Chalerm says Yingluck still caretaker prime minister

[casualbiker]

Lets be real, the only reason dates are not yet met are due to illegal acts by the Dems. Constitution is not setup to assume 101 illegal acts, is it. Any reasonable person would agree w Chalerms position on the matter. Certainly one cant say that Yingluk is to blame for the delays!

If the constitution is not set up to "assume 101 illegal acts" then the caretaker government of the day should seek advice from the Constitution court, that's why it's there.

If Yingluck has not done that then YES she is at fault. In fact she (here party MP's) are actually trying to block the EC from doing exactly that!

Also what illegal acts have the DEMOCRAT's done. Are you mistaking the DEMOCRAT party for the PDRC again?

[Fat Haggis]

Yes,it could be that they're ripping them off. But if they are you can be sure that they're doing far, far less thievery than the elites were doing for the decades prior to the advent of the Red Shirt movement. Why do you think the Reds have so much support?

They've committed far more graft than previous administration, you know that- or you just arrived here to unpack your bags. Look into the rice scheme, the billions, the loss in money for flood aid, the 1st time car/home buyer. We're talking billions upon billions just in a few years; let alone, the epidemic corruption leading up to 2006 under square face. Can't reinvent the facts on a forum consisting of primarily long time expats.

They've been accused of committing extreme levels of graft. As yet they haven't been CONVICTED of anything. I could accuse you of being a pedophile - does that automatically mean you are? Of course not. The living standards of the rural northerners and the poor in general has improved dramatically since Thaksin lead or backed parties burst onto the scene - that's a fact. I am always amused how it's not enough to just accuse the Reds of being corrupt, the accusation has to be so wildly extreme and over the top. It's as if those making the claims don't realise it would be absolutely impossible to hide graft on such a scale, so how on earth could Thaksin and co. get away with it for nearly a decade? The Democrats would have to be the most incompetent opposition in the history of mankind as they have still have not been able to put together enough evidence to legally bring down this government even though they (wishfully) believe that they have stolen literally "truck loads" of cash.

In any normal society when and MP or government or PM is charged with a crime THEY STEP DOWN - at that point there is no CONVICTION

also we have already CONVICTED MP's serving in PTP right now when they should be in jail - go figure

Really? They may eventually step down, but the majority of the times, they fight to the very last minute in denial, that fat Mayor in Canada being a prime example..

Charles Taylor of Seirra Leonne, all of the FYR leaders and Generals in the Balkans too...

Even in the UK and the US of A these MP's you're refering to don't step down, I mean, how many were charged with fraud for fiddling their beneifts??? I don't really recall many stepping down, some even went to jail, but they didn't step down once they were charged!!

You're talking through your rectum old chap on this one

[than]

Chalerm says Yingluck still caretaker prime minister

in your dream

[steveyinasia]

Nothing wrong with ying luck, she is governing Thailand like the strong woman she is with conviction, brave. Willing to put her life on the line for this country.

You must be on the same medicine as Chalerm, when has the PM put her life on the line, has she ever visited the South in either capacity as PM or Defence Minister…no…the only battle this PM is willing to charge into would be to be first at a 70% off sale at LV.

[rubl]

In any normal society when and MP or government or PM is charged with a crime THEY STEP DOWN - at that point there is no CONVICTION

also we have already CONVICTED MP's serving in PTP right now when they should be in jail - go figure

Really? They may eventually step down, but the majority of the times, they fight to the very last minute in denial, that fat Mayor in Canada being a prime example..

Charles Taylor of Seirra Leonne, all of the FYR leaders and Generals in the Balkans too...

Even in the UK and the US of A these MP's you're refering to don't step down, I mean, how many were charged with fraud for fiddling their beneifts??? I don't really recall many stepping down, some even went to jail, but they didn't step down once they were charged!!

You're talking through your rectum old chap on this one

Mind you, in a real democratic country like Thailand ... ...

Edited March 4, 2014 by rubl

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Yes you can, It's up to the Constitutional Court to rule on the issue, and former-DPM caretaker-Labour Minister Chalerm is not part of the court, is he ?

So "Mr Chalerm’s confirmation of Ms Yingluck’s status" means diddly-squat, until the Court agrees or disagrees, it's only his personal opinion.

Not that he's biased, in any way, or also affected by the decision himself ! alt=facepalm.gif width=24 height=18>

The Constitution Court will never rule on this issue! The Reds will make sure of this!

