NACC meets to decide fate of 312 lawmakers December 13

[dukebowling]

I find it hard to believe to accuse politicians of proposing an amendment to the constitution as unconstitutional and possibly criminal. This is their job. Regardless of the fact that the change in the Senate would make all senators required to be elected, rather than appointed (who thinks this is a bad thing?), you can't condemn a proposal for change. Just simply vote it down by the majority. The Constitutional Court's authority is to determine if the laws are not constitutional, not to review passed constitutional amendments.

[Zolt]

I find it hard to believe to accuse politicians of proposing an amendment to the constitution as unconstitutional and possibly criminal. This is their job. Regardless of the fact that the change in the Senate would make all senators required to be elected, rather than appointed (who thinks this is a bad thing?), you can't condemn a proposal for change. Just simply vote it down by the majority. The Constitutional Court's authority is to determine if the laws are not constitutional, not to review passed constitutional amendments.

Yeah that is pretty <deleted> up. From what I understand, the main sticking point is the fact that they failed to follow proper voting procedures: Some MPs used other's ID card to vote for them. The atmosphere was very relax as they knew they had a huge majority.

Now that the bill would be invalidated for that I can understand, but that ALL mps should be punished for a relatively minor slip of a few would be incredible. But this is thailand and it has happened before.

Since the house has been dissolved, the point is largely moot unless they decide to also ban these MPs for 5 years BUT it might invalidate the position of the caretaker government and create a political vacuum, and therefore an article 7 situation. Article 7 basically stating that if some circumstance should come to pass where no other constitution article applies, HM the King may appoint a caretaker PM. That article was kept unchanged from the 1997 constitution, and HM explicitly refused to do that in 2006, saying it was undemocratic. Why Suthep thinks he will change his mind this time around is beyond me.

[Carrerakiss]

The NACC will reach the decision they have been told to reach, on the days they are told to reach it. They are players in the game, not independent arbiters of justice

[whybother]

Asked whether the caretaker prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra could step down or not as demanded by protesters, he declined comment but recalled that this had happened at the time when Prime Minister Thaksin Shinwatra was in power and had stepped down from caretaker prime minister, and appointed Pol Gen Chidchai Wanasathit to perform duty.

Very interesting. This contradicts what Yingluck and Surapong have been saying the last few days.

That was under the 1997 constitution, it was allowed then. It's not under the 2007 constitution.

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Can you point out which clause in the 1997 or 2007 constitution stops or allows the care-taker PM to stand down?

[tingtongteesood]

The problem is they know that if they ban them then the red hoards will probably descend upon them. But let's hope that this will NOT influence their decision and they will do what is best for the country ( as the MP's should have done and they wouldn't be in this unfortunate position right now ) ! Seems that every party Thaksin has ever been a part of ends up with bans in the end, that really should tell you most of what you need to know about this country's problems. He is a cancer that needs to be removed....Unfortunately, since the square faced fugitive is not officially a member of the party and just the puppet master, they can't ban him with the rest of them. Very sad about that

[Prbkk]

- 2014 elections are not delayed and the democrats win without a majority and form a coalition

Well, there's a slim but non zero chance of that. PT is in hot water with its core electorate because of the rice pledging scheme failing to pay. The democrats haven't had better odds than that for over a decade. Unfortunately they are showing no signs of reaching out to voters outside their core base, and instead might even boycott the elections as in 2006. Pig-headed fools on both sides really.

Taking a very cynical view, this would be a good election to lose. Very tough choices for the winner

[Zolt]

The NACC will reach the decision they have been told to reach, on the days they are told to reach it. They are players in the game, not independent arbiters of justice

Told by whom? That is the question.

[Zolt]

Taking a very cynical view, this would be a good election to lose. Very tough choices for the winner

Sadly this his not how any Thai politician thinks. "Winner takes all" is their only motto.

[dukebowling]

One solution may be to reduce the time in-between elections to 2 years. What this country really needs is a few democratic cycles. If there is a new election coming up, it may make the people less likely to stage a protest or just get too tired of the existing regime.

[JRSoul]

One solution may be to reduce the time in-between elections to 2 years. What this country really needs is a few democratic cycles. If there is a new election coming up, it may make the people less likely to stage a protest or just get too tired of the existing regime.

Sorry, but absolutely wrong. Shorter terms would lead to even more populism and less responsible government. Responsible government needs the time to enact unpopular legislation and for the voters to accept it as it shows benefits; you don't win an election by campaigning foe higher taxes, even if they are necessary.

One of the biggest problems Thailand faces is a large segment of voters who want a decent income from an industry unable to supply it, and the willingness of a government to give them unsustainable subsidies in return for power. Turning this around will take time, and quite a bit of pain, before some understand the difference between a job and a hobby.

[Robby nz]

I find it hard to believe to accuse politicians of proposing an amendment to the constitution as unconstitutional and possibly criminal. This is their job. Regardless of the fact that the change in the Senate would make all senators required to be elected, rather than appointed (who thinks this is a bad thing?), you can't condemn a proposal for change. Just simply vote it down by the majority. The Constitutional Court's authority is to determine if the laws are not constitutional, not to review passed constitutional amendments.

