CDC agrees only House members are entitled to nominate prime minister

[webfact]

CDC agrees only House members are entitled to nominate prime minister

 

 

BANGKOK: -- The National Legislative Assembly was dealt a big blow when the Constitution Drafting Committee rejected the suggestion that senators are entitled to nominate candidates for the next prime minister in case the House fails to select the prime minister from its list of candidates.

 

The CDC agreed at a meeting on Wednesday to amend Section 272 of the draft constitution to the effect that, during the first five years after the election, the joint session of the House and the Senate will select the prime minister and only House members are entitled to nominate a candidate for the premiership post with the nomination to be endorsed by one-tenths of the members of the House.

 

The candidate to be nominated must come from the lists of parties which must win at least five percent of the House seats. Selection of the prime minister must be done in open vote and over half of the votes of members of the two chambers are needed for the selection.

 

In case the prime minister cannot be selected from the party lists, at least half of the members of the House can nominate a new prime minister for submission to the parliament president who will seek approval from the parliament. At least two-thirds of the votes of the two chambers are required to endorse the prime minister.

 

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/cdc-agrees-house-members-entitled-nominate-prime-minister/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2016-08-25

[smedly]

wow try breaking that one down to make any sense, read it 3 times and still couldn't

[BigBadGeordie]

1 hour ago, smedly said:

wow try breaking that one down to make any sense, read it 3 times and still couldn't

Seems pretty simple to me.

[aussieinthailand]

1 hour ago, smedly said:

wow try breaking that one down to make any sense, read it 3 times and still couldn't

The CDC agreed to Amending the Draft constitution section 272.  This stuff should have been sorted out well before the draft constitution was voted on...  But some people supported this lot running the show.

 

[MaxLee]

Bye bye Election collections, you were never meant to happen anymore.

[halloween]

26 minutes ago, aussieinthailand said:

The CDC agreed to Amending the Draft constitution section 272.  This stuff should have been sorted out well before the draft constitution was voted on...  But some people supported this lot running the show.

 

The referendum had an additional question. Do you know what the additional question was?

[aussieinthailand]

7 minutes ago, halloween said:

The referendum had an additional question. Do you know what the additional question was?

I don't think there's any thing one could miss understand in my post, that "question" is what the OP and the CDC amending the draft 272 is about,  but ok just for you I'll try typing small words so you can follow ok

The rules regarding who has the right to vote and who has not got  the right to vote on a PM under certain (that means special) conditions should have been sorted out before the draft and it "question" was voted on.  

Then I said but some people supported (that means to like them) this lot running the show.

[halloween]

1 minute ago, aussieinthailand said:

I don't think there's any thing one could miss understand in my post, that "question" is what the OP and the CDC amending the draft 272 is about,  but ok just for you I'll try typing small words so you can follow ok

The rules regarding who has the right to vote and who has not got  the right to vote on a PM under certain (that means special) conditions should have been sorted out before the draft and it "question" was voted on.  

Then I said but some people supported (that means to like them) this lot running the show.

It was a controversial issue that was decided by the people with the extra question. Isn't that the democratic method?

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, BigBadGeordie said:

Seems pretty simple to me.

Even more simple if the Senate and House deadlock on selection of the PM. Then the Constitutional Court can declare an unresolvable crisis, unilaterally nominate and select a PM.

[aussieinthailand]

2 minutes ago, halloween said:

It was a controversial issue that was decided by the people with the extra question. Isn't that the democratic method?

Man,  comprehension seems to be an issue,  ok I'll have one last crack at explaining  my post for you.

It's very simple and not a difficult thing to understand, ( The additional question) the rules on whom and whom may not vote if the question was approved should have been sorted out before the sham, and question was put to a vote.

 

So mate you ok now?   your boo-boo all better.

 

 

 

[halloween]

1 minute ago, Srikcir said:

Even more simple if the Senate and House deadlock on selection of the PM. Then the Constitutional Court can declare an unresolvable crisis, unilaterally nominate and select a PM.

