Setting up an unelected Thai govt is just not possible

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE
Setting up an unelected govt is just not possible
Supalak Ganjanakhundee
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The idea of using the Constitution's Article 7 to set up an unelected government to help pull the country out of the current political crisis is impossible both legally and practically.

The anti-government protesters and some senators have been working hard to twist the Constitution so they can topple the government. In fact, some senators are even trying to get their newly appointed Speaker to call on His Majesty to appoint a new premier.

They believe they can apply Article 7 to give their action legitimacy, even though this move would be equivalent to a coup. Also, they seem to forget that His Majesty had ruled on April 25, 2006 that the application of the law in this way would be undemocratic. So far, the King's word has never been reversed in this country.

Article 7 says: "when no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional convention in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State".

This does not, in any way, offer a process to find a new head of government.

Meanwhile, Article 171 gives the Speaker of the House of Representatives the authority to propose a member of the House to His Majesty to appoint this person as premier.

Yet, pro-protest law experts argue that Article 7 can be applied "mutatis mutandis" as the country does not have a House of Representatives in place. Also, they say, Thailand has had unelected persons installed in the premier's seat after the people's uprising in 1973 and 1992.

This argument, however, is invalid because the 2007 Constitution - which many of these legal experts helped draft - does not allow an unelected person to become prime minister.

In practice, how can a Senate Speaker just make someone prime minister without the people's consent? Most Thais will refuse to accept a so-called "neutral person" as their prime minister and will probably take turns in launching street battles to make their opposition known.

In other words, using Article 7 will not help pull the country out of a crisis, but will, in fact, bring about more conflicts.

Then, if the people take a strong stance against the unelected government and an uprising takes place, then the powers that be will have no choice but to call on the military to suppress them.

Now, however, not many Thais are willing to come out on the streets to die unarmed, so it is quite possible that many will take up weapons to wage a civil war.

Political struggles over the past years show that Thais are no longer ready to make a compromise. Politics is also no longer a matter for a few members of the elite to cut a deal as the majority want to have a hand in installing their government.

Though the current Constitution is disliked by many as it was sponsored by the military, it has been in force for nearly a decade now and offers people a way to install a government peacefully - through an election.

This time, perhaps, the best solution would be for the handful of elite and anti-government groups to accept a lawful and democratic way out in accordance with the Constitution and push their so-called reform agendas through an election process.

It is time that Thais were given a chance to decide on the fate of their country. Every Thai - no matter which strata of society they hail from - have an equal right to decide on the future of their nation.


-- The Nation 2014-05-14

[See the bears]

Yingluck gets booted out for transferring an uncooperative civil servant, but the unelected, unendorsed head of the Senate can appoint a new PM. Wow, go figure!!

[Emptyset]

This argument, however, is invalid because the 2007 Constitution - which many of these legal experts helped draft - does not allow an unelected person to become prime minister.

Indeed. You've made the bed, and now you must lie in it. Or as this guy said:

"Prof Likhit: No faith! Who made the election law? Who drafted the Constitution? You made them but have no faith in them. You built your house, you live in it and you say it’s terrible. You built it yourself. Are you going blame everyone else [for the problem you made]? Is that right? Can you answer me? … You can’t answer any of this. Who drafted the Constitution? Who made the election law? (Laughter) Is the cul-de-sac natural or manufactured? And who gave you sovereign power? They don’t even know what “sovereignty” is. The person who explained it was some local finance academic, who gave a shoddy explanation. How could this fly? No knowledge to go about it."

http://asiancorrespondent.com/122579/likhit-dhiravegin-interview-part-3-on-appointed-pm-article-7-and-the-senate/

Edited May 14, 2014 by Emptyset

[binjalin]

I still think it's beyond comprehension to have unelected senators who can bring down an elected government by use of judicial coup

some use 'the constitution' as an excuse but 'forget' to mention that it was not a fair and free choice by the people but a 'Hobson's Choice' where no anti campaign was allowed and the Coup said they would stay UNLESS the people voted for it

all set-up to give the judiciary extra powers to 'correct' those pesky voters choices

I would not put it past them, though, to try and force through this 'unelected' thingy under some disguise

[wandasloan]

.My 1st paragraph was cut and pasted from the OP it was not mine. I was not paraphrasing him. Take your beef up with Admin and the original author and not me. I was simply asking a question in relation to this line.

And, your question answered with an opinion, you have no interest in the discussion whatsoever. How.... cool. Because I'm still a trainee mindreader and not official certified, I cannot impute motive, but I know a lot of people call that trolling.

I still think it's beyond comprehension to have unelected senators who can bring down an elected government by use of judicial coup

No kidding. It's fascinating and encouraging to see how all this has brought out the really heavy hitters like Likhit, with very strong opinion about it. These people have enormous influence, not to mention dirty tricks and closed-door intervention that most of the honourable appointed senators have never dreamed of. The video is a very good example of how a Likhit just chews up and spits out Khun Jomquan as if she were a rote-educated political know-nothing, which he probably considers that she is.

