webfact Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 CHARTER REVIEWCompromise over 'biased' Senate speakerKhanittha Thepphajorn,Chanikarn PhumhirunThe NationNikom agrees to abstain from voting on draft charter-change legislationBANGKOK: -- Senate Speaker Nikom Wairat-panij yesterday vowed to abstain in the vote for charter change in order to ensure his neutrality."I have no conflict of interest and I am not a party member," he said, defending his conduct as speaker overseeing the parliamentary debate.On the second day of debate, a number of Democrat MPs criticised Nikom for his leaning towards the coalition.In his rebuttals, he said he was one of the co-sponsors for proposed charter amendments because he wanted to improve the political system.He then said he would not take part in the vote for the draft so that he could allay the opposition's concern over his supervision of the debate.But his remarks failed to convince the Democrats, who staged a walkout to protest what they claimed was a lopsided performance from Nikom.In order to resume the debate, coalition whips intervened and agreed to allow Nikom to take the speaker's chair only when coalition lawmakers were speaking from the floor.As per the agreement, House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont would be on duty when the opposition lawmakers took the floor, with two Democrats speaking successively.While Nikom oversees proceedings, government MPs and senators will take turns to speak.On Monday, the Democrats refused to speak when Nikom took the chair.Yesterday, opposition party whip Jurin Laksanawisit urged Nikom to withdraw his backing for charter amendment to show his neutrality, threatening an opposition walkout if he chaired the deliberation."MPs who insist on taking part in the debate with Nikom chairing have to take responsibility for their actions, because the opposition believes Nikom would be committing a constitutional offence and acting inappropriately and unfairly,'' he said.However, he said the opposition had not moved to seek a Constitution Court ruling on whether Nikom's actions were unconstitutional.Jurin added that he had asked government whip Amnuay Klangpa to confirm that the opposition would not get less debating time than the 15 hours allotted to government MPs. When the House debated the amendment of Article 291 of the Constitution, government whips gave the same amount of debating time to both opposition and government MPs.The agreement on the new debate format seems to have settled the conflict between the two sides. The Democrats did not propose a motion calling for a House vote on whether Nikom should withdraw his signature from the charter change bill. However, chief government whip Amnuay Klangpa said government MPs would vote in support of Nikom if the Democrats proposed such a motion.-- The Nation 2013-04-03 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZhouZhou Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Democrats acting like little children. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 "In his rebuttals, he said he was one of the co-sponsors for proposed charter amendments because he wanted to improve the political system."Clearly for all to see and very obviously "unbiased" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZhouZhou Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 "In his rebuttals, he said he was one of the co-sponsors for proposed charter amendments because he wanted to improve the political system." Clearly for all to see and very obviously "unbiased" see. no harm intended. everybody will get his allotted debating time. i see no issues here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaicbr Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 "In his rebuttals, he said he was one of the co-sponsors for proposed charter amendments because he wanted to improve the political system." Clearly for all to see and very obviously "unbiased" see. no harm intended. everybody will get his allotted debating time. i see no issues here. That's because your the troll for the Phua Thai bridge. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chainarong Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 To who's advantage is this amendment for, that is the question, is the advantage, for the people of Thailand or some other area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZhouZhou Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 To who's advantage is this amendment for, that is the question, is the advantage, for the people of Thailand or some other area. it is for the people of Thailand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 A co-sponsor is obviously impartial to some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MunterHunter Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 To who's advantage is this amendment for, that is the question, is the advantage, for the people of Thailand or some other area. it is for the people of Thailand. Maybe in your opinion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZhouZhou Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 To who's advantage is this amendment for, that is the question, is the advantage, for the people of Thailand or some other area. it is for the people of Thailand. Maybe in your opinion... that is what an elected parliament is for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaicbr Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 To who's advantage is this amendment for, that is the question, is the advantage, for the people of Thailand or some other area. it is for the people of Thailand. In what way is it for the people of Thailand. Please explain! Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZhouZhou Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 To who's advantage is this amendment for, that is the question, is the advantage, for the people of Thailand or some other area. it is for the people of Thailand. In what way is it for the people of Thailand. Please explain!Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6 it is basically the 'job description' for each member in the House of Representatives. guess who selects and sends the mp into the parliament? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaicbr Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 To who's advantage is this amendment for, that is the question, is the advantage, for the people of Thailand or some other area. it is for the people of Thailand. In what way is it for the people of Thailand. Please explain! Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6 it is basically the 'job description' for each member in the House of Representatives. guess who selects and sends the mp into the parliament? OK. But you still haven't actually answered the question!To whose advantage is this amendment for? Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.jpg.4fd22303fa94eb0a6ebf5a9cf7194eb4.jpg)
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now