Senate will only nominate PM in event of deadlock, lawmakers say

[webfact]

Senate will only nominate PM in event of deadlock, lawmakers say

By Pravit Rojanaphruk, Senior Staff Writer -

 

Yingluck Shinawatra on Aug. 5, 2011, thanks her party members moments after majority of the parliament voted her as Thailand’s 28th Prime Minister. In the new charter, the Senate will also have a say in selecting a Prime Minister. Photo: Matichon

 

BANGKOK — The Senate under the new constitution will have an authority to nominate its own candidates as Prime Minister only if the upper and lower houses failed to choose one, leading members of the current parliament said.

 

The clarification was a response to media reports in the past week that the lawmakers are interpreting the new charter to mean that the Senate, whose members would be appointed by the military junta, can nominate its list of potential Prime Minister right away without consulting the elected parliament.

 

Full story: http://www.khaosodenglish.com/politics/2016/08/24/senate-will-nominate-pm-event-deadlock-lawmakers-say/

 

-- © Copyright Khaosod English 2016-08-24

[Thailand]

Deadlocks coming up I guess.

[Alive]

Probably. I wonder how the senate will work. Will they all just bob their heads in agreement every time they have to 'vote'

[heybruce]

This constitution was written to guarantee gridlock, especially with the two thirds vote requirement to approve a PM.

[GeorgesAbitbol]

what is  the definition of deadlock according to thai army?

[robblok]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

This constitution was written to guarantee gridlock, especially with the two thirds vote requirement to approve a PM.

Is the PM voted in by all MP's or only the ones on the winning side. If its all MP's then chances for gridlock are quite high.

 

Especially because no party ever get a large majority. 

[Snig27]

10 minutes ago, GeorgesAbitbol said:

what is  the definition of deadlock according to thai army?

 

Deadlock is when they won't agree on a certain person as PM for life. 

[waldroj]

"...The Senate under the new constitution will have an authority to nominate its own candidates as Prime Minister only if the upper and lower houses failed to choose one..."

 

This is supposed to be a clarification (by leading members of the current parliament)? How can this possibly clarify things when the Senate IS the Upper House!

 

By this logic, all the Senate needs to do is stymie any attempts by the House of Reps to choose a PM, then exercise its "authority" with their own choice!

 

Not only that, it is unconstitutional and certainly not what people accepted at the referendum.

 

The supplementary question read:

Do you approve that for contributing continuity of the country reform according to the national strategic plan, it should be stipulated in the Transitory Provisions of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand that for the duration of 5 years from the first sitting of the National Assembly under this constitution; the joint sitting of the two chambers of the National Assembly shall convene to consider approving a person to be appointed as the Prime Ministry?

 

As I said in another discussion on August 23,  given the distribution of pro-NCPO politicians (especially in the Senate), and the NCPO's deliberate attack on major political parties, it is blatantly clear that the selection of the next PM is nothing but a sham. See http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/938978-pornpetch-insists-cdc-to-decide-whether-senators-can-nominate-candidate-for-prime-minister’s-post/#comment-11076883

 

[tbthailand]

Everything is proceeding according to plan... 

 

the so-called "Gridlock" has been pre-arranged by this constitution.

Orchestrated efforts to secure 'outsider' PM seat for Gen Prayut

 

Expect this to happen, ... the "only if" has been baked into the process... 

[tbthailand]

1 hour ago, GeorgesAbitbol said:

what is  the definition of deadlock according to thai army?

5 or more yellow shirts protesting in front of Siam Paragon...  

[JAG]

I wonder what the reaction, internally and internationally, will be when one party wins a clear majority in a general election, and is refused the post of prime minister.

 

I would venture to suggest that these measures, together with the new style party list provisions, has effectively disenfranchised the voters who have rather awkwardly, repeatedly elected the "wrong people".

 

I realise that it is a foregone conclusion - and another step towards widespread civil unrest.