Very few of what the Thais call the "thinkers" and "senior academics" and so on will side with the yellow mob on this, because most of them are strict constructionist constitutionalists. So it gets ever interestinger.

.

Edited May 14, 2014 by wandasloan

[Thait Spot]

"This argument, however, is invalid because the 2007 Constitution - which many of these legal experts helped draft - does not allow an unelected person to become prime minister."

So how come Yingluck was permitted to take the position?

[The stuttering parrot]

What's going on over at the nation?

Maybe the pennies dropped and they were backing a bloke who is running out of options.

Now come on stop stalling and give the majority of thai people what they want!

An election!

[tezzainoz]

What's going on over at the nation?

Maybe the pennies dropped and they were backing a bloke who is running out of options.

Now come on stop stalling and give the majority of thai people what they want!

An election!

Your idea of elections are useless unless you include the 2 most import reforms plus more, ad they are not fair elections

You may not have noticed but that is what all this is about

[craigt3365]

Several posts discussing the monarchy have been removed from view. Unfortunately, due to the current political situation here in Thailand, we're being overly cautious with regards to these posts.

We hope you understand.

Please don't continue the discussion. We lost a member yesterday due to this.

[ginjag]

What's going on over at the nation?

Maybe the pennies dropped and they were backing a bloke who is running out of options.

Now come on stop stalling and give the majority of thai people what they want!

An election!

You've got into a nasty habit of saying this.

Who is there to vote for at this stage ??? bleeding Robin Hood ?? you had better wait to see who is next to get banned --(from either side)

What a farce an election would be to waste all that money to have it annulled because elected people could be banned. But we have your government to thank for wasting money. Hundreds of billions, we still have to find where it's gone.

Until this is sorted, no elections.------------------You think snap elections quickly next week, simply stupid to say the least.

[rickirs]

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

"This argument, however, is invalid because the 2007 Constitution - which many of these legal experts helped draft - does not allow an unelected person to become prime minister."

So how come Yingluck was permitted to take the position?

Simple. She was elected.

[focus27]

When one starts to look closely at the Thai Constitution it becomes obvious that any rational, civilised, intelligent debate goes out of the window in fear of the lese majeste laws. All we can do is orbit the sun.

Regarding this article, the National Assembly has the power to select Ministers. As the only functioning part of the National Assembly, the Senate can vote on this without the House of Representatives (using an extraordinary session if needed). Both the President and Vice-President of the National Assembly can be senators. Ministers do not have to be MPs, but they cannot be current or recent senators.

Look at the Constitution (if you feel so inclined) and you will see many powers given to the National Assembly and the Council of Ministers. In contrast, the Prime Minister, who as 'first among equals' is also a Minister, has few extra powers and those could be given to any interim pseudo-PM.

As the current Council of Ministers is so very small, I could see a scenario where the Senate appoints some new Ministers, keeping the current incumbents but making them a minority within the Council. Even a certain 'balance' might be achieved, not by hoping for a non-partisan neutral saviour but by having the two sides 'lock horns'.

[MichelM]

So! Why, if the "Pheu Thai" believe he can win any further election, even without vote buying... they do not agree with Abhisit proposal???

Abhisit propose to start right away election reforms (who will take 4 - 6 months) then go for election without problem!!!

WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO LOOSE???

Or maybe they are not sure... ?

[casualbiker]

"This argument, however, is invalid because the 2007 Constitution - which many of these legal experts helped draft - does not allow an unelected person to become prime minister."

So how come Yingluck was permitted to take the position?

Simple. She was elected.

By whom?

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[casualbiker]

Yingluck gets booted out for transferring an uncooperative civil servant, but the unelected, unendorsed head of the Senate can appoint a new PM. Wow, go figure!!

If it was just as you described I would agree.. BUT Yinglucks departure has more to it.. family members getting positions etc!

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[sscsamui]

My personal view is that a neutral PM should be appointed that would set reform and guide lines for election laws and the government guide line to combat the corruption in government. This would leave the PPT and the UDD out.... Thailand needs Change and The Thaksin Clan is NOT the answer. They are the ones who have been driving Thailand into the dirt..Thailand is a Great country and the Thai people deserve better...

[chainarong]

We have been down this road time and again in the past few months, still the penny isn't dropping, there are half the population who don't trust the PTP ,what one votes for and what one thinks in Thailand are sometimes two different issues , so what are PTP intentions, they interpret the law according to what they believe, they intimidate bully and use force if necessary to get their way, they have a hidden agenda, What Thailand needs to know , are they going to high jack the reform committee and as I said yesterday, walk reform hand in hand with a totalitarian government into the future, before they can be stopped.

