Thai Lawyers Council backs the idea of appointed premier

[webfact]

Calls to end crisis
The Nation

Lawyers Council backs the idea of appointed premier

BANGKOK: -- Calls grew yesterday for a peaceful solution to the ongoing political stalemate, as the Senate continued its discussion aimed at finding a way out of the crisis.

The moves came as anti-government leader Suthep Thaugsuban, speaking inside Government House, called on the public to mount pressure on the Upper House to appoint an unelected prime minister as soon as possible.

Meanwhile, the pro-government red shirts now gathering in an area adjacent to Bangkok yesterday voiced strong opposition to any attempt to bring in an "unlawful" prime minister.

A group of prominent scholars and peace advocates yesterday urged the rival political camps to jointly select an interim, non-partisan deputy prime minister to replace the current acting PM, Niwattumrong Boonsongpaisan, so that the country could move forward with reforms and successfully hold a general election.

The group called on both sides to establish common grounds and step aside from a conflict that could plunge the country into civil strife.

They proposed that both sides agree on three grounds - find a way out within the Constitution's scope; have a non-partisan person run the government at this critical juncture; and have an agreement to ensure that all sides will join forces for national reforms.

Acting Senate Speaker Surachai Liengboonlertchai yesterday urged all social elements to help find a solution for the country if they did not want Article 7 of the Constitution to be invoked as a last resort.

Anti-government protesters have called on the Senate Speaker to nominate a new prime minister for royal endorsement under the constitutional provision.

Senators yesterday continued their discussion for the second day to find a way out for the country, and appointing an unelected PM was an option.

Surachai today is scheduled to meet with representatives from independent agencies and the private sector to discuss solutions to the political crisis.

Niwattamrong, the acting PM, has declined to attend the meeting with the senators due to his busy schedules, and the government will not send any representative, according to a source close to him. However, Niwattamrong would be happy to meet with Surachai on this matter "when the time is right", the source said.

Democrat Party spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut yesterday called on Niwattamrong to step down in order to make way for solving the political crisis. "He should allow the country to move forward. A government with a neutral prime minister will be set up to run the country for a period of time and allow reforms to be carried out before the next election," he said.

Suthep, in his second statement, yesterday asked all social elements and groups to call on the Senate Speaker to find a suitable new PM as soon as possible.

The Lawyers Council of Thailand yesterday also supported the idea of appointing a new prime minister. It said in a statement that the Constitution's Article 132 empowers the Senate to make such an appointment.

Meanwhile, the pro-government United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) yesterday accused Suthep and Surachai of violating the law by floating the idea of appointing an unelected prime minister.

UDD chairman Jatuporn Prompan said the Senate has no power to appoint a PM. He also warned that the red shirts would "come out in full force" if such a PM is appointed.


-- The Nation 2014-05-14

[tezzainoz]

what other choice do we now have

No matter what we do we are in trouble

don't do and the protestors get upset

Do and the red shirts get upset

The Senate are proving Thailand is now in no man land, and we are all going down hill

We need to find a way we can both win and loose

and that is an acting Caretaker who has no affilition with either side and has a good knowledge of the law

and put us on a course to reform and new elections

[Dr Bruce]

When Suthep collected 25 Million Baht to "help the farmerrs" he gave it to the Lawyers council of Thailand. Now we can see what they are doing to earn the money.

[winstonc]

reform.its what any normal person wants...its not hard is it...but to some it really is..

[srsv1238]

When Suthep collected 25 Million Baht to "help the farmerrs" he gave it to the Lawyers council of Thailand. Now we can see what they are doing to earn the money.

is that true? Source?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[srsv1238]

reform.its what any normal person wants...its not hard is it...but to some it really is..

m reform by whom? How does society select these reforms? For the reforms to be successful, the reformers have to have the support of the people. And right now that support is only coming from a minority....

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Emptyset]

The Lawyers Council of Thailand yesterday also supported the idea of appointing a new prime minister. It said in a statement that the Constitution's Article 132 empowers the Senate to make such an appointment.

Section 132

During the expiration of the term or the dissolution of the House of Representatives, the Senate shall

not hold its sitting except in the following cases:

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 having a person hold any office under applicable

provisions of this Constitution;

3.

a sitting at which the Senate shall consider and pass a resolution removing a person from office

So they can consider having a person hold office, but only under the provisions of the Constitution.

