Thai Senate can convene as all senators endorsed

[webfact]

Senate can convene as all senators endorsed
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Election Commission (EC) endorsed the 15 remaining senators-elect, including Bangkok Senator Jaruvan Maintaka, yesterday in order to keep within the 30-day deadline.

The endorsement of the 15 senators gives the Senate a quorum of more than 95 per cent, thus allowing it to convene.

The endorsement came a day after the caretaker Cabinet approved a Royal Decree to open an extraordinary session of the Senate from Friday to May 10.

The MPs and Senators Electoral Act requires the EC to endorse election winners within 30 days of the election date, if it does not decide to annul the results or disqualify winning candidates.

The Act also allows the EC to further investigate and ask the Supreme Court's Election Division to disqualify the endorsed MPs or senators within a year of the election date.

On Monday, EC secretary-general Puchong Nutrawong said there were 74 complaints against the election winners in 15 provinces, but since the commission could not finish deliberating the complaints with in the 30-day deadline, it decided to endorse the 15 senators first.

List of newly endorsed senators

Apart from Jaruvan, the newly-endorsed senators are Chaiyaphum's Banthoon Kiart-kongchuchai, Nakhon Nayok's Marut Rojanapiyawong, Phetcha-bun's Pipatchai Phakratchatanon, Phrae's Bulun Ratkhamphan, Mae Hong Son's Surapol Santichotenan, Ranong's Sakda Sriwiriyapaibool, Lop Buri's Prathuan Sutthiamnuaydet, Lampang's Warawut Norkhoam, Lamphun's Tri Danpaibul, Si Sa Ket's Wilda Inchat, Surat Thani's Sujin Chaemchoy, Nong Bua Lamphu's Prapas Nuansamlee, Amnat Charoen's Yaninat Khemnak and Ubon Ratchathani's Somchai Laosai.


-- The Nation 2014-04-30

[Robby nz]

So it would seem that even though they have a quorum they still need the permission of a caretaker cabinet to convene.

Why should that be ?

I thought that the senate was above parliament and therefore above a cabinet appointed by MP's.

Here we have a caretaker cabinet restricting the time the senate can sit.

Surely this is not right, specially considering that the senate has to deliberate things that can have an (adverse) effect on said caretaker cabinet

[geriatrickid]

So it would seem that even though they have a quorum they still need the permission of a caretaker cabinet to convene.

Why should that be ?

I thought that the senate was above parliament and therefore above a cabinet appointed by MP's.

Here we have a caretaker cabinet restricting the time the senate can sit.

Surely this is not right, specially considering that the senate has to deliberate things that can have an (adverse) effect on said caretaker cabinet

Yes it is right. No permission was sought from the Cabinet. Let's look at the Constitution;

Section 88. The National Assembly consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate

Section 89. The President of the House of Representatives is President of the National Assembly.

Section 129. Members of both Houses or members of the House of Representatives of not less than one-third of the total number of the existing members of both Houses have the right to present their petition to the King for the issuance of a Royal Command convoking an extraordinary session of the National Assembly.The petition referred to in paragraph one shall be lodged with the President of the National Assembly.

The President of the National Assembly shall present the petition to the King and countersign the Royal Command

Section 132. During the expiration of the term or the dissolution of the House of Representatives, the Senate shall not hold its sitting except for;

1) a sitting at which the Senate shall act as the National Assembly under section 19, section 21, section 22, section 23 and section 189, and the votes taken shall be based on the number of senators;

(2) a sitting at which the Senator shall consider of a person for holding office under the provision of this Constitution;

(3) a sitting at which the Senate shall consider and pass a resolution removing a person from office....

Because the House was dissolved for the Feb. 2 election and the election was then annulled by the EC, there is no House of Representatives Therefore, the Senate cannot sit. There is also no President of the National Assembly to request a Royal Command to convene the Senate. In the case of a "caretaker" government where there is no National Assembly President, the legally authorized person to request the petition is the Prime Minister. This is what she did. The petition was presented to the King, who then signed it. This is why the Senate meeting is called an extraordinary session.

Trust this answers your question.

[h90]

So it would seem that even though they have a quorum they still need the permission of a caretaker cabinet to convene.

Why should that be ?

I thought that the senate was above parliament and therefore above a cabinet appointed by MP's.

Here we have a caretaker cabinet restricting the time the senate can sit.

Surely this is not right, specially considering that the senate has to deliberate things that can have an (adverse) effect on said caretaker cabinet

Yes it is right. No permission was sought from the Cabinet. Let's look at the Constitution;

Section 88. The National Assembly consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate

Section 89. The President of the House of Representatives is President of the National Assembly.

Section 129. Members of both Houses or members of the House of Representatives of not less than one-third of the total number of the existing members of both Houses have the right to present their petition to the King for the issuance of a Royal Command convoking an extraordinary session of the National Assembly.The petition referred to in paragraph one shall be lodged with the President of the National Assembly.

