Senator to petition court for PM’s removal over Tawin’s transfer

BANGKOK, 8 March 2014 (NNT) – An appointed senator is planning to file a motion with the Constitutional Court, seeking to unseat the Prime Minister for the unfair transfer of former Secretary-General of the National Security Council (NSC) Tawin Pleansri.

Senator Paiboon Nititawan revealed that on March 10, he and other senators, accounting for one-tenth of the Senate quorum, would hand a petition to the Senate Speaker about the termination of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s duty in office. The matter is to be forwarded to the Constitutional Court later on.

Citing Sections 180, 182, 266 and 268 of the Constitution, Senator Paiboon claimed that the premier had committed wrongdoings by intervening in the transfer of Mr Tawin from the NSC to the Prime Minister’s Office for the benefits of her own and others involved. He also referred to the Supreme Administrative Court’s ruling yesterday that the transfer had been made with no valid reasons and that Mr Tawin was to be reinstated.

The appointed senator expressed belief that the case would not take long for the charter court to deliberate. Should the Prime Minister be dismissed from office, he said the Cabinet would have to assume the caretaker role and the new premier would have to be appointed by Parliament.

However, since parliamentary sessions cannot yet be convened due to the unfinished elections, the Senate would be responsible of proposing an individual for His Majesty the King’s endorsement as the new Prime Minister.

-- NNT 2014-03-08

Good luck with that mate.

Back to the court again........

The senator is referring to Article 7, that contains those specific, legitimate and constitutional mechanisms. It is an idea that is not as far fetched as it may have appeared a few months ago. But now is quite a different matter. As a quorum was not achieved by the maximum date allowed under Article 127, the caretaker administration would - as the constitution was written - have been stripped of its caretaker status three days ago. Pheu Thai disagrees, of course, but these matters are already and inevitably being petitioned to the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court will examine articles 108, 127, and 7 in relation to the timelines set forth in the constitution and whether this election - still ongoing and unscheduled - has drifted or is drifting outside the constitutional boundaries.

The four articles this senator cites pertain directly to prime ministerial power. Tawin's transfer - one of the more notable and visible of the " Thaksin shuffles " - took place in the months just following the 2011 election. It has taken this long to reach this level of judicial might. The principle is important, as is the constitutional basis behind it.

Ha! And now that PTP is trying to impeach 6 of the judges I'm sure they won't be able to rule fast enough on this one! 555

So much backscratching you could probably follow the blood trail.

The senator is referring to Article 7, that contains those specific, legitimate and constitutional mechanisms. It is an idea that is not as far fetched as it may have appeared a few months ago. But now is quite a different matter. As a quorum was not achieved by the maximum date allowed under Article 127, the caretaker administration would - as the constitution was written - have been stripped of its caretaker status three days ago. Pheu Thai disagrees, of course, but these matters are already and inevitably being petitioned to the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court will examine articles 108, 127, and 7 in relation to the timelines set forth in the constitution and whether this election - still ongoing and unscheduled - has drifted or is drifting outside the constitutional boundaries.

The four articles this senator cites pertain directly to prime ministerial power. Tawin's transfer - one of the more notable and visible of the " Thaksin shuffles " - took place in the months just following the 2011 election. It has taken this long to reach this level of judicial might. The principle is important, as is the constitutional basis behind it.

Only problem is that its not what the constitution says. Its very specific. Caretaker government stays until a new government is selected. So until Thailand again have an elected government, its the caretaker ministers that have the duty to keep the country running. Like it or not, thats how the constitution works.

The senator is referring to Article 7, that contains those specific, legitimate and constitutional mechanisms. It is an idea that is not as far fetched as it may have appeared a few months ago. But now is quite a different matter. As a quorum was not achieved by the maximum date allowed under Article 127, the caretaker administration would - as the constitution was written - have been stripped of its caretaker status three days ago. Pheu Thai disagrees, of course, but these matters are already and inevitably being petitioned to the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court will examine articles 108, 127, and 7 in relation to the timelines set forth in the constitution and whether this election - still ongoing and unscheduled - has drifted or is drifting outside the constitutional boundaries.

The four articles this senator cites pertain directly to prime ministerial power. Tawin's transfer - one of the more notable and visible of the " Thaksin shuffles " - took place in the months just following the 2011 election. It has taken this long to reach this level of judicial might. The principle is important, as is the constitutional basis behind it.

Only problem is that its not what the constitution says. Its very specific. Caretaker government stays until a new government is selected. So until Thailand again have an elected government, its the caretaker ministers that have the duty to keep the country running. Like it or not, thats how the constitution works.

Here's a link to the 2007 Constitution. Tell me where it discusses a caretaker government and where is says what you state.

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

The senator is referring to Article 7, that contains those specific, legitimate and constitutional mechanisms. It is an idea that is not as far fetched as it may have appeared a few months ago. But now is quite a different matter. As a quorum was not achieved by the maximum date allowed under Article 127, the caretaker administration would - as the constitution was written - have been stripped of its caretaker status three days ago. Pheu Thai disagrees, of course, but these matters are already and inevitably being petitioned to the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court will examine articles 108, 127, and 7 in relation to the timelines set forth in the constitution and whether this election - still ongoing and unscheduled - has drifted or is drifting outside the constitutional boundaries.