One of which is:

Section 181:

The outgoing Council of Ministers shall remain in office for carrying out duty until the newly appointed Council of Ministers takes office

I don't see where the part which allows them to ignore this is in Section 132. I think everyone knows that for the PDRC to win they'll need to tear up the constitution. And as Prayuth doesn't look like he wants to stage a coup come hell or high water, that doesn't seem likely. Unless the PDRC are going to try to seize power unilaterally - it is purported to be a "People's Coup" I suppose. Somehow can't see that one coming to pass either.

[Local Drunk]

In a Red Shirt revision of Shakespeare's Henry the Sixth we see Jutaporn cast as Dick the Butcher. He is costumed in in bright red tights and is listening with feverish intensity to moronic babbling of Thaksin Shinawattra who is cast as Jack Cade (the great pretender) on a big screen display via Skype, whilst his deluded minions, claques and shills cheer him on.

JACK CADE. I thank you, good people:- there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.

DICK THE BUTCHER. The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

[pkspeaker]

Again this is a pathetic attempt by the establishment to force the elected government to simply 'make way' for their dictator, nice try loosers, the government will not agree to an 'appointed' ruler with full powers, period. if the pdrc keeps sabotaging the elections the acting PT government continues, the senate speaker has no power and the Senate is out of session until after a successful election.

[Piichai]

In a Red Shirt revision of Shakespeare's Henry the Sixth we see Jutaporn cast as Dick the Butcher. He is costumed in in bright red tights and is listening with feverish intensity to moronic babbling of Thaksin Shinawattra who is cast as Jack Cade (the great pretender) on a big screen display via Skype, whilst his deluded minions, claques and shills cheer him on.

JACK CADE. I thank you, good people:- there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.

DICK THE BUTCHER. The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Perhaps one thing that both sides can agree on is that ol' Billy was right!

[thesetat2013]

When Suthep collected 25 Million Baht to "help the farmerrs" he gave it to the Lawyers council of Thailand. Now we can see what they are doing to earn the money.

Once again you show your intelligence in here. Suthep did not give the Lawyers council 25 million baht. Stop posting fantasies. The 25 mill baht was given to the farmers and to pay for legal actions the farmers would file against the Gov for not paying them. Go back and research those if you like. However i think you dont care or will bother to look and know the truth

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[binjalin]

if Thailand's lawyers are calling for this it's a certain indication not to do it!

[Dr Bruce]

When Suthep collected 25 Million Baht to "help the farmerrs" he gave it to the Lawyers council of Thailand. Now we can see what they are doing to earn the money.

Once again you show your intelligence in here. Suthep did not give the Lawyers council 25 million baht. Stop posting fantasies. The 25 mill baht was given to the farmers and to pay for legal actions the farmers would file against the Gov for not paying them. Go back and research those if you like. However i think you dont care or will bother to look and know the truth

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The 25million was given to the lawyers council to bring cases against the government. It was never given to the farmers and the lawyers council have not brought any cases. Got to go to work now, you do some research and prove me wrong.

If you can?

[JRSoul]

To some it is anathema that a PM should be appointed and not elected. When was the current PM elected, and who appointed him to his position? Oh dear!

[thesetat2013]

When Suthep collected 25 Million Baht to "help the farmerrs" he gave it to the Lawyers council of Thailand. Now we can see what they are doing to earn the money.

Once again you show your intelligence in here. Suthep did not give the Lawyers council 25 million baht. Stop posting fantasies. The 25 mill baht was given to the farmers and to pay for legal actions the farmers would file against the Gov for not paying them. Go back and research those if you like. However i think you dont care or will bother to look and know the truth

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The 25million was given to the lawyers council to bring cases against the government. It was never given to the farmers and the lawyers council have not brought any cases. Got to go to work now, you do some research and prove me wrong.

If you can?

Actually you need to stop misdirecting, misleading others, and distorting the truth. In fact on Feb 14 Suthep decided to give that 25 mill baht to the families of the farmers. He initially was planning to give it to the lawyers council. Anyone with half a brain and some incentive could find this in google.

