Poll fate in balance: Thai politics

[webfact]

POLITICS
Poll fate in balance

Govt-EC meeting delayed by a day; Election body intends to propose three options in Royal Decree

BANGKOK: -- THE FATE of the election planned for July 20 hung in the balance as the government and the Election Commission haggled yesterday over issues such as the venue for their meeting, the legal status of the government, and the wording of the Royal Decree authorising the poll.

The meeting was postponed at the last minute from yesterday to today. EC member Somchai Srisutthiyakorn said the government had asked for a change of venue from the EC headquarters in the Government Complex to the Royal Thai Air Force Academy at short notice.

The meeting was scheduled for 2pm yesterday but the government sought the change in venue at 11.30am, citing security reasons due to the presence of anti-government protesters there. The new location was only a 20-minute drive away, but Somchai said the officials could not arrange the meeting yesterday.

The meeting has been rescheduled for today at 10am at the Royal Thai Air Force Academy.

The government and the EC have already agreed on July 20 as the election date, but the commission had second thoughts after Yingluck Shinawatra was dismissed as prime minister by the Constitutional Court last week. Holding the election as scheduled will be possible only if the EC and the government make quick decisions and manage to get the Royal Decree by May 22. If the two fail to find common ground at today's meeting, the July 20 election date is unlikely, an observer said.

Somchai had earlier questioned whether acting Prime Minister Niwattumrong Boonsongpaisan had the authority to send a Royal Decree for the election.

Niwattumrong insisted yesterday that he had full authority to function as the acting prime minister and his government would remain in the power until Thailand gets a new government after a democratic election.

Other issues concerning the election will be discussed with the EC today, he told a press briefing.

Another concern, according to Somchai, is the legal text of the decree. The EC wants it to accommodate options for postponing the election if it cannot be held on schedule because of disruption by protesters. The previous election on February 2 was nullified by the Constitutional Court on the grounds that the ballots were not cast on the same day in the entire country because of such disruptions.

Somchai said he would today propose to the government that it include three options in the decree: the election might need to be delayed for a week; two weeks; or one month in different scenarios. "I cannot say what could happen to obstruct the election but if it really happens, the EC must have the authority under the election law to make the decision," he said.

The government is pushing the election even as protesters from the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) and its allies in the Senate as well as some independent organisations are now seeking ways to legitimise the installation of an unelected prime minister.

Niwattumrong said the Constitution's Articles 171 and 172 allowed only an elected member of the House of Representatives to be the prime minister, and any other way was unconstitutional.

PDRC leader Suthep Thaugsuban maintained his demand that acting Senate Speaker Surachai Liengboon-lertchai nominate a person as prime minister and seek royal endorsement. However, Surachai said he would work independently and not rely on any particular group.

Senators remain divided into two camps; one wants to invoke Article 7 of the Constitution to have an unelected prime minister before the election, while the other group wants to explore other options, according to Senator Pichet Sunthornpipit.

Surachai called informal meetings of the Senate on Monday and Tuesday to explore ideas to lead the country out of the political crisis. He hosted another meeting yesterday with representatives of 12 organisations, including the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the Supreme Court, the Administrative Court, the Election Commission, the National Human Rights Commission, the Board of Trade, the Federation of Thai Industries and the Thai Bankers' Association for brainstorming.

Surachai proposed to meet with government representatives tomorrow.

Niwattumrong said he was ready to meet with the Senate to discuss a solution to the political crisis but it should be held in a place free from protesters.


-- The Nation 2014-05-15

[Tatsujin]

Niwattumrong said the Constitution's Articles 171 and 172 allowed only an elected member of the House of Representatives to be the prime minister, and any other way was unconstitutional.

This is what I've been saying for a while now. And there's the problem . . . there is no House of Representatives currently, they all resigned, hence EC's reluctance to accept his ability to legally sign the Royal Decree.

[jollyman]

no hope, they cannot even agree where to meet

[smedly]

Niwattumrong said the Constitution's Articles 171 and 172 allowed only an elected member of the House of Representatives to be the prime minister, and any other way was unconstitutional.

