Caretaker PM status remains intact

[webfact]

Caretaker PM status remains intact
By Digital Content



BANGKOK, March 5 - Caretaker Justice Minister Chaikasem Nitisiri on Wednesday denied a claim by the anti-government protest leaders that the caretaker status of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra will cease to exist, arguing that Ms Yingluck will run the country in her caretaker capacity until the new government is formed or the Constitution Court rules otherwise.

Mr Chaikasem referred to the remark of secretary general of the People's Democratic Reform Committee Suthep Thaugsuban who earlier said he would petition the Constitution Court to rule on the status of the caretaker government as the House of Representatives or the Lower House cannot convene within 30 days since the Feb 2 election. He also charged that the caretaker premier will no longer remain in office on April 3 or 180 days after the Feb 2 poll.

The caretaker justice minister dismissed the claim, asserting that the caretaker premier will be in power unless the Constitution Court rules otherwise.

Mr Chaikasem commented after he Election Commission (EC) asked the Constitution Court if it needs to nullify the Feb 2 election and re-organise it nationwide.

He also urged the judicial process to ensure fairness in the society.

Polling could not be organised in 28 constituencies in the South as a result of the anti-government protesters' blockade to prevent the registration of constituency candidates in those areas from Dec 28-Jan 1.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) last month summoned Ms Yingluck to hear negligence of duty charges in connection to alleged corruption in the government's rice pledging scheme in which she is chairwoman of the National Rice Policy Committee. The caretaker premier however sent her lawyer to represent her at the court hearing.

If found guilty, she will be required to step down from all official roles.

The anti-government protesters have been rallying in the capital for nearly four months to pressure Ms Yingluck to resign to pave the way for their unelected "People's Council" to reform the country and do away with what they called the "Thaksin regime" as well as eradicate corruption. (MCOT online news)


-- TNA 2014-03-05

[JetsetBkk]

Oh dear. This is going to upset some folks.

[kikoman]

The only way you can take Yingluck out of her position as PM, is to vote her out of office or impeach her, Same as it has alway been!

Cheers

Edited March 5, 2014 by kikoman

[beenhere2long]

mate is this going to produce a vast amount of drivel on TV...well all said and done it is the hub of drivel.

[Rob8891]

Of course Chaikasem would say this, he's not going to talk himself out of a job. Yet another part of that pesky Constitution that doesn't fit red "reality".

Edited March 5, 2014 by Rob8891

[Thait Spot]

The only way you can take Yingluck out of her position as PM, is to vote her out of office or impeach her, Same as it has alway been!

Cheers

Poor, deluded soul.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Dogmatix]

This is just the self-serving personal opinion of a caretaker minister. He doesn't explain what basis there is in the Constitution for his view, probably because there is none. The Constitution provides for a caretaker administration to remain in place until power can be handed over to the next government. The new government is appointed by the new PM who must be elected by the House 30 days after it first convenes which must be 30 days after the general election day announced in the Royal Decree. So the Constitution doesn't cover the case of a failed election and neither explicitly says that the caretaker government may remain in place after the House convocation has failed to take place on time, nor does it specify that it shouldn't.

What is also not covered is the situation where elections continue after a failed election in an attempt to make it successful. The Constitution allows elections to continue for 180 days in the event that at least 95% of the seats have been filled to fill the remaining 5%. But the government is pushing for elections to continue, even though the deadline of 30 days to fill 95% of the seats and convoke the House passed yesterday. There is also the issue of the 28 constituencies with no candidates for which the Constitution provides no way to re-open the candidacy registrations.

It will be interesting to see what the Constitutional Court decides on all these issues, if they bother to rule on them at all. However, Mr Chaikasem's views are predictable and worthless since they are not based on any legal arguments.

[winstonc]

but still the main people havnt ruled on it yet..so no change until....pointless article again..

[jollyman]

The only way you can take Yingluck out of her position as PM, is to vote her out of office or impeach her, Same as it has always been!

Same as it has always been! not Thailand making up a new rule, poor Thailand

[Fryslan boppe]

"The anti-government protesters have been rallying in the capital for nearly four months to pressure Ms Yingluck to resign to pave the way for their unelected "People's Council" to reform the country and do away with what they called the "Thaksin regime" as well as eradicate corruption. (MCOT online news)"

Most of this article deals with --- Ho Hum ---more back and forth, intitiated by the coup-mongers seeking every way possible to achieve their unelected power-grab. Everything from their street stuff, trying to hide their coupist intentions behind self-righteous indignation about this issue or that, as well as running to their user-friendly judiciary.

