Ruling will be sought on legal status of Thai govt

[ianf]

Yingluck has alway adhered to the requirements of the Constitution, where the legal interpretation is the law of the land! The constitutional does not allow any non elected group to be appointed to lead the country!

Cheers

It is widely believed that the person who led the country for the period of the last administration was an unelected fugitive from Dubai. Is this legal Kikoman? Could we have your valued opinion on this?

Incidentally, I understand that members of the last Cabinet themselves said that the man in Dubai was running the show, not Yingluck. Considering how close you appear to be to Khun Fugitive, I wonder if you could enlighten us all further? Thank you.

[northernjohn]

He cited Article 181 of the Constitution, which states, "The outgoing Council of Ministers shall remain in office for performing duties until the newly appointed Council of Ministers takes office."

About says it all, unfortunately.

Can they still be Ministers from their prison cell?

Unfortunately the way the law reads they are still the Government and as we all know there is not a chance in hades they will accept the court's verdict. The PTP red shirt constitution gives them room for that kind of action.

[sweatalot]

They are whingers. Won't contest elections but seize power every time to get in Parliament. Is this fair to the people of Thailand? Bunch of greed merchants the lot of them PDD included. Makes me sick to see Democratic princibles circumnavigated in such ways. You won't last Dems if you do get in power, just like in 2010, the people will revolt again and so they should. Tis not democracy, but a bunch of muppets...

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Rubbish.... You know the Dems would piss any election if they participated.

They would have won the last one by a mile and some.

PTP 8 million votes? I bet that has almost halved since Feb 2nd.

The Dems abstained out of principle, but if they have to come in as interim government until a new election can be set up, then that will not exactly be a case of stealing government will it?

They would probably set up the next election to remove populism and vote buying... which is true democratic election standards, not the old election standards where vote buying and populism was acceptable.

We will see who wins the next proper election because the Feb 2nd one has been a failure, even without the disruptions by PCAD.... If they ever bother to complete them, it will show a massive NO MANDATE for the winners, and parliament will never be able to get a quorum.

No one from any party should be in the interim government.

It should be made up of neutral people selected by whomever can do such a thing and is deemed constitutional.

Is that not what Suthep said all the time?

[JAG]

The Dems are obviously going for dissolution of PT with one.

Thaksin was caretaker PM for about 7 months in 2006 due to the failed April elections that year, although he appointed a stand in for a short portion of that when he took leave. The 1997 Constitution was very similar to the current one but there was no legal challenge to his status that I recall, even though some people complained about it. I think the reason was that it was much more difficult to file petitions with the Constitutional Court before the court set the precedent recently that individuals can file cases with it directly, rather than go through the attorney-general. That has opened the flood gates for Constitutional Court cases and makes the legal environment for the current caretaker government far more hostile than it was for Thaksin in 2006. Then the coup seems the only way of getting rid of him. Now the lawyers are working overttime.

If I may take issue with your last sentence, at the risk of rehashing an old argument. Rather than stage a coup they could have fought the imminent election, and if they won it, formed a government, keeping Thaksin out. Instead they staged a coup, interfered with the electoral process, and that is why, basically we are in the mess we are in now.

Petitions to the Constitutional Court, rulings on disputed interpretations of the constitution, and dissolving political parties are never going to lead to a stable government. Abiding by the results of elections, even if you don't like the results, is much more likely to.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[fab4]

Dogmatix, on 04 Mar 2014 - 14:33, said:

The Dems are obviously going for dissolution of PT with one.

Thaksin was caretaker PM for about 7 months in 2006 due to the failed April elections that year, although he appointed a stand in for a short portion of that when he took leave. The 1997 Constitution was very similar to the current one but there was no legal challenge to his status that I recall, even though some people complained about it. I think the reason was that it was much more difficult to file petitions with the Constitutional Court before the court set the precedent recently that individuals can file cases with it directly, rather than go through the attorney-general. That has opened the flood gates for Constitutional Court cases and makes the legal environment for the current caretaker government far more hostile than it was for Thaksin in 2006. Then the coup seems the only way of getting rid of him. Now the lawyers are working overttime.

I think the reason was that it was much more difficult to file petitions with the Constitutional Court before the court set the precedent recently that individuals can file cases with it directly, rather than go through the attorney-general.

It was not a precedent (I believe there is no such thing as precedent in Thai law, I'm willing to be shown I'm wrong if someone definitively knows) but an interpretation (one of many by the CC).

It all rested on the interpretation of the thai equivalent of the preposition "of" and the conjunction, "and". It should have been very embarrassing for the CC as their website page entitled "exercising Rights within the Constitutional Court" specifies who/which state body has the right to file a motion to the Constitution Court under which section of the 2007 Constitution, (in this example, sections 68 and 237) and lo and behold there in black and white is

Attorney General

http://asiancorrespondent.com/83904/thailand-how-the-meaning-of-and-starts-a-constitutional-crisis/

Of course the CC took no notice of this when their chums the dems came knocking on the door with various spurious claims of section 68 and the government were bombarded with CC rulings which became increasingly more surreal.

