NLA to start impeachment of ex-senators on Wednesday

[rubl]

Not quite, and of course JAG has twisted things as usual.

All parties in the house agreed that the senate should be fully elected and the bill passed the first reading.

The problems arose when there were clauses added before the second and third readings that abolished the 6 year term, which meant that senators could stay on as long as they were elected.

And that relatives of sitting MP's could become senators, which meant that a party with a majority in the house had a good chance of getting their relations into the senate thereby giving them control of the senate.

This is what would have made the senate a rubber stamp for any party with a majority.

As those of us who have followed this know the second and third readings of the bill were got through the lower house in an underhand and frankly illegal manner.

When the bill got to the senate there was considerable opposition to it and that was when the 38 now charged, colluded to get it through in the manner already described.

And you're taking a bit of a leap of imagination on the support shown by Senators towards the PTP with this statement;

When the bill got to the senate there was considerable opposition to it and that was when the 38 now charged, colluded to get it through in the manner already described.

It has been been stated by an appointed Senator, Somchai Sawaengkarn, that 63 of the appointed Senators were anti government, the remaining 13 being Pro- PTP. With only 150 Senators in the Senate it doesn't take many more elected Senators to ensure the anti-PTP Senators can block any proposals from the government of the time. Let's face it, how many Provinces south of the PTP heartland would have a PTP leaning Senator elected? They'd only need 15 Elected Senators to be anti-PTP to get the majority in the Senate.

So you're happy with a rubber stamp Senate as long as it wasn't pro PTP - which was the reality of the political leanings of the Senate at the time - the 38 weren't going to be able to "collude to get it through in the manner described" as you put it.

Let's get to the basics of the case. The Constitution Court ruled the bill to change the Senate to Fully Elected as unconstitutional. As one of those "who followed this", tell me Why?

Oh come on, my dear. You can find a lot but not the text of the ruling of the Constitutional Court? They always read out the reasoning which led to the ruling, even if it takes half a day or more.

BTW interesting the mix of government and Pheu Thai party. The government was a coalition government. Forty seats provided by coalition partners of Pheu Thai. In a democracy you can be pro government but against a coalition partner aprt from other combinations.

My dear? Been watching the Oscars and become a luvvy have we, rubl?

OK, I have since found out that the ruling apparently was that the PTP government had breached Section 291 and I do believe that the B/S at the time was that in particular it had breached Section 291/1 i.e the judges ruled that the government were attempting to "change the democratic regime of government"

(1) a motion for amendment must be proposed either by the Council of Ministers or members of the House of Representatives of not less than one-fifth of the total number of the existing members of the House of Representatives or members of both Houses of not less than one-fifth of the total number of the existing members thereof or persons having the right to votes of not less than fifty thousand in number under the law on the public submission of a bill;

A motion for amendment which has the effect of changing the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State or changing the form of State shall be prohibited;

As for your last point I can only gather that in the absence of any credible answer you have decided to latch on to pedantry. The source I referred to called the senators whose voting patterns were against the government, anti-government. Using your terms of reference, that means both the PTP and their coalition partners.

Satisfied?

Satisfied? Well you seemed to want to know as you demanded "tell me Why".

BTW you have found out and you believe ? Maybe keep searching.

PS maybe my misunderstanding as non-Native English speaker, but for me 'diva' is female and you didn't fill in 'gender' in your profile. So be a good girl and stop sulking.

[TheDiva]

Oh come on, my dear. You can find a lot but not the text of the ruling of the Constitutional Court? They always read out the reasoning which led to the ruling, even if it takes half a day or more.

BTW interesting the mix of government and Pheu Thai party. The government was a coalition government. Forty seats provided by coalition partners of Pheu Thai. In a democracy you can be pro government but against a coalition partner aprt from other combinations.

My dear? Been watching the Oscars and become a luvvy have we, rubl?

OK, I have since found out that the ruling apparently was that the PTP government had breached Section 291 and I do believe that the B/S at the time was that in particular it had breached Section 291/1 i.e the judges ruled that the government were attempting to "change the democratic regime of government"

(1) a motion for amendment must be proposed either by the Council of Ministers or members of the House of Representatives of not less than one-fifth of the total number of the existing members of the House of Representatives or members of both Houses of not less than one-fifth of the total number of the existing members thereof or persons having the right to votes of not less than fifty thousand in number under the law on the public submission of a bill;

A motion for amendment which has the effect of changing the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State or changing the form of State shall be prohibited;

As for your last point I can only gather that in the absence of any credible answer you have decided to latch on to pedantry. The source I referred to called the senators whose voting patterns were against the government, anti-government. Using your terms of reference, that means both the PTP and their coalition partners.

Satisfied?

Satisfied? Well you seemed to want to know as you demanded "tell me Why".

BTW you have found out and you believe ? Maybe keep searching.

PS maybe my misunderstanding as non-Native English speaker, but for me 'diva' is female and you didn't fill in 'gender' in your profile. So be a good girl and stop sulking.

I asked why, not demanded and it was directed at the OP of the post I was replying to but you decided to reply for some reason. You haven't told me the reason why, just made asinine remarks about Diva's. Maybe you should broaden your horizons to take in some foreign language films?

[rubl]

Oh come on, my dear. You can find a lot but not the text of the ruling of the Constitutional Court? They always read out the reasoning which led to the ruling, even if it takes half a day or more.

