Acting Thai PM 'can submit poll decree'

[webfact]

POLITICS
Acting PM 'can submit poll decree'
The Nation


Phongthep

Deputy PM Phongthep, who is legal expert, says replacement premier has the right

BANGKOK: -- An acting prime minister is empowered by law to submit a Royal Decree for royal endorsement, caretaker Deputy Prime Minister Phongthep Thepkanjana, who is a legal expert, said yesterday.

Legal disputes emerged yesterday after appointed Senator Kamnoon Sidhisamarn posted on Facebook that acting Prime Minister Niwattumrong Boonsongpaisan had no power to set an election date because he was not a caretaker PM, and hence not qualified to submit a Royal Decree for an election.

Phongthep disagreed. "An acting prime minister can work like a PM and is qualified to submit a Royal Decree," he said.

"As I am in this position [deputy PM], I have worked in response to many issues related to royal endorsements before, for example, getting one for a state university rector. It was also done by previous governments."

However, even if Niwattumrong is legally able to submit a decree for the election, it appears that the next balloting may not be feasible when the government wants it. The originally agreed date was July 20.

The Election Commission is set to discuss the Royal Decree on the election date with the government next Wednesday.

EC secretary-general Puchong Nutrawong explained that the EC was unable to meet the government today as it initially wanted.

If a resolution is made next week, then an election will be held, although the date now is uncertain. Puchong said the EC was also in a hurry to set the election date and needed to meet each group.

However, after the Office of the Auditor-General asked the government to take responsibility for the Bt3.8 billion spent on the February 2 election, the EC decided that it needed to be more careful with its plans.

Meanwhile Jatuporn Promphan, chairman of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, and red-shirt leader Weng Tojirakarn announced yesterday that they would not contest the next election.

They explained that they would focus on their fight for democracy with the rest of the red shirts, instead of fighting for a seat ing the House of Representatives.

Separately, the pro-government People's Radio Media for Democracy Group, led by its spokesman Sornrak Malaithong, rallied in Lak Si to demand that the anti-government protesters led by monk Phra Buddha Issara move out from Chaeng Wattana Road.

Sornrak said the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) needed to move out of the rally site before schools reopen on Monday.

The group was blocked by police from advancing toward the PDRC rally site for a planned confrontation.

Pol Colonel Chusak Techarak-phong, deputy chief of city police Region 2, mediated later, and spoke to leaders of both sides.

In another development, PDRC leader Suthep Thaugsuban led a march down Sukhumvit Road, starting at Onnut Skytrain Station to woo support for its next "final battle" today.

Meanwhile, farmers from Ayutthaya province rallied at Democrat headquarters demanding that the party participate in the next election.

They said there were suffering as there was nobody in charge to approve funding for the rice-pledging scheme.


-- The Nation 2014-05-09

[terryp]

they are all experts but keep being found guilty...yes one law for the commoners and another for the elites....just like ohbarma a constitution law professor and ignores everything about it

[Scamper]

" However, after the Office of the Auditor-General asked the government to take responsibility for the Bt3.8 billion spent on the February 2 election, the EC decided that it needed to be more careful with its plans. "

As indeed it does. Ponthep is wrong. Phue Thai has got it in its head that they can simply pick someone from half a cabinet and call that person a prime minister. There is no such provision in the constitution for that. A prime minister can be constitutionally chosen by two means - either from a quorum-filled parliament, or through a nomination in the Senate in the event of a quorum-less parliament. Pongthep is yet another of the supposed " legal experts " that Pheu Thai has - although one wonders if that was the case, what kind of a job they did. Pongthep is a loyal Thaksin aide. He also happens to be the richest cabinet minister, having amassed a wealth of 3.85 billion baht - enough to cover the funding of an entire national election - and then some. The EC is right to be cautious here. First of all, we do not have a constitutionally elected prime minister, half a cabinet, with no legislative power, no parliament, and no public mandate.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Scamper

[chooka]