Edited August 24, 2016 by JAG

[sujoop]

During the years when Thaksin was prime minister, the senate became dominated with spouses and relatives of his political party and affiliated party MPs. Since the senate was supposed to be non-political, this packing of the chamber with the spouses of MPs from the ruling party meant that Thaksin’s political machine could override the intent of the constitution for a neutral senate that could check the expected overreach of the elected.
 

Thus in the 2007 constitution following Thaksin's exile, the chamber was changed to a minority appointed Senate whereby 76 Senators were directly elected from the 76 Provinces and Bangkok, while the other 74 were appointed from various sectors by the Senate Selection Committee. In 2013 the upper house passed a bill for amnesty in the middle of the night (primarily designed to free Thaksin from charges and allow him to return). The Senate  which would likely have narrowly passed the bill ultimately rejected it following massive protests.
 

Also in 2013 the Thaksin-backed Govt tried to amend the constitution to return to of a fully elected Senate which again allowed husbands, wives and  relatives of ruling House MP's to become Senators (again effectively removing all impartiality, thus removing the very checks & balances to the governing party controlled house - the very purpose the Senate was meant for).  Further, the Thaksin-backed Puea Thai Govt proposed a bill which would remove the rights of citizens to petition the constitution court and instead all charges against the Govt would have to be lodged firstly to the Govt appointed Attorney General, who would then deem if a charge 'merited' being sent on to the court.
 

Thus boys n girls, this is just a small example of how various Thaksin controlled Govt's have systematically abused, diverted, subjected and corrupted not only the checks and balances of government but the very intent of democracy. This brings us to the current very sad state of affairs (brought upon by Mr Thaksin himself one might argue). As a result, the Senate will now be appointed for a period of 5 years preventing any further ram-rodding through self-serving bills in the wee hours. Meanwhile, the house majority can still choose it's PM and pass bills (whilst being baby-sat which unfortunately has been proven highly necessary).

[Your Thainess]

^Um, whatever. I'll take Thaksin's corruption over the Army's corruption any day. And so would a majority of Thais. 

[robblok]

2 hours ago, JAG said:

I wonder what the reaction, internally and internationally, will be when one party wins a clear majority in a general election, and is refused the post of prime minister.

 

I would venture to suggest that these measures, together with the new style party list provisions, has effectively disenfranchised the voters who have rather awkwardly, repeatedly elected the "wrong people".

 

I realise that it is a foregone conclusion - and another step towards widespread civil unrest.

I have yet to see the PTP win with a clear majority. They always had to form a coalition they never had a clear majority. So I doubt it will happen now. Please show me a PTP or incarnation of with a real 50% or more of the voters. Even YL in the last election did not get more votes then there were YES votes for the new constitution. 

 

Though I agree that its quite likely the PTP will make trouble if something happens they don't agree with. Seen that enough in the past. I do find it a bit too much that a PM should get 75% votes of the MP's 50% should do. 

[billd766]

1 hour ago, Your Thainess said:

^Um, whatever. I'll take Thaksin's corruption over the Army's corruption any day. And so would a majority of Thais. 

 

You might, but like me, you don't have a voice or a vote so it doesn't really matter.

 

As for a majority of Thais, just out of curiosity, what is a majority of Thais?

 

51% or more of the voting population?

 

Neither Thaksin, Samak, Somchai or Yingluck EVER got 51% of the Thai votes. They may have had more votes than the Democrats and won more seats plus the party MP seats, but never did they get more than 50% of the eligible votes.

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, sujoop said:

During the years when Thaksin was prime minister, the senate became dominated with spouses and relatives of his political party and affiliated party MPs. Since the senate was supposed to be non-political, this packing of the chamber with the spouses of MPs from the ruling party meant that Thaksin’s political machine could override the intent of the constitution for a neutral senate that could check the expected overreach of the elected.
 