[wandasloan]

When one starts to look closely at the Thai Constitution it becomes obvious that any rational, civilised, intelligent debate goes out of the window in fear of the lese majeste laws. All we can do is orbit the sun.

No kidding. Ridiculous and then some. If you can't discuss the Constitution here, you simply can't discuss the current political scene. Luckily, discussion is possible in hundreds of other places, real and virtual, and is vibrant and very alive in all the newspapers including The Chosen Ones. Only this venue suffers, really.

.

[Bluespunk]

"The idea of using the Constitution's Article 7 to set up an unelected government to help pull the country out of the current political crisis is impossible both legally and practically."

Good.

[GinBoy2]

The most shocking revelation upon reading this....was that it was from The Nation.

Oh I get it, today must be the Thai version of Aprils Fools Day, all those Jolly Fake stories, silly me!

Edited May 14, 2014 by GinBoy2

[wandasloan]

We have been down this road time and again in the past few months, still the penny isn't dropping, there are half the population who don't trust the PTP ,what one votes for and what one thinks in Thailand are sometimes two different issues , so what are PTP intentions, they interpret the law according to what they believe, they intimidate bully and use force if necessary to get their way, they have a hidden agenda, What Thailand needs to know , are they going to high jack the reform committee and as I said yesterday, walk reform hand in hand with a totalitarian government into the future, before they can be stopped.

Look, you folks have to make up your mind one way or the other and stick with it.

EITHER You claim the great mass uprising (muan maha prachachon) is with you and behind you and supports you. You claim moral superiority, but you claim numerical superiority. So if you have that, then winning an election is easy as pie.

OR You claim that elections will be hijacked and bought off, meaning that the majority and the great mass uprising isn't with you and behind you at all and you are a bunch of hijackers of democracy.

Pick one of those. You can't pick both, and you can't pick one at 10am and the other at 10:25am because it got inconvenient. It has nothing to do with PTP, it has everything to do with you. Right at this exact moment, no matter what PTP's *intentions* are, there is one hijacker and intimidator. Now, EITHER you are confident in your moral standing and support, in which case you can win a vote and no one can whine about it OR you are totally convinced most of the country will be against you in any showdown in which case just go for it, try to grab power, see how long you can hold it, but stop whining about it.

Me? I think you're scared witless you're going to lose stuff. I think you're arrogant, blustering bullies, and will collapse into tears like sensitive little girls either soon like the next few days, or soon after you succeed in your very ill-advised power putsch as it starts to come apart within days.

But what do I know? Show me what you really are. It doesn't matter what *I* think, it matters what you *do*. So what are you going to do?

.

[geoman1976]

FINALLY, an honest article that really makes sense regarding this current crisis. I have asked so many Thais that have been involved in this, do you realize this will probably lead to civil war? Most common response from them, "yes, that is what we want (with a small smirk on their face). I think the everyone involved now faces the impossible task of a peaceful resolution without further violence. The fallout could be brutal if both sides don't start playing nice. Not to mention the condemnation of the international community in regards to what is happening in Thailand. What Thailand is doing to itself is bad enough...but, if they do away with the democratic process you are going to see an economic fallout of epic proportions propogated by the inernational community. The twisting of the constitution to bypass the democratic process will not only have domestic reprocussions, but also international relation and economic reprocussions that I am not sure if the Thais understand. I still cannot get over a post I saw the other day that said "election will be a dirty word a year from now and any mention of it will be seen as an attempt to topple the gov't and will carry a 10 year sentence." If this acctually did happen, I think we would end up having two "North Koreas" in Asia.

[rickirs]

Discussions about what complies with the Constitution are almost pure academic exercises now. Thailand has strayed so far off the path of its constitution it has become the classic "polishing the rails of the Titanic while the ship sinks." Thailand is like a condominium furnished with democracy but no one has the key to get inside. The EC breached the 2007 Constitution in November 2013 by refusing to schedule elections within the mandatory 60-day timeframe after dissolution of the government in September 2013. All the electoral issues arising after that point are really irrelevant.

But this article does point out one very important fact. Thailand is a constitutional monarchy wherein the Monarch governs according to the constitution - that is, according to rules, rather than according to his or her own free will. The Monarch must remain politically neutral. However, the Monarch has authority as Head of State to, among several actions, appoint the prime minister. So invariably, what is the Monarch's position to how the prime minister position is filled and I believe HRH the King has already weighed in on that matter by stating that the Constituion must be followed - the Prime Minister is elected. It would be very appropriate and comforting to the Thai people, to the Senate, to the Interim Government, to the EC, and the Constitutional Court all whom respect and love HRH the King, that the Head of State reiterate now what the process should be.