This is what I've been saying for a while now. And there's the problem . . . there is no House of Representatives currently, they all resigned, hence EC's reluctance to accept his ability to legally sign the Royal Decree.

correct, and by his very own statement he just admitted his own appointment as CTPM is illegal, at the very most his title should be Party Leader

Which means he has no authority to submit a decree, I predicted this a week ago

This is why the Senate must invoke article 7 and appoint an interim PM

These issues are another example of PTP making up their own rules laws and methods, all of this could have been avoided if they had done the honourable thing months ago and stepped down - this is why in the west a shamed administration resigns immediately to avoid this sort of civil unrest we have endured to have them removed by force

But we all know why they are trying to cling to power by what ever means - because once they are gone all their ill deeds will be exposed for all to see once the accounts are investigated and people really see just how many hundreds of billions they stole from the Thai people

[airconsult]

Niwattumrong said the Constitution's Articles 171 and 172 allowed only an elected member of the House of Representatives to be the prime minister, and any other way was unconstitutional.

This is what I've been saying for a while now. And there's the problem . . . there is no House of Representatives currently, they all resigned, hence EC's reluctance to accept his ability to legally sign the Royal Decree.

correct, and by his very own statement he just admitted his own appointment as CTPM is illegal, at the very most his title should be Party Leader

Which means he has no authority to submit a decree, I predicted this a week ago

This is why the Senate must invoke article 7 and appoint an interim PM

These issues are another example of PTP making up their own rules laws and methods, all of this could have been avoided if they had done the honourable thing months ago and stepped down - this is why in the west a shamed administration resigns immediately to avoid this sort of civil unrest we have endured to have them removed by force

But we all know why they are trying to cling to power by what ever means - because once they are gone all their ill deeds will be exposed for all to see once the accounts are investigated and people really see just how many hundreds of billions they stole from the Thai people

Both incorrect.

When the government dissolves the house - it is clearly stated that cabinet members remain in their posts in a caretaker mode - that is why the caretaker pm is authorised to submit the decree - so the cabinet ministers are the only mp's left.

So, a caretaker deputy pm (appointed in July 2013), was appointed as caretaker pm - by the only mp's left.

That's the way it works.

[Tatsujin]

Niwattumrong said the Constitution's Articles 171 and 172 allowed only an elected member of the House of Representatives to be the prime minister, and any other way was unconstitutional.

This is what I've been saying for a while now. And there's the problem . . . there is no House of Representatives currently, they all resigned, hence EC's reluctance to accept his ability to legally sign the Royal Decree.

correct, and by his very own statement he just admitted his own appointment as CTPM is illegal, at the very most his title should be Party Leader

Which means he has no authority to submit a decree, I predicted this a week ago

This is why the Senate must invoke article 7 and appoint an interim PM

These issues are another example of PTP making up their own rules laws and methods, all of this could have been avoided if they had done the honourable thing months ago and stepped down - this is why in the west a shamed administration resigns immediately to avoid this sort of civil unrest we have endured to have them removed by force

But we all know why they are trying to cling to power by what ever means - because once they are gone all their ill deeds will be exposed for all to see once the accounts are investigated and people really see just how many hundreds of billions they stole from the Thai people

Both incorrect.

When the government dissolves the house - it is clearly stated that cabinet members remain in their posts in a caretaker mode - that is why the caretaker pm is authorised to submit the decree - so the cabinet ministers are the only mp's left.

So, a caretaker deputy pm (appointed in July 2013), was appointed as caretaker pm - by the only mp's left.

That's the way it works.

They resigned as MP's, hence no House of Representatives, hence no cabinet, hence no way for them legally elect jack shit. They are not currently MP's, there is no cabinet, they resigned when they dissolved Parliament.

Even the EC is questioning this aspect of it now. And the Senate. PT will be the last to admit they ever did or do anything wrong however.

