolute power to pass bills and such or is he also out and if so, who runs the show. And why the heck would there be a minimum time before elections .. in other words why have a 45-day period that is required before elections resulting in leaving the country without a house of reps for 6-weeks plus whatever time needs to be lapsed before those elected take office? My guess is this is to allow them and others time to campaign.

But, I guess the only real question (not just wondering out loud) is if it would be possible, if everyone agreed, that there would be no house dissolution in these circumstances and simply to just have an election. I have to believe this is what the PM plans because the best I can tell is he made NO mention of dissolving The House. Clearly everyone who is on the side of Thailand have to believe this would be the best option. There is just no need for the government to try to function without a house of representatives for up to two months. The only people who seem to want this is the red leaders.

How does the US get involved in a discussion about the Thai constitution? No mention of the US was made until you brought it up (again).

Upon a dissolution the existing government operates as a caretaker government until the national election takes place. As a caretaker government, I am not sure it would have the same rights as an undissolved house would have. I am too lazy to look for it now, but perhaps you can dig it out first.

I think you are right that the interim period gives the EC time to set the election up and also gives the political parties time to campaign.

I cannot recall a national election taking place (these things are expensive) without some catalyst such as a party dissolution or house dissolution first taking place and I can't find in the constitution where it is covered. I guess that means a case can be made that it isn't prohibited, but also, post election, a case could be made that the election was illegal, meaning, it best to follow tradition and dissolve first.

Although very confused at your confusion of my comment about only having a grasp of how US elections works and the implications I am injecting US politics into this, I do appreciate your taking the time to respond. Understanding that they would be acting as a caretaker gov't helps me to understand things better. The words House Dissolution or dissolving the house had me believing there would be no house at all.

I still find it very interesting that the PM has not mentioned dissolution and only has talked about elections. The article mentioned in the other English paper actually didn't didn't have any quote from the PM and was a quote from an EC Rep. He did also quot the cost of the election and indicated the PM never talked to them about the election date prior to his announcement on TV .... didn't appear to be a problem in the least bit.

[Neurath]

According to the 'other newspaper' Abhisit has already discussed this with the EC. Early elections must take place 45 to 60 days after House dissolution. So, the House will be dissolved sometime between Sept. 14 and Sept 30. A caretaker PM and Cabinet will run the county between the House dissolution and the new elections.

Can you PM me the link or give me a hint as to the title of the article. I just scanned four and don't see this.

I'm very confused because if this is considered an unscheduled election requiring dissolution then we will still have another election approx. a year from this one. If they change the law to reflect the new election cycle, I am assuming no house dissolution is needed and having one would make no sense ... unless somebody can tell me what I am missing.

JC, in a Parliamentary system the government can call an election any time they want. In Australia, UK and Thailand the only constraint is that they must call it before a certain time - in the UK 5 years from the previous general election, in Australia 3. The government decides on the date of the election, the job of the electoral commission is to organize the election (not decide it's date.) The government can decide on a long election campaign or a short one (snap election - which in Thailand is 45 days.) The date of November 15 is precisely 1.5 months after September 1st - reshuffles will have been completed. Once the house has been dissolved, the acting Prime Minister and Cabinet become 'caretakers' meaning that no major new governmental initiatives will be undertaken.

[Neilly]

And grow up, he said the 14th and said it to the entire world based on a measurable road map. Do the reds need to know the time of day or are they just hel_l bent on trying to hurt Abhisit because of the popularity he has gained while in power by demanding the EC decide on the date?

What do you not understand? Seriously. The Prime Minister can not set the date for the new election. He can only set the date for House dissolution. It's the Election Commission (EC) that then decides the date for the next election. So Abhisit saying that elections will be held on November 14th is meaningless, because he's not the one that will decide it.

Understand it now?

Could somebody tell me how to IGNORE deadsnoopy ? I'm tired of HIS misonderstanding of the whole situation!

Thanks

[jcbangkok]

It is amazing some people here and within the red group are so delusional that they actually think there is some sort of agreement that has transpired or will between the reds and the government. WAKE UP, the red mob is done and have no say so in this road map except to either accept it or not and then face the consequences that Thailand will have no sympathy in seeing happen and that will also increase Abhisit's popularity.

This road map has to do with all the people of Thailand and not the red mob. This is basically the same offer the PM gave right of the bat during the negotiations the red mob walked away from and then went on to cause untold injuries and numerous deaths and destruction in Thailand as well as putting a big dent into the economy and putting 60k+ people out of work.

If anybody is truly a red sympathizer they should be screaming for new leadership. The three stooges they had sitting down with the PM, before things got completely out of hand with their mob, could have walked away as winner but instead now they have lost face all over the world and GUARANTEED you will see a mass exodus of red supporters from the land they have seized.

As the PM stated weeks ago ... be patient, he has a plan to seprate the hardcore violent group from the followers in the lawless violent mob who has been hel_l bent on tearing Thailand apart and forcing authorities to crack down so they can cry "we are victims" to the world. But now, the have lost all credibility and the world sees them for what they are ... thugs and terrorists.

Truth be spoken. I wish the red sympathisers would come down and listen to the speeches Nattawut, Weng and Jatuporn have been giving for the last month. Hateful, violence-promoting rhetoric. I don't like mobs in the streets, yellow or red but the PAD never openly advocated violence to this degree and they never took an entire neighborhood hostage or built lethal stockpiled with LPG gas tanks, kerosene, gasoline etc (and last Songkran, an entire gas truck). I suppose a lot of foreigners remain naive simply because they don't understand Thai well enough to comprehend the context. Anyone who does understand Thai, and who thinks the red leadership has peaceful intentions needs to come down and spend a day or two listening to them and watching them posturing and beating their chests like Neanderthals. One doesn't come away impressed that they (the leaders) have any understanding of democracy, freedom or peaceful resistance.

They're practically begging for violence. Now that they have been given a way out, my guess is they will find some way to incite more violence regardless, in order to embarrass the gov't. I don't think Abhisit et al will fall for it however. He knows it's better simply to contain them and let them find ways to disgrace themselves and their ignoble cause further.

I was watching The Nation channel when the red leaders came on at 6:05 today and believe The Nation cut their live feed off early once they realized the reds were still spewing hate and not simply addressing if they would accept the road map and go home or not. My guess is they realized they were in violation of promoting hate speeches.

[scorecard]

Ermmm George my Thais is fairly well and I hear them say other things on stage than you are saying here .....

W

Care to share...

[jcbangkok]

According to the 'other newspaper' Abhisit has already discussed this with the EC. Early elections must take place 45 to 60 days after House dissolution. So, the House will be dissolved sometime between Sept. 14 and Sept 30. A caretaker PM and Cabinet will run the county between the House dissolution and the new elections.

Can you PM me the link or give me a hint as to the title of the article. I just scanned four and don't see this.

I'm very confused because if this is considered an unscheduled election requiring dissolution then we will still have another election approx. a year from this one. If they change the law to reflect the new election cycle, I am assuming no house dissolution is needed and having one would make no sense ... unless somebody can tell me what I am missing.

JC, in a Parliamentary system the government can call an election any time they want. In Australia, UK and Thailand the only constraint is that they must call it before a certain time - in the UK 5 years from the previous general election, in Australia 3. The government decides on the date of the election, the job of the electoral commission is to organize the election (not decide it's date.) The government can decide on a long election campaign or a short one (snap election - which in Thailand is 45 days.) The date of November 15 is precisely 1.5 months after September 1st - reshuffles will have been completed. Once the house has been dissolved, the acting Prime Minister and Cabinet become 'caretakers' meaning that no major new governmental initiatives will be undertaken.

Very cool! Thanks for taking the time to explain this. It is truly different than what I am used to and at least now have a basic understanding of the whole dissolution, which I completely assumed incorrectly, as well as this not just being some one off thing that happens in only Thailand.

[scorecard]

Wow, there are just too many questions coming from an angle of only knowing US politics. I don't want to make you the answer man here but some things I wonder ... Assuming the PM still remains in power under house dissolution does this mean he has absolute power to pass bills and such or is he also out and if so, who runs the show. And why the heck would there be a minimum time before elections .. in other words why have a 45-day period that is required before elections resulting in leaving the country without a house of reps for 6-weeks plus whatever time needs to be lapsed before those elected take office? My guess is this is to allow them and others time to campaign.

But, I guess the only real question (not just wondering out loud) is if it would be possible, if everyone agreed, that there would be no house dissolution in these circumstances and simply to just have an election. I have to believe this is what the PM plans because the best I can tell is he made NO mention of dissolving The House. Clearly everyone who is on the side of Thailand have to believe this would be the best option. There is just no need for the government to try to function without a house of representatives for up to two months. The only people who seem to want this is the red leaders.

How does the US get involved in a discussion about the Thai constitution? No mention of the US was made until you brought it up (again).

Upon a dissolution the existing government operates as a caretaker government until the national election takes place. As a caretaker government, I am not sure it would have the same rights as an undissolved house would have. I am too lazy to look for it now, but perhaps you can dig it out first.

I think you are right that the interim period gives the EC time to set the election up and also gives the political parties time to campaign.

I cannot recall a national election taking place (these things are expensive) without some catalyst such as a party dissolution or house dissolution first taking place and I can't find in the constitution where it is covered. I guess that means a case can be made that it isn't prohibited, but also, post election, a case could be made that the election was illegal, meaning, it best to follow tradition and dissolve first.

Although very confused at your confusion of my comment about only having a grasp of how US elections works and the implications I am injecting US politics into this, I do appreciate your taking the time to respond. Understanding that they would be acting as a caretaker gov't helps me to understand things better. The words House Dissolution or dissolving the house had me believing there would be no house at all.

I still find it very interesting that the PM has not mentioned dissolution and only has talked about elections. The article mentioned in the other English paper actually didn't didn't have any quote from the PM and was a quote from an EC Rep. He did also quot the cost of the election and indicated the PM never talked to them about the election date prior to his announcement on TV .... didn't appear to be a problem in the least bit.

This not the US.

Why would you inject US politics inot the situation?

What for?

[LaoPo]

I was watching The Nation channel when the red leaders came on at 6:05 today and believe The Nation cut their live feed off early once they realized the reds were still spewing hate and not simply addressing if they would accept the road map and go home or not. My guess is they realized they were in violation of promoting hate speeches.

since 19 days a member.....already 2 stars and 25+ posts a day.

Amazing.

LaoPo

[jcbangkok]

I was watching The Nation channel when the red leaders came on at 6:05 today and believe The Nation cut their live feed off early once they realized the reds were still spewing hate and not simply addressing if they would accept the road map and go home or not. My guess is they realized they were in violation of promoting hate speeches.

since 19 days a member.....already 2 stars and 25+ posts a day.

Amazing.

LaoPo

2 Stars really? I'm assuming a star is a good thing but if not, let me know. If it is good, how do I earn more :-)

I am assuming it is not a thing to do with time because I looked and you only have 1.

Edit: PS. also, I type fast and have a lot of time on my hands right now and enjoy being part of the various threads. I apologize if this upsets you but you will have to learn to live with it since I obey the rules and try to engage in polite debate while learning more about Thailand.

Edited May 4, 2010 by jcbangkok