I copied the above quote however, as another indication how the media misleadingly tries to contextualize the background to current political affairs. Most often giving the Elitist perspective, and stating it as historical fact. Calling the protesters anti-Govt. instead of anti-Democratic, skews thing from the get-go, never mind what follows.

The anti-Democracy protesters have not been rallying in the capital for the reasons stated. They have been rallying for only one purpose, and one only - that being an attempted non-electoral power grab....To state all the reasons noted in above quote, simply muddies the water of true intentions.

It could better be contextualized along the lines of "The anti-Democratic and unelectable protesters have been attempting to seek unelected power under the guise of...".....And then quoting the reasons as stated.

Contextualizing is everything, and without doing it truthfully, screws up everything that follows.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Fryslan boppe

[dominique355]

The only way you can take Yingluck out of her position as PM, is to vote her out of office or impeach her, Same as it has alway been!

Cheers

... or the court will find her guilty of corruption and dereliction of duty, both more likely than an impeachment with all PT house members being paid 1,5 mio baht by her sister in law.

[bigbamboo]

Thailand........ a country run by caretakers.

[Fat Haggis]

This is just the self-serving personal opinion of a caretaker minister. He doesn't explain what basis there is in the Constitution for his view, probably because there is none. The Constitution provides for a caretaker administration to remain in place until power can be handed over to the next government. The new government is appointed by the new PM who must be elected by the House 30 days after it first convenes which must be 30 days after the general election day announced in the Royal Decree. So the Constitution doesn't cover the case of a failed election and neither explicitly says that the caretaker government may remain in place after the House convocation has failed to take place on time, nor does it specify that it shouldn't.

What is also not covered is the situation where elections continue after a failed election in an attempt to make it successful. The Constitution allows elections to continue for 180 days in the event that at least 95% of the seats have been filled to fill the remaining 5%. But the government is pushing for elections to continue, even though the deadline of 30 days to fill 95% of the seats and convoke the House passed yesterday. There is also the issue of the 28 constituencies with no candidates for which the Constitution provides no way to re-open the candidacy registrations.

It will be interesting to see what the Constitutional Court decides on all these issues, if they bother to rule on them at all. However, Mr Chaikasem's views are predictable and worthless since they are not based on any legal arguments.

Doesn't 180 days take this till July? I seen something about this in another thread yesterday.

And can they not keep holding by-elections throughout that timeframe to be able to reach the 95% required to form a new Government ?

[siampolee]

The caretaker justice minister dismissed the claim, asserting that the caretaker premier will be in power unless the Constitution Court rules otherwise.

Mr Chaikasem commented after he Election Commission (EC) asked the Constitution Court if it needs to nullify the Feb 2 election and re-organise it nationwide.

He also urged the judicial process to ensure fairness in the society.

In reality the comments have been made by a private albeit politically orientated interested P.T.P. person.

The actual ruling would surely in fact would be be made by one of the judicial or constitutional entities or more as may be involved in the assorted processes that seem to be inching their way through the legal maze of the Thai judicial system.

Methinks I would rather take the words of those aforementioned bodies spokespersons as opposed to a Shinwatra lap dog who it seems is seeking a crumb or two from the table and a pat on the back from its master

Edited March 5, 2014 by siampolee

[animatic]

Her self exiled brother faced the identical situation several years back.

Went to the palace with lots of bravura and came back in silence,

He publicly resigned the next day.

But a week later he unilaterally took back the PM job,

without so much as a by your leave to the head of state as required.

This is what triggered the coupe last time; IMHO.

So we are in the same situation, except she refuses to step down.

But the LAWS make force her to step down, or become a defacto dictator.

Maybe that is the current plan?

Maybe it will trigger the removal of yet another Shinawatra usurper?

The blatherings of a caretaker minister responding to Suthep are irrelevant and self serving.

Edited March 5, 2014 by animatic

[smovi57]

This is just the self-serving personal opinion of a caretaker minister. He doesn't explain what basis there is in the Constitution for his view, probably because there is none. The Constitution provides for a caretaker administration to remain in place until power can be handed over to the next government. The new government is appointed by the new PM who must be elected by the House 30 days after it first convenes which must be 30 days after the general election day announced in the Royal Decree. So the Constitution doesn't cover the case of a failed election and neither explicitly says that the caretaker government may remain in place after the House convocation has failed to take place on time, nor does it specify that it shouldn't.