" However, after the Office of the Auditor-General asked the government to take responsibility for the Bt3.8 billion spent on the February 2 election, the EC decided that it needed to be more careful with its plans. "

As indeed it does. Ponthep is wrong. Phue Thai has got it in its head that they can simply pick someone from half a cabinet and call that person a prime minister. There is no such provision in the constitution for that. A prime minister can be constitutionally chosen by two means - either from a quorum-filled parliament, or through a nomination in the Senate in the event of a quorum-less parliament. Pongthep is yet another of the supposed " legal experts " that Pheu Thai has - although one wonders if that was the case, what kind of a job they did. Pongthep is a loyal Thaksin aide. He also happens to be the richest cabinet minister, having amassed a wealth of 3.85 billion baht - enough to cover the funding of an entire national election - and then some. The EC is right to be cautious here. First of all, we do not have a constitutionally elected prime minister, half a cabinet, with no legislative power, no parliament, and no public mandate.

Probably agree with you and if this is the case then if completely snubs the PDRC of any chance of selecting a P.M also as they have zilch representation in government..

[Estrada]

" However, after the Office of the Auditor-General asked the government to take responsibility for the Bt3.8 billion spent on the February 2 election, the EC decided that it needed to be more careful with its plans. "

As indeed it does. Ponthep is wrong. Phue Thai has got it in its head that they can simply pick someone from half a cabinet and call that person a prime minister. There is no such provision in the constitution for that. A prime minister can be constitutionally chosen by two means - either from a quorum-filled parliament, or through a nomination in the Senate in the event of a quorum-less parliament. Pongthep is yet another of the supposed " legal experts " that Pheu Thai has - although one wonders if that was the case, what kind of a job they did. Pongthep is a loyal Thaksin aide. He also happens to be the richest cabinet minister, having amassed a wealth of 3.85 billion baht - enough to cover the funding of an entire national election - and then some. The EC is right to be cautious here. First of all, we do not have a constitutionally elected prime minister, half a cabinet, with no legislative power, no parliament, and no public mandate.

Not correct. In the first instance the PM is chosen as you stated, but after that the PM can be replaced by any Deputy PM. He was a Deputy PM so he has the right to take over as acting PM.

This is the same as when a President of the USA, dies in office, is incapacitated, resigns, or is removed from office by impeachment and subsequent conviction. The Vice-President takes over until there is a new election. However only if Pheu Thai runs out of Deputy PMs would the Senate would have to get involved. Unfortunately for the opposition, Pheu Thai has plenty of DPMs left to chose from.

What is required now is an unhampered election combined with a referendum on reforms, with all parties taking part, and let the majority of Thai voters decide which parties they want to run Thailand.

[pkspeaker]

The Yingluck administration is still in charge until the new parliament is formed after an election, even if she has reshuffled herself to inactivity; I don't think any resistance will come from the EC; what difference would it make who is getting the decree, fact is an election needs to happen and the EC has a duty to at least try to make it happen.

The dems/pdrc's constant legal maneuvering- now trying to pull a pm out of the senate, is failed. There is nothing in the constitution that allows the senate to select a PM. unless it's the section 7 gimmik again, give it up, its not gonna happen..

Edited May 9, 2014 by pkspeaker

[khwaibah]

Just another way to flush 3.8 million baht. Total of 7.6 million baht that could have gone to the farmers.

[chainarong]

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

" However, after the Office of the Auditor-General asked the government to take responsibility for the Bt3.8 billion spent on the February 2 election, the EC decided that it needed to be more careful with its plans. "

As indeed it does. Ponthep is wrong. Phue Thai has got it in its head that they can simply pick someone from half a cabinet and call that person a prime minister. There is no such provision in the constitution for that. A prime minister can be constitutionally chosen by two means - either from a quorum-filled parliament, or through a nomination in the Senate in the event of a quorum-less parliament. Pongthep is yet another of the supposed " legal experts " that Pheu Thai has - although one wonders if that was the case, what kind of a job they did. Pongthep is a loyal Thaksin aide. He also happens to be the richest cabinet minister, having amassed a wealth of 3.85 billion baht - enough to cover the funding of an entire national election - and then some. The EC is right to be cautious here. First of all, we do not have a constitutionally elected prime minister, half a cabinet, with no legislative power, no parliament, and no public mandate.

