Ruling will be sought on legal status of Thai govt

[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.

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.

Those are intellectually stimulating hypotheticals which I'll pass on at this time, thx.

[Thai at Heart]

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.

I would take it to mean,

a. They can't meet until they have 95% in situ, which is a ridiculously high figure. She remains Caretaker, with a caretaker cabinet until it reaches 95%. How many areas reported votes?

b. The EC should keep arranging elections in the given seats that havent' had elections until the 95% is breached. (My missus had to go back home 7 times once because the local candidates kept getting yellow carded).

c. Once they have 95%, the sitting MPs can vote and appoint a PM.

I cannot believe that simply because people boycott and block a vote, that the resulting answer would be to have NO FURTHER ATTEMPT TO VOTE. That makes little logical sense if the point of the consitution is to protect and promote a democratic government, and to try to form a government out of the respective votes of the people. In essence, it would mean that to prevent any government being formed ever again, 6% of the parliamentary seats would simply have ot prevent any voting ever occuring. Hardly particularly democratic is it. It is a ridiculous premise that it is possible to revert to an appointed parliament by refusing to participate in democratic votes. The point of a democracy is to encourage more particiapation to bring more candidates to the table. She should be removed by being voted out, not by parties downing tools and refusing to come to the party.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[Fat Haggis]

Maybe some people shot themsleves in the foot, anticipating that Yingluck would have caved in and ran well before now??

[ManofReason]

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.

Those are intellectually stimulating hypotheticals which I'll pass on at this time, thx.

Intellectually stimulating.

How about bizarre, deluded and incomprehensible.

Wise move on the pass.

I too would leave it alone.

[Thait Spot]

I can see why the UK has an unwritten constitution

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[northernjohn]

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

I was unaware that ignoring court decisions you didn't like was in the constitution.

Maybe you and Yingluck read it different than the rest of the country.

[Dogmatix]

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.

Re your comment on Article 93. It is all in Article 93 itself, para 6:

"In any cases that the total number of members of the House elected does not reach 480 (now amended to 500), but is not less than 95 percent of that number, the existing members shall constitute the House of Representatives. Meanwhile elections must be held to fill all the vacant seats within 180 days."

That means that, if elections generate 475 MPs, those MPs will constitute the House which can open within 30 days of the election and elections can continue to fill up the remaining 25 seats over 180 days. But it doesn't provide for the House to convene with less than 475 MPs or for elections to continue to fill up the remaining seats, if less than 475 were filled 30 days after the election.

Re Article 7. It is certainly vague but what it says is not exactly that things will be decided in line with democratic principles. More specifically it says that it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic system of government with the King as Head of the State. That appears to limit field to precedents that have taken place only under the Thai system since the country has been a constitutional monarchy. Now one precedent for this was in 1973 when the King appointed a PM after the 3 tyrants has fled the country following a failed attempt to suppress a student uprising by brute force. The situation was different because the constitution allowed the King to appoint a PM and didn't specify the PM had to be an MP. There was also a sitting legislature, although appointed not elected, so the deputy speaker was able to countersign the Royal Decree. The other precedents are the occasions following coups when the constitution has been abrogated and the revolutionary council has given itself the power in a temporary constitution to nominate a PM for the King's approval.

Unfortunately none of these precedents fits the situation perfectly and the King himself rejected the concept of a royally appointed PM in 2006 when Thaksin was hanging on to the caretaker PMship after failed elections, saying the situation didn't warrant the application of Article 7 to nominate an unelected PM. The solution then was to be a new general election that the Dems would hopefully run in but the coup happened before we could see, if that would have worked.

Since it seems impossible to complete the elections, the only two possible solutions seem to be either leaving the caretaker govt in place for a while longer and holding new general elections in 2-3 months time, in the hope again that the Dems will participate, or invoking Article 7 to suspend certain articles of the constitution temporarily to appoint an unelected PM with a mandate to introduce some limited reforms and hold new elections within 12-18 months. I think Article 7 would be used only as a last resort in the event that the caretaker government is no longer viable due to party dissolution or other legal action.

[Thai at Heart]

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!

Indeed, it shows what a utterly useless piece of "organic" waste this stupid constutition and probably many others have been. Articles written into law without the slightest consideration to cover odd eventualities and allow arbitrary interpretation on a whim.

[Dogmatix]

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.

I would take it to mean,

a. They can't meet until they have 95% in situ, which is a ridiculously high figure. She remains Caretaker, with a caretaker cabinet until it reaches 95%. How many areas reported votes?

b. The EC should keep arranging elections in the given seats that havent' had elections until the 95% is breached. (My missus had to go back home 7 times once because the local candidates kept getting yellow carded).

c. Once they have 95%, the sitting MPs can vote and appoint a PM.

I cannot believe that simply because people boycott and block a vote, that the resulting answer would be to have NO FURTHER ATTEMPT TO VOTE. That makes little logical sense if the point of the consitution is to protect and promote a democratic government, and to try to form a government out of the respective votes of the people. In essence, it would mean that to prevent any government being formed ever again, 6% of the parliamentary seats would simply have ot prevent any voting ever occuring. Hardly particularly democratic is it. It is a ridiculous premise that it is possible to revert to an appointed parliament by refusing to participate in democratic votes. The point of a democracy is to encourage more particiapation to bring more candidates to the table. She should be removed by being voted out, not by parties downing tools and refusing to come to the party.

There is not much point opining on the logic. It is Thai law which is a civil law system hidebound by statutory laws.

You miss the point that Article 93 only allows the EC to keep flogging away for another 180 days trying to fill the seats in the event that 95% of the seats are filled 30 days after the election and the House may be convened. The EC can only fill up a balance of 5% or less in 180 days. It doesn't allow another 180 days to reach the quorum of 95% needed to convene the House.

[Dogmatix]

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!

Indeed, it shows what a utterly useless piece of "organic" waste this stupid constutition and probably many others have been. Articles written into law without the slightest consideration to cover odd eventualities and allow arbitrary interpretation on a whim.

Welcome to the Thai legal system.

[Dogmatix]

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!

No, ministers are appointed and dismissed on the prerogative of the King on the recommendation of the PM. No PM, no recommendation, no prerogative, no ministers. The PM may only be elected by the House of Representatives. The Senate cannot elect a PM or select ministers.

[Thai at Heart]

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!

No, ministers are appointed and dismissed on the prerogative of the King on the recommendation of the PM. No PM, no recommendation, no prerogative, no ministers. The PM may only be elected by the House of Representatives. The Senate cannot elect a PM or select ministers.

SoOnly the PM presents the list of ministers. Soi they need to find a PM somewhere.

Oooooh, what a palavah