[ManofReason]

The Constitution is like the bible here: you can find passages to justify about any position you want. Big enough holes in it to drive one of those run away buses through. I was hoping court would find government illegal, dissolve it, and then extending the logic, dissolving themselves as they are part of the government. Poof!

Makes you wonder whether the ambiguity in this document is incompetence or a deliberate ploy to enable the "elite" appointed courts the flexibility to twist things however see fit. Probably the former but possibly the latter.

[rubl]

Dogmatix, on 04 Mar 2014 - 14:33, said:

The Dems are obviously going for dissolution of PT with one.

Thaksin was caretaker PM for about 7 months in 2006 due to the failed April elections that year, although he appointed a stand in for a short portion of that when he took leave. The 1997 Constitution was very similar to the current one but there was no legal challenge to his status that I recall, even though some people complained about it. I think the reason was that it was much more difficult to file petitions with the Constitutional Court before the court set the precedent recently that individuals can file cases with it directly, rather than go through the attorney-general. That has opened the flood gates for Constitutional Court cases and makes the legal environment for the current caretaker government far more hostile than it was for Thaksin in 2006. Then the coup seems the only way of getting rid of him. Now the lawyers are working overttime.

I think the reason was that it was much more difficult to file petitions with the Constitutional Court before the court set the precedent recently that individuals can file cases with it directly, rather than go through the attorney-general.

It was not a precedent (I believe there is no such thing as precedent in Thai law, I'm willing to be shown I'm wrong if someone definitively knows) but an interpretation (one of many by the CC).

It all rested on the interpretation of the thai equivalent of the preposition "of" and the conjunction, "and". It should have been very embarrassing for the CC as their website page entitled "exercising Rights within the Constitutional Court" specifies who/which state body has the right to file a motion to the Constitution Court under which section of the 2007 Constitution, (in this example, sections 68 and 237) and lo and behold there in black and white is

Attorney General

http://asiancorrespondent.com/83904/thailand-how-the-meaning-of-and-starts-a-constitutional-crisis/

Of course the CC took no notice of this when their chums the dems came knocking on the door with various spurious claims of section 68 and the government were bombarded with CC rulings which became increasingly more surreal.

Bravo, now can you also provide a link to

Section 138. There shall be the following organic law:

(5) the organic law on rules and procedure of the Constitutional Court;

and have a look at

Section 212. A person whose rights and liberties recognised by this Constitution are violated, has the right to submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for its a decision as to whether the provisions of the law are contrary to or inconsistent with the Constitution.

The exercise of right under paragraph one must be in the case of unable to exercise the right by other means as provided in the organic law on rules and procedure of the Constitutional Court;

Thanks

PS the asiancorrespondent site seems to be a wee bit pro-government looking at other articles there. Unfortunately that doesn't do their reputation with some posters here any good, just like you probably instantly reject article from a few 'yellow' sites

[rubl]

The Constitution is like the bible here: you can find passages to justify about any position you want. Big enough holes in it to drive one of those run away buses through. I was hoping court would find government illegal, dissolve it, and then extending the logic, dissolving themselves as they are part of the government. Poof!

Makes you wonder whether the ambiguity in this document is incompetence or a deliberate ploy to enable the "elite" appointed courts the flexibility to twist things however see fit. Probably the former but possibly the latter.

The 'people's constitution' of 1997 wasn't any better in this

http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/1997/

[smovi57]

I guess I must have missed something in the tangled web of Thai politics,

As far as I know, Mark and Dem MP's resigned and did not vote, Mark also claiming on a news interview he did not vote, I thought that if you did not vote then you can not be a sitting MP, So did Mark vote or did he lie, and did his MP's vote or did they lie? The other thing is why oh why was not a retired judge appointed as caretaker PM after the 30 day limit? But it also seems that the law says the current government must stay and continue working until the new government takes over,

Nope... you are clinging to Chalerm's version of article 181.

You clearly missed my previous post... Check out the bold print that Chalerm deliberately left out.

Article 181.

The outgoing Council of

Ministers shall remain in office for carrying out

duties until the newly appointed Council of Ministers

takes office but, in the case

of the vacation of office

under Article 180 (2),

Article 180.

Ministers vacate office

en masse

upon:

(1)

the termination of ministership of the

Prime Minister under Article 182;

(2)

the expiration of the term or the

dissolution of the House of Representatives;

(3) the resignation of the Council of Ministers.

In the case where the ministership of the

Prime Minister terminates under Article 182 (1), (2),

(3), (4), (5), (7), or (8

), the procedure under Article

172 and Article 173 shall apply

mutatis mutandis

ying luck has all ready vacated office, as far as i can see. She fled has not been heard from.

[Cricketnut]

They are whingers. Won't contest elections but seize power every time to get in Parliament. Is this fair to the people of Thailand? Bunch of greed merchants the lot of them PDD included. Makes me sick to see Democratic princibles circumnavigated in such ways. You won't last Dems if you do get in power, just like in 2010, the people will revolt again and so they should. Tis not democracy, but a bunch of muppets...

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Rubbish.... You know the Dems would piss any election if they participated.

