Caretaker PM status remains intact

[espinoza]

Do the constitution allow the country to not be ruled by anybody ?

[kikoman]

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.

If Suthep had negotiated he would not be marching around the park alone!

He vowed to follow her all over Thailand till she stepped down,

She has not stepped down and Suthep supporters are gone!

Cheers

[dru2]

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.

If Suthep had negotiated he would not be marching around the park alone!

He vowed to follow her all over Thailand till she stepped down,

She has not stepped down and Suthep supporters are gone!

Cheers

This sad individual will soon be forced to eat his words... and then we'll hear nothing at all from him!

[northernjohn]

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.

If Suthep had negotiated he would not be marching around the park alone!

He vowed to follow her all over Thailand till she stepped down,

She has not stepped down and Suthep supporters are gone!

Cheers

This sad individual will soon be forced to eat his words... and then we'll hear nothing at all from him!

Yes we will under a new name.

[jonclark]

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.

If Suthep had negotiated he would not be marching around the park alone!

He vowed to follow her all over Thailand till she stepped down,

She has not stepped down and Suthep supporters are gone!

Cheers

Really - thought a good handful were outside PTP party headquarters today covering up the PTP logo - rather brazen for a single man, if as you suggest Suthep is alone

[Dogmatix]

" 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.

Chalerm's view that they have 180 days to complete elections is a delusion because under Article 93 it only applies in the event that 95% of the seats are already filled so that the House may convene within the 30 day time limit.

Article 93 (para 6). In any of cases the total number of members of the House elected does not reach 480 (later 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. The newly elected members shall have a term of office equal to the remainder of the term of the House.

[Fat Haggis]

So many Lawyers on here these days, instead of bashing each other constantly on here, why not offer your services, free of charge seeing as quite a lot of you seem to know more about how the constitution should work, compared to how it has been working.

I'm sure that your expertise in Thai consitutional matters would be a great asset to the leaders of the protest movement, and the caretaker government. You'll have this wrapped up, done and dusted in minutes, and then have time to hit the beach before lunch and a round of golf in the afternoon tomorrow

[rubl]

Caretaker PM status remains in tact

dubious at best it would seem

[Gunna]

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

kikoman doesn't live in the real world, ie lives in a fanatasyland with rouge tinted glasses. Maybe he has his nose in a trough somewhere and is scared of missing out if things change

[Thai at Heart]

" 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.

Chalerm's view that they have 180 days to complete elections is a delusion because under Article 93 it only applies in the event that 95% of the seats are already filled so that the House may convene within the 30 day time limit.

Article 93 (para 6). In any of cases the total number of members of the House elected does not reach 480 (later 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. The newly elected members shall have a term of office equal to the remainder of the term of the House.

Well, in typically loose legal language, that makes no mention of what happens if, it is less than 95%.

In which case, there is currently no sitting parliament and as so, the caretaker status should remain until there are at least 95% sitting MP's. I take that to read, they should have apparently an unlimited time until 95% of the seats are filled. Until then it should be status quo, surely.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[metisdead]

Inflammatory posts and replies have been removed.

[Bangmod]

"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.

<<<< Foreign language removed >>>>

Did you also find 1 of Chalerm's bottles of ear drops???

Edited March 6, 2014 by metisdead
This is an English language forum, English is the only acceptable language, except in the Thai language forum where Thai language is allowed.

[kimamey]

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

You seem to be the only one who knows this. All the official bodies seem to be grappling with the conflicting rules.

[kimamey]

"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 ....

He seems to like long winded posts that are supposed to look intelligent but don't always work.

Most of the protesters, particularly in the beginning weren't looking to be elected anyway. They were just ordinary people who wanted change. The leaders might be a different matter but they are after all the minority.

The normal protesters aren't as far as I'm aware anti democracy. The leaders might be but again they aren't the majority. If, as seems likely Thaksin is maintaining some control then that's anti democratic as like the Democrats he didn't stand so he wasn't elected.

[brownbear]

A glass wall and a PM hanging on by fingernails as she slides down to the abyss at the bottom (otherwise known as Dubai and its probably a very long scratch to the bottom - so not so bad I guess). Her cronies being more clever and with longer or sharper nails will eventually get there as well but they are experienced survivors so one has to assume them some credit in that regard, however, the sound is excruciating and painful to the ears and sanities of (I suspect) most Thai nationals and residents. I cannot, of course, qualify the latter part of that statement.

Those with a vested interest in the Thaksin regime or those with political philosophies dating back to to the early 20th century will of course have a different view and I respect that. I would just please ask that you do not try and enforce an antiquated political and social philosophy on those that are unable to judge for better or worse.

The whole process does however make me cringe, as do some of the comments I read on these forums.

[klauskunkel]

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

...and tuk-tuk drivers

[wirat69]

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

Your post has three ways of terminating Poo's premiership... brings to mind an old Romanian Proverb "There are more ways of killing a crab than sticking it"

[soalbundy]

Pointless statement,in other words nobody knows anything yet and we are awaiting a court decision

[animatic]

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.

The problem is the mechanism is spread across several different constitutional sections.

Read one and it doesn't appear complete, but read three in context and it makes sense.

Yes, she has expired and yes there is a mechanism to replace her or extend.

I believe it either devolves to the 'Senate' if whole or the 'Head of State'.

The term time limit and job description remain the same for the next iteration.

The relevant parts were shown in a thread a few days back,

but the PTP guys don't want to tie the whole shebang together, because it doesn't back their ideas.

But they are waiting for the CC to give a final yea nay to the combined wording.

Either way the Red Shirts will believe the partial wording they choose to be spoon fed by their liege lords minions.

[The Deerhunter]

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

If she was from a different party, there would be a third option. Some people up there would be threatening to kill her by now. But you know that & you are just being saucy Mr Kikoman.

Cheers.

[gabruce]

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?

Well, she would probably like to appoint Thaksin, however it seems that she can't do that. It seems to be the responsibility of the Senate to appoint a new caretaker pm (and cabinet?).

[The Deerhunter]

As J.R. Ewing (Larry Hagman - Dallas) would have said. The oprey isn't over till the skinny lady resigns. Chalerm was right for once. This will probably go on for months. Suthep seems well set up with a good team and a consolidated staging point to do the long haul. Tain't over till it's over.

[The Deerhunter]

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.

What information do we have on the status of the constitutional court actually ruling on these matters? Does someone have to apply for the ruling or is it automatically kicked into gear?

[The Deerhunter]

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

No! The HUB of caretakers!!!

[gabruce]

" 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

So what? Are you claiming that former members of the Supreme court no longer remember law? Do you think they are senile and so can be ignored? Are you one of these age elitists that think that only people under (50? 40? 30?) possess the faculty of reason? Why do you dismiss opinions offered by people who I would think are eminently qualified to offer a legal opinion? Perhaps former members of the Constitutional Court would be more qualified.