[pkspeaker]

DOESN'T MATTER, no election, then PhuaThai stays in power until there is an election, nothing the protesters, ec, establishment can do to prevent that, the Yingluck govt is backed by CAPO, The military.. both capo and military said NO appointed govt.. that means whatever shenanigans the ec and senate, even the courts, come with, the govt stays in place.

oo jack shit huh, thats what i call sutheps little appointed govt at the waiting room of govt house, no power, no force of law, its suthep and his protest guards-they have their own little laws whatever public building they are trespassing at.

BTW the Defense Minister-still Yingluck Shinawatra

Edited May 15, 2014 by pkspeaker

[airconsult]

Niwattumrong said the Constitution's Articles 171 and 172 allowed only an elected member of the House of Representatives to be the prime minister, and any other way was unconstitutional.

This is what I've been saying for a while now. And there's the problem . . . there is no House of Representatives currently, they all resigned, hence EC's reluctance to accept his ability to legally sign the Royal Decree.

correct, and by his very own statement he just admitted his own appointment as CTPM is illegal, at the very most his title should be Party Leader

Which means he has no authority to submit a decree, I predicted this a week ago

This is why the Senate must invoke article 7 and appoint an interim PM

These issues are another example of PTP making up their own rules laws and methods, all of this could have been avoided if they had done the honourable thing months ago and stepped down - this is why in the west a shamed administration resigns immediately to avoid this sort of civil unrest we have endured to have them removed by force

But we all know why they are trying to cling to power by what ever means - because once they are gone all their ill deeds will be exposed for all to see once the accounts are investigated and people really see just how many hundreds of billions they stole from the Thai people

Both incorrect.

When the government dissolves the house - it is clearly stated that cabinet members remain in their posts in a caretaker mode - that is why the caretaker pm is authorised to submit the decree - so the cabinet ministers are the only mp's left.

So, a caretaker deputy pm (appointed in July 2013), was appointed as caretaker pm - by the only mp's left.

That's the way it works.

They resigned as MP's, hence no House of Representatives, hence no cabinet, hence no way for them legally elect jack shit. They are not currently MP's, there is no cabinet, they resigned when they dissolved Parliament.

Even the EC is questioning this aspect of it now. And the Senate. PT will be the last to admit they ever did or do anything wrong however.

Correction - they did not resign as MP's - the house was dissolved and the cabinet stays in caretaker mode.

The constitutional court agrees - that's why they instructed that the remaining cabinet members appoint a new caretaker pm.

If you don't agree, and the senate and EC doesn't agree.... who is questioning the court ruling now?

[Scamper]

" Somchai had earlier questioned whether acting Prime Minister Niwattumrong Boonsongpaisan had the authority to send a Royal Decree for the election. Niwattumrong insisted yesterday that he had full authority to function as the acting prime minister and his government would remain in the power until Thailand gets a new government after a democratic election. "

This is the main point. Niwattumrong was selected as prime minister by the Pheu Thai party through means not found in the constitution. Niwattumrong's " insistence " that he has constitutional authority is really not sufficient ! This will clearly be posed to the Constitutional Court for a ruling. For those who say without an election Pheu Thai remains in power - one wonders what power ? What exactly can they do ? Can they convene parliament ? No. Can they pass legislation ? No. How exactly does Pheu Thai define power ? And on that score - how are they doing ? Swimmingly ?

Edited May 15, 2014 by Scamper

[siampolee]

The whole situation is indicative of a misguided self opinionated self serving pack of politicians who refuse to join the modern world.

Thailand's greatest progress is in the field of backwardness. Thailand's political and democratic paralysis is the most progressive in the world.

Thailand's political backwardness is the country's greatest secret campaign.

If the politicians don't know their own intentions and their own capacities for incompetence, how can the peoples understand ?

The true political enemy of Thailand is its own incompetence.

All the ideas put forward to solve the current impasse have been rejected by all sides. However there is no ownership of ideas, and thus little or no chance of any Thai politician dying from a surfeit of intellectual ideals.

Edited May 15, 2014 by siampolee

[pkspeaker]

The King in 2007 said section 7 of the constitution cannot be used to appoint a PM undemocratic ally.. saying that such an action would be undemocratic.

well how about that? The so-called 'royalist' protesters, senators and members of the Democrat party-all insist that the PM can be appoint (and by them)..

isn't that dis-obeying a direct order from the King?