I remember Thaskin be moaning the fact that the democrats had better legal advise.

[fab4]

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

" However, after the Office of the Auditor-General asked the government to take responsibility for the Bt3.8 billion spent on the February 2 election, the EC decided that it needed to be more careful with its plans. "

As indeed it does. Ponthep is wrong. Phue Thai has got it in its head that they can simply pick someone from half a cabinet and call that person a prime minister. There is no such provision in the constitution for that. A prime minister can be constitutionally chosen by two means - either from a quorum-filled parliament, or through a nomination in the Senate in the event of a quorum-less parliament. Pongthep is yet another of the supposed " legal experts " that Pheu Thai has - although one wonders if that was the case, what kind of a job they did. Pongthep is a loyal Thaksin aide. He also happens to be the richest cabinet minister, having amassed a wealth of 3.85 billion baht - enough to cover the funding of an entire national election - and then some. The EC is right to be cautious here. First of all, we do not have a constitutionally elected prime minister, half a cabinet, with no legislative power, no parliament, and no public mandate.

I remember Thaskin be moaning the fact that the democrats had better legal advise.

He may well have done, but you're replying to an opinion by scamper. Unless of course you regard scampers word as gospel of course. Good Luck with that.

[Thai at Heart]

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

" However, after the Office of the Auditor-General asked the government to take responsibility for the Bt3.8 billion spent on the February 2 election, the EC decided that it needed to be more careful with its plans. "

As indeed it does. Ponthep is wrong. Phue Thai has got it in its head that they can simply pick someone from half a cabinet and call that person a prime minister. There is no such provision in the constitution for that. A prime minister can be constitutionally chosen by two means - either from a quorum-filled parliament, or through a nomination in the Senate in the event of a quorum-less parliament. Pongthep is yet another of the supposed " legal experts " that Pheu Thai has - although one wonders if that was the case, what kind of a job they did. Pongthep is a loyal Thaksin aide. He also happens to be the richest cabinet minister, having amassed a wealth of 3.85 billion baht - enough to cover the funding of an entire national election - and then some. The EC is right to be cautious here. First of all, we do not have a constitutionally elected prime minister, half a cabinet, with no legislative power, no parliament, and no public mandate.

I remember Thaskin be moaning the fact that the democrats had better legal advise.

That is genuinely quite funny when u consider which company he got to advise him.on the AIS deal.

[Emptyset]

" However, after the Office of the Auditor-General asked the government to take responsibility for the Bt3.8 billion spent on the February 2 election, the EC decided that it needed to be more careful with its plans. "

As indeed it does. Ponthep is wrong. Phue Thai has got it in its head that they can simply pick someone from half a cabinet and call that person a prime minister. There is no such provision in the constitution for that. A prime minister can be constitutionally chosen by two means - either from a quorum-filled parliament, or through a nomination in the Senate in the event of a quorum-less parliament. Pongthep is yet another of the supposed " legal experts " that Pheu Thai has - although one wonders if that was the case, what kind of a job they did. Pongthep is a loyal Thaksin aide. He also happens to be the richest cabinet minister, having amassed a wealth of 3.85 billion baht - enough to cover the funding of an entire national election - and then some. The EC is right to be cautious here. First of all, we do not have a constitutionally elected prime minister, half a cabinet, with no legislative power, no parliament, and no public mandate.

There's no provision in the constitution for the senate to choose a new PM I'm afraid, unless as pkspeaker says it's through some combination of Senate and Section 7, but that seems a non-starter. The court didn't rule that the Senate could replace the House of Representatives per Section 172, so what gives you the impression the Senate has the right to chose a PM? In fact, cabinet was able to choose an acting PM per Section 10 of Administration of State Affairs Act, the precedent for this being 2008 (the court threw out a challenge to it).