What is also not covered is the situation where elections continue after a failed election in an attempt to make it successful. The Constitution allows elections to continue for 180 days in the event that at least 95% of the seats have been filled to fill the remaining 5%. But the government is pushing for elections to continue, even though the deadline of 30 days to fill 95% of the seats and convoke the House passed yesterday. There is also the issue of the 28 constituencies with no candidates for which the Constitution provides no way to re-open the candidacy registrations.

It will be interesting to see what the Constitutional Court decides on all these issues, if they bother to rule on them at all. However, Mr Chaikasem's views are predictable and worthless since they are not based on any legal arguments.

Doesn't 180 days take this till July? I seen something about this in another thread yesterday.

And can they not keep holding by-elections throughout that timeframe to be able to reach the 95% required to form a new Government ?

No it ends march 9th and she will be gone, Thank Budda.

[dominique355]

"The anti-government protesters have been rallying in the capital for nearly four months to pressure Ms Yingluck to resign to pave the way for their unelected "People's Council" to reform the country and do away with what they called the "Thaksin regime" as well as eradicate corruption. (MCOT online news)"

Most of this article deals with --- Ho Hum ---more back and forth, intitiated by the coup-mongers seeking every way possible to achieve their unelected power-grab. Everything from their street stuff, trying to hide their coupist intentions behind self-righteous indignation about this issue or that, as well as running to their user-friendly judiciary.

I copied the above quote however as another indication how the media misleadingly tries to contextualize the background to current political affairs. Most often giving the Elitist perspective, and stating it as historical fact. Calling the anti-Govt. instead of anti-Democratic skews thing from the get-go, never mind what follows.

The anti-Democracy. protesters have not been rallying in the capital for the reasons stated. They have been rallying for only one purpose, and one only - that being an attempted non-electoral power grab....To state all the reasons noted in above quote, simply muddies the water of true intentions.

It could better be contextualized along the lines of "The anti-Democratic and unelectable protesters having been attempting to seek unelected power under the guise of........And then quoting the reasons as stated.

Contextualizing is everything, and without doing it truthfully, screws up everything that follows.

Just a few questions to your propaganda text:

"Elitist": you call the protesters "elitists". I will be glad to convey this qualifcation to my MIL from up country who never went beyond 6th grade. She will be flattered to be now part of Thailand's elite.

"unelectable protesters": are you perhaps mixing up "unelectable" and "unelected"? Because is see no reason why any of the protesters should be be electable (= being able to be elected). To confuse these two forms is a mistake often seen made by non-native English speakers, are you Thai?

"coup mongers": the last thing the protesters want to see is a military coup, because that makes Yingluck a martyr and she will even more so claim to defend a democracy she herself with her family and cronies have started to destroy (See her speech in Mongolia). The only people genuinely interested in a coup is PT. That would give them a legitimacy they don't have (anymore).

As you said, "contextualizing is everything" and if one puts your remarks here in TV in context, well ....

[Thai at Heart]

Her self exiled brother faced the identical situation several years back.

Went to the palace with lots of bravura and came back silence,

resigned the next day.

But a week later he took back the PM job,

without so much as a by your leave to the head of state as required.

So we are in the same situation, except she refuses to step down.

But the LAWS make force her to step down or become a defacto dictator.

Maybe that is the current plan?

Maybe it will trigger the removal of yet another Shinawatra usurper?

The blatherings of a caretaker minister responding to Suthep are irrelevant and self serving.

Well, it has to be the case, that if she doesn't step down, there has to be a legal mechanism to remove her. It can't be that she just expires and the country has NO SITTING ANYBODY to run the place. What a screwed up country.

This bloke saying this, doesn't mean anything, but that said, who or what has to happen to legally void her position? And then what? it can't be that if the democratic process breaks, that the default, blue screen position is that it resorts to an appointed parliament. But then again . TIT.

[bigbamboo]

If the current caretaker PM is forced to resign anyone care to take a guess who the de facto caretaker PM will appoint as the new caretaker PM?

