NATION ANALYSIS
Range of options exist within charter to end political impasse
Opas Boonlom
The Nation


Protesters remove barbed wire and concrete barriers around Chamai Maruchet Bridge.

Preliminary framework could set the stage for new election

BANGKOK: -- After shunting aside suggestions by protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban to transfer her power to a "people's assembly", Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said she was leaving all doors open for discussion to seek a political breakthrough that would not stray from the constitutional framework.

Many options have been proposed by academics and other parties for her consideration.

The most probable choice is for the government to propose political reforms and then dissolve the House of Representatives and call an election.

The Cabinet has assigned Deputy Prime Minister Phongthep Thepkanjana and Justice Minister Chaikasem Nitisiri to design a platform to collect ideas on reform within the parameters of the current Constitution.

This process, including amending the Constitution, would take three to six months. Yingluck has urged all parties to join the forum.

There are two variations on how to prepare for the dissolution of Parliament.

Pichai Rattanadilok Na Phuket of the National Institute of Development Administration (Nida) has suggested that His Majesty the King invoke Article 7 of the Constitution to select an interim government to replace Yingluck's Cabinet to reform the country.

Surapon Nitikraipot, a former rector of Thammasat University, has offered a similar road map to Pichai's but suggested that the Senate Speaker nominate a person to be the prime minister for His Majesty's endorsement. The new prime minister would call an election as well as a referendum to establish the people's assembly.

Another option proposed by Nida's Sombat Thamrong-thanyawong is to enforce Article 3 of the Constitution to set up a "national government" as a caretaker to lay out new political rules for the country and call for a new election.

Article 3 states that sovereignty belongs to the Thai people and the King as head of state exercises power through Parliament, the government and the courts. Article 7 says that whenever no provision under this charter is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as head of state.

However, in fact there is no "constitutional practice" for His Majesty to pick anybody to sit in as the prime minister.

The last option is simply dissolving Parliament and calling a new election. This option is unlikely as Suthep and his supporters disagree with it. The Shinawatra clan would easily return to power if the election were held under the current circumstances.

Then Suthep and his supporters would have fought for naught.


-- The Nation 2013-12-04

There is also the 2.2 trillion bill that is before the constitution court at present to be taken into consideration.

The tricks that were evoked to get this through both houses could well lead to the dissolution of the PT party and the banning of the PM and others.

After the reaction of the Govt in refusing to accept the ruling on the amnesty bill and the threats to the judges they will likely be in no mood to show any leniency in their judgement.

The senate speaker has demonstrated his bias time and time again. So he really isn't the guy to be allowed to pick a new PM for consideration. The only thing he should be allowed to pick is his nose.

And madam (and her clan and leeches) have been making specific statements that there is no way anything can be done anywhere near what suthep has been espousing.

One would expect that what she's saying comes from the advice of her cohorts.

Now we see several like suggestions of how if could be done from several law and other academics.

In other words someone is deliberately not telling the truth, she and her clan and leeches show their true colors again.

Further, it's in todays news that yl has given 2 million Baht to the police. Why? Well that question will invoke multiple answers.

One clear answer, give them money to continue / shore up the police allegiance to the paymaster.

There are without doubt serious circumstances where police and military would be entitled to various 'danger' or similar allowances. But that would need to be circumstances beyond the normal scope of duties of the police or the military.

The circumstances whereby such allowances should be paid and the actual allowances should be set out clearly (and available to all Thai citizens to read) in the official Compensation and Benefits policies and procedures, and in the right circumstances the funds should come from the consolidated revenues (taxes).

Politicians / individuals etc., giving money direct to the police is way outside of democratic principles and must invoke suspicion that there are other motives at play.

Honest & sincere politicians and political parties who are genuinely focused on building and maintaining 'quality' democracy would strongly oppose anything like this.

I can imagine the following:

- But ..., people will accuse me of buying the allegiance of the police.

- ... retorts, never mind, just make sure you keep the bond intact and ignore even severe criticism.

There is only one option that will be close to relative future stability. Ignore the mob, arrest Suthep and wait for the 2015 general election.

Any action that give the mob rule real power just means another mob will run the streets in the future. And next time that mob might run into another Suthep with a replay from 2010 as a result.

The last option is simply dissolving Parliament and calling a new election. This option is unlikely as Suthep and his supporters disagree with it.

So, Suthep and his supporters disagree of having an election.

He had not said that Yingluck will win again because of vote buying.

Maybe he knows that even without vote buying, Yingluck will still win?