PTP never has stopped the CC from ruling. it just refuses to recognize and adverse rulings.

[PepperMe]

Yes you can, It's up to the Constitutional Court to rule on the issue, and former-DPM caretaker-Labour Minister Chalerm is not part of the court, is he ?

So "Mr Chalerm’s confirmation of Ms Yingluck’s status" means diddly-squat, until the Court agrees or disagrees, it's only his personal opinion.

Not that he's biased, in any way, or also affected by the decision himself !

The Constitution Court will never rule on this issue! The Reds will make sure of this!

The reds don't have the power to dictate to the court, if they try to push them one way, the natural reaction will be for them to rule the other way. Just to make a point.

Also, Chalerm has told the reds to stay out of BKK.

The courts will remover this government as sure as god made little red apples.

[bigbamboo]

Chalerm reveals the truth!

What he is saying here is never mind the country or the people, it's all about hanging on to power at any cost.

[whybother]

Lets be real, the only reason dates are not yet met are due to illegal acts by the Dems. Constitution is not setup to assume 101 illegal acts, is it. Any reasonable person would agree w Chalerms position on the matter. Certainly one cant say that Yingluk is to blame for the delays!

Is anyone blaming Yingluck for the delays? Is it relevant?

[tezzainoz]

Nothing wrong with ying luck, she is governing Thailand like the strong woman she is with conviction, brave. Willing to put her life on the line for this country.

Sorry which country is that

for a while I was expecting you to say Thailand

but after you got past the name I know you where not

[rickirs]

Perhaps more interesting is that if NAAC rules Yingluck quilty of dereliction of duty, her removal from government may have to wait until the election of the new Senate who alone has authority to remove the PM. Election of half the senators is on March 30th, appointment of the other half could take longer? April or May is beginning to look llike the point a new government will be able to function, unless of course Suthep could still succeed to keep the government in an interim status beyond summer.

[tezzainoz]

Yes you can, It's up to the Constitutional Court to rule on the issue, and former-DPM caretaker-Labour Minister Chalerm is not part of the court, is he ?

So "Mr Chalerm’s confirmation of Ms Yingluck’s status" means diddly-squat, until the Court agrees or disagrees, it's only his personal opinion.

Not that he's biased, in any way, or also affected by the decision himself !

Rule on what?

The constitution states that the election must be completed within 180 days of parliament being dissolved and the PM must be elected within 30 days of the new parliament sitting. Looks like it's Yinglucks'show until July - enjoy.

Parliament was dissolved on the 9th of December. So 180 days after that is the 9th of March (or there about) Not July.

See now why the constitutional court needs to be involved.

Not that any of that matters with the impending negligence case coming up.

Appx. 30 days to a month. 180/30 = 6 months

1. December

2. January

3. February

4. March

5. April

6. May

Followed by 30 days to choose the PM

7. June

If I'm not mistaken, June is followed by........

The only negligence the constitutional court needs to investigate here is the mathematics in your post.

I hate to say this

But he is right

[SICHONSTEVE]

Yes you can, It's up to the Constitutional Court to rule on the issue, and former-DPM caretaker-Labour Minister Chalerm is not part of the court, is he ?

So "Mr Chalerm’s confirmation of Ms Yingluck’s status" means diddly-squat, until the Court agrees or disagrees, it's only his personal opinion.

Not that he's biased, in any way, or also affected by the decision himself !

Rule on what?

The constitution states that the election must be completed within 180 days of parliament being dissolved and the PM must be elected within 30 days of the new parliament sitting. Looks like it's Yinglucks'show until July - enjoy.

Parliament was dissolved on the 9th of December. So 180 days after that is the 9th of March (or there about) Not July.

See now why the constitutional court needs to be involved.

Not that any of that matters with the impending negligence case coming up.

Appx. 30 days to a month. 180/30 = 6 months

1. December

2. January

3. February

4. March

5. April

6. May

Followed by 30 days to choose the PM

7. June

If I'm not mistaken, June is followed by........

The only negligence the constitutional court needs to investigate here is the mathematics in your post.

I think that the 30 days to choose a prime minister starts from 2nd Feb - which is today, if I'm not mistaken!!!