Thus in the 2007 constitution following Thaksin's exile, the chamber was changed to a minority appointed Senate whereby 76 Senators were directly elected from the 76 Provinces and Bangkok, while the other 74 were appointed from various sectors by the Senate Selection Committee. In 2013 the upper house passed a bill for amnesty in the middle of the night (primarily designed to free Thaksin from charges and allow him to return). The Senate  which would likely have narrowly passed the bill ultimately rejected it following massive protests.
 

Also in 2013 the Thaksin-backed Govt tried to amend the constitution to return to of a fully elected Senate which again allowed husbands, wives and  relatives of ruling House MP's to become Senators (again effectively removing all impartiality, thus removing the very checks & balances to the governing party controlled house - the very purpose the Senate was meant for).  Further, the Thaksin-backed Puea Thai Govt proposed a bill which would remove the rights of citizens to petition the constitution court and instead all charges against the Govt would have to be lodged firstly to the Govt appointed Attorney General, who would then deem if a charge 'merited' being sent on to the court.
 

Thus boys n girls, this is just a small example of how various Thaksin controlled Govt's have systematically abused, diverted, subjected and corrupted not only the checks and balances of government but the very intent of democracy. This brings us to the current very sad state of affairs (brought upon by Mr Thaksin himself one might argue). As a result, the Senate will now be appointed for a period of 5 years preventing any further ram-rodding through self-serving bills in the wee hours. Meanwhile, the house majority can still choose it's PM and pass bills (whilst being baby-sat which unfortunately has been proven highly necessary).

"During the years when Thaksin was prime minister, the senate became dominated with spouses and relatives of his political party and affiliated party MPs."

 

Yes, but the dominance came by winning elections, not from the barrel of a gun.

 

" Since the senate was supposed to be non-political..."

 

Seriously?  An elected body is supposed to be non-political?

 

"Further, the Thaksin-backed Puea Thai Govt proposed a bill which would remove the rights of citizens to petition the constitution court and instead all charges against the Govt would have to be lodged firstly to the Govt appointed Attorney General, who would then deem if a charge 'merited' being sent on to the court."

 

So there remained a mechanism.  What mechanism exists for citizens to petition the junta?

 

" As a result, the Senate will now be appointed for a period of 5 years preventing any further ram-rodding through self-serving bills in the wee hours."

 

No, the ram-rodding of self-serving bills can now be done in broad daylight with objections dealt with by the military.

[sjaak327]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

I have yet to see the PTP win with a clear majority. They always had to form a coalition they never had a clear majority. So I doubt it will happen now. Please show me a PTP or incarnation of with a real 50% or more of the voters. Even YL in the last election did not get more votes then there were YES votes for the new constitution. 

 

Though I agree that its quite likely the PTP will make trouble if something happens they don't agree with. Seen that enough in the past. I do find it a bit too much that a PM should get 75% votes of the MP's 50% should do. 

 

You must be a newbie in Thailand. Both Thaksin in 2005 and Yingluck in 2011 won by a clear majority. Thaksin' party had 375 out of 500 seats, whilst Yingluck's party still had 265, which again is clear majority. Thaksin came close the first time around with 248 seats, but that was indeed not a majority.

 

Again a junta supporter who doesn't understand that when people are offered only two choices (or technically only one), or 40 choices, the chance that those two choices get a shit load of votes is pretty dam high. Stop comparing apples and oranges, not to mention the conditions under which that referendum was conducted, no-one outside of Thailand has fallen for it, they all know it was a sham.

[sjaak327]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

You might, but like me, you don't have a voice or a vote so it doesn't really matter.

 

As for a majority of Thais, just out of curiosity, what is a majority of Thais?

 

51% or more of the voting population?

 

Neither Thaksin, Samak, Somchai or Yingluck EVER got 51% of the Thai votes. They may have had more votes than the Democrats and won more seats plus the party MP seats, but never did they get more than 50% of the eligible votes.

This constitution now has ensured even the Thai electorate doesn't have a voice. Only the real gullible haven't discovered that yet...

