PM urges public calm on charter court ruling; No House dissolution, no resignation

[webfact]

PM urges public calm on charter court ruling; No House dissolution, no resignation
By English News



BANGKOK, Nov 19 - Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra today reaffirmed that she will not resign nor will she dissolve the House of Representatives as the Constitution Court is scheduled to rule on the charter amendment concerning electoral procedures and composition of the Senate tomorrow.

The premier called on all parties to be calm and remain sensible while hearing the ruling as overly emotional reactions could lead to violence.

Ms Yingluck stood firm that her government remains stable and can continue its work. She said she has never thought of resigning or dissolving the House.

The premier's remark came as the Constitution Court is set to read the verdict concerning the charter review calling for the election of all senators, not with some appointed as stipulated in the present Constitution.

A bill to revise the charter was recently passed by Parliament, prompting the Democrat Party to petition the Constitution Court, charging that the election of all senators breached Section 68 of the charter.

If the court rules on Thursday that the charter amendment is against the Constitution, 312 MPs and senators who voted for the bill will immediately lose their parliamentary seats and political parties in the ruling bloc will be dissolved.

Meanwhile, representatives of 312 MPs and senators who voted for the charter amendment announced that they will not accept the court's jurisdiction.

The group, led by government chief whip Amnuay Klangpla and Senator for Kamphangphet Krit Arthitkaew, said they did the right thing in accordance with the Constitution. He asserted the lawmakers do have the authority to amend the charter.

The Senators claimed the Constitution Court has interfered in the legislative branch by agreeing to rule on the case, adding that they will not follow the court ruling.

Security measures have been tightened at the Constitution Court compound as many groups of protesters are expected to turn up there on Thursday when the ruling is delivered, while pro-government Red Shirt protesters of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) began demonstrating at Rajamangala Stadium.

Key UDD leader Weng Tojirakan said the two-day Red Shirt rally will be peaceful in order to protect what they called their "elected government" and that crowds will not mobilise elsewhere away from the stadium.

Mr Weng said the UDD will await the charter court's judgement before deciding further moves, but he expressed belief that the court will not interfere in the parliamentary system.

The anti-government group led by former Democrat MP Suthep Thaugsuban continued their protest at the Democracy Monument today.

Former Democrat MP Witthaya Kaewparadai expressed concern at the rally of Red Shirt protesters which he said is aimed at pressuring the charter court. (MCOT online news)


-- TNA 2013-11-19

[Robby nz]

Meanwhile :

The community radio for democracy group will rally at the home of each constitutional court judge if it rules against the constitution amendment.

It would seem that Weng doesn't speak for them.

[MaxLee]

"Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra today reaffirmed that she will not resign nor will she dissolve the House of Representatives as the Constitution Court is scheduled to rule on the charter amendment concerning electoral procedures and composition of the Senate tomorrow."

Very clever, that is what half of a year amnesty rejection holdoff serves its purpose to buy Thaksin and his pupeteer some more time, and for a chance for you to plan your trip to Hawaii

[virtualtraveller]

Who's taking bets… there will be a general election prompted by the end of the year, this is only going to escalate, Yingluck is under pressure and the perfect storm is brewing. The Dems have the momentum and Puea Thai keep making faux paux.

The Constitutional Court will likely take the easy and mild route and rule that the legislative procedure was flawed (vote cheating) and the process voided. It therefore has not ruled on the constitutionality but Peua Thai have exposed themselves by already refusing to respect the ruling. Their opponents are more incensed than ever. The govt won't be disbanded but the bill will be dead. The reds will continue to protest, so will the Democrats. Peua Thai will react with venom and make another silly move.

Their lackey, Somsak, will refuse a censure motion on petty grounds, showing the legislature to be dysfunctional.

The ace in the Democrats hand is to resign en-mass, on this pretext, forcing a new election (since bi-elections that are boycotted in their strongholds will fail to produce a result). Peua Thai are at their weakest now, and the longer this drags out, the more the bankrupt rice scheme will bite them in the butt, the more they lose. It will take them a year and 2 trillion baht in handouts to recover from this position. Yingluck is a lame duck.

Can't blame anyone but themselves.

[webfact]

Thai PM urges calm ahead of key court ruling

BANGKOK, November 19, 2013 (AFP) - Thai Premier Yingluck Shinawatra called for calm Tuesday before a Constitutional Court ruling that could force the dissolution of her party and inflame the country's bitter divisions.

Yingluck insisted she would not step down ahead of the court ruling, the latest challenge to her embattled government which has faced nearly three weeks of rallies sparked by an amnesty bill which could have allowed the return of self-exiled former premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

"I don't want people to be emotional and clash with each other," the Thai leader, who is Thaksin's sister, said Tuesday, urging pro-and anti-government groups to wait for the court's findings.

The court is set to rule Wednesday on whether efforts by Yingluck's government to alter the constitution -- drawn up under the military junta that deposed Thaksin -- are legal.