The four articles this senator cites pertain directly to prime ministerial power. Tawin's transfer - one of the more notable and visible of the " Thaksin shuffles " - took place in the months just following the 2011 election. It has taken this long to reach this level of judicial might. The principle is important, as is the constitutional basis behind it.

Only problem is that its not what the constitution says. Its very specific. Caretaker government stays until a new government is selected. So until Thailand again have an elected government, its the caretaker ministers that have the duty to keep the country running. Like it or not, thats how the constitution works.

Here's a link to the 2007 Constitution. Tell me where it discusses a caretaker government and where is says what you state.

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

Section 181. http://asiancorrespondent.com/120115/will-the-yingluck-government-cease-caretaker/

Sorry to tell you rubl, it's from the asian correspondent and I know that according to you it's just a wee bit pro government for you so you'll probably dismiss it out of hand.

But hey, if you'd rather believe scamper and his forlorn attempts to cling on to some self respect with his call to arms over article 7, fill your boots. Just remember what happened the last time the yellows tried the article 7 gambit, April 2006, if you need a reminder.

Ha! And now that PTP is trying to impeach 6 of the judges I'm sure they won't be able to rule fast enough on this one! 555

Correct.

The PTP have only served to speed up the cons court work to get this entire rabble OUT!

I really have lost count on how many times this government have shot themselves in the foot.

One might even suggest that everything they do is with hope that they will all be judicially toppled so that it will cause an uprising from the UDD and red shirts, and start a huge calamity that they are hoping will bring about civil war, and that in itself will help them tremendously in implementing a separate state of Lanna.

I can assure them that any such uprising will be mercilessly crushed, and they will have to scale it down to years of terrorist attacks, they won't achieve their goals and will literally just be another problem like the south, but only worse as most terrorist attacks will target BKK

Thailand now has only 2 outcomes.... The Shin Clan stays in power indefinitely or the only alternative is civil uprising.

I hope I am wrong, but I know I am right.

The senator is referring to Article 7, that contains those specific, legitimate and constitutional mechanisms. It is an idea that is not as far fetched as it may have appeared a few months ago. But now is quite a different matter. As a quorum was not achieved by the maximum date allowed under Article 127, the caretaker administration would - as the constitution was written - have been stripped of its caretaker status three days ago. Pheu Thai disagrees, of course, but these matters are already and inevitably being petitioned to the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court will examine articles 108, 127, and 7 in relation to the timelines set forth in the constitution and whether this election - still ongoing and unscheduled - has drifted or is drifting outside the constitutional boundaries.

The four articles this senator cites pertain directly to prime ministerial power. Tawin's transfer - one of the more notable and visible of the " Thaksin shuffles " - took place in the months just following the 2011 election. It has taken this long to reach this level of judicial might. The principle is important, as is the constitutional basis behind it.

Only problem is that its not what the constitution says. Its very specific. Caretaker government stays until a new government is selected. So until Thailand again have an elected government, its the caretaker ministers that have the duty to keep the country running. Like it or not, thats how the constitution works.

Yes, the caretaker GOVERNMENT can stay, but if the court rules it, without Madame Badteeth leading it.

Ha! And now that PTP is trying to impeach 6 of the judges I'm sure they won't be able to rule fast enough on this one! 555

Goo luck for them, Senate are now compose only appointed senator half of them are against PT

The senator is referring to Article 7, that contains those specific, legitimate and constitutional mechanisms. It is an idea that is not as far fetched as it may have appeared a few months ago. But now is quite a different matter. As a quorum was not achieved by the maximum date allowed under Article 127, the caretaker administration would - as the constitution was written - have been stripped of its caretaker status three days ago. Pheu Thai disagrees, of course, but these matters are already and inevitably being petitioned to the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court will examine articles 108, 127, and 7 in relation to the timelines set forth in the constitution and whether this election - still ongoing and unscheduled - has drifted or is drifting outside the constitutional boundaries.

The four articles this senator cites pertain directly to prime ministerial power. Tawin's transfer - one of the more notable and visible of the " Thaksin shuffles " - took place in the months just following the 2011 election. It has taken this long to reach this level of judicial might. The principle is important, as is the constitutional basis behind it.

Only problem is that its not what the constitution says. Its very specific. Caretaker government stays until a new government is selected. So until Thailand again have an elected government, its the caretaker ministers that have the duty to keep the country running. Like it or not, thats how the constitution works.

It is questionable. It is all up to interpretation and I know how Bangkok Pundit currently interprets it. At some point it will be how the court's interpret it.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

So much backscratching you could probably follow the blood trail.

Not being critical but perhaps you are too kind. What we see here is not so much scratching as stabbing.