The problems arose not because of the "all senate to be elected" the Dems agreed that they should be.

The problem was all the other bits tacked on.

Like that family and friends of sitting MPs and cabinet ministers could stand for senate positions and that senators could stand for re election as opposed to having a 6 year term.

Those clauses meant that the senate could be stacked by the party that was in power with their supporters effectively eliminating the senate as a check on the party in power.

As far as voting it down, how can that happen when the party that proposes it has a big majority ?

PT, as has been said, thought they could do whatever they liked and used illegal means to do it hence the situation they now find themselves in.

Anyway we wait to see if there is anything in todays news about a decision from the NAAC, nothing elsewhere as yet.

[dukebowling]

Sorry, but absolutely wrong. Shorter terms would lead to even more populism and less responsible government. Responsible government needs the time to enact unpopular legislation and for the voters to accept it as it shows benefits; you don't win an election by campaigning foe higher taxes, even if they are necessary.

One of the biggest problems Thailand faces is a large segment of voters who want a decent income from an industry unable to supply it, and the willingness of a government to give them unsustainable subsidies in return for power. Turning this around will take time, and quite a bit of pain, before some understand the difference between a job and a hobby.

It's not about the time it takes to enact legislation, it's about building a democratic history. This country needs to walk before it can run by incrementally improving it's democratic system. 2 years is plenty of time to efficiently produce results while keeping the country assured a they can soon vote in a new candidate if not satisfied.

[Bluespunk]

They're opening the Visa offices on Monday like they know this will end by that time. Looks like 312 lawmakers get banned from politics for 5 years on the 13th!

Nope you're reading too much in that. If PT MPs get banned again on Friday, it's very doubtful we will have a functioning government by Monday, and a spokesperson for the current government would not be planning for that scenario anyway.

Reopening of immigration office is simply a return to normal, since the protesters have vacated Chaengwattana area (for now).

We haven't had a functioning govt for a long while.

[Bluespunk]

Whee!

Previously they were not due to give a verdict before several months. The fact that they have chosen to rush the verdict is a potent indicator of things to come, and the rest of the article makes it even more obvious which side the NACC is on. The repeat of 2008 is coming.

With 95% accuracy I can predict:

- 312 MPS lose their seat on December 13, making the House essentially empty except for Chuwit

- A wise and benevolent caretaker government is appointed ostensibly under Article 7 (But actually by the military).

- 2014 elections are delayed until 2016 for various bullshit reasons

- More Red shirts get killed, nobody cares.

- Everyone lives happily ever after, free from the evils of Thaksinism, corruption, and democracy.

Don't stop there...

- redshirts win again.

- yellows shirts whine and moan and go on the march again...not because the new PM is a relative of Thaksin or even associated with him, but simply because they didn't win...all of them are nothing, but immature little babies who have no idea what real democracy is.

The demonstrators marched because this govts was corrupt, self serving and felt itself above the law. If PT ruled in a legitimate manner there would have been no momentum for the protests. 3 years of incompetence and corruption were the root causes of the demonstrations not the election loss.

[Robby nz]

I see no news from the NAAC as to any decisions they were supposed to make yesterday.

Perhaps they are waiting to see how much their share is of :

State officials to get 3.7 billion baht bonus

[JRSoul]

Sorry, but absolutely wrong. Shorter terms would lead to even more populism and less responsible government. Responsible government needs the time to enact unpopular legislation and for the voters to accept it as it shows benefits; you don't win an election by campaigning foe higher taxes, even if they are necessary.

One of the biggest problems Thailand faces is a large segment of voters who want a decent income from an industry unable to supply it, and the willingness of a government to give them unsustainable subsidies in return for power. Turning this around will take time, and quite a bit of pain, before some understand the difference between a job and a hobby.

It's not about the time it takes to enact legislation, it's about building a democratic history. This country needs to walk before it can run by incrementally improving it's democratic system. 2 years is plenty of time to efficiently produce results while keeping the country assured a they can soon vote in a new candidate if not satisfied.

The statement was 'enact unpopular legislation and for the voters to accept it as it shows benefits' which requires longer than 2 years. If the new Democrat government's first bill was a major reform of the rice industry (something both necessary and long overdue), do you think the (ex-)rice farmers would all be happy in 2 years?

[dukebowling]

The statement was 'enact unpopular legislation and for the voters to accept it as it shows benefits' which requires longer than 2 years. If the new Democrat government's first bill was a major reform of the rice industry (something both necessary and long overdue), do you think the (ex-)rice farmers would all be happy in 2 years?

Any reform passes by majority view point. The rice farmers do not comprise a majority. The problems in this area are apparent as any government has issues and must learn from its mistakes. There job is to inform the public of the solution and it's merits to gain populism. The attitude that the population cannot comprehend or is too uneducated to perceive these outcomes Is an invalid argument ruthless dictators have used to retain their power in the earth's dark history.

The time right now is not to correct everything immediately, but to correct the process by which change progresses. Once the process cycles a few times, the comfort level improves and more progress is attainable.

Edited December 15, 2013 by dukebowling