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[potters]

When Suthep collected 25 Million Baht to "help the farmerrs" he gave it to the Lawyers council of Thailand. Now we can see what they are doing to earn the money.

Once again you show your intelligence in here. Suthep did not give the Lawyers council 25 million baht. Stop posting fantasies. The 25 mill baht was given to the farmers and to pay for legal actions the farmers would file against the Gov for not paying them. Go back and research those if you like. However i think you dont care or will bother to look and know the truth

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The 25million was given to the lawyers council to bring cases against the government. It was never given to the farmers and the lawyers council have not brought any cases. Got to go to work now, you do some research and prove me wrong.

If you can?

Just the reply i was going to post good on you as that is what happened.

Doubt if he will research as its too convenient to post what suits.

[focus27]

The Lawyers Council of Thailand yesterday also supported the idea of appointing a new prime minister. It said in a statement that the Constitution's Article 132 empowers the Senate to make such an appointment.

Section 132

During the expiration of the term or the dissolution of the House of Representatives, the Senate shall

not hold its sitting except in the following cases:

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 having a person hold any office under applicable

provisions of this Constitution;

3.

a sitting at which the Senate shall consider and pass a resolution removing a person from office

So they can consider having a person hold office, but only under the provisions of the Constitution.

One of which is:

Section 181:

The outgoing Council of Ministers shall remain in office for carrying out duty until the newly appointed Council of Ministers takes office

I don't see where the part which allows them to ignore this is in Section 132. I think everyone knows that for the PDRC to win they'll need to tear up the constitution. And as Prayuth doesn't look like he wants to stage a coup come hell or high water, that doesn't seem likely. Unless the PDRC are going to try to seize power unilaterally - it is purported to be a "People's Coup" I suppose. Somehow can't see that one coming to pass either.

Yes, more proof of the depth of legal knowledge and advice available in this country.

One sentence from the article rings true, though: "A group of prominent scholars and peace advocates yesterday urged the rival political camps to jointly select an interim, non-partisan deputy prime minister to replace the current acting PM [...]"

That would get around the PM-must-be-an-MP section of the constitution. I've always said that a Council of Ministers would be appointed by the Senate - and it is heading that way - and that a Prime Minister is not absolutely necessary; those powers could be given to any minister as "interim chair", or whatever name one wants.

Let us not forget that the Council of Ministers is ultimately appointed; whether those appointees were previously elected democratically (or not) is merely a process or protocol.

Just to add that sections 19-23 quoted in section 132 refer to the protocols for royal succession, so not relevant here, and section 189 is about declaration of war.

[geoman1976]

Where is this area adjacent to BKK where red shirts are gathering? I am in Salaya and last night I saw about 20 motorbikes drive in front of my condo loaded with red shirts with many others passing in the same direction but not in such a large group. This was around midnight last night. Any feedback on this? I am just trying to keep me and my family away from that area.

[srsv1238]

To some it is anathema that a PM should be appointed and not elected. When was the current PM elected, and who appointed him to his position? Oh dear!

those that did that appointing at the very least had the electoral mandate to represent their constitutuents and are ultimately accountable to them. That is much more than can be said for many in the Senate who were appointed to their positions, and who now want to appoint a PM. How ridiculous.

[ginjag]

if Thailand's lawyers are calling for this it's a certain indication not to do it!

About the same as PTP and the rice scam.

[geriatrickid]

Actually you need to stop misdirecting, misleading others, and distorting the truth. In fact on Feb 14 Suthep decided to give that 25 mill baht to the families of the farmers. He initially was planning to give it to the lawyers council. Anyone with half a brain and some incentive could find this in google.

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

You have a predicament in that you cannot show that the money went to the farmers. Suthep collected the money, but like his palm oil days, there isn't any transparency. Is there any public posting of any payments to the farmers? I can't find any, can you? Is there an audited statement of the amount collected and disbursed anywhere? After you have spent your time looking for something that did not happen, would you please be kind enough to report back on your findings. Thank you.

[Emptyset]

The Lawyers Council of Thailand yesterday also supported the idea of appointing a new prime minister. It said in a statement that the Constitution's Article 132 empowers the Senate to make such an appointment.