[Tatsujin]

Both incorrect.

When the government dissolves the house - it is clearly stated that cabinet members remain in their posts in a caretaker mode - that is why the caretaker pm is authorised to submit the decree - so the cabinet ministers are the only mp's left.

So, a caretaker deputy pm (appointed in July 2013), was appointed as caretaker pm - by the only mp's left.

That's the way it works.

They resigned as MP's, hence no House of Representatives, hence no cabinet, hence no way for them legally elect jack shit. They are not currently MP's, there is no cabinet, they resigned when they dissolved Parliament.

Even the EC is questioning this aspect of it now. And the Senate. PT will be the last to admit they ever did or do anything wrong however.

Correction - they did not resign as MP's - the house was dissolved and the cabinet stays in caretaker mode.

The constitutional court agrees - that's why they instructed that the remaining cabinet members appoint a new caretaker pm.

If you don't agree, and the senate and EC doesn't agree.... who is questioning the court ruling now?

I must have missed that article/report that you mention, where the CC told PT to appoint a new PM . . . got a link?

[Tatsujin]

The King in 2007 said section 7 of the constitution cannot be used to appoint a PM undemocratic ally.. saying that such an action would be undemocratic.

well how about that? The so-called 'royalist' protesters, senators and members of the Democrat party-all insist that the PM can be appoint (and by them)..

isn't that dis-obeying a direct order from the King?

You fell for it. Read the entire speech and don't take things out of context.

The King was referring to the fact that HE and HE alone cannot invoke article 7.

There are however conditions within the constitution such as the one we are experiencing now where the Senate CAN form an interim government, go read, it's interesting.

[Arkady]

Without meaningful talks and concessions from either side, the caretaker government faces the possibility of elections either not happening or being disrupted indefinitely. They might have settle for remaining a caretaker government until the last of them gets indicted, resigns or dies. If it turns out that Niwatthamrong is not qualified to countersign a royal decree they wouldn't even be able to call an election.

[Tatsujin]

Double post.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Tatsujin

[pkspeaker]

mewwoOK.. The King has spoken:

http://asiancorrespondent.com/119312/would-an-appointed-government-have-more-powers-than-a-caretaker-government/

"“I am greatly troubled. Whatever happens there will be request for a royally appointed prime minister. [This] is not democratic. If you cite Section 7 of the Constitution, it is a wrong citation. [You] cannot reference this. Section 7 has only has two lines; that is, whatever is not stated in the Constitution then it should be in accordance with tradition or what has occurred before…. Asking for a royally appointed prime minister is not in accordance administration by democracy. It is administration, sorry [for saying] irrational and it is มั่ว”.

NOTE: มั่ว has been translated as “mess”, but you could also say “haphazard”, “indiscriminate”, “to do any old which way”.

“Article 7 does not empower the King to make a unilateral decision. It talks about the constitutional monarchy but does not give the King power to do anything he wishes. If the King did so, he would be overstepping his duty. I have never overstepped this duty. Doing so would be undemocratic.”

OK so THE KING cannot use section 7 to appoint a government, but Suthep and 1 Senator can-and then they say they're going to send this non-sense to the King 'for his endorsement'- now that's just logical thinking.. could it be that even they know this is non-sense and fully expect to never have the power to send this to the king for his endorsement, or are they just delusional from so many months of sitting in the hot sun.

[jennywren]

Just those 513,000 pesky square kilometers of Thailand that are the problem.

If only the country would fall into the ways of the Bangkok elite and all this nasty election business could be put to bed for all time. Few smiles and handshakes all it takes, no need for ballot papers or troubling the people with a trip to a polling booth.

The troublesome majority of the country could just go back to living as serfs and providing bangkok with maids, moto taxis and girls to "work" for the oh so worthy rich thais.

Ah if only it were 1960's or good ole 1973.... then the Elites could have the army show the plebs the true meaning of goverment of thailand.