 

Oh by the way, Thaksin received 56. 4% of the popular vote in 2005. What percentage did Prayuth get when he became PM ?

Edited August 24, 2016 by sjaak327

[sjaak327]

Oh and to comment on topic. The deadlock is easily achieved, let's just say a party gets 265 seats (out of 500), now in a real democracy, those 265 seats would be enough to form a government and nominate a PM, now that is not the case, as those 250 appointed senators only have to vote against the candidate and they don't even have to have 250 against votes either.

 

 

And indeed Waldroj is right, this is NOT what the people that voted yes on the referendum question have signed up for, not that it really mattered of course, a no vote would have yielded the exact same result in both the approval or rejection of the draf and the question.

 

Who the hell are they trying to kidd here ?

 

edit: 55555 the PM needs 2/3 of the votes even ! So even if a party gets allmost all  votes and has 499 members of the lower house, the senate can still block the PM, as 499 is one short of a 2/3 majority. Now I understand why the senate had to be enlarged  Democracy my ass.

Edited August 24, 2016 by sjaak327

[JAG]

10 hours ago, robblok said:

I have yet to see the PTP win with a clear majority. They always had to form a coalition they never had a clear majority. So I doubt it will happen now. Please show me a PTP or incarnation of with a real 50% or more of the voters. Even YL in the last election did not get more votes then there were YES votes for the new constitution. 

 

Though I agree that its quite likely the PTP will make trouble if something happens they don't agree with. Seen that enough in the past. I do find it a bit too much that a PM should get 75% votes of the MP's 50% should do. 

You said it yourself Robblok - 50% of the MPs should do it. In a parliamentary system  over 50% is a clear majority.
This system is expressly  designed to ignore the wishes of the electorate and to allow the establishment to install  the PM they choose.
If perpetuated it will only lead to one ending.

[baboon]

12 hours ago, sujoop said:

During the years when Thaksin was prime minister, the senate became dominated with spouses and relatives of his political party and affiliated party MPs. Since the senate was supposed to be non-political, this packing of the chamber with the spouses of MPs from the ruling party meant that Thaksin’s political machine could override the intent of the constitution for a neutral senate that could check the expected overreach of the elected.
 

Thus in the 2007 constitution following Thaksin's exile, the chamber was changed to a minority appointed Senate whereby 76 Senators were directly elected from the 76 Provinces and Bangkok, while the other 74 were appointed from various sectors by the Senate Selection Committee. In 2013 the upper house passed a bill for amnesty in the middle of the night (primarily designed to free Thaksin from charges and allow him to return). The Senate  which would likely have narrowly passed the bill ultimately rejected it following massive protests.
 

Also in 2013 the Thaksin-backed Govt tried to amend the constitution to return to of a fully elected Senate which again allowed husbands, wives and  relatives of ruling House MP's to become Senators (again effectively removing all impartiality, thus removing the very checks & balances to the governing party controlled house - the very purpose the Senate was meant for).  Further, the Thaksin-backed Puea Thai Govt proposed a bill which would remove the rights of citizens to petition the constitution court and instead all charges against the Govt would have to be lodged firstly to the Govt appointed Attorney General, who would then deem if a charge 'merited' being sent on to the court.
 

Thus boys n girls, this is just a small example of how various Thaksin controlled Govt's have systematically abused, diverted, subjected and corrupted not only the checks and balances of government but the very intent of democracy. This brings us to the current very sad state of affairs (brought upon by Mr Thaksin himself one might argue). As a result, the Senate will now be appointed for a period of 5 years preventing any further ram-rodding through self-serving bills in the wee hours. Meanwhile, the house majority can still choose it's PM and pass bills (whilst being baby-sat which unfortunately has been proven highly necessary).

Right, own up. Which one of you pulled the string in his back?