Section 132

During the expiration of the term or the dissolution of the House of Representatives, the Senate shall

not hold its sitting except in the following cases:

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 having a person hold any office under applicable

provisions of this Constitution;

3.

a sitting at which the Senate shall consider and pass a resolution removing a person from office

So they can consider having a person hold office, but only under the provisions of the Constitution.

One of which is:

Section 181:

The outgoing Council of Ministers shall remain in office for carrying out duty until the newly appointed Council of Ministers takes office

I don't see where the part which allows them to ignore this is in Section 132. I think everyone knows that for the PDRC to win they'll need to tear up the constitution. And as Prayuth doesn't look like he wants to stage a coup come hell or high water, that doesn't seem likely. Unless the PDRC are going to try to seize power unilaterally - it is purported to be a "People's Coup" I suppose. Somehow can't see that one coming to pass either.

Yes, more proof of the depth of legal knowledge and advice available in this country.

One sentence from the article rings true, though: "A group of prominent scholars and peace advocates yesterday urged the rival political camps to jointly select an interim, non-partisan deputy prime minister to replace the current acting PM [...]"

That would get around the PM-must-be-an-MP section of the constitution. I've always said that a Council of Ministers would be appointed by the Senate - and it is heading that way - and that a Prime Minister is not absolutely necessary; those powers could be given to any minister as "interim chair", or whatever name one wants.

Let us not forget that the Council of Ministers is ultimately appointed; whether those appointees were previously elected democratically (or not) is merely a process or protocol.

Just to add that sections 19-23 quoted in section 132 refer to the protocols for royal succession, so not relevant here, and section 189 is about declaration of war.

Interesting post. I'm not sure how the senate appointing a cabinet is possible under the constitution either. The PM being an MP point is probably the least of the constitutional problems, because arguably no one is an MP now anyway.

In general, I still don't think there will be an appointed govt... actually I say *still* don't when just last Friday I thought there was a possibility it could happen, but then I saw what happened with the senate together with the stuff going on wrt the military. So now it seems the PDRC's only option is to mount some sort of armed uprising themselves (I maintained previously the PDRC could only win via military intervention or via Article 7 and I thought the latter very unlikely) and try to tear up the constitution. The govt surely only needs to wait, numbers are dwindling and they can't stay on the streets for too much longer, whilst the caretaker cabinet can presumably remain in place indefinitely. Of course, you could say the PDRC could come back out to block a future election, but by then the momentum will have been lost. So I'm not sure why the govt would agree to an interim senate appointed govt, even if the new acting PM really were neutral.

Of course, if there really were such a neutral figure acceptable to both sides who could be trusted to steady the ship for three or four months with both sides to committing to the electoral process, then I think many people would agree that would be a good option, preferable to the current scenario. I don't think this govt should be allowed to carry out any reforms though. I think that should only be done with an electoral mandate plus a referendum (depending on how drastic the reforms are).

I also think this scenario of a temporary neutral acting PM who isn't going to be there longer than a few months, nor plan any reforms, would possibly be acceptable to the govt and the red shirts, but not to the PDRC. After all, they seem unwilling to move from a position of at least 12-18 months of an appointed govt, with them selecting the new PM and ministers. But to my mind, there's very little prospect such a neutral and universally accepted figure could be found - so I think it's a non-starter...

[Eric Loh]

Lawyers Council you have your say, now move along. When you have a chairman who is part of the coup appointed Assets Examination Committee, I would expect this kind of statement.

[ginjag]

Lawyers Council you have your say, now move along. When you have a chairman who is part of the coup appointed Assets Examination Committee, I would expect this kind of statement.

Does this go for CAPO and Chalerm ???

[Rykbanlor]

Actually you need to stop misdirecting, misleading others, and distorting the truth. In fact on Feb 14 Suthep decided to give that 25 mill baht to the families of the farmers. He initially was planning to give it to the lawyers council. Anyone with half a brain and some incentive could find this in google.

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

You have a predicament in that you cannot show that the money went to the farmers. Suthep collected the money, but like his palm oil days, there isn't any transparency. Is there any public posting of any payments to the farmers? I can't find any, can you? Is there an audited statement of the amount collected and disbursed anywhere? After you have spent your time looking for something that did not happen, would you please be kind enough to report back on your findings. Thank you.