But it's not and there is a tech savvy younger generation and a very intrusive (into the ways of the fascists) social media that will prevent this happening.... or ensure its overthrow if they go with this mad nomination.

After the meeting today, to give somchai his due, he did not go with Suthep and might have ideas of saving the country from the PDRC.. He did not look as close to Suthep as I aimagined he would. Fingers crossed eh!

[airconsult]

Both incorrect.

When the government dissolves the house - it is clearly stated that cabinet members remain in their posts in a caretaker mode - that is why the caretaker pm is authorised to submit the decree - so the cabinet ministers are the only mp's left.

So, a caretaker deputy pm (appointed in July 2013), was appointed as caretaker pm - by the only mp's left.

That's the way it works.

They resigned as MP's, hence no House of Representatives, hence no cabinet, hence no way for them legally elect jack shit. They are not currently MP's, there is no cabinet, they resigned when they dissolved Parliament.

Even the EC is questioning this aspect of it now. And the Senate. PT will be the last to admit they ever did or do anything wrong however.

Correction - they did not resign as MP's - the house was dissolved and the cabinet stays in caretaker mode.

The constitutional court agrees - that's why they instructed that the remaining cabinet members appoint a new caretaker pm.

If you don't agree, and the senate and EC doesn't agree.... who is questioning the court ruling now?

I must have missed that article/report that you mention, where the CC told PT to appoint a new PM . . . got a link?

It was in the decision where Yingluck was dismissed - busy now.

[Tatsujin]

I must have missed that article/report that you mention, where the CC told PT to appoint a new PM . . . got a link?

It was in the decision where Yingluck was dismissed - busy now.

Well, when you are not so busy, I'd love a link to where the CC specifies that PT choose a new PM as I don't recall reading it and I don't recall seeing anything mentioning it. All I remember was PT choosing someone very quickly.

[Robby nz]

Incidentally how many of these caretaker cabinet ministers were ever MP's

After 6 revolving chair cabinet reshuffles where friends and family (the best ones for the job) were brought in as some sort of a reward for services rendered there cant be many who were actually elected as either constituency or list MP's.

Then we have 9 of then who have been booted out because Yingluck said "It wernt just me they did it too".

So how many are left in total and how many were MP's.?

[smedly]

When the government dissolves the house - it is clearly stated that cabinet members remain in their posts in a caretaker mode - that is why the caretaker pm is authorised to submit the decree - so the cabinet ministers are the only mp's left.

first they are not MP's they are CTMP's with a CT PM..........she got sacked, so as stipulated by the Constitution only the Senate can elect a PM.................................but as usual PTP carry on making their own rules which are of little help to anyone

If you are looking for the authority power base in Thailand right now it is with the EC and the Senate with the King as head of state, PTP stood down as a government and basically have power to do nothing, they can pretend they have and talk that they have ........but they don't

Reforms - Referendum - Election - lets get rid of the liars cheats and thieves, the Thai people deserve better

Funny I was out tonite in a Thai up market venue with live band etc and there were 3x tables with girls and lots of drink, that caught my attention, I got talking to one of them and I asked him what was his business - he said redshirt leader, this is what the people of Thailand are fighting - this man who thought he was a big shot was sitting spending Rice farmer money and the girls were shit scared of him - treating him like royalty - oh he big mafia one of them said...........that is what the people are up against- <deleted> like him living the good life using stolen money from the people

[Longtooth]

no hope, they cannot even agree where to meet

Who's little flag on the table is 2mm taller than the other one? Remember the N. Korea and S. Korea talks? An un-resolvable issue.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Longtooth

[Tatsujin]

Correction - they did not resign as MP's - the house was dissolved and the cabinet stays in caretaker mode.

The constitutional court agrees - that's why they instructed that the remaining cabinet members appoint a new caretaker pm.

If you don't agree, and the senate and EC doesn't agree.... who is questioning the court ruling now?

I must have missed that article/report that you mention, where the CC told PT to appoint a new PM . . . got a link?

It was in the decision where Yingluck was dismissed - busy now.

Still too busy to find us the link?