[whybother]

Perhaps more interesting is that if NAAC rules Yingluck quilty of dereliction of duty, her removal from government may have to wait until the election of the new Senate who alone has authority to remove the PM. Election of half the senators is on March 30th, appointment of the other half could take longer? April or May is beginning to look llike the point a new government will be able to function, unless of course Suthep could still succeed to keep the government in an interim status beyond summer.

The appointed senators don't change at this point. Senators are elected / appointed for 6 years. The appointed senators were appointed in 2011, so will sit until 2017. The elected senators were elected in 2008, so are due for reelection now.

[djjamie]

Appx. 30 days to a month. 180/30 = 6 months

1. December

2. January

3. February

4. March

5. April

6. May

Followed by 30 days to choose the PM

7. June

If I'm not mistaken, June is followed by........

The only negligence the constitutional court needs to investigate here is the mathematics in your post.

I hate to say this

But he is right

Yes, I replied. I admitted I was wrong and apologized. Doubt the UDD supporters understand those words though.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/708408-chalerm-says-yingluck-still-caretaker-prime-minister/?p=7518817

[rubl]

Perhaps more interesting is that if NAAC rules Yingluck quilty of dereliction of duty, her removal from government may have to wait until the election of the new Senate who alone has authority to remove the PM. Election of half the senators is on March 30th, appointment of the other half could take longer? April or May is beginning to look llike the point a new government will be able to function, unless of course Suthep could still succeed to keep the government in an interim status beyond summer.

Just a minor correction. With "to keep the government in an interim status" you seem to suggest the Yingluck government. Once the EC has managed to finish the ongoing general election and depending on who to believe there will be no government for a while. That is no political government with cabinet and MPs, just the bureaucracy which keep the country rolling along. Unless Ms. Yingluck will try the trick of her brother in 2006 with stepping down as caretaker PM, going on holiday and returning refreshed to take/grab the 'caretaker' role again and promise next elections in half a years time, once a few more checks and balances are demolished.

[Pimay1]

What was stopping the payments in October. After parliament was dissolved the constitution prevented payments. How is any of that any one else fault but the PTP?

Yeah.The rice scheme ran into some minor difficulties that could have been quickly and easily remedied had the Democrats not acted as they did. Instead of being a constructive parliamentary force the Democrats instead chose to do all they could to sabotage the scheme and actively worked to prevent payments being made to farmers for the selfish purpose of trying to destroy the elected government so that they could again try to steal power.

If the Democrats were so eager to help the farmers could they not have delayed their mass quitting of parliament and taking to the streets until the farmers had been paid? Yes they could of but they didn't because they wanted to exploit the farmers misery for their own selfish ends. The more the farmers suffered the better they thought it was for them - unfortunately it didn't work out that way and they have lost big time on this issue. If you'll notice the amount of press on the rice scheme has dwindled and the focus is now on the northern secession threats - why? - because the rice scheme debate has been won by the good guys and the Yellows need another red herring issue to try and justify their illegal activities.

Wow, that is one of the most convoluted and facts twisting post I have seen on TV. If TV had a prize for the most ridiculous post, this one would sure be in the running. i.e rice scheme-minor difficulties, Democrats prevented the payments, the more the farmers suffered the better it was for the Democrats, the rice scheme has been won by the good guys and finally the secession threats are a red herring which means misleading or distracting.

[Mister Fixit]

'Minor difficulties'? Hahahahaha!

Those two words destroy everything else in your post. Do you live in Laa Laa Land?

Or perhaps you're using those two words to ignore every other detail in the post because you are unable to refute or disprove them.

Nah, it was just too boring to bother with ... I knew it would be a load of BS as soon as I read those two words. I didn't need to go any further ...

[Dogmatix]

Of course Chalerm will promote an interpretation that benefits him and the caretaker government, it's even possible the Constitutional Court will support his view but there are some problems.

Article 181 does indeed stipulate that the Council of Ministers will stay on with limited powers until the new Council of Ministers takes over. But the Constitution restricts this period to 60 days maximum - 30 days are allowed to convene the House of Representatives and another 30 days after that for the House to elect a PM who must appoint the new Council of Ministers. The Constitution doesn't say what should happen to the caretaker cabinet if the House cannot be convened within 30 days of elections.

Article 93 does indeed require the EC to complete all outstanding elections within 180 days but this doesn't appear to cover the case Chalerm is referring to where there was no 95% quorum of MPs to convoke parliament within 30 days of the elections. It is obviously written to deal with the need to make up less than 5% of MPs after the House has already convened.

