Group of Thai senators push for election of new speaker, deputies

[webfact]

Group of senators push for election of new speaker, deputies
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- A group of appointed senators will push for the election of a new Senate speaker and two deputies when the upper chamber convenes its extraordinary session Friday.

His Majesty Thursday issued a royal command approving a Royal Decree to convene the Senate's extraordinary session, the Senate Secretariat announced.

The session, running from Friday to May 10, is necessary to endorse the replacement of National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) member Jaided Pornchaiya, who has retired, and new specialist members for the Administrative Court Commission.

Appointed Senator Somchai Sawaeng-karn said he backed the election of a new speaker and two deputies at today's meeting though other senators disagree. Somchai said these senators believe that the session should only be restricted to endorsing NACC and court commission members in line with the Royal Decree.

However, Somchai said the election of the new Senate speaker and deputies was necessary because the previous speaker and deputy would continue being paid until they are replaced. The previous speaker and deputy were both elected senators and their terms have expired.

Somchai said the two officials were still being paid because according to the Senate Secretariat's interpretation of the law, they need to remain in their positions until they are replaced. He added that the new Senate speaker could be elected under the Constitution's Article 132 (2).

Appointed Senator Paiboon Nititawan said he would propose the election of a new Senate speaker and deputies at today's meeting.

He said he was confident that most of the senators would support his proposal because a new speaker was needed to prevent the disruption of the Senate's work.


-- The Nation 2014-05-01

[geriatrickid]

Wouldn't it be nice if the Nation included some important details which would allow the reader to put the article in perspective?

Important information left out includes;

- The senator is the defacto spokesman for the group of 40 "Royalist" Senators

- The senator was appointed to the National Assembly by the former military dictatorship in 2006 and was a staunch supporter.

- The 40 senators were the group in the senate who had demanded that the government be dissolved and that an election be called.

This is also the same senator who in his capacity as member of the same Royalist dominated Ad Hoc Parliamentary Committee on Law Enforcement and Measures for Protecting the Monarchy summoned the sponsors and authors of an academic text presented at a conference at Thammasat University because they deemed the conference and the text to be "offensive".

Keeping those established and indisputable facts in mind, one is better able to understand the intent of the small group of senators.

[WoopyDoo]

However, Somchai said the election of the new Senate speaker and deputies was necessary because the previous speaker and deputy would continue being paid until they are replaced. The previous speaker and deputy were both elected senators and their terms have expired.

Wow.... In the UK this would be called a clerical error, here it is a loophole and symbol of a messed up administration. So you get paid even after you are impeached for abuse of your job... How generous.

[WoopyDoo]

Wouldn't it be nice if the Nation included some important details which would allow the reader to put the article in perspective?

Important information left out includes;

- The senator is the defacto spokesman for the group of 40 "Royalist" Senators

- The senator was appointed to the National Assembly by the former military dictatorship in 2006 and was a staunch supporter.

- The 40 senators were the group in the senate who had demanded that the government be dissolved and that an election be called.

This is also the same senator who in his capacity as member of the same Royalist dominated Ad Hoc Parliamentary Committee on Law Enforcement and Measures for Protecting the Monarchy summoned the sponsors and authors of an academic text presented at a conference at Thammasat University because they deemed the conference and the text to be "offensive".

Keeping those established and indisputable facts in mind, one is better able to understand the intent of the small group of senators.

You have mentioned 'Royalist' twice and 'monarchy' once in your post.... Can we all assume that you are a rabid anti-royalist by any chance?

I would watch your back pal.... this can be deemed as lese majeste... I have seen people put in prison for less direct references and critiques.

By the way.... You are trying to tell us a senator appointed from 2006 is still in his position?... he is not doing bad considering 6 years is the maximum length of duty.

Also it seems apparent that you hate the group of 40 because they are not hanging out of Thaksin's butt the way you seem to want the entire democratic structure in his favour. This 'group of 40' is the only thing that has kept the senate from being completely owned by Thaksin.... Please never mention the words 'democracy' and democratic' ever again..... nothing that comes from your posts ever support a true meaning of the words 'democratic system'.