The proposed changes would make the senate, parliament's upper house, a fully elected body.

A verdict that the ruling party acted unconstitutionally in its push for the change could lead to its dissolution, with leading MPs facing five-year bans from politics.

This would risk fresh conflict in a nation that has been periodically rocked by bloody street rallies since huge protests helped topple Thaksin from power in 2006.

"There is no reason for me to dissolve the house or step down. We can still ensure peace and order. There is a lack of continuity if the government keeps changing," said Yingluck, who does not face a parliamentary ban because she is not listed as a party leader.

Judicial rulings have played an important role in politically turbulent Thailand.

Two pro-Thaksin premiers were forced from office in 2008 by them, making way for the opposition Democrat Party which is backed by the military and Bangkok's elite, to take power in a parliamentary vote.

Demonstrators linked to the opposition have remained on Bangkok's streets for several weeks in rallies against Thaksin and the ruling party, although their numbers have fallen since the amnesty was rejected by the senate on November 11.

The pro-Thaksin "Red Shirts" have also now begun to gather in the capital, vowing to oppose any decision that would remove another government linked to the ousted former premier.

Experts said the constitutional court has a range of options, from allowing the amendment bill to become law, to declaring it unconstitutional and potentially bringing down the government.

Analyst Thitinan Pongsudhirak, of Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University, said the court was likely to go for "something in the middle", preventing the amendment from becoming law as it stands but stopping short of a serious move against the ruling party.


-- (c) Copyright AFP 2013-11-19

[cornishcarlos]

Can someone just clear this up for me, I don't follow politics too much..

If they are all elected, surely that is better than being appointed, no ?

Who does the appointing and who does the electing ?

Or is this all about serving MPs relatives being allowed to sit in the Senate ?

Thanks

[Pimay1]

Meanwhile, representatives of 312 MPs and senators who voted for the charter amendment announced that they will not accept the court's jurisdiction.

The Senators claimed the Constitution Court has interfered in the legislative branch by agreeing to rule on the case, adding that they will not follow the court ruling.

Interpretation: Screw the courts we are in the PTP's pocket. We can and will do anything we are told to do by the PTP. You can't touch us.

[dru2]

Can someone just clear this up for me, I don't follow politics too much..

If they are all elected, surely that is better than being appointed, no ?

Who does the appointing and who does the electing ?

Or is this all about serving MPs relatives being allowed to sit in the Senate ?

Thanks

Yes,. the latter - filling the Senate with relatives.

[cornishcarlos]

Can someone just clear this up for me, I don't follow politics too much..

If they are all elected, surely that is better than being appointed, no ?

Who does the appointing and who does the electing ?

Or is this all about serving MPs relatives being allowed to sit in the Senate ?

Thanks

Yes,. the latter - filling the Senate with relatives.

Ok, thank you..

[siampolee]

Seems as if the P.T.P. puppet government if braking down into assorted factions. Statements from the factions at variance with each other. The smoke signals are actually clouding the senders thus in the event of any member of the P.T.P. actually understanding and acknowledging the truth is about as rare as hens teeth.

It would seem to me that the P.T.P coalition puppet government membership is emulating the habits of the well known Oozelum Bird in its actions when confronted with a threatening situation.

[Robby nz]

It would seem that all these announcements and the reds reaction is what is known as "Soi dog syndrome"

When they are surprised or get a fright they will bark and often try to bite.

[fab4]

Can someone just clear this up for me, I don't follow politics too much..

If they are all elected, surely that is better than being appointed, no ?

Who does the appointing and who does the electing ?

Or is this all about serving MPs relatives being allowed to sit in the Senate ?

Thanks

Yes,. the latter - filling the Senate with relatives.

Ok, thank you..

May I suggest that if you want to find impartial information regarding the matter this forum is not the most reliable of places. Google around a little, make up your own mind.

[ratcatcher]

It's starting to look like we have another "Lady that's not for turning"?

[Robby nz]

There will be no house dissolution and no resignation until big brother says so, as per :

14/11/2013

Despite the mounting pressure against his sister's embattled government, ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra yesterday instructed the ruling Pheu Thai Party to cling on to power in the hope the opposition-led rally against the amnesty bill would die down soon, a Pheu Thai source said yesterday.

[winstonc]

Can someone just clear this up for me, I don't follow politics too much..

If they are all elected, surely that is better than being appointed, no ?

Who does the appointing and who does the electing ?

Or is this all about serving MPs relatives being allowed to sit in the Senate ?

Thanks

Yes,. the latter - filling the Senate with relatives.

Ok, thank you..

May I suggest that if you want to find impartial information regarding the matter this forum is not the most reliable of places. Google around a little, make up your own mind ..

tell him your take on it .or do you agree with the answer.or a bit of naughty trolling fabby.you little rascal..

[jdinasia]

Can someone just clear this up for me, I don't follow politics too much..

If they are all elected, surely that is better than being appointed, no ?

Who does the appointing and who does the electing ?