They would have won the last one by a mile and some.

PTP 8 million votes? I bet that has almost halved since Feb 2nd.

The Dems abstained out of principle, but if they have to come in as interim government until a new election can be set up, then that will not exactly be a case of stealing government will it?

They would probably set up the next election to remove populism and vote buying... which is true democratic election standards, not the old election standards where vote buying and populism was acceptable.

We will see who wins the next proper election because the Feb 2nd one has been a failure, even without the disruptions by PCAD.... If they ever bother to complete them, it will show a massive NO MANDATE for the winners, and parliament will never be able to get a quorum.

No one from any party should be in the interim government.

It should be made up of neutral people selected by whomever can do such a thing and is deemed constitutional.

Is that not what Suthep said all the time?

Well why did they not participate? Losing perhaps may have been one fear. They haven't won an election in over 20 years! Really sweating now.. Next.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Dr Bruce]

A couple guys with some common sense could/would/should come over with a couple cork-pop guns (maybe a couple .22 single shot rifles) and take over the country.

I've worked with the military there - in the USA at the moment - & they are the biggest joke I've ever seen.

I completely refuse to EVER work with Thai people EVER again. I can show them 99 ways to Sunday on how to do something better, and they IGNORE me.........Hired me to show them how to do it better, and ignored 99% of what I said.

It's like trying to pound brains into a rock with a sledge hammer.

I ain't saying the USA is any better. It just seems to be endemic in that politicians are all corrupt.

Agreed - Thai people hate arrogance.

I have worked here for 15 years and they do just fine changing the way they do things.

I don't have a low opinion of them though.

When I first started doing business here I could not get my Thai workforce to follow my instructions, it took time and patience to get things the way I wanted them. Now I make suggestions and walk away. After a little time they do change the way they do things.

[Suriya4]

I guess I must have missed something in the tangled web of Thai politics,

As far as I know, Mark and Dem MP's resigned and did not vote, Mark also claiming on a news interview he did not vote, I thought that if you did not vote then you can not be a sitting MP, So did Mark vote or did he lie, and did his MP's vote or did they lie? The other thing is why oh why was not a retired judge appointed as caretaker PM after the 30 day limit? But it also seems that the law says the current government must stay and continue working until the new government takes over,

Nope... you are clinging to Chalerm's version of article 181.

You clearly missed my previous post... Check out the bold print that Chalerm deliberately left out.

Article 181.

The outgoing Council of

Ministers shall remain in office for carrying out

duties until the newly appointed Council of Ministers

takes office but, in the case

of the vacation of office

under Article 180 (2),

Article 180.

Ministers vacate office

en masse

upon:

(1)

the termination of ministership of the

Prime Minister under Article 182;

(2)

the expiration of the term or the

dissolution of the House of Representatives;

(3) the resignation of the Council of Ministers.

In the case where the ministership of the

Prime Minister terminates under Article 182 (1), (2),

(3), (4), (5), (7), or (8

), the procedure under Article

172 and Article 173 shall apply

mutatis mutandis

ying luck has all ready vacated office, as far as i can see. She fled has not been heard from.

I think she is hiding in the North, waiting for the Republic of Lanna or something to be form.

[fab4]

rubl, on 04 Mar 2014 - 18:09, said:

fab4, on 04 Mar 2014 - 17:49, said:

Dogmatix, on 04 Mar 2014 - 14:33, said:Dogmatix, on 04 Mar 2014 - 14:33, said:

The Dems are obviously going for dissolution of PT with one.

Thaksin was caretaker PM for about 7 months in 2006 due to the failed April elections that year, although he appointed a stand in for a short portion of that when he took leave. The 1997 Constitution was very similar to the current one but there was no legal challenge to his status that I recall, even though some people complained about it. I think the reason was that it was much more difficult to file petitions with the Constitutional Court before the court set the precedent recently that individuals can file cases with it directly, rather than go through the attorney-general. That has opened the flood gates for Constitutional Court cases and makes the legal environment for the current caretaker government far more hostile than it was for Thaksin in 2006. Then the coup seems the only way of getting rid of him. Now the lawyers are working overttime.

I think the reason was that it was much more difficult to file petitions with the Constitutional Court before the court set the precedent recently that individuals can file cases with it directly, rather than go through the attorney-general.

It was not a precedent (I believe there is no such thing as precedent in Thai law, I'm willing to be shown I'm wrong if someone definitively knows) but an interpretation (one of many by the CC).

It all rested on the interpretation of the thai equivalent of the preposition "of" and the conjunction, "and". It should have been very embarrassing for the CC as their website page entitled "exercising Rights within the Constitutional Court" specifies who/which state body has the right to file a motion to the Constitution Court under which section of the 2007 Constitution, (in this example, sections 68 and 237) and lo and behold there in black and white is

Attorney General

http://asiancorrespondent.com/83904/thailand-how-the-meaning-of-and-starts-a-constitutional-crisis/

Of course the CC took no notice of this when their chums the dems came knocking on the door with various spurious claims of section 68 and the government were bombarded with CC rulings which became increasingly more surreal.