[robblok]

9 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

 

You must be a newbie in Thailand. Both Thaksin in 2005 and Yingluck in 2011 won by a clear majority. Thaksin' party had 375 out of 500 seats, whilst Yingluck's party still had 265, which again is clear majority. Thaksin came close the first time around with 248 seats, but that was indeed not a majority.

 

Again a junta supporter who doesn't understand that when people are offered only two choices (or technically only one), or 40 choices, the chance that those two choices get a shit load of votes is pretty dam high. Stop comparing apples and oranges, not to mention the conditions under which that referendum was conducted, no-one outside of Thailand has fallen for it, they all know it was a sham.

I want to see vote percentages.. not seats.. we both know that the winner even without a majority gets extra seats 50. Also they always have to align with other parties. So please give me some links to a over 50% of the votes please. 

[robblok]

11 minutes ago, JAG said:

You said it yourself Robblok - 50% of the MPs should do it. In a parliamentary system  over 50% is a clear majority.
This system is expressly  designed to ignore the wishes of the electorate and to allow the establishment to install  the PM they choose.
If perpetuated it will only lead to one ending.

 

I agree it should be 50% no argument there. 

[Srikcir]

There are obviusly a lot of options available under the unendorsed 2016 draft constitution for the nomination and selection of the PM. But remember that until the NCPO approves the PM cabinet that would trigger dissolution of the NCPO, the NCPO has constitutional authority under Article 44 to effect whatever process it deems necessary to secure national unity and peace.

[billd766]

11 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

This constitution now has ensured even the Thai electorate doesn't have a voice. Only the real gullible haven't discovered that yet...

 

Oh by the way, Thaksin received 56. 4% of the popular vote in 2005. What percentage did Prayuth get when he became PM ?

 

I have been looking at the results of the 2005 election and you are correct in the percentage of votes and seats that he won, however I cannot find the number of votes actually cast for each party. The closest I can get is from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2005

This gives an electoral turnout of 72% which is high for a general election anywhere in the world. There were 400 contested seats and 100 party list seats available,

 

It seems as though between 2001 and 2005 TRT absorbed 3 smaller political parties.

 

IF a free and fair election election were held say at the end of the year I have no idea of how many parties would stand nor who they would be.

 

The Democrats for sure, a renamed Thaksin party for sure, Probably Banharn's party under whatever name they use, Newin Chidchob's party probably but whose side they would choose is anybodies guess and a collection of smaller fringe parties.

 

The Democrats under Abhisit stand little or no chance and would probably have a better chance if they had a complete clear out.

 

Thaksin is running out of family members that he can trust. He might try for Sudarat Keyuraphan if she is willing but she may not be so easy to control as family and whilst she was tainted in the TRT scandal that was years ago.

 

As for the other parties the days of the dinosaurs have gone (except in the Democrats) and I can't put names to any possible leaders.

 

Chuwit is still in jail.

 

The long expected event still hasn't happened, which must also be giving the PM problems on top of everything else.

 

IMHO Thai politics will be a mess for the next 5 to 10 years unless a strong and honest political leader comes along very soon, but I see no signs of that anywhere as no strong and honest man (dare I say sane as well) would want to even try to sort this mess out.

 

IMHO there would be no overall winner and the horse trading would then start bearing in mind under the new rules there is only 30 days to do it in.

[billd766]

3 hours ago, baboon said:

Right, own up. Which one of you pulled the string in his back?

 

Not me.

[sjaak327]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

I want to see vote percentages.. not seats.. we both know that the winner even without a majority gets extra seats 50. Also they always have to align with other parties. So please give me some links to a over 50% of the votes please. 

What you want is pretty inconsequential. The system in Thailand is a mixed system, party list and constituency. The number of seats determines whether one can form a government. You claimed they never had a clear majority, they most certainly did, as a majority in the lower house is 256. On two occasions they did reach that number. By the way Thaksin got 56.4% of the votes in 2005. Trying to downplay their electoral success is a lost cause. And the elections they did win, were free and fair,  as opposed to the past referendum, which offered no choice at all..