[h90]

Wouldn't it be nice if the Nation included some important details which would allow the reader to put the article in perspective?

Important information left out includes;

- The senator is the defacto spokesman for the group of 40 "Royalist" Senators

- The senator was appointed to the National Assembly by the former military dictatorship in 2006 and was a staunch supporter.

- The 40 senators were the group in the senate who had demanded that the government be dissolved and that an election be called.

This is also the same senator who in his capacity as member of the same Royalist dominated Ad Hoc Parliamentary Committee on Law Enforcement and Measures for Protecting the Monarchy summoned the sponsors and authors of an academic text presented at a conference at Thammasat University because they deemed the conference and the text to be "offensive".

Keeping those established and indisputable facts in mind, one is better able to understand the intent of the small group of senators.

Thank you for the information....

Yes most probably they want to help the country and not the Shinawatra clan. So it is a good thing.

[moonao]

Wouldn't it be nice if the Nation included some important details which would allow the reader to put the article in perspective?

Important information left out includes;

- The senator is the defacto spokesman for the group of 40 "Royalist" Senators

- The senator was appointed to the National Assembly by the former military dictatorship in 2006 and was a staunch supporter.

- The 40 senators were the group in the senate who had demanded that the government be dissolved and that an election be called.

This is also the same senator who in his capacity as member of the same Royalist dominated Ad Hoc Parliamentary Committee on Law Enforcement and Measures for Protecting the Monarchy summoned the sponsors and authors of an academic text presented at a conference at Thammasat University because they deemed the conference and the text to be "offensive".

Keeping those established and indisputable facts in mind, one is better able to understand the intent of the small group of senators.

You have mentioned 'Royalist' twice and 'monarchy' once in your post.... Can we all assume that you are a rabid anti-royalist by any chance?

I would watch your back pal.... this can be deemed as lese majeste... I have seen people put in prison for less direct references and critiques.

By the way.... You are trying to tell us a senator appointed from 2006 is still in his position?... he is not doing bad considering 6 years is the maximum length of duty.

Also it seems apparent that you hate the group of 40 because they are not hanging out of Thaksin's butt the way you seem to want the entire democratic structure in his favour. This 'group of 40' is the only thing that has kept the senate from being completely owned by Thaksin.... Please never mention the words 'democracy' and democratic' ever again..... nothing that comes from your posts ever support a true meaning of the words 'democratic system'.

and the paranoid and neurotic post of the day goes ... to...

[BlueNoseCodger]

Wouldn't it be nice if the Nation included some important details which would allow the reader to put the article in perspective?

Important information left out includes;

- The senator is the defacto spokesman for the group of 40 "Royalist" Senators

- The senator was appointed to the National Assembly by the former military dictatorship in 2006 and was a staunch supporter.

- The 40 senators were the group in the senate who had demanded that the government be dissolved and that an election be called.

This is also the same senator who in his capacity as member of the same Royalist dominated Ad Hoc Parliamentary Committee on Law Enforcement and Measures for Protecting the Monarchy summoned the sponsors and authors of an academic text presented at a conference at Thammasat University because they deemed the conference and the text to be "offensive".

Keeping those established and indisputable facts in mind, one is better able to understand the intent of the small group of senators.

It looks like coup stuff, we're heading to elections, that means candidates and parties will be registered about early June. If they can ban PT candidates after the registration, PT won't be able to substitute new candidates, stopping those pesky voters for choosing the wrong candidates again!

There's a lot they'd need to do to succeed, removing the speaker of the house is just one of the steps. Which is why they're proposing to not limit themselves to the limits in the Royal Decree, so it can be done in this session.

So they need 3/5th majority to impeach, but if half the senate is unelected, that really means only 10% of elected Senators need to be Yellows.

Also, the new NACC member they are considering is the 'whistleblower' who made the false exaggerated claim of rice pledge losses. Which should make it easier to get the NACC result they want (which is part of the process).

The NACC members they previously appointed, have just yesterday indicted 36 senators for voting to make the senate fully elected. Democracy seems to be an indictable offense to the NACC!