A more serious problem is that there appears to be no solution in the Constitution for the 28 constituencies with no registered candidates. The Constitution and the Organic Electoral law seem to support the EC's view that candidate registration may only take place within 20 days of the dissolution of Parliament through a royal decree and must be closed 5 days after that. A royal decree to dissolve Parliament and set an election date may only be issued once for each occasion and under Article 108 elections must take place on the same date throughout the country. So there are several serious constitutional issues there. Issuing a second royal decree could be illegal or, at best, could invalidate the first one and annul the elections. For issuing an improper royal decree PT risks being dissolved, or could be prosecuted again for dereliction of duty by spending B3.8bn of taxpayers' money on an election that she knew could not be completed. If it is deemed legal to issue a new royal decree for a new election date, it will beg the question of why did the PM not do that before 2 Feb after she knew that 28 constituencies had no candidates (and never would). I have even begun to explore the situation, if Yingluck is suspended by the NACC or even impeached by the Senate.

I think the caretaker government will need more than Chalerm's doctrate in law from Ramkhamhaeng to fight its way out of this paper bag.

[Mister Fixit]

Wow, that is one of the most convoluted and facts twisting post I have seen on TV. If TV had a prize for the most ridiculous post, this one would sure be in the running. i.e rice scheme-minor difficulties, Democrats prevented the payments, the more the farmers suffered the better it was for the Democrats, the rice scheme has been won by the good guys and finally the secession threats are a red herring which means misleading or distracting.

Agreed 100%, it was utter total flannel,unbelieveable in its stupidity - well done for the reply, sorry run out of likes

[casualbiker]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Yes you can, It's up to the Constitutional Court to rule on the issue, and former-DPM caretaker-Labour Minister Chalerm is not part of the court, is he ?

So "Mr Chalerm’s confirmation of Ms Yingluck’s status" means diddly-squat, until the Court agrees or disagrees, it's only his personal opinion.

Not that he's biased, in any way, or also affected by the decision himself ! alt=facepalm.gif width=24 height=18>

The Constitution Court will never rule on this issue! The Reds will make sure of this!

PTP never has stopped the CC from ruling. it just refuses to recognize and adverse rulings.

AT last you are seeing and admitting how Shinawatra /PTP democracy works...it refuses to recognize constitutional rulings unless they are in their favour ....we got the highest vote , so we can do what we want..nanananana...

There's hope for you yet!

[bigbamboo]

What was stopping the payments in October. After parliament was dissolved the constitution prevented payments. How is any of that any one else fault but the PTP?

Yeah.The rice scheme ran into some minor difficulties that could have been quickly and easily remedied had the Democrats not acted as they did. Instead of being a constructive parliamentary force the Democrats instead chose to do all they could to sabotage the scheme and actively worked to prevent payments being made to farmers for the selfish purpose of trying to destroy the elected government so that they could again try to steal power.

If the Democrats were so eager to help the farmers could they not have delayed their mass quitting of parliament and taking to the streets until the farmers had been paid? Yes they could of but they didn't because they wanted to exploit the farmers misery for their own selfish ends. The more the farmers suffered the better they thought it was for them - unfortunately it didn't work out that way and they have lost big time on this issue. If you'll notice the amount of press on the rice scheme has dwindled and the focus is now on the northern secession threats - why? - because the rice scheme debate has been won by the good guys and the Yellows need another red herring issue to try and justify their illegal activities.

Wow, that is one of the most convoluted and facts twisting post I have seen on TV. If TV had a prize for the most ridiculous post, this one would sure be in the running. i.e rice scheme-minor difficulties, Democrats prevented the payments, the more the farmers suffered the better it was for the Democrats, the rice scheme has been won by the good guys and finally the secession threats are a red herring which means misleading or distracting.

Well done Pimay. I only got as far as "The rice scheme ran into some minor difficulties" before I fell about laughing and couldn't read any more!

[SICHONSTEVE]

Appx. 30 days to a month. 180/30 = 6 months

1. December

2. January

3. February

4. March

5. April

6. May

Followed by 30 days to choose the PM

7. June

If I'm not mistaken, June is followed by........

The only negligence the constitutional court needs to investigate here is the mathematics in your post.