 

 

Edited August 25, 2016 by sjaak327

[NongKhaiKid]

The Senate will only nominate in the event of a deadlock,   yes of course but they forget to add   '  honestly  '   to make it certain.

[sjaak327]

9 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

I have been looking at the results of the 2005 election and you are correct in the percentage of votes and seats that he won, however I cannot find the number of votes actually cast for each party. The closest I can get is from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2005

This gives an electoral turnout of 72% which is high for a general election anywhere in the world. There were 400 contested seats and 100 party list seats available,

 

It seems as though between 2001 and 2005 TRT absorbed 3 smaller political parties.

 

IF a free and fair election election were held say at the end of the year I have no idea of how many parties would stand nor who they would be.

 

The Democrats for sure, a renamed Thaksin party for sure, Probably Banharn's party under whatever name they use, Newin Chidchob's party probably but whose side they would choose is anybodies guess and a collection of smaller fringe parties.

 

The Democrats under Abhisit stand little or no chance and would probably have a better chance if they had a complete clear out.

 

Thaksin is running out of family members that he can trust. He might try for Sudarat Keyuraphan if she is willing but she may not be so easy to control as family and whilst she was tainted in the TRT scandal that was years ago.

 

As for the other parties the days of the dinosaurs have gone (except in the Democrats) and I can't put names to any possible leaders.

 

Chuwit is still in jail.

 

The long expected event still hasn't happened, which must also be giving the PM problems on top of everything else.

 

IMHO Thai politics will be a mess for the next 5 to 10 years unless a strong and honest political leader comes along very soon, but I see no signs of that anywhere as no strong and honest man (dare I say sane as well) would want to even try to sort this mess out.

 

IMHO there would be no overall winner and the horse trading would then start bearing in mind under the new rules there is only 30 days to do it in.

 

That wikipedia article talks about 56.4% on the party list, which is a clear majority in voter turnout. Yingluck achieved 48.4% in 2011, just shy of that majority. She did however got a majority in seats (265), and that is effectively what matters. The argument that she didn't run a majority government is laughable, getting a certain % of voter turnout is not what determines the majority in Thailand's system, as the constituency seats is winner takes all. By the way Yingluck's coalition government, did reach over 50% of voters, so that government did reach the majority in seats (300) and also on popular vote.

 

I believe the elections are scheduled for end of next year. The trouble is those elections don't matter, as the senate has far reaching powers (not just to co-elect a PM). So anything not deemed acceptable will be shot down by the fully appointed senate. And the senate also has the power to censure the government so effectively they could send them packing.

 

Now we already know that even the democrats have opposed this charter, so I believe we will see attempts to amend it, and they will find a way to amend it sooner or later. let's see if a coup is forthcoming if that happens. Dying to hear the explanation then..

[JAG]

18 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

 

That wikipedia article talks about 56.4% on the party list, which is a clear majority in voter turnout. Yingluck achieved 48.4% in 2011, just shy of that majority. She did however got a majority in seats (265), and that is effectively what matters. The argument that she didn't run a majority government is laughable, getting a certain % of voter turnout is not what determines the majority in Thailand's system, as the constituency seats is winner takes all. By the way Yingluck's coalition government, did reach over 50% of voters, so that government did reach the majority in seats (300) and also on popular vote.

 

I believe the elections are scheduled for end of next year. The trouble is those elections don't matter, as the senate has far reaching powers (not just to co-elect a PM). So anything not deemed acceptable will be shot down by the fully appointed senate. And the senate also has the power to censure the government so effectively they could send them packing.

 

Now we already know that even the democrats have opposed this charter, so I believe we will see attempts to amend it, and they will find a way to amend it sooner or later. let's see if a coup is forthcoming if that happens. Dying to hear the explanation then..

"Dying to hear the explanation then" is an unfortunate expression in this context - continued suppression and denial of the electorates choice, which is the aim of this constitution will probably lead to quite a lot of dieing!