This same senate, with its unelected portion, also appoints the Electoral Commissioners. So the same process that creates an anti-elections NACC, created the Electoral Commission, whose job is to run elections.

It looks like they're still trying for one last coup attempt.

Edited May 1, 2014 by BlueNoseCodger

[geriatrickid]

Thank you for the information....

Yes most probably they want to help the country and not the Shinawatra clan. So it is a good thing.

Or perhaps help themselves? I doubt that the country's best interest is first and foremost in their plans. Oh sure, they will say that it is, but I think it is constructed on the premise that what is good for them is good for the country.

[geriatrickid]

You have mentioned 'Royalist' twice and 'monarchy' once in your post.... Can we all assume that you are a rabid anti-royalist by any chance?

I would watch your back pal.... this can be deemed as lese majeste... I have seen people put in prison for less direct references and critiques.

By the way.... You are trying to tell us a senator appointed from 2006 is still in his position?... he is not doing bad considering 6 years is the maximum length of duty.

Also it seems apparent that you hate the group of 40 because they are not hanging out of Thaksin's butt the way you seem to want the entire democratic structure in his favour. This 'group of 40' is the only thing that has kept the senate from being completely owned by Thaksin.... Please never mention the words 'democracy' and democratic' ever again..... nothing that comes from your posts ever support a true meaning of the words 'democratic system'.

No need to reply to your comment as the content speaks for itself.

However, your condition, to term it politely, never fails to cause me to laugh, particularly when you construct an argument based on ignorance.

For example, you wrote; You are trying to tell us a senator appointed from 2006 is still in his position?... he is not doing bad considering 6 years is the maximum length of duty

What I wrote was; The senator was appointed to the National Assembly by the former military dictatorship in 2006 and was a staunch supporter.

I did not say he was appointed a senator in 2006, however, he was most certainly appointed by the military to sit in the assembly. There were no elections, only appointments. . He became a Senator during the Abhisit era as a reward for "service" . Nothing demonstrates an appointment solely on merit like this one, right? Back in 2007 he was meeting the the Stop Drinking people. (Boy if some TVFers knew this is the guy who supported higher alcohol taxes and discouraged consumption of alcohol, they would not be happy.)

Here's a Reminder

Report by Nattika Changprasert International Project Assistant, Stop Drink Network

During 26th – 28th November 2007,

During his visit, Derek Rutherford took the opportunity to present a letter supporting the Thai Alcohol Control Bill addressed to Dr Meechai Ruchupan, the Chairperson of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) and given to Ms Uma Sukontama, NLA Member, at the Parliament on 27 November 2007. In addition, Mr Rutherford and Mr Owen had a chance to share their views on global alcohol control policy with some other NLA Members such as Mr Krayim Santrakul, General Parnthep Bhuwanarchnurak, and Mr Somchai Sawaengkarn.

Edited May 1, 2014 by geriatrickid

[smedly]

Wouldn't it be nice if the Nation included some important details which would allow the reader to put the article in perspective?

Important information left out includes;

- The senator is the defacto spokesman for the group of 40 "Royalist" Senators

- The senator was appointed to the National Assembly by the former military dictatorship in 2006 and was a staunch supporter.

- The 40 senators were the group in the senate who had demanded that the government be dissolved and that an election be called.

This is also the same senator who in his capacity as member of the same Royalist dominated Ad Hoc Parliamentary Committee on Law Enforcement and Measures for Protecting the Monarchy summoned the sponsors and authors of an academic text presented at a conference at Thammasat University because they deemed the conference and the text to be "offensive".

Keeping those established and indisputable facts in mind, one is better able to understand the intent of the small group of senators.

yes to replace the outgoing speaker because they don't have one - the speaker will be replaced by the whole senate vote not just the one you mention above

sounds pretty simple to me without all your BS

[rickirs]

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

Wouldn't it be nice if the Nation included some important details which would allow the reader to put the article in perspective?

Important information left out includes;

- The senator is the defacto spokesman for the group of 40 "Royalist" Senators

- The senator was appointed to the National Assembly by the former military dictatorship in 2006 and was a staunch supporter.