Bravo, now can you also provide a link to

Section 138. There shall be the following organic law:

(5) the organic law on rules and procedure of the Constitutional Court;

and have a look at

Section 212. A person whose rights and liberties recognised by this Constitution are violated, has the right to submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for its a decision as to whether the provisions of the law are contrary to or inconsistent with the Constitution.

The exercise of right under paragraph one must be in the case of unable to exercise the right by other means as provided in the organic law on rules and procedure of the Constitutional Court;

Thanks

PS the asiancorrespondent site seems to be a wee bit pro-government looking at other articles there. Unfortunately that doesn't do their reputation with some posters here any good, just like you probably instantly reject article from a few 'yellow' sites

Any chance of a link to this organic law? and explain what section 212 means and what you are using it to prove?

I'm sorry if you find the Asian correspondent a wee bit pro government for your tastes - can you explain why you think so with examples? Most people I speak to find it quite a reasonable site - just because it points out facts you don't like doesn't make it any more biased. Should I only quote from anti-thaksin.com or the PDRC facebook page from now on, so that I don' t offend your sensibilities?

[Basil B]

They are whingers. Won't contest elections but seize power every time to get in Parliament. Is this fair to the people of Thailand? Bunch of greed merchants the lot of them PDD included. Makes me sick to see Democratic princibles circumnavigated in such ways. You won't last Dems if you do get in power, just like in 2010, the people will revolt again and so they should. Tis not democracy, but a bunch of muppets...

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

If they were to get power then they must use it to tackle corruption and bring in fair reforms including to the courts and independent bodies. Something the PTP seem not to have bothered with.

The PTP saying they would eradicate corruption in government has as much substance as Chalerm saying he would cut of his own head or Thaksin coming back to face the courts like a man.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Basil B

[MAJIC]

Yingluck has alway adhered to the requirements of the Constitution, where the legal interpretation is the law of the land! The constitutional does not allow any non elected group to be appointed to lead the country!

Cheers

"Yingluck has alway adhered to the requirements of the Constitution"

Does that include,agreeing/backing, the clandestine change of the Constitution at 4-0 am? in order to sneak through the Amnesty Bill???

[brownbear]

Wow, I am impressed by the number of farangs here who profess to be able to interpret and comment on Thai Constitutional Law: loads of bull and even more S*** I suspect. Any qualified Thai constitutional lawyers out there care to express an 'opinion' as to where this horrible mess may lead?

It does seem that "Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark...". In fact it well beyond that and putrid and vile. Anyone who cannot see it and where the stench is coming from must be Mr Lear reincarnated.

Sorry for misquoting you Will!

[kimamey]

"...a legal question has arisen as to whether the caretaker government can still be considered to be legally functioning"

No it hasn't.

Perhaps technically, but only the unelectables trying to nullify an election is the issue.

Trying to foment and hide behind a legal issue they can foster, does not obfuscate the motives here. As opposed to the concern about a pressing legal issue that has all-of-a-sudden "arisen"

Other than for those who are agenized in this direction of course.

I think 'technically' is how it all works. The opposition may well be trying to get rid of Yingluck and the PTP but doesn't alter the question.

If the legal question is answered in favour of the caretaker government they will be considered to be legally functioning but by your own admission only 'technically'.

[rubl]

rubl, on 04 Mar 2014 - 18:09, said:

fab4, on 04 Mar 2014 - 17:49, said:

I think the reason was that it was much more difficult to file petitions with the Constitutional Court before the court set the precedent recently that individuals can file cases with it directly, rather than go through the attorney-general.

It was not a precedent (I believe there is no such thing as precedent in Thai law, I'm willing to be shown I'm wrong if someone definitively knows) but an interpretation (one of many by the CC).

It all rested on the interpretation of the thai equivalent of the preposition "of" and the conjunction, "and". It should have been very embarrassing for the CC as their website page entitled "exercising Rights within the Constitutional Court" specifies who/which state body has the right to file a motion to the Constitution Court under which section of the 2007 Constitution, (in this example, sections 68 and 237) and lo and behold there in black and white is

Attorney General

http://asiancorrespondent.com/83904/thailand-how-the-meaning-of-and-starts-a-constitutional-crisis/

Of course the CC took no notice of this when their chums the dems came knocking on the door with various spurious claims of section 68 and the government were bombarded with CC rulings which became increasingly more surreal.

Bravo, now can you also provide a link to

Section 138. There shall be the following organic law:

(5) the organic law on rules and procedure of the Constitutional Court;

and have a look at

Section 212. A person whose rights and liberties recognised by this Constitution are violated, has the right to submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for its a decision as to whether the provisions of the law are contrary to or inconsistent with the Constitution.

The exercise of right under paragraph one must be in the case of unable to exercise the right by other means as provided in the organic law on rules and procedure of the Constitutional Court;

Thanks

PS the asiancorrespondent site seems to be a wee bit pro-government looking at other articles there. Unfortunately that doesn't do their reputation with some posters here any good, just like you probably instantly reject article from a few 'yellow' sites

Any chance of a link to this organic law? and explain what section 212 means and what you are using it to prove?