For the sake of argument, if the HRH the King is willing to interpret Article 7 as an option allowing the Senate to select a "nuetral" PM independent of public vote, HRH the King still cannot merely appoint that person to the PM because of the Constitution if it is considered relevant. Within the SPIRIT of the Constitution and the Electoral Laws, that selected person would have to be presented to the electoral (the eligible Thai voters), ie., in a referendum vote of confidence, for their affirmation by greater than 50% or denial. Of course failing to receive a majority vote, the whole process becomes a time-consuming, futile exercise and the conflict is back to the beginning. And Thailand interim government continues to operate as a legislatively crippled body.

[stickyrice2000]

I know many people favor Suthep. Accept the reality. It is against the laws. All and all, the Constitution circles back to the election. At the very least, let's get the official government in place first. The law changes can only happen when the elected officials are in the house. The EC and Supreme Court need to stop pulling a little segment of the laws and interpret elsewhere in making the election invalid. If any party does not want to vote that day, a particular party forfeit his/her right to the vote.

[In Town]

My personal view is that a neutral PM should be appointed that would set reform and guide lines for election laws and the government guide line to combat the corruption in government. This would leave the PPT and the UDD out.... Thailand needs Change and The Thaksin Clan is NOT the answer. They are the ones who have been driving Thailand into the dirt..Thailand is a Great country and the Thai people deserve better...

Its great in theory, but in practice there are no neutral people. That being the case, you will need to find a solution that acknowledges political persuasion.

[Mentors]

Yingluck gets booted out for transferring an uncooperative civil servant, but the unelected, unendorsed head of the Senate can appoint a new PM. Wow, go figure!!

because the Yellows are above laws and everything.

[Thait Spot]

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

"This argument, however, is invalid because the 2007 Constitution - which many of these legal experts helped draft - does not allow an unelected person to become prime minister."

So how come Yingluck was permitted to take the position?

Simple. She was elected.

No she wasn't

[luk AJ]

Any of you already travelled to Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar? All these countries are at least 10-20 years behind Thailand. Just look from a distance and you will notice the difference. Not all bad he!

[pookiki]

Look, you folks have to make up your mind one way or the other and stick with it.

EITHER You claim the great mass uprising (muan maha prachachon) is with you and behind you and supports you. You claim moral superiority, but you claim numerical superiority. So if you have that, then winning an election is easy as pie.

OR You claim that elections will be hijacked and bought off, meaning that the majority and the great mass uprising isn't with you and behind you at all and you are a bunch of hijackers of democracy.

Pick one of those. You can't pick both, and you can't pick one at 10am and the other at 10:25am because it got inconvenient. It has nothing to do with PTP, it has everything to do with you. Right at this exact moment, no matter what PTP's *intentions* are, there is one hijacker and intimidator. Now, EITHER you are confident in your moral standing and support, in which case you can win a vote and no one can whine about it OR you are totally convinced most of the country will be against you in any showdown in which case just go for it, try to grab power, see how long you can hold it, but stop whining about it.

Me? I think you're scared witless you're going to lose stuff. I think you're arrogant, blustering bullies, and will collapse into tears like sensitive little girls either soon like the next few days, or soon after you succeed in your very ill-advised power putsch as it starts to come apart within days.

But what do I know? Show me what you really are. It doesn't matter what *I* think, it matters what you *do*. So what are you going to do?

.

An excellent commentary. I'm so tired of the whine about 'unfair elections' and the need for reform that no one wants to define.

[LevelHead]

So! Why, if the "Pheu Thai" believe he can win any further election, even without vote buying... they do not agree with Abhisit proposal???

Abhisit propose to start right away election reforms (who will take 4 - 6 months) then go for election without problem!!!

WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO LOOSE???

Or maybe they are not sure... ?

The problem is once in power the 4 to 6 months would become, a year or two, then a year or two would become 5 or 6 years...............

What are you going to do ? Have an election to kick out the people who are un-elected and promised an election in 4 to 6 months but who lied ?

If the election rules are so bad - why did Abhisit and Suthep not reform then when they were in power from 2008 onwards. Over 2 years in power - no reforms.

Now they are out of power - they want reforms....................... pull the other one.

The issue is now :

PTP have to remain in power - that is the law, the constitution and there must be an election.

There can be no appointed PM - it breaks the law, the constitution and also any "neutral man" agreed would soon resign or fall ill and then be replaced by a pure pro-PDRC man. Once they get PTP out of power with a neutral PM its very simple for them to replace the neutral PM with their man - and PTP have no say in that.

The PDRC have committed many many crimes and continue to do so - until they are prosecuted and brought under control the problems will continue. The PDRC are totally 100% the problem. They can protest, they cannot block elections.

Have an election based on reform agendas

The people elect the party based on their reform agendas. Someone wins the election.

Reform is done.

New election.

That is legal and in line with the constitution - so what is Suthep/Abhisit/PDRC problem with it ?