The President of the National Assembly shall present the petition to the King and countersign the Royal Command

Section 132. During the expiration of the term or the dissolution of the House of Representatives, the Senate shall not hold its sitting except for;

1) a sitting at which the Senate shall act as the National Assembly under section 19, section 21, section 22, section 23 and section 189, and the votes taken shall be based on the number of senators;

(2) a sitting at which the Senator shall consider of a person for holding office under the provision of this Constitution;

(3) a sitting at which the Senate shall consider and pass a resolution removing a person from office....

Because the House was dissolved for the Feb. 2 election and the election was then annulled by the EC, there is no House of Representatives Therefore, the Senate cannot sit. There is also no President of the National Assembly to request a Royal Command to convene the Senate. In the case of a "caretaker" government where there is no National Assembly President, the legally authorized person to request the petition is the Prime Minister. This is what she did. The petition was presented to the King, who then signed it. This is why the Senate meeting is called an extraordinary session.

Trust this answers your question.

What are consequences of that?

[geriatrickid]

What are consequences of that?

Overall, I think it had to be done. The country has to return to some semblance of functionality.

It is was previously announced that the Senate when convened would;

- endorse a new member of the NACC and

- endorse new judges of the Central Administrative Court

Also up for grabs is whether the Senate proceeds with the impeachment of Speaker Nikom Vaiyaratpanich, who has been suspended from duty since the NACC's ruling in March that he had violated the constitution for his role in chairing parliamentary meetings discussing a constitutional amendment bill. Such a move may cause some Senators a great deal of discomfort because It is argued that if Representatives and Senators cannot propose or discuss Constitutional amendments, then some fundamental concepts of democracy are at risk.

I anticipate the end result will be more disagreements, arguments and conflict.

Edited April 30, 2014 by geriatrickid

[rickirs]

So it would seem that even though they have a quorum they still need the permission of a caretaker cabinet to convene.

Why should that be ?

I thought that the senate was above parliament and therefore above a cabinet appointed by MP's.

Here we have a caretaker cabinet restricting the time the senate can sit.

Surely this is not right, specially considering that the senate has to deliberate things that can have an (adverse) effect on said caretaker cabinet

Constitution (2007) Chapter 2, Section 22 - "During the expiration of the term of the House of Representatives or the dissolution thereof, the Senate shall act as the National Assembly in giving an approval under paragraph one." All acts of the National Assembly require endorsement of the Prime Minister. Since Yingluck is the interim PM, it might follow that the Senate as its role of the National Assembly would require Yingluck's endorsement (in the form of a royal decree?) to convene. Obviously, the new Senate is comfortable in requesting an endorsement from Yingluck to convene that would seem to validate my understanding of the process.

[rickirs]

"EC secretary-general Puchong Nutrawong said there were 74 complaints against the election winners in 15 provinces, but since the commission could not finish deliberating the complaints with in the 30-day deadline, it decided to endorse the 15 senators first."

Yes, of course the EC has up to one year to further investigate and ask the Supreme Court's Election Division to disqualify any of the endorsed Senators. But wouldn't you think that given the current situation of an interim government, political conflicts, allegations of government lack of transparency and accountability that the EC take its investigative reponsibilities more seriously upfront. Choosing to wait later sometime within the next year to review elected Senator's backgrounds is allowing uncollaborated senators to operate freely (and perhaps irresponsibly) now. There is no necessity for the EC to grant automatic endorsements. One might perceive EC's rush to endorsements as a politically motivated act.

[WoopyDoo]

Well..... regarding the senate, a new piece of info popped up earlier in The Nation.

The NACC has also decided to indict 36 senators who were behind the charter amendment related to the composition of the Senate. The amendment was ruled illegal by the Constitutional Court.

That all but puts PTPs desire of owning the upper house to bed on a permanent basis.

It depends though on which of these 36 were appointed and which were elected as some of them could already be gone from the house.

But I bet it will make a big enough impact to remove all of their control.

[Melyn]

"EC secretary-general Puchong Nutrawong said there were 74 complaints against the election winners in 15 provinces, but since the commission could not finish deliberating the complaints with in the 30-day deadline, it decided to endorse the 15 senators first."

Yes, of course the EC has up to one year to further investigate and ask the Supreme Court's Election Division to disqualify any of the endorsed Senators. But wouldn't you think that given the current situation of an interim government, political conflicts, allegations of government lack of transparency and accountability that the EC take its investigative reponsibilities more seriously upfront. Choosing to wait later sometime within the next year to review elected Senator's backgrounds is allowing uncollaborated senators to operate freely (and perhaps irresponsibly) now. There is no necessity for the EC to grant automatic endorsements. One might perceive EC's rush to endorsements as a politically motivated act.

Ah, but what about yaowappa?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app