Agree with GK. They were accusing an earlier poster of printing unfounded hearsay, to which they responded with more unfound hearsay. It pays to actually find credible proof of what you're saying and not just repeat whatever gossip spun theories you've heard in the grapevine.

[ginjag]

Actually you need to stop misdirecting, misleading others, and distorting the truth. In fact on Feb 14 Suthep decided to give that 25 mill baht to the families of the farmers. He initially was planning to give it to the lawyers council. Anyone with half a brain and some incentive could find this in google.

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

You have a predicament in that you cannot show that the money went to the farmers. Suthep collected the money, but like his palm oil days, there isn't any transparency. Is there any public posting of any payments to the farmers? I can't find any, can you? Is there an audited statement of the amount collected and disbursed anywhere? After you have spent your time looking for something that did not happen, would you please be kind enough to report back on your findings. Thank you.

Wouldn't you have liked to include the governments role in where their money went re-rice and farmers. Only a couple of trillion over 2+ years that's all.

Now your red glasses show by trying to bring Sutheps donations into a silly debate. Any more donations coming from PTP ??? Where are all the rice accounts---shredded ????

Could you report back with these findings Thank you.

Edited May 14, 2014 by ginjag

[pattayaorganic]

Actually you need to stop misdirecting, misleading others, and distorting the truth. In fact on Feb 14 Suthep decided to give that 25 mill baht to the families of the farmers. He initially was planning to give it to the lawyers council. Anyone with half a brain and some incentive could find this in google.

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

You have a predicament in that you cannot show that the money went to the farmers. Suthep collected the money, but like his palm oil days, there isn't any transparency. Is there any public posting of any payments to the farmers? I can't find any, can you? Is there an audited statement of the amount collected and disbursed anywhere? After you have spent your time looking for something that did not happen, would you please be kind enough to report back on your findings. Thank you.

GK, talk about blatant double standards. You demand this level of transparency for donated funds to a private individual? So, please GK, give me your educated opinion about the level of transparency in the rice scam which your beloved government devised and operated.

You have a very twisted view of the world GK. In your argument against the private donations to Suthep, you ignore the massive corruption and lack of transparency of a multi-billion dollar publicly funded scheme, while demanding the same of donations to a private individual.

You have really outdone yourself with this one...

[pattayaorganic]

Actually you need to stop misdirecting, misleading others, and distorting the truth. In fact on Feb 14 Suthep decided to give that 25 mill baht to the families of the farmers. He initially was planning to give it to the lawyers council. Anyone with half a brain and some incentive could find this in google.

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

You have a predicament in that you cannot show that the money went to the farmers. Suthep collected the money, but like his palm oil days, there isn't any transparency. Is there any public posting of any payments to the farmers? I can't find any, can you? Is there an audited statement of the amount collected and disbursed anywhere? After you have spent your time looking for something that did not happen, would you please be kind enough to report back on your findings. Thank you.

I think you have a predicament in that in your demands of transparency to less than $1m to a private individual, you expose your goliath hypocrisy in that you accept massive corruption and zero transparency in a multi-billion dollar publicly funded scheme.

[focus27]

Section 132

During the expiration of the term or the dissolution of the House of Representatives, the Senate shall

not hold its sitting except in the following cases:

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 having a person hold any office under applicable

provisions of this Constitution;

3.

a sitting at which the Senate shall consider and pass a resolution removing a person from office

So they can consider having a person hold office, but only under the provisions of the Constitution.

One of which is:

Section 181:

The outgoing Council of Ministers shall remain in office for carrying out duty until the newly appointed Council of Ministers takes office

I don't see where the part which allows them to ignore this is in Section 132. I think everyone knows that for the PDRC to win they'll need to tear up the constitution. And as Prayuth doesn't look like he wants to stage a coup come hell or high water, that doesn't seem likely. Unless the PDRC are going to try to seize power unilaterally - it is purported to be a "People's Coup" I suppose. Somehow can't see that one coming to pass either.

Yes, more proof of the depth of legal knowledge and advice available in this country.