Or is this all about serving MPs relatives being allowed to sit in the Senate ?

Thanks

Yes,. the latter - filling the Senate with relatives.

Currently 50% are elected and 50% appointed.

Neither group is supposed to have any ties with any political party.

The appointed group are chosen from people that have served the country as judged, civil servants educators etc. It is worth reading that section of the constitution which explains how they are chosen.

All are still limited to one term, and then must not be a senator for 6 years then can be appointed or elected again. It in theory prevents any form of party allegiance and any type of "dynasty" forming because of the restrictions on term limits. In some ways the basic idea was based upon the House of Lords in the UK, but nobody gets a lifetime appointment and it is not based upon peerage.

[Scott]

An off-topic post and reply have been deleted.

[Local Drunk]

"There is a lack of continuity if the government keeps changing," said Yingluck

And that continuity Madam PM, is what we are trying to avoid.

[billd766]

It's starting to look like we have another "Lady that's not for turning"?

Ah but that one was a real Prime Minister and not a copy made in Thailand.

She also served her time in politics AND kept her word.

More balls than any man in the whole of parliament.

Nobodys puppet that one.

[Ricardo]

"There is a lack of continuity if the government keeps changing" said Yingluck

Says the PM who has had four different Cabinets in just-over two years ...

[cornishcarlos]

Can someone just clear this up for me, I don't follow politics too much..

If they are all elected, surely that is better than being appointed, no ?

Who does the appointing and who does the electing ?

Or is this all about serving MPs relatives being allowed to sit in the Senate ?

Thanks

Yes,. the latter - filling the Senate with relatives.

Ok, thank you..

May I suggest that if you want to find impartial information regarding the matter this forum is not the most reliable of places. Google around a little, make up your own mind.

It was a simple question as to what this court ruling related to, doesn't really matter what side of the fence you sit on..

[ridkun]

Who's taking bets… there will be a general election prompted by the end of the year, this is only going to escalate, Yingluck is under pressure and the perfect storm is brewing. The Dems have the momentum and Puea Thai keep making faux paux.

The Constitutional Court will likely take the easy and mild route and rule that the legislative procedure was flawed (vote cheating) and the process voided. It therefore has not ruled on the constitutionality but Peua Thai have exposed themselves by already refusing to respect the ruling. Their opponents are more incensed than ever. The govt won't be disbanded but the bill will be dead. The reds will continue to protest, so will the Democrats. Peua Thai will react with venom and make another silly move.

Their lackey, Somsak, will refuse a censure motion on petty grounds, showing the legislature to be dysfunctional.

The ace in the Democrats hand is to resign en-mass, on this pretext, forcing a new election (since bi-elections that are boycotted in their strongholds will fail to produce a result). Peua Thai are at their weakest now, and the longer this drags out, the more the bankrupt rice scheme will bite them in the butt, the more they lose. It will take them a year and 2 trillion baht in handouts to recover from this position. Yingluck is a lame duck.

Can't blame anyone but themselves.

I would take. You are right for all but the timing of dissolution, it would not occur that early. Dissolution would not improve PTP's situation. The fact that they cannot even make the amnesty as their official election campaign make it impossible to form self-obligation or people's consensus from the election result even they win. After all, Thaksin has to pay more, got less seats and come back to the same position without any good for himself.

[fab4]

Yes,. the latter - filling the Senate with relatives.

Ok, thank you..

May I suggest that if you want to find impartial information regarding the matter this forum is not the most reliable of places. Google around a little, make up your own mind.

It was a simple question as to what this court ruling related to, doesn't really matter what side of the fence you sit on..

And I gave you a simple answer - if you want to believe the first person that posts on here well, thats up to you.

If you do not understand the background as to how Senators are elected for example you could take the "it's all about putting relatives in the Senate" answer you got as being correct.

[bigbamboo]

It's starting to look like we have another "Lady that's not for turning"?

Hard to turn when the puppeteer has glued her feet to the floor.

[beammeup]

I think post #16 explained it pretty well. It seems a pretty good system.

[Thainy Tim]

Can someone just clear this up for me, I don't follow politics too much..

If they are all elected, surely that is better than being appointed, no ?

Who does the appointing and who does the electing ?

Or is this all about serving MPs relatives being allowed to sit in the Senate ?

Thanks

Yes,. the latter - filling the Senate with relatives.

Ok, thank you..

May I suggest that if you want to find impartial information regarding the matter this forum is not the most reliable of places. Google around a little, make up your own mind.

And of course, you are not in the slightest bias yourself are you?

[MAJIC]

"If the court rules on Thursday that the charter amendment is against the Constitution, 312 MPs and senators who voted for the bill will immediately lose their parliamentary seats and political parties in the ruling bloc will be dissolved.

Meanwhile, representatives of 312 MPs and senators who voted for the charter amendment announced that they will not accept the court's jurisdiction"

What an impossible conflict of interests,a no lose situation! it used to be called: "Heads I win,Tails you lose"