I hate to say this

But he is right

Yes, I replied. I admitted I was wrong and apologized. Doubt the UDD supporters understand those words though.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/708408-chalerm-says-yingluck-still-caretaker-prime-minister/?p=7518817

If it makes you feel better, he was only partially right as the 30 days started from2nd Feb (not from June) so he should apologise as well!!

[SICHONSTEVE]

What was stopping the payments in October. After parliament was dissolved the constitution prevented payments. How is any of that any one else fault but the PTP?

Yeah.The rice scheme ran into some minor difficulties that could have been quickly and easily remedied had the Democrats not acted as they did. Instead of being a constructive parliamentary force the Democrats instead chose to do all they could to sabotage the scheme and actively worked to prevent payments being made to farmers for the selfish purpose of trying to destroy the elected government so that they could again try to steal power.

If the Democrats were so eager to help the farmers could they not have delayed their mass quitting of parliament and taking to the streets until the farmers had been paid? Yes they could of but they didn't because they wanted to exploit the farmers misery for their own selfish ends. The more the farmers suffered the better they thought it was for them - unfortunately it didn't work out that way and they have lost big time on this issue. If you'll notice the amount of press on the rice scheme has dwindled and the focus is now on the northern secession threats - why? - because the rice scheme debate has been won by the good guys and the Yellows need another red herring issue to try and justify their illegal activities.

Wow, that is one of the most convoluted and facts twisting post I have seen on TV. If TV had a prize for the most ridiculous post, this one would sure be in the running. i.e rice scheme-minor difficulties, Democrats prevented the payments, the more the farmers suffered the better it was for the Democrats, the rice scheme has been won by the good guys and finally the secession threats are a red herring which means misleading or distracting.

Well done Pimay. I only got as far as "The rice scheme ran into some minor difficulties" before I fell about laughing and couldn't read any more!

Unfortunately, I read the whole thing!!

I'm not sure if I will ever recover from what I put myself through!!

[BuddyPinkham]

Chalerm: Where you been hiding?

[fullcave]

[ManofReason]

Parliament was dissolved on the 9th of December. So 180 days after that is the 9th of March (or there about) Not July.

See now why the constitutional court needs to be involved.

Not that any of that matters with the impending negligence case coming up.

Appx. 30 days to a month. 180/30 = 6 months

1. December

2. January

3. February

4. March

5. April

6. May

Followed by 30 days to choose the PM

7. June

If I'm not mistaken, June is followed by........

The only negligence the constitutional court needs to investigate here is the mathematics in your post.

I think that the 30 days to choose a prime minister starts from 2nd Feb - which is today, if I'm not mistaken!!!

You are indeed mistaken. The 30 day countdown begins from when the newly elected lower house convenes for the first time which it cannot do until there are at least 95% of members elected which may take up to 6 months (180 days) to achieve. Did you not read the article and digest Charlems' words of wisdom?

[ManofReason]

Appx. 30 days to a month. 180/30 = 6 months

1. December

2. January

3. February

4. March

5. April

6. May

Followed by 30 days to choose the PM

7. June

If I'm not mistaken, June is followed by........

The only negligence the constitutional court needs to investigate here is the mathematics in your post.

I hate to say this

But he is right

Yes, I replied. I admitted I was wrong and apologized. Doubt the UDD supporters understand those words though.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/708408-chalerm-says-yingluck-still-caretaker-prime-minister/?p=7518817

If it makes you feel better, he was only partially right as the 30 days started from2nd Feb (not from June) so he should apologise as well!!

You are quite wrong about that.

Back to the school books for you.

The PM has to be elected within 30 days of the convening of the house which can't occur without 95% of seats being filled.

The house has still yet to convene so the 30 day count down has yet to begin.

You guys all continuously have such trouble with facts.

Guess that's to be expected when you support a cause that has to contort itself into all sorts of shapes to try and justify its illegal actions.

[mrtoad]

Yeah.The rice scheme ran into some minor difficulties that could have been quickly and easily remedied had the Democrats not acted as they did.

Pipkins, I can call you Pipkins can't I? Have you been out having drinkins with Chalerm?

[ManofReason]

Yeah.The rice scheme ran into some minor difficulties that could have been quickly and easily remedied had the Democrats not acted as they did.

Pipkins, I can call you Pipkins can't I? Have you been out having drinkins with Chalerm?

Call me what you want, it aint going to change the fact the Thailand is going to have at least another decade (probably more) of Red rule. I imagine Yingluck is going to age as gracefully as she rules this country.