[Fryslan boppe]

"The anti-government protesters have been rallying in the capital for nearly four months to pressure Ms Yingluck to resign to pave the way for their unelected "People's Council" to reform the country and do away with what they called the "Thaksin regime" as well as eradicate corruption. (MCOT online news)"

Most of this article deals with --- Ho Hum ---more back and forth, intitiated by the coup-mongers seeking every way possible to achieve their unelected power-grab. Everything from their street stuff, trying to hide their coupist intentions behind self-righteous indignation about this issue or that, as well as running to their user-friendly judiciary.

I copied the above quote however as another indication how the media misleadingly tries to contextualize the background to current political affairs. Most often giving the Elitist perspective, and stating it as historical fact. Calling the anti-Govt. instead of anti-Democratic skews thing from the get-go, never mind what follows.

The anti-Democracy. protesters have not been rallying in the capital for the reasons stated. They have been rallying for only one purpose, and one only - that being an attempted non-electoral power grab....To state all the reasons noted in above quote, simply muddies the water of true intentions.

It could better be contextualized along the lines of "The anti-Democratic and unelectable protesters having been attempting to seek unelected power under the guise of........And then quoting the reasons as stated.

Contextualizing is everything, and without doing it truthfully, screws up everything that follows.

Just a few questions to your propaganda text:

"Elitist": you call the protesters "elitists". I will be glad to convey this qualifcation to my MIL from up country who never went beyond 6th grade. She will be flattered to be now part of Thailand's elite.

"unelectable protesters": are you perhaps mixing up "unelectable" and "unelected"? Because is see no reason why any of the protesters should be be electable (= being able to be elected). To confuse these two forms is a mistake often seen made by non-native English speakers, are you Thai?

"coup mongers": the last thing the protesters want to see is a military coup, because that makes Yingluck a martyr and she will even more so claim to defend a democracy she herself with her family and cronies have started to destroy (See her speech in Mongolia). The only people genuinely interested in a coup is PT. That would give them a legitimacy they don't have (anymore).

As you said, "contextualizing is everything" and if one puts your remarks here in TV in context, well ....

"unelectable protesters": are you perhaps mixing up "unelectable" and "unelected"?

I would posit that in their current incarnation, the PAD-Dem's are unelectable. If that needs confirmation, look no further than the first election after AV's unelected administration.....

.For further evidence, I point to the current election which the "Unelectables" are self-servingly seeking to both nullify and prevent tabulation. They have a reason for doing that, and I will let you speculate on what that may be...It is very clear to me.

That said, there is no reason the "unelectables' cannot change that situation in the future, and become 'electable'....I would be happy to provide them the formula for doing so....To expand on this further in this thread, would be off-topic

Edited March 5, 2014 by Fryslan boppe

[drand11]

Sometimes common sense must prevail!

Haters hate this fact. You cant illegalky delay elections and then hold deadlines that were logically ordered. She will remain. Now EC, how about them elections?

[Thai at Heart]

If the current caretaker PM is forced to resign anyone care to take a guess who the de facto caretaker PM will appoint as the new caretaker PM?

What title does he or she get to take?

Appointed Caretaker Prime Minister?

How does that scan in Thai? Does it fit on a business card? Didn't they decide that the current constitution doesnt' allow for an Appointed PM? What about an Appointed Caretaker PM? How long does he get to stay? Does there have to be an election? Is this constitutional? God knows...

Edited March 5, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[siampolee]

bigbamboo post # 19

If the current caretaker PM is forced to resign anyone care to take a guess who the de facto caretaker PM will appoint as the new caretaker PM?

One of these ex police officer chaps looking for a rerun of his old position in a more overt fashion perhaps?.

[tx22cb]

Thailand........ a country run by caretakers.

As long as it is not run by Undertakers, we'll be all right.

[PepperMe]

The only way you can take Yingluck out of her position as PM, is to vote her out of office or impeach her, Same as it has alway been!

Cheers

until the new government is formed or the Constitution Court rules otherwise.

The key words here..... 'or the Constitution Court rules otherwise.'

Which is what is going to happen whether a caretaker justice minister likes it or not.

Roll on Friday. (or sooner)

[wolf5370]

The only way you can take Yingluck out of her position as PM, is to vote her out of office or impeach her, Same as it has alway been!

Cheers

Or if she steps down, or dissolves parliament - erm, oh yeah she did that already - hence she is NOT PM, she is Caretaker PM - there is a difference and it is NOT a permanent position.

Edited March 5, 2014 by wolf5370

[Dogmatix]

If the current caretaker PM is forced to resign anyone care to take a guess who the de facto caretaker PM will appoint as the new caretaker PM?