The senator is referring to Article 7, that contains those specific, legitimate and constitutional mechanisms. It is an idea that is not as far fetched as it may have appeared a few months ago. But now is quite a different matter. As a quorum was not achieved by the maximum date allowed under Article 127, the caretaker administration would - as the constitution was written - have been stripped of its caretaker status three days ago. Pheu Thai disagrees, of course, but these matters are already and inevitably being petitioned to the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court will examine articles 108, 127, and 7 in relation to the timelines set forth in the constitution and whether this election - still ongoing and unscheduled - has drifted or is drifting outside the constitutional boundaries.

The four articles this senator cites pertain directly to prime ministerial power. Tawin's transfer - one of the more notable and visible of the " Thaksin shuffles " - took place in the months just following the 2011 election. It has taken this long to reach this level of judicial might. The principle is important, as is the constitutional basis behind it.

Only problem is that its not what the constitution says. Its very specific. Caretaker government stays until a new government is selected. So until Thailand again have an elected government, its the caretaker ministers that have the duty to keep the country running. Like it or not, thats how the constitution works.

I certainly won't claim to be an expert, please check those words...... since there is a difference in meaning between 'selected' and 'elected'. Are you saying that the Senate could select a PM, should the current caretaker PM be impeached, since an election has not successfully installed a government yet? just a question.

The courts are busy these days,especially now that the judges are being sued as well Give it another 6 months and we will not only have no government,we'll have no courts either..............do you think anyone will notice.

Thai politic is disgusting and annoying.

Thai politic is disgusting and annoying.

But without these politics, half of the Thaivisa.com readers would be on ear drops

If you can't win by shutting down goverment then get those courts going

They're your ace in the hole

Go Team Yellow

Fight Team Yellow

Win Team Yellow

The courts are busy these days,especially now that the judges are being sued as well Give it another 6 months and we will not only have no government,we'll have no courts either..............do you think anyone will notice.

No courts no problem, Thaksin acts, Pheu Thai will have a freeway, and the problems drag out.

Only problem is that its not what the constitution says. Its very specific. Caretaker government stays until a new government is selected. So until Thailand again have an elected government, its the caretaker ministers that have the duty to keep the country running. Like it or not, thats how the constitution works.

Here's a link to the 2007 Constitution. Tell me where it discusses a caretaker government and where is says what you state.

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

Section 181. http://asiancorrespondent.com/120115/will-the-yingluck-government-cease-caretaker/

Sorry to tell you rubl, it's from the asian correspondent and I know that according to you it's just a wee bit pro government for you so you'll probably dismiss it out of hand.

But hey, if you'd rather believe scamper and his forlorn attempts to cling on to some self respect with his call to arms over article 7, fill your boots. Just remember what happened the last time the yellows tried the article 7 gambit, April 2006, if you need a reminder.

From the Bangkok Pundit article you quote:

"Therefore, as of April 3, there is a political vacuum as no caretaker government. The answer is Article 7 and Article 3. When considering history – October 14, 1973 – then there is no option but to request a royally-appointed and neutral PM who can choose a new Cabinet."

Followed by

"This interpretation is contested by legal analyst Verapat"

So, one more month ?

Only problem is that its not what the constitution says. Its very specific. Caretaker government stays until a new government is selected. So until Thailand again have an elected government, its the caretaker ministers that have the duty to keep the country running. Like it or not, thats how the constitution works.

Here's a link to the 2007 Constitution. Tell me where it discusses a caretaker government and where is says what you state.

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

Section 181. http://asiancorrespondent.com/120115/will-the-yingluck-government-cease-caretaker/

Sorry to tell you rubl, it's from the asian correspondent and I know that according to you it's just a wee bit pro government for you so you'll probably dismiss it out of hand.

But hey, if you'd rather believe scamper and his forlorn attempts to cling on to some self respect with his call to arms over article 7, fill your boots. Just remember what happened the last time the yellows tried the article 7 gambit, April 2006, if you need a reminder.

From the Bangkok Pundit article you quote:

"Therefore, as of April 3, there is a political vacuum as no caretaker government. The answer is Article 7 and Article 3. When considering history – October 14, 1973 – then there is no option but to request a royally-appointed and neutral PM who can choose a new Cabinet."

Followed by

"This interpretation is contested by legal analyst Verapat"

So, one more month ?

To expand your selected quote a bit further you'll find that the person who said that was "Seree Suwannapanon, deputy chairman of the Constitutional Drafting Assembly [in 2007], (who) stated that the caretaker government will expire no later than April 3."

So no axe to grind. I notice you didn't pick up on his selective choice of an example of Article 7 being 1973 with a military dictatorship in place, 41 years ago.

Hence why I pointed out the far more relevant situation in 2006, just 8 years ago, would be more fitting. But then that didn't have a happy ending for the article 7 groupies.

Thai politic is disgusting and annoying.

This must be a terrible forum for you. Why do you do it to yourself? Thai Visa has many lovely forums that have no mention of politics.

If you can't win by shutting down goverment then get those courts going

They're your ace in the hole

Go Team Yellow

Fight Team Yellow

Win Team Yellow

If, as you insinuate, the courts are in the pocket of the anti-Thaksin forces, why is it that Thaksin, or his puppet governments, have been in power all but 30 months in the last 14 years?