NB: Obviously my question above is purely rhetorical as I know you don't bother with typical forum conventions like replying to responses to your monologues. lol.

[Local Drunk]

" However, after the Office of the Auditor-General asked the government to take responsibility for the Bt3.8 billion spent on the February 2 election, the EC decided that it needed to be more careful with its plans. "

As indeed it does. Ponthep is wrong. Phue Thai has got it in its head that they can simply pick someone from half a cabinet and call that person a prime minister. There is no such provision in the constitution for that. A prime minister can be constitutionally chosen by two means - either from a quorum-filled parliament, or through a nomination in the Senate in the event of a quorum-less parliament. Pongthep is yet another of the supposed " legal experts " that Pheu Thai has - although one wonders if that was the case, what kind of a job they did. Pongthep is a loyal Thaksin aide. He also happens to be the richest cabinet minister, having amassed a wealth of 3.85 billion baht - enough to cover the funding of an entire national election - and then some. The EC is right to be cautious here. First of all, we do not have a constitutionally elected prime minister, half a cabinet, with no legislative power, no parliament, and no public mandate.

There's no provision in the constitution for the senate to choose a new PM I'm afraid, unless as pkspeaker says it's through some combination of Senate and Section 7, but that seems a non-starter. The court didn't rule that the Senate could replace the House of Representatives per Section 172, so what gives you the impression the Senate has the right to chose a PM? In fact, cabinet was able to choose an acting PM per Section 10 of Administration of State Affairs Act, the precedent for this being 2008 (the court threw out a challenge to it).

NB: Obviously my question above is purely rhetorical as I know you don't bother with typical forum conventions like replying to responses to your monologues. lol.

It's really a bit of unknown territory isn't it? Historically the military intervenes before it gets this far. Who decides who can do what is really the question. Interpretation of what the "dotted i" and the "crossed t" mean in the constitution means rests in the hands of the C.C. The PTP hasn't been very happy about their recent rulings. It's going to be a very interesting weekend for everyone in Bkk.

Be safe my friend

[h90]

Just another way to flush 3.8 million baht. Total of 7.6 million baht that could have gone to the farmers.

who cares the farmer?

From the 7.6 Billion (not million) sure a nice part goes to the hungry man in Dubai.

[Thai at Heart]

" However, after the Office of the Auditor-General asked the government to take responsibility for the Bt3.8 billion spent on the February 2 election, the EC decided that it needed to be more careful with its plans. "

As indeed it does. Ponthep is wrong. Phue Thai has got it in its head that they can simply pick someone from half a cabinet and call that person a prime minister. There is no such provision in the constitution for that. A prime minister can be constitutionally chosen by two means - either from a quorum-filled parliament, or through a nomination in the Senate in the event of a quorum-less parliament. Pongthep is yet another of the supposed " legal experts " that Pheu Thai has - although one wonders if that was the case, what kind of a job they did. Pongthep is a loyal Thaksin aide. He also happens to be the richest cabinet minister, having amassed a wealth of 3.85 billion baht - enough to cover the funding of an entire national election - and then some. The EC is right to be cautious here. First of all, we do not have a constitutionally elected prime minister, half a cabinet, with no legislative power, no parliament, and no public mandate.

There's no provision in the constitution for the senate to choose a new PM I'm afraid, unless as pkspeaker says it's through some combination of Senate and Section 7, but that seems a non-starter. The court didn't rule that the Senate could replace the House of Representatives per Section 172, so what gives you the impression the Senate has the right to chose a PM? In fact, cabinet was able to choose an acting PM per Section 10 of Administration of State Affairs Act, the precedent for this being 2008 (the court threw out a challenge to it).

NB: Obviously my question above is purely rhetorical as I know you don't bother with typical forum conventions like replying to responses to your monologues. lol.

It's really a bit of unknown territory isn't it? Historically the military intervenes before it gets this far. Who decides who can do what is really the question. Interpretation of what the "dotted i" and the "crossed t" mean in the constitution means rests in the hands of the C.C. The PTP hasn't been very happy about their recent rulings. It's going to be a very interesting weekend for everyone in Bkk.