I'm sorry if you find the Asian correspondent a wee bit pro government for your tastes - can you explain why you think so with examples? Most people I speak to find it quite a reasonable site - just because it points out facts you don't like doesn't make it any more biased. Should I only quote from anti-thaksin.com or the PDRC facebook page from now on, so that I don' t offend your sensibilities?

Since I asked you if you could provide a link to the organic law on the CC it would seem unlikely I have it. So why you ask?

As for the AC, well, it's just that in the atmosphere created by hate against the others that all sites which seem to constantly be in favour of one or the other side or even 'mostly' as somewhat suspect, automatically. Of course that's not the same as recommending you check other fanatical sites. I'm sure anti-thaksin.com is accessible from Thailand, but with such a name I would already drop it from the list of sites to check. As for facebook pages, come on man, I don't have the time to even try to filter all the rubbish available there. I still have a problem trying to catch of with posts here, too many productive posters have emerged since the anti-government protests required an influx of foreign help for the embattled government and it's blanket amnesty bill.

Back on topic a ruling on the legal status of the caretaker government is sought. Well at least Pol Captain and head CMPO Chalerm was clear about that.

PS what gave you the impression you had offended my sensibilities by quoting from the AC?

[Bangel72]

It seems to me that the election is not complete so the 30 days cannot be invoked.

Are those who are currently calling for the 30 days to be actioned now accepting that the election was legal and if so do they also accept that by not voting they can only take a shouting from the sidelines role in politics for a few years assuming they don't use the I tried to vote but found myself in the way card?

If the 30 day criteria is actioned here, the court will have to step up and say it stood idly by knowing this would be the outcome and did nothing, in fact it did not do nothing it ruled on other cases that they would have known would become null and void.

Does the end justify the means, how much corruption of the intention of law is required to end corruption and can it be justified.

[fab4]

rubl, on 05 Mar 2014 - 12:47, said:

fab4, on 04 Mar 2014 - 23:29, said:

rubl, on 04 Mar 2014 - 18:09, said:rubl, on 04 Mar 2014 - 18:09, said:

fab4, on 04 Mar 2014 - 17:49, said:fab4, on 04 Mar 2014 - 17:49, said:

I think the reason was that it was much more difficult to file petitions with the Constitutional Court before the court set the precedent recently that individuals can file cases with it directly, rather than go through the attorney-general.

It was not a precedent (I believe there is no such thing as precedent in Thai law, I'm willing to be shown I'm wrong if someone definitively knows) but an interpretation (one of many by the CC).

It all rested on the interpretation of the thai equivalent of the preposition "of" and the conjunction, "and". It should have been very embarrassing for the CC as their website page entitled "exercising Rights within the Constitutional Court" specifies who/which state body has the right to file a motion to the Constitution Court under which section of the 2007 Constitution, (in this example, sections 68 and 237) and lo and behold there in black and white is

Attorney General

http://asiancorrespondent.com/83904/thailand-how-the-meaning-of-and-starts-a-constitutional-crisis/

Of course the CC took no notice of this when their chums the dems came knocking on the door with various spurious claims of section 68 and the government were bombarded with CC rulings which became increasingly more surreal.

Bravo, now can you also provide a link to

Section 138. There shall be the following organic law:

(5) the organic law on rules and procedure of the Constitutional Court;

and have a look at

Section 212. A person whose rights and liberties recognised by this Constitution are violated, has the right to submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for its a decision as to whether the provisions of the law are contrary to or inconsistent with the Constitution.

The exercise of right under paragraph one must be in the case of unable to exercise the right by other means as provided in the organic law on rules and procedure of the Constitutional Court;

Thanks

PS the asiancorrespondent site seems to be a wee bit pro-government looking at other articles there. Unfortunately that doesn't do their reputation with some posters here any good, just like you probably instantly reject article from a few 'yellow' sites

Any chance of a link to this organic law? and explain what section 212 means and what you are using it to prove?

I'm sorry if you find the Asian correspondent a wee bit pro government for your tastes - can you explain why you think so with examples? Most people I speak to find it quite a reasonable site - just because it points out facts you don't like doesn't make it any more biased. Should I only quote from anti-thaksin.com or the PDRC facebook page from now on, so that I don' t offend your sensibilities?

Since I asked you if you could provide a link to the organic law on the CC it would seem unlikely I have it. So why you ask?

As for the AC, well, it's just that in the atmosphere created by hate against the others that all sites which seem to constantly be in favour of one or the other side or even 'mostly' as somewhat suspect, automatically. Of course that's not the same as recommending you check other fanatical sites. I'm sure anti-thaksin.com is accessible from Thailand, but with such a name I would already drop it from the list of sites to check. As for facebook pages, come on man, I don't have the time to even try to filter all the rubbish available there. I still have a problem trying to catch of with posts here, too many productive posters have emerged since the anti-government protests required an influx of foreign help for the embattled government and it's blanket amnesty bill.

Back on topic a ruling on the legal status of the caretaker government is sought. Well at least Pol Captain and head CMPO Chalerm was clear about that.