If she forced to suspend duties by the NACC she will be able to appoint an acting caretaker PM but the case cited in the OP would involve the status of the entire caretaker cabinet expiring.

Yingluck (Thaksin) took a gamble by embarking on the 2 Feb elections after they already knew they couldn't be completed due to the lack of candidate registrations (admittedly thro no fault of theirs) and rejected the EC and Constitutional Court's offer to postpone them using a loophole in the Constitution. Thaksin imagined that news of another overwhelming win at the ballot box would get international support behind him and force the completion of the elections and then, of course, ram through the Amnesty Bill 60 days after taking office again, as permitted by the constitution where a bill has been suspended by the Senate and the House has been dissolved before the expiry of the 180 day suspension period. He didn't bargain with the Ukraine crisis that got John Kerry to hastily revise US views on corrupt, abusive regimes that come to power through fair elections. Suddenly its OK to boot them out again as it was with Allende in Chile and there is talk of getting rid of the US ambassador who has showed herself to be too red (in addition to being a total air head). So no need for Thaksin to go back to the US bla blaing about having a Texas accent, despite the reality of his broken Chinaman English. Europe is also totally disinterested in Thailand with a huge crisis on its doorstep.

If they had negotiated, they probably would have got Constitutional Court sanction to annul the Royal Decree and start from scratch 3-5 months later with the potential participation of the Dems. They chose not to in another big stakes gamble by Thaksin and they and the rest of Thailand will have to deal with the consequences.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Dogmatix

[Scamper]

" The caretaker justice minister dismissed the claim, asserting that the caretaker premier will be in power unless the Constitution Court rules otherwise. "

First of all, he is no longer caretaker justice minister. And there seems very little doubt that the Constitutional Court will give credence to the timelines set forth in the constitution through a myriad of articles. When the Constitutional Court did not rule the election invalid last month it was on the basis of the article that the appeal was made on - Article 68. But Articles 7, 108, and 172 now will occupy the court's attention. The constitution is very clear on the timeline for a parliamentary sitting. It was yesterday. Two former members of the Supreme Court consider the Yingluck administration to have ended yesterday. Article 7 takes effect today. In the world of Pheu Thai and in particular in the view of the administration's constitutional expert - Chalerm - if they can piece together a quorum within 180 days - in other words, by August, a sitting parliament by September, and a nominated prime minister by October then all is well, as Chalerm's view is that the 30 day count-down doesn't even begin until close to August, as he seems to think the administration has 180 days to conduct an election. He therefore purposefully forgets all the articles that call for a national election all on the same day. Chalerm has taken on a science-fiction philosophy that suspends time itself. The former Yingluck administration is attempting to cling on to power through unconstitutional means, by the simple belief that if they can get enough spokesman in front of the cameras their conviction alone must make it so.

[kikoman]

" The caretaker justice minister dismissed the claim, asserting that the caretaker premier will be in power unless the Constitution Court rules otherwise. "

First of all, he is no longer caretaker justice minister. And there seems very little doubt that the Constitutional Court will give credence to the timelines set forth in the constitution through a myriad of articles. When the Constitutional Court did not rule the election invalid last month it was on the basis of the article that the appeal was made on - Article 68. But Articles 7, 108, and 172 now will occupy the court's attention. The constitution is very clear on the timeline for a parliamentary sitting. It was yesterday. Two former members of the Supreme Court consider the Yingluck administration to have ended yesterday. Article 7 takes effect today. In the world of Pheu Thai and in particular in the view of the administration's constitutional expert - Chalerm - if they can piece together a quorum within 180 days - in other words, by August, a sitting parliament by September, and a nominated prime minister by October then all is well, as Chalerm's view is that the 30 day count-down doesn't even begin until close to August, as he seems to think the administration has 180 days to conduct an election. He therefore purposefully forgets all the articles that call for a national election all on the same day. Chalerm has taken on a science-fiction philosophy that suspends time itself. The former Yingluck administration is attempting to cling on to power through unconstitutional means, by the simple belief that if they can get enough spokesman in front of the cameras their conviction alone must make it so.

Two "former"members of the Supreme court!!

Cheers

[Basil B]

"Caretaker Justice Minister Chaikasem Nitisiri"

​Just one of the PM's lackeys, reading from a prepared speech sent from Dubai...

I read nothing of substance in there to justify this dribble and double talk.