Be safe my friend

Well it proves conclusively that the law and the court system isn't fit for purpose. Anyone for tort reform?

[BlueNoseCodger]

We're really at the bottom of the barrel now, for trying to stop an election:

However, after the Office of the Auditor-General asked the government to take responsibility for the Bt3.8 billion spent on the February 2 election, the EC decided that it needed to be more careful with its plans.

EC runs elections, not government, and the law requires they hold elections, so EC spending on complying with the law is compulsary. I don't think Auditor General can block the funding for an election as a way to prevent elections, and he's trying to phrase it in terms of a pre-condition (i.e. you can't run new elections till the government assumes the budget from the old one (from the EC).... even though the EC's budget is legally obligated to be funded). Yet they can run elections, and it will be funded.

Ands the EC's game of delay based on:

We're not sure if the acting PM is legally allowed to submit the election decree, hence there can be no election.

Real barrel dregs here. They can't even describe a basis for the decree not being submitted, they simply do a 'what if'.

Prediction:

Despite Yingluk not running, even if PT chose a leader nothing to do with the Shin family, they're supposed purpose for all these games:

1) Abhisit won't run for election.

2) Abhisit won't step down from the Democrats.

I think it's face now, he's afraid that a new leader might win some seats and make him look bad. He's really backed himself into a corner, the simple act of going to election is no longer an option for him.

With the Democrat party not being democratic (i.e. his party can't sack him), and him being so unelectable and in need of sacking, the clear way forward is for the popular MPs to jump ship to another party. I think if they haven't done that by now, they deserve to be out of politics.

So elections can go ahead and we'll see whose in.

Edited May 9, 2014 by BlueNoseCodger

[bigbamboo]

If this guy's a legal expert wouldn't he be better employed advising Miss Poo on her continuing trials and tribulations in the Thai courts.

[srsv1238]

. Zig o

Sent from my SM-N900T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[rucus7]

Another PTP rigged election will not make these problems disappear. They run too deep. More and more Thai people realize Thaksin is not the answer to to a real democracy.

[Dogmatix]

An acting prime minister is empowered by law to submit a Royal Decree for royal endorsement, caretaker Deputy Prime Minister Phongthep Thepkanjana, who is a legal expert, said yesterday.

I don't know why the Press prints garbage statments like this. Pongthep is not talking in the capacity of an independent legal expert. He is talking his own book as an interested party. It is like saying Oscar Pistorius' defence counsel, who is a legal expert, said that Oscar is not guilty. What else does the Press expert him to say?

He didn't back up his claims with any articles of the Constitution because it is obvious that the caretaker cabinet has no authority to appoint an acting caretaker PM and that there is no way to obtain royal endorsement for any of their appointments.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Dogmatix

[Local Drunk]

No he can't. He can try, but it's not going to happen.

[Local Drunk]

" However, after the Office of the Auditor-General asked the government to take responsibility for the Bt3.8 billion spent on the February 2 election, the EC decided that it needed to be more careful with its plans. "

As indeed it does. Ponthep is wrong. Phue Thai has got it in its head that they can simply pick someone from half a cabinet and call that person a prime minister. There is no such provision in the constitution for that. A prime minister can be constitutionally chosen by two means - either from a quorum-filled parliament, or through a nomination in the Senate in the event of a quorum-less parliament. Pongthep is yet another of the supposed " legal experts " that Pheu Thai has - although one wonders if that was the case, what kind of a job they did. Pongthep is a loyal Thaksin aide. He also happens to be the richest cabinet minister, having amassed a wealth of 3.85 billion baht - enough to cover the funding of an entire national election - and then some. The EC is right to be cautious here. First of all, we do not have a constitutionally elected prime minister, half a cabinet, with no legislative power, no parliament, and no public mandate.