- The 40 senators were the group in the senate who had demanded that the government be dissolved and that an election be called.

This is also the same senator who in his capacity as member of the same Royalist dominated Ad Hoc Parliamentary Committee on Law Enforcement and Measures for Protecting the Monarchy summoned the sponsors and authors of an academic text presented at a conference at Thammasat University because they deemed the conference and the text to be "offensive".

Keeping those established and indisputable facts in mind, one is better able to understand the intent of the small group of senators.

You uncover exactly the kind of information necessary for fair and balanced reporting. This may be a novel concept with Thai reporting media but exposure may be unfortunately constrained by archaic slander and election laws. Please continue with your sharing your knowledge. It gives TV a necessary perspective on issues.

[h90]

Wouldn't it be nice if the Nation included some important details which would allow the reader to put the article in perspective?

Important information left out includes;

- The senator is the defacto spokesman for the group of 40 "Royalist" Senators

- The senator was appointed to the National Assembly by the former military dictatorship in 2006 and was a staunch supporter.

- The 40 senators were the group in the senate who had demanded that the government be dissolved and that an election be called.

This is also the same senator who in his capacity as member of the same Royalist dominated Ad Hoc Parliamentary Committee on Law Enforcement and Measures for Protecting the Monarchy summoned the sponsors and authors of an academic text presented at a conference at Thammasat University because they deemed the conference and the text to be "offensive".

Keeping those established and indisputable facts in mind, one is better able to understand the intent of the small group of senators.

It looks like coup stuff, we're heading to elections, that means candidates and parties will be registered about early June. If they can ban PT candidates after the registration, PT won't be able to substitute new candidates, stopping those pesky voters for choosing the wrong candidates again!

There's a lot they'd need to do to succeed, removing the speaker of the house is just one of the steps. Which is why they're proposing to not limit themselves to the limits in the Royal Decree, so it can be done in this session.

So they need 3/5th majority to impeach, but if half the senate is unelected, that really means only 10% of elected Senators need to be Yellows.

Also, the new NACC member they are considering is the 'whistleblower' who made the false exaggerated claim of rice pledge losses. Which should make it easier to get the NACC result they want (which is part of the process).

The NACC members they previously appointed, have just yesterday indicted 36 senators for voting to make the senate fully elected. Democracy seems to be an indictable offense to the NACC!

This same senate, with its unelected portion, also appoints the Electoral Commissioners. So the same process that creates an anti-elections NACC, created the Electoral Commission, whose job is to run elections.

It looks like they're still trying for one last coup attempt.

not all of the unelected are against Thaksin.

[h90]

Thank you for the information....

Yes most probably they want to help the country and not the Shinawatra clan. So it is a good thing.

Or perhaps help themselves? I doubt that the country's best interest is first and foremost in their plans. Oh sure, they will say that it is, but I think it is constructed on the premise that what is good for them is good for the country.

Well help themself? How?

[gabruce]

Wouldn't it be nice if the Nation included some important details which would allow the reader to put the article in perspective?

Important information left out includes;

- The senator is the defacto spokesman for the group of 40 "Royalist" Senators

- The senator was appointed to the National Assembly by the former military dictatorship in 2006 and was a staunch supporter.

- The 40 senators were the group in the senate who had demanded that the government be dissolved and that an election be called.

This is also the same senator who in his capacity as member of the same Royalist dominated Ad Hoc Parliamentary Committee on Law Enforcement and Measures for Protecting the Monarchy summoned the sponsors and authors of an academic text presented at a conference at Thammasat University because they deemed the conference and the text to be "offensive".

Keeping those established and indisputable facts in mind, one is better able to understand the intent of the small group of senators.

So you think it's better that the Senate NOT have a speaker? That someone who's term is expired should continue to be paid?

WHY? Just because you don't approve of/like one senator?

The only relevant information is that the current/previous speaker is no longer a senator, there is no longer a functioning speaker (unless you are arguing that a permanent "caretaker" speaker is preferable to one elected from within the senate).