One sentence from the article rings true, though: "A group of prominent scholars and peace advocates yesterday urged the rival political camps to jointly select an interim, non-partisan deputy prime minister to replace the current acting PM [...]"

That would get around the PM-must-be-an-MP section of the constitution. I've always said that a Council of Ministers would be appointed by the Senate - and it is heading that way - and that a Prime Minister is not absolutely necessary; those powers could be given to any minister as "interim chair", or whatever name one wants.

Let us not forget that the Council of Ministers is ultimately appointed; whether those appointees were previously elected democratically (or not) is merely a process or protocol.

Just to add that sections 19-23 quoted in section 132 refer to the protocols for royal succession, so not relevant here, and section 189 is about declaration of war.

Interesting post. I'm not sure how the senate appointing a cabinet is possible under the constitution either. The PM being an MP point is probably the least of the constitutional problems, because arguably no one is an MP now anyway.

In general, I still don't think there will be an appointed govt... actually I say *still* don't when just last Friday I thought there was a possibility it could happen, but then I saw what happened with the senate together with the stuff going on wrt the military. So now it seems the PDRC's only option is to mount some sort of armed uprising themselves (I maintained previously the PDRC could only win via military intervention or via Article 7 and I thought the latter very unlikely) and try to tear up the constitution. The govt surely only needs to wait, numbers are dwindling and they can't stay on the streets for too much longer, whilst the caretaker cabinet can presumably remain in place indefinitely. Of course, you could say the PDRC could come back out to block a future election, but by then the momentum will have been lost. So I'm not sure why the govt would agree to an interim senate appointed govt, even if the new acting PM really were neutral.

Of course, if there really were such a neutral figure acceptable to both sides who could be trusted to steady the ship for three or four months with both sides to committing to the electoral process, then I think many people would agree that would be a good option, preferable to the current scenario. I don't think this govt should be allowed to carry out any reforms though. I think that should only be done with an electoral mandate plus a referendum (depending on how drastic the reforms are).

I also think this scenario of a temporary neutral acting PM who isn't going to be there longer than a few months, nor plan any reforms, would possibly be acceptable to the govt and the red shirts, but not to the PDRC. After all, they seem unwilling to move from a position of at least 12-18 months of an appointed govt, with them selecting the new PM and ministers. But to my mind, there's very little prospect such a neutral and universally accepted figure could be found - so I think it's a non-starter...

Section 127 says that the National Assembly can vote on approving (or removing) persons from office, eg, the Council of Ministers.

Section 88 defines the National Assembly as both Houses, but then allows for "joint or separate sittings of the National Assembly", meaning that the Senate could sit on its own as the National Assembly. Further, Section 89 allows both the President and VP of the NA to be senators, in the absence of a President of the House of Reps. So section 132 merely seems to reiterate what previous sections have already said, making it clear that in the absence of a functioning House of Reps the Senate can keep the executive branch of government going.

Sure, there would be political repercussions, but that doesn't mean it isn't legally possible.

[fab4]

The Lawyers Council of Thailand yesterday also supported the idea of appointing a new prime minister. It said in a statement that the Constitution's Article 132 empowers the Senate to make such an appointment.

Section 132

During the expiration of the term or the dissolution of the House of Representatives, the Senate shall

not hold its sitting except in the following cases:

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 having a person hold any office under applicable

provisions of this Constitution;

3.

a sitting at which the Senate shall consider and pass a resolution removing a person from office

So they can consider having a person hold office, but only under the provisions of the Constitution.

One of which is:

Section 181:

The outgoing Council of Ministers shall remain in office for carrying out duty until the newly appointed Council of Ministers takes office

I don't see where the part which allows them to ignore this is in Section 132. I think everyone knows that for the PDRC to win they'll need to tear up the constitution. And as Prayuth doesn't look like he wants to stage a coup come hell or high water, that doesn't seem likely. Unless the PDRC are going to try to seize power unilaterally - it is purported to be a "People's Coup" I suppose. Somehow can't see that one coming to pass either.

I wonder if the Thai Lawyers Council supply the two so called experts in legal matters that serve as Constitution Court Judges. Going by their performance here and their seeming lack of understanding of the Constitution, it seems increasingly likely.

Edited May 14, 2014 by fab4