There's no provision in the constitution for the senate to choose a new PM I'm afraid, unless as pkspeaker says it's through some combination of Senate and Section 7, but that seems a non-starter. The court didn't rule that the Senate could replace the House of Representatives per Section 172, so what gives you the impression the Senate has the right to chose a PM? In fact, cabinet was able to choose an acting PM per Section 10 of Administration of State Affairs Act, the precedent for this being 2008 (the court threw out a challenge to it).

NB: Obviously my question above is purely rhetorical as I know you don't bother with typical forum conventions like replying to responses to your monologues. lol.

It's really a bit of unknown territory isn't it? Historically the military intervenes before it gets this far. Who decides who can do what is really the question. Interpretation of what the "dotted i" and the "crossed t" mean in the constitution means rests in the hands of the C.C. The PTP hasn't been very happy about their recent rulings. It's going to be a very interesting weekend for everyone in Bkk.

Be safe my friend

Well it proves conclusively that the law and the court system isn't fit for purpose. Anyone for tort reform?

Sure... but start with the basics first.

[Dogmatix]

We're really at the bottom of the barrel now, for trying to stop an election:

However, after the Office of the Auditor-General asked the government to take responsibility for the Bt3.8 billion spent on the February 2 election, the EC decided that it needed to be more careful with its plans.

EC runs elections, not government, and the law requires they hold elections, so EC spending on complying with the law is compulsary. I don't think Auditor General can block the funding for an election as a way to prevent elections, and he's trying to phrase it in terms of a pre-condition (i.e. you can't run new elections till the government assumes the budget from the old one (from the EC).... even though the EC's budget is legally obligated to be funded). Yet they can run elections, and it will be funded.

Ands the EC's game of delay based on:

We're not sure if the acting PM is legally allowed to submit the election decree, hence there can be no election.

Real barrel dregs here. They can't even describe a basis for the decree not being submitted, they simply do a 'what if'.

Prediction:

Despite Yingluk not running, even if PT chose a leader nothing to do with the Shin family, they're supposed purpose for all these games:

1) Abhisit won't run for election.

2) Abhisit won't step down from the Democrats.

I think it's face now, he's afraid that a new leader might win some seats and make him look bad. He's really backed himself into a corner, the simple act of going to election is no longer an option for him.

With the Democrat party not being democratic (i.e. his party can't sack him), and him being so unelectable and in need of sacking, the clear way forward is for the popular MPs to jump ship to another party. I think if they haven't done that by now, they deserve to be out of politics.

So elections can go ahead and we'll see whose in.

What do mean by new leader? Charupong is leader of PT and is still in the caretaker cabinet. Yingluck has not been banned from politics and could still be nominated by PT as PM if they win an election, provided she is not impeached, which is highly unlikely. Her criminal prosecution will take a year or two but she will not be banned during that time.

Nothing much in the game has changed since January. So you expect that the attitude of the Dems and the PDRC towards an election will not change either. But, after the wastage of B3.8bn on the Feb election, it is unlikely that there will be another election until conditions are more conducive.

[ratcatcher]

. Zig o

Sent from my SM-N900T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Does your post have any meaning whatsoever or was it just a small waste of bandwidth?

[Dogmatix]

" However, after the Office of the Auditor-General asked the government to take responsibility for the Bt3.8 billion spent on the February 2 election, the EC decided that it needed to be more careful with its plans. "

As indeed it does. Ponthep is wrong. Phue Thai has got it in its head that they can simply pick someone from half a cabinet and call that person a prime minister. There is no such provision in the constitution for that. A prime minister can be constitutionally chosen by two means - either from a quorum-filled parliament, or through a nomination in the Senate in the event of a quorum-less parliament. Pongthep is yet another of the supposed " legal experts " that Pheu Thai has - although one wonders if that was the case, what kind of a job they did. Pongthep is a loyal Thaksin aide. He also happens to be the richest cabinet minister, having amassed a wealth of 3.85 billion baht - enough to cover the funding of an entire national election - and then some. The EC is right to be cautious here. First of all, we do not have a constitutionally elected prime minister, half a cabinet, with no legislative power, no parliament, and no public mandate.