PS what gave you the impression you had offended my sensibilities by quoting from the AC?

I asked you for a link because you obviously copied that text from somewhere. It doesn't make sense to me nor does your reason for quoting it hence the request.

[rubl]

rubl, on 05 Mar 2014 - 12:47, said:

fab4, on 04 Mar 2014 - 23:29, said:

Any chance of a link to this organic law? and explain what section 212 means and what you are using it to prove?

I'm sorry if you find the Asian correspondent a wee bit pro government for your tastes - can you explain why you think so with examples? Most people I speak to find it quite a reasonable site - just because it points out facts you don't like doesn't make it any more biased. Should I only quote from anti-thaksin.com or the PDRC facebook page from now on, so that I don' t offend your sensibilities?

Since I asked you if you could provide a link to the organic law on the CC it would seem unlikely I have it. So why you ask?

As for the AC, well, it's just that in the atmosphere created by hate against the others that all sites which seem to constantly be in favour of one or the other side or even 'mostly' as somewhat suspect, automatically. Of course that's not the same as recommending you check other fanatical sites. I'm sure anti-thaksin.com is accessible from Thailand, but with such a name I would already drop it from the list of sites to check. As for facebook pages, come on man, I don't have the time to even try to filter all the rubbish available there. I still have a problem trying to catch of with posts here, too many productive posters have emerged since the anti-government protests required an influx of foreign help for the embattled government and it's blanket amnesty bill.

Back on topic a ruling on the legal status of the caretaker government is sought. Well at least Pol Captain and head CMPO Chalerm was clear about that.

PS what gave you the impression you had offended my sensibilities by quoting from the AC?

I asked you for a link because you obviously copied that text from somewhere. It doesn't make sense to me nor does your reason for quoting it hence the request.

Terribly sorry old chap, excuses and all that. I though that in a discussion on the CC and the Constitution it would be obvious this

"Section 138. There shall be the following organic law:

(5) the organic law on rules and procedure of the Constitutional Court;"

is taken from the current 2007 Constitution to which I provided a link at least a good dozen times if not more often. Now I really thought that by now you were very knowledgeble on the Constitution, with all those comments as to what is wrong or right.

Just to be sure you get it (this time):

http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/2007/

Look for Chapter VI The National Assembly, Part 6 The Enactment of the Organic Law, section 138

[Crushdepth]

The following interpretation (mine) is based on one of the Unofficial English translation of the 2007 constitution by the Bureau of Technical and International Cooperation and a couple of others, so good chance some of the fine points of interpretation may not be accurate. But for whatever its worth:

• Article 93 says that if the House of Representatives is less than 95% full following a general election then the house consists of whoever they've got - and they have to take steps to fill the rest of the seats within 180 days. (It is widely reported that they can't hold the first meeting until 95% full, but I can't see anything in the English translations that supports that).
  
• Article 127 says the national assembly shall be summoned for the first sitting within 30 days of the election.
  
• Article 172 says the PM must be elected by the national assembly within 30 days of the assembly first being called to meet.
  
• Article 173 says that if noone is successfully elected as PM within the 30 day limit, there is another 15 days for the President of the House of Representatives to present whoever got the highest number of votes to the King for appointment as PM. Since they haven't met yet and apparently can't until 95% full, nobody currently has any votes.
  
• Article 7 just says anything the constitution does not cover will be decided in line with democratic principles, which are not specified.
  

So my view of all this, which may well be wrong, is that the EC has got 180 days post-election to fill the shortfall of members before Article 7 could come into play. I doubt the various deadlines mentioned would start ticking down until the election is completed (and an EC offical remarked today that it isn't). I'm not convinced that a caretaker government or PM can be disposed of until the 180 days are up and 95% still hasn't been achieved, in which case you'd probably just be looking at another election. Would be interested in other people's takes on it all.

I am far less optimistic about the government's chances with the rice scheme though. Not going to wriggle out of that one.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Crushdepth

[focus27]

The following interpretation (mine) is based on one of the Unofficial English translation of the 2007 constitution by the Bureau of Technical and International Cooperation and a couple of others, so good chance some of the fine points of interpretation may not be accurate. But for whatever its worth:

• Article 93 says that if the House of Representatives is less than 95% full following a general election then the house consists of whoever they've got - and they have to take steps to fill the rest of the seats within 180 days. (It is widely reported that they can't hold the first meeting until 95% full, but I can't see anything in the English translations that supports that).
• Article 127 says the national assembly shall be summoned for the first sitting within 30 days of the election.
• Article 172 says the PM must be elected by the national assembly within 30 days of the assembly first being called to meet.
• Article 173 says that if noone is successfully elected as PM within the 30 day limit, there is another 15 days for the President of the House of Representatives to present whoever got the highest number of votes to the King for appointment as PM. Since they haven't met yet and apparently can't until 95% full, nobody currently has any votes.
• Article 7 just says anything the constitution does not cover will be decided in line with democratic principles, which are not specified.

So my view of all this, which may well be wrong, is that the EC has got 180 days post-election to fill the shortfall of members before Article 7 could come into play. I doubt the various deadlines mentioned would start ticking down until the election is completed (and an EC offical remarked today that it isn't). I'm not convinced that a caretaker government or PM can be disposed of until the 180 days are up and 95% still hasn't been achieved, in which case you'd probably just be looking at another election. Would be interested in other people's takes on it all.

I am far less optimistic about the government's chances with the rice scheme though. Not going to wriggle out of that one.

But article 93 says NOT less than 95% - that is, if 95-100% of MPs have been duly elected then the House can be convened and any empty seats can be filled within 180 days. If there are fewer than 95% of seats filled, the constitution is silent on this, hence people digging around for other sections of the constitution.

Interestingly, the National Assembly has not been convened within the 30 days of the election - and no apparent news as yet as to why not. My reading of it is that the constitution allows the president and VP of the National Assembly to both be senators, and the Senate by itself has enough members to satisfy a vote in the NA, hence they could select new Ministers. The problem remains of (s)electing an interim PM that is also an MP when the House has zero MPs!

[Crushdepth]

The following interpretation (mine) is based on one of the Unofficial English translation of the 2007 constitution by the Bureau of Technical and International Cooperation and a couple of others, so good chance some of the fine points of interpretation may not be accurate. But for whatever its worth:

• Article 93 says that if the House of Representatives is less than 95% full following a general election then the house consists of whoever they've got - and they have to take steps to fill the rest of the seats within 180 days. (It is widely reported that they can't hold the first meeting until 95% full, but I can't see anything in the English translations that supports that).
• Article 127 says the national assembly shall be summoned for the first sitting within 30 days of the election.
• Article 172 says the PM must be elected by the national assembly within 30 days of the assembly first being called to meet.
• Article 173 says that if noone is successfully elected as PM within the 30 day limit, there is another 15 days for the President of the House of Representatives to present whoever got the highest number of votes to the King for appointment as PM. Since they haven't met yet and apparently can't until 95% full, nobody currently has any votes.
• Article 7 just says anything the constitution does not cover will be decided in line with democratic principles, which are not specified.

So my view of all this, which may well be wrong, is that the EC has got 180 days post-election to fill the shortfall of members before Article 7 could come into play. I doubt the various deadlines mentioned would start ticking down until the election is completed (and an EC offical remarked today that it isn't). I'm not convinced that a caretaker government or PM can be disposed of until the 180 days are up and 95% still hasn't been achieved, in which case you'd probably just be looking at another election. Would be interested in other people's takes on it all.

I am far less optimistic about the government's chances with the rice scheme though. Not going to wriggle out of that one.

But article 93 says NOT less than 95% - that is, if 95-100% of MPs have been duly elected then the House can be convened and any empty seats can be filled within 180 days. If there are fewer than 95% of seats filled, the constitution is silent on this, hence people digging around for other sections of the constitution.

Interestingly, the National Assembly has not been convened within the 30 days of the election - and no apparent news as yet as to why not. My reading of it is that the constitution allows the president and VP of the National Assembly to both be senators, and the Senate by itself has enough members to satisfy a vote in the NA, hence they could select new Ministers. The problem remains of (s)electing an interim PM that is also an MP when the House has zero MPs!

Ok I see what you mean, I had that wrong and it's a bigger mess than I thought. Interesting point about the senate!

[fab4]

rubl, on 05 Mar 2014 - 13:45, said:

fab4, on 05 Mar 2014 - 13:19, said:

rubl, on 05 Mar 2014 - 12:47, said:rubl, on 05 Mar 2014 - 12:47, said:

fab4, on 04 Mar 2014 - 23:29, said:fab4, on 04 Mar 2014 - 23:29, said:

Any chance of a link to this organic law? and explain what section 212 means and what you are using it to prove?

I'm sorry if you find the Asian correspondent a wee bit pro government for your tastes - can you explain why you think so with examples? Most people I speak to find it quite a reasonable site - just because it points out facts you don't like doesn't make it any more biased. Should I only quote from anti-thaksin.com or the PDRC facebook page from now on, so that I don' t offend your sensibilities?

Since I asked you if you could provide a link to the organic law on the CC it would seem unlikely I have it. So why you ask?

As for the AC, well, it's just that in the atmosphere created by hate against the others that all sites which seem to constantly be in favour of one or the other side or even 'mostly' as somewhat suspect, automatically. Of course that's not the same as recommending you check other fanatical sites. I'm sure anti-thaksin.com is accessible from Thailand, but with such a name I would already drop it from the list of sites to check. As for facebook pages, come on man, I don't have the time to even try to filter all the rubbish available there. I still have a problem trying to catch of with posts here, too many productive posters have emerged since the anti-government protests required an influx of foreign help for the embattled government and it's blanket amnesty bill.

Back on topic a ruling on the legal status of the caretaker government is sought. Well at least Pol Captain and head CMPO Chalerm was clear about that.

PS what gave you the impression you had offended my sensibilities by quoting from the AC?

I asked you for a link because you obviously copied that text from somewhere. It doesn't make sense to me nor does your reason for quoting it hence the request.