BTW interesting the mix of government and Pheu Thai party. The government was a coalition government. Forty seats provided by coalition partners of Pheu Thai. In a democracy you can be pro government but against a coalition partner aprt from other combinations.

My dear? Been watching the Oscars and become a luvvy have we, rubl?

OK, I have since found out that the ruling apparently was that the PTP government had breached Section 291 and I do believe that the B/S at the time was that in particular it had breached Section 291/1 i.e the judges ruled that the government were attempting to "change the democratic regime of government"

(1) a motion for amendment must be proposed either by the Council of Ministers or members of the House of Representatives of not less than one-fifth of the total number of the existing members of the House of Representatives or members of both Houses of not less than one-fifth of the total number of the existing members thereof or persons having the right to votes of not less than fifty thousand in number under the law on the public submission of a bill;

A motion for amendment which has the effect of changing the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State or changing the form of State shall be prohibited;

As for your last point I can only gather that in the absence of any credible answer you have decided to latch on to pedantry. The source I referred to called the senators whose voting patterns were against the government, anti-government. Using your terms of reference, that means both the PTP and their coalition partners.

Satisfied?

Satisfied? Well you seemed to want to know as you demanded "tell me Why".

BTW you have found out and you believe ? Maybe keep searching.

PS maybe my misunderstanding as non-Native English speaker, but for me 'diva' is female and you didn't fill in 'gender' in your profile. So be a good girl and stop sulking.

I asked why, not demanded and it was directed at the OP of the post I was replying to but you decided to reply for some reason. You haven't told me the reason why, just made asinine remarks about Diva's. Maybe you should broaden your horizons to take in some foreign language films?

So, that's why you wrote

"OK, I have since found out that the ruling apparently was that the PTP government had breached Section 291 and I do believe that the B/S at the time was that in particular it had breached Section 291/1 i.e the judges ruled that the government were attempting to "change the democratic regime of government""

As for foreign language films, many on the Thai channels. Even in the Netherlands most subtitled. Some in reasonable languages, some in that interesting mix called 'English'.

PS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diva

Of course with PC we get

"1. An operatic prima donna.

2. A very successful singer of nonoperatic music.

3. One who demands that attention be paid to his or her needs, especially without regard to anyone else's needs or feelings."

but as you probably guessed I'm old-fashioned in certain things, my dear.

[Robby nz]

I totally agree

In accordance with the 2007 Constitution of Thailand, the Senate is a non-partisan legislative chamber, composed of 150 members. 76 Senators are directly elected from the 75 Provinces of Thailand and Bangkok, while the other 74 are appointed from various sectors by the Senate Selection Committee. The Senate operates under fixed terms of six years.

But many were actually PTP and they wanted to get rid of the appointed Senators so that they could get more PTP Senators elected, thereby the Senate would become a rubber stamp for all the corrupt and illegal behaviour of PTP and not a check.

So they should be impeached and banned for politics just for not being non-partisan, and under the control of the criminal in Dubai - we all know what would have happened once TS/PTP had control of the Senate

Not quite, and of course JAG has twisted things as usual.

All parties in the house agreed that the senate should be fully elected and the bill passed the first reading.

The problems arose when there were clauses added before the second and third readings that abolished the 6 year term, which meant that senators could stay on as long as they were elected.

And that relatives of sitting MP's could become senators, which meant that a party with a majority in the house had a good chance of getting their relations into the senate thereby giving them control of the senate.

This is what would have made the senate a rubber stamp for any party with a majority.

As those of us who have followed this know the second and third readings of the bill were got through the lower house in an underhand and frankly illegal manner.

When the bill got to the senate there was considerable opposition to it and that was when the 38 now charged, colluded to get it through in the manner already described.

And you're taking a bit of a leap of imagination on the support shown by Senators towards the PTP with this statement;

When the bill got to the senate there was considerable opposition to it and that was when the 38 now charged, colluded to get it through in the manner already described.

It has been been stated by an appointed Senator, Somchai Sawaengkarn, that 63 of the appointed Senators were anti government, the remaining 13 being Pro- PTP. With only 150 Senators in the Senate it doesn't take many more elected Senators to ensure the anti-PTP Senators can block any proposals from the government of the time. Let's face it, how many Provinces south of the PTP heartland would have a PTP leaning Senator elected? They'd only need 15 Elected Senators to be anti-PTP to get the majority in the Senate.

So you're happy with a rubber stamp Senate as long as it wasn't pro PTP - which was the reality of the political leanings of the Senate at the time - the 38 weren't going to be able to "collude to get it through in the manner described" as you put it.

Let's get to the basics of the case. The Constitution Court ruled the bill to change the Senate to Fully Elected as unconstitutional. As one of those "who followed this", tell me Why?

Well you don't seem to have any problems with the truth I have written only the bit where I referred you to" The manner already described" Perhaps you didn't read that or ignored it.

Yes the Constitution court ruled the bill to be unconstitutional, not because of the bill itself but by the way it was pushed through in an illegal manner.

Had PT followed the law they could have got the bill through the house in its amended form as they had a majority and they only needed a simple majority.

A little different in the senate where a greater majority was needed. Even if it had been rejected by the senate all they could have done was send it back to the house where it could have sat on the table for the prescribed time at which point it could have been revived, at that point had it been past by a majority it could have been brought into law without senate scrutiny.