The EC initially said it would accept Niwatthamrong's countersignature on a royal decree but they have either had second thoughts or were misquoted earlier. I think there are only precedents for properly appointed and royally endorsed deputies countersigning royal decrees, e.g. the deputy Senate speaker countersigned the royal decree for an appointed PM after Thanom and Prapat had fled the country in 1973. I don't think there are any precedents for countersignatories who were not properly appointed. The only possibility might be for Niwat to countersign in his position as deputy PM but that is not what Ponthep said. His expert legal advice doesn't seem to have helped the Thaksinites much so far. The B2.2trn borrowing bill was an obvious one that was never going to be passed by the CC, even if other cases were more open to interpretation.

[scorecard]

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

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

" However, after the Office of the Auditor-General asked the government to take responsibility for the Bt3.8 billion spent on the February 2 election, the EC decided that it needed to be more careful with its plans. "

As indeed it does. Ponthep is wrong. Phue Thai has got it in its head that they can simply pick someone from half a cabinet and call that person a prime minister. There is no such provision in the constitution for that. A prime minister can be constitutionally chosen by two means - either from a quorum-filled parliament, or through a nomination in the Senate in the event of a quorum-less parliament. Pongthep is yet another of the supposed " legal experts " that Pheu Thai has - although one wonders if that was the case, what kind of a job they did. Pongthep is a loyal Thaksin aide. He also happens to be the richest cabinet minister, having amassed a wealth of 3.85 billion baht - enough to cover the funding of an entire national election - and then some. The EC is right to be cautious here. First of all, we do not have a constitutionally elected prime minister, half a cabinet, with no legislative power, no parliament, and no public mandate.

I remember Thaskin be moaning the fact that the democrats had better legal advise.

He may well have done, but you're replying to an opinion by scamper. Unless of course you regard scampers word as gospel of course. Good Luck with that.

Another of your obvious one liners, nothing constructive!

[Suriya4]

Acting PM have no right to waste another 3.8 billion. He is not fit at all as he is just another puppet of Thaksin. Suthep on the other hand, represent the real Thai people. He should be appointed the real PM at once. No money need to be wasted.

[Old Man River]

" However, after the Office of the Auditor-General asked the government to take responsibility for the Bt3.8 billion spent on the February 2 election, the EC decided that it needed to be more careful with its plans. "

As indeed it does. Ponthep is wrong. Phue Thai has got it in its head that they can simply pick someone from half a cabinet and call that person a prime minister. There is no such provision in the constitution for that. A prime minister can be constitutionally chosen by two means - either from a quorum-filled parliament, or through a nomination in the Senate in the event of a quorum-less parliament. Pongthep is yet another of the supposed " legal experts " that Pheu Thai has - although one wonders if that was the case, what kind of a job they did. Pongthep is a loyal Thaksin aide. He also happens to be the richest cabinet minister, having amassed a wealth of 3.85 billion baht - enough to cover the funding of an entire national election - and then some. The EC is right to be cautious here. First of all, we do not have a constitutionally elected prime minister, half a cabinet, with no legislative power, no parliament, and no public mandate.

Not correct. In the first instance the PM is chosen as you stated, but after that the PM can be replaced by any Deputy PM. He was a Deputy PM so he has the right to take over as acting PM.

This is the same as when a President of the USA, dies in office, is incapacitated, resigns, or is removed from office by impeachment and subsequent conviction. The Vice-President takes over until there is a new election. However only if Pheu Thai runs out of Deputy PMs would the Senate would have to get involved. Unfortunately for the opposition, Pheu Thai has plenty of DPMs left to chose from.

What is required now is an unhampered election combined with a referendum on reforms, with all parties taking part, and let the majority of Thai voters decide which parties they want to run Thailand.

This is not at all like the US. This is a Caretaker government. They have very little power to do anything, let alone appoint a prime minister. They are going to be hard pressed to find a law that can be interpreted this way.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand