Controversial Bills, Charter Change Vote Off The Agenda: House Speaker

[webfact]

CHARTER REVIEW

Controversial bills, charter change vote off the agenda, speaker

The Nation

Somsak

BANGKOK: -- The House Speaker decided yesterday to withdraw voting on the constitutional-amendment bill and debate on the controversial reconciliation bills from parliamentary session agendas.

Somsak Kiartsuranond said he did this after obtaining legal advice that going ahead with a vote on the charter-change bills after last week's order by the Constitution Court for it to be suspended could cause the opposition Democrat Party to seek disbandment of the ruling Pheu Thai Party, according to a source.

"In fact I disagree with the court order but for the sake of reconciliation, I will step back. I also do not want this matter to be used in seeking Pheu Thai's dissolution," Somsak was quoted as saying.

Somsak, who is the Parliament president ex officio, had a three-hour meeting yesterday with legal advisers.

The Pheu Thai Party yesterday challenged the Constitution Court's power to order a suspension of the third and final reading of the government-sponsored constitutional-amendment bill. It said the order could be viewed as intervention into the legislative branch.

Pheu Thai MPs resolved at a meeting yesterday that the party disagreed with the court decision, according to party spokesman Prompong Nopparit.

He said MPs agreed that the court had no power under Article 68, which was cited in making the order after the court decided to accept for judicial review five separate petitions for it to rule whether the charter-change bills were constitutional.

"The Constitution Court's president has no legal power to order the legislature to suspend deliberation of bills. This is likely to be interference with the [branch's] sovereign power," Prompong said.

He said that Pheu Thai would explain its stance during the joint sitting of the Senate and the House of Representatives on Friday as to why it disagreed with the court. However, no decision was made as to whether to go ahead with voting on the final reading of the amendment bills.

Meanwhile, the opposition called on the Parliament president yesterday to follow the court's order to avoid problems in the future. Chief whip Jurin Laksanavisit said opposition MPs would walk out in protest if the court decision were ignored and Parliament went ahead with voting.

Jurin, who is from the Democrat Party, called on the House Speaker not to call a meeting to vote on the amendment bills or to debate the reconciliation bills, in order to avoid confrontation. He also urged the prime minister and her Cabinet to issue a decree to end the current parliamentary session, which should have ended in mid-April.

"We call on the government to focus on solving the problems of high prices of consumer products and low prices for farm produce," he said.

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said she had no problem with the call for an immediate end to the current parliamentary session.

She said the people responsible were assigned to find out whether there were any motion that required urgent attention.

-- The Nation 2012-06-06

[GentlemanJim]

Regardless of what the Government is saying to the media the simple fact is this. During the 3 hour 'legal meeting', the Government must have been told by their lawyers that the Constitution Court had every right to make the decision that they did. If the decision by the courts was illegal then rest assured the Government would have followed a course of action that would have proved so and they would then vote on charter change. This is all straight forward, the complaining is all face saving.

Edited June 5, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[smutcakes]

Regardless of what the Government is saying to the media the simple fact is this. During the 3 hour 'legal meeting', the Government must have been told by their lawyers that the Constitution Court had every right to make the decision that they did. If the decision by the courts was illegal then rest assured the Government would have followed a course of action that would have proved so and they would then vote on charter change. This is all straight forward, the complaining is all face saving.

That is incorrect, actually the lawyer told them what the constitutional court did was illegal, but advised them to hold on a while to let the situation calm and for more legal work to be undertaken before taking it back before parliament. 'FACT'

[OzMick]

Regardless of what the Government is saying to the media the simple fact is this. During the 3 hour 'legal meeting', the Government must have been told by their lawyers that the Constitution Court had every right to make the decision that they did. If the decision by the courts was illegal then rest assured the Government would have followed a course of action that would have proved so and they would then vote on charter change. This is all straight forward, the complaining is all face saving.

That is incorrect, actually the lawyer told them what the constitutional court did was illegal, but advised them to hold on a while to let the situation calm and for more legal work to be undertaken before taking it back before parliament. 'FACT'

I'm trying to work out your acronym. The F is obvious, the A I can guess at, the rest - Chucking Tantrums perhaps?

[Moruya]

Regardless of what the Government is saying to the media the simple fact is this. During the 3 hour 'legal meeting', the Government must have been told by their lawyers that the Constitution Court had every right to make the decision that they did. If the decision by the courts was illegal then rest assured the Government would have followed a course of action that would have proved so and they would then vote on charter change. This is all straight forward, the complaining is all face saving.

I would tend to agree with you.

If these top judges don't know the law better that the PTP goons then it's a house of cards!

[animatic]

Regardless of what the Government is saying to the media the simple fact is this. During the 3 hour 'legal meeting', the Government must have been told by their lawyers that the Constitution Court had every right to make the decision that they did. If the decision by the courts was illegal then rest assured the Government would have followed a course of action that would have proved so and they would then vote on charter change. This is all straight forward, the complaining is all face saving.

That is incorrect, actually the lawyer told them what the constitutional court did was illegal, but advised them to hold on a while to let the situation calm and for more legal work to be undertaken before taking it back before parliament. 'FACT'

I'm trying to work out your acronym. The F is obvious, the A I can guess at, the rest - Chucking Tantrums perhaps?

Thailand Political FACTs...

= False Accusations Causing Trouble.

Who could imagine that the 'Constitutional Court' would know more about

interpreting it's, duties and prerogatives under the Constituion of Thailand,

than the 3rd string flacks of the late TRT party hacks?

I for one.

Edited June 6, 2012 by animatic

[nurofiend]

Regardless of what the Government is saying to the media the simple fact is this. During the 3 hour 'legal meeting', the Government must have been told by their lawyers that the Constitution Court had every right to make the decision that they did. If the decision by the courts was illegal then rest assured the Government would have followed a course of action that would have proved so and they would then vote on charter change. This is all straight forward, the complaining is all face saving.

That is incorrect, actually the lawyer told them what the constitutional court did was illegal, but advised them to hold on a while to let the situation calm and for more legal work to be undertaken before taking it back before parliament. 'FACT'

I'm trying to work out your acronym. The F is obvious, the A I can guess at, the rest - Chucking Tantrums perhaps?

Thailand Political FACTs...

= False Accusations Causing Trouble

farangs always chucking tantrums

Edited June 6, 2012 by nurofiend

[pakorn7]

Pheu Thai's dissolution is on its way, REGARDLESS.

Having a sister as proxy PM is the crime of the nation; and all those who voted for her should be given suspended jail sentences.

Edited June 6, 2012 by pakorn7

[drdoom6996]

Regardless of what the Government is saying to the media the simple fact is this. During the 3 hour 'legal meeting', the Government must have been told by their lawyers that the Constitution Court had every right to make the decision that they did. If the decision by the courts was illegal then rest assured the Government would have followed a course of action that would have proved so and they would then vote on charter change. This is all straight forward, the complaining is all face saving.

That is incorrect, actually the lawyer told them what the constitutional court did was illegal, but advised them to hold on a while to let the situation calm and for more legal work to be undertaken before taking it back before parliament. 'FACT'

Were you there?

[GentlemanJim]

Regardless of what the Government is saying to the media the simple fact is this. During the 3 hour 'legal meeting', the Government must have been told by their lawyers that the Constitution Court had every right to make the decision that they did. If the decision by the courts was illegal then rest assured the Government would have followed a course of action that would have proved so and they would then vote on charter change. This is all straight forward, the complaining is all face saving.

That is incorrect, actually the lawyer told them what the constitutional court did was illegal, but advised them to hold on a while to let the situation calm and for more legal work to be undertaken before taking it back before parliament. 'FACT'

Quite amazing, well done. 3 hours of legal deliberation and you could have cleared the matter up in 12 seconds. It's a shame you were not there, and if you were, why did itt take 3 hours and if you were not just where does the FACT come from?

Edited June 6, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[MunterHunter]

That is incorrect, actually the lawyer told them what the constitutional court did was illegal, but advised them to hold on a while to let the situation calm and for more legal work to be undertaken before taking it back before parliament. 'FACT'

And i assume you have evidence to back up your claim that your statement is entirely factual and not just something you dreamt up whilst taking a dump at lunchtime? Or perhaps you are in FACT taking out of the very orifice i referenced?

[animatic]

Pheu Thai's dissolution is on its way, REGARDLESS.

Having a sister as proxy PM is the crime of the nation; and all those who voted for her should be given suspended jail sentences.

Not necessarily, a dissolution.

Certainly the average voter. manipulated or not. should NOT get jail.

But the political machine no doubt has left a paper trail of wide swath.

But PTP et al may likely push it too far and give valid reason to dissolve it.

There is ample precedent for them giving their opponents the tools to do it.

Thaksin has a habit of pushing his Rooks and Pawns too far,

and causing the Bishops to realign against their wishes.

Edited June 6, 2012 by animatic

[whybother]

Pheu Thai's dissolution is on its way, REGARDLESS.

Having a sister as proxy PM is the crime of the nation; and all those who voted for her should be given suspended jail sentences.

I think you should get back into your (spare)box ... either number 2 or number 9.

[Chupup]

Pheu Thai's dissolution is on its way, REGARDLESS.

Having a sister as proxy PM is the crime of the nation; and all those who voted for her should be given suspended jail sentences.

Not necessarily, a dissolution.

Certainly the average voter. manipulated or not. should NOT get jail.

But the political machine no doubt has left a paper trail of wide swath.

But PTP et al may likely push it too far and give valid reason to dissolve it.

There is ample precedent for them giving their opponents the tools to do it.

Thaksin has a habit of pushing his Rooks and Pawns too far,

and causing the Bishops to realign against their wishes.

Exactly, given enough rope they will hang themselves

sent from my knee phone

[Robby nz]

Was wondering who would be allowed to vote on these bills should it ever come to that.

I make the assumption that there is such a thing as "Conflict of interest" in the Thai parliment.

That is where a bill will be of any benefit to an MP, their family, friends or associates they are prohibited from voting on it.

There certainly is where I come from and it is considred a serious matter with penelties.

There must me a whole raft of people in the house who would benefit from the so called reconsilliation bill starting with the PM.