Terribly sorry old chap, excuses and all that. I though that in a discussion on the CC and the Constitution it would be obvious this

"Section 138. There shall be the following organic law:

(5) the organic law on rules and procedure of the Constitutional Court;"

is taken from the current 2007 Constitution to which I provided a link at least a good dozen times if not more often. Now I really thought that by now you were very knowledgeble on the Constitution, with all those comments as to what is wrong or right.

Just to be sure you get it (this time):

http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/2007/

Look for Chapter VI The National Assembly, Part 6 The Enactment of the Organic Law, section 138

Yes, it refers to organic laws that can be for all kinds of things and tells you how those organic laws can be brought into being, but

What Is Your Point?

[SICHONSTEVE]

Why don't all you 'wannabe' constitutional debating lawyers give it a rest as you are collectively getting nowhere and everything is still as clear as mud!!!

[Publicus]

If March 4th is the firm and definitive drop dead date of the interim government, then why didn't Suthep go home and wait after he screwed up the election. All Suthep had to do after Feb 3rd was to go home and circle the March 4th date in red on one of his several calendars (to include 2006) then come back today to appoint his feudal council.

So now all of a sudden Suthep's voices here know with a clear certainty that the legal case against the government is a sure thing, that the interim government had been zombies all along.

Certain posters will claim they have been constitutionally certain for weeks if not longer. If so, then why didn't the few constitutional expert prognosticators call on Suthep to stop his insurrection which resulted in deaths, limbs lost, great harm to the society and the economy? And how can these TVF constitutional experts be so certain how the CC will rule in this dispute?

So very, completely, absolutely certain.

[rubl]

rubl, on 05 Mar 2014 - 13:45, said:

fab4, on 05 Mar 2014 - 13:19, said:

I asked you for a link because you obviously copied that text from somewhere. It doesn't make sense to me nor does your reason for quoting it hence the request.

Terribly sorry old chap, excuses and all that. I though that in a discussion on the CC and the Constitution it would be obvious this

"Section 138. There shall be the following organic law:

(5) the organic law on rules and procedure of the Constitutional Court;"

is taken from the current 2007 Constitution to which I provided a link at least a good dozen times if not more often. Now I really thought that by now you were very knowledgeble on the Constitution, with all those comments as to what is wrong or right.

Just to be sure you get it (this time):

http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/2007/

Look for Chapter VI The National Assembly, Part 6 The Enactment of the Organic Law, section 138

Yes, it refers to organic laws that can be for all kinds of things and tells you how those organic laws can be brought into being, but

What Is Your Point?

short of memory, are you my dear chap?

I asked if you had a link as "the organic law on rules and procedure of the Constitutional Court" are a legal interpretation which should be based on the constitution. You then asked if I had a link. I replied as above.

So, pray tell, what's your game today? Nothing else to do, but ask stupid questions?

[Dogmatix]

He cited Article 181 of the Constitution, which states, "The outgoing Council of Ministers shall remain in office for performing duties until the newly appointed Council of Ministers takes office."

About says it all, unfortunately.

The problem is that elsewhere in the Constitution it says that this will happen within 60 days of the general election date after the House has convened and elected a new PM who will appoint said Council of Ministers. Now that we basically have a failed election which cannot be fixed according to the Constitution, if we take Article 181 to apply in isolation that would mean that the caretaker government would continue for ever. With its limited powers it couldn't administer the country and there is no way to replace the caretaker prime minister or other ministers, should they resign, die or become incapable. Logically it follows that you cannot take Article 181 in isolation because there are many dependent variables.

[rubl]

If March 4th is the firm and definitive drop dead date of the interim government, then why didn't Suthep go home and wait after he screwed up the election. All Suthep had to do after Feb 3rd was to go home and circle the March 4th date in red on one of his several calendars (to include 2006) then come back today to appoint his feudal council.

So now all of a sudden Suthep's voices here know with a clear certainty that the legal case against the government is a sure thing, that the interim government had been zombies all along.

Certain posters will claim they have been constitutionally certain for weeks if not longer. If so, then why didn't the few constitutional expert prognosticators call on Suthep to stop his insurrection which resulted in deaths, limbs lost, great harm to the society and the economy? And how can these TVF constitutional experts be so certain how the CC will rule in this dispute?

So very, completely, absolutely certain.

Suthep's Insurrection? Anti-government protests caused by an undemocratic blanket amnesty bill pushing government; protests which met violence and started to retaliate? 'Insurrection'?

It would look to some that the caretaker government is very busy to prosecute political opponents. The UN doesn't like that.

As for a possible ruling, we'll see. Mind you a government with majority party Pheu Thai openly led and commanded by a criminal fugitive seems to ask for a negative advise on it's legal status. Only in democracies of course.

Personally I wonder what would happen if Suthep let's himself be arrested. He would become a political prisoner, a 'Nelson Mandela' who some others only shook hands with. If the government would triumphantly display him he'd be a martyr, if they hid him the same.

Of course I have no doubt Ms. Yingluck would state something like that he was kept in safety for his own sake.

Edited March 5, 2014 by rubl