The ultimate step in a long process, which can be prevented at any time by genuine attempts to resolve differences, even if some people prefer to play it up as the preferred option.

[Plutojames88]

19 minutes ago, halloween said:

It was a controversial issue that was decided by the people with the extra question. Isn't that the democratic method?

""The people ..?"" .what an insidious comment !!!

..ignoring ...""the people's oppression (on even having an opinion contrary .....gaol etc....the people indeed.) 

 

What 61% ( if you trust these goons results ) out of the percentage that voted.

 

 

Many unaware of the literature contained and rigged system?

 

"The people."

 

Straight out of the elitist propaganda hand book .

Maybe you should beware the people when they have had enough?

[halloween]

3 minutes ago, aussieinthailand said:

Man,  comprehension seems to be an issue,  ok I'll have one last crack at explaining  my post for you.

It's very simple and not a difficult thing to understand, ( The additional question) the rules on whom and whom may not vote if the question was approved should have been sorted out before the sham, and question was put to a vote.

 

So mate you ok now?   your boo-boo all better.

 

 

 

 

Why? Because YOU said so? Give me one valid reason why a controversial issue should be included or excluded from a charter by fiat rather than being put to a vote by the people.

[Plutojames88]

7 minutes ago, aussieinthailand said:

Man,  comprehension seems to be an issue,  ok I'll have one last crack at explaining  my post for you.

It's very simple and not a difficult thing to understand, ( The additional question) the rules on whom and whom may not vote if the question was approved should have been sorted out before the sham, and question was put to a vote.

 

So mate you ok now?   your boo-boo all better.

 

 

 

Don't waste your breathe ....some of these guys are Thais posing as westerners .

Some are just small and shallow

[halloween]

2 minutes ago, Plutojames88 said:

Don't waste your breathe ....some of these guys are Thais posing as westerners .

Some are just small and shallow

Shallow as opposed to thick?

[Plutojames88]

It won't get that far anyway...

 

It's clear what's in the wind now .

 

These people will be long gone in 20 months time

[halloween]

7 minutes ago, Plutojames88 said:

""The people ..?"" .what an insidious comment !!!

..ignoring ...""the people's oppression (on even having an opinion contrary .....gaol etc....the people indeed.) 

 

What 61% ( if you trust these goons results ) out of the percentage that voted.

 

 

Many unaware of the literature contained and rigged system?

 

"The people."

 

Straight out of the elitist propaganda hand book .

Maybe you should beware the people when they have had enough?

"The people" is insidious?  Not only do you have the wrong percentage (58% voted for senate inclusion in the PM vote) you obfuscate what was a quite simple question, democratically approved in a vote open to all.

And now the more controversial suggestion of senate nomination has been rejected. I guess the uprising has been delayed again.

[baboon]

14 minutes ago, halloween said:

 

Why? Because YOU said so? Give me one valid reason why a controversial issue should be included or excluded from a charter by fiat rather than being put to a vote by the people.

Because it is a controversial issue?

[halloween]

1 minute ago, baboon said:

Because it is a controversial issue?

Yeah, a particularly intelligent response to ' Give me one valid reason why a controversial issue should be included or excluded from a charter by fiat rather than being put to a vote by the people. '

[Plutojames88]

12 minutes ago, halloween said:

"The people" is insidious?  Not only do you have the wrong percentage (58% voted for senate inclusion in the PM vote) you obfuscate what was a quite simple question, democratically approved in a vote open to all.

And now the more controversial suggestion of senate nomination has been rejected. I guess the uprising has been delayed again.

Open to all?

 

Stooping a bit low aint we? 

People were gaoled opposing the Yes vote.

 

It was at best a shanghai  bully boy junta push through .

 

Your a real piece of work claiming these criminals have a mandate

Edited August 25, 2016 by Plutojames88

[aussieinthailand]

7 minutes ago, halloween said:

 

Why? Because YOU said so? Give me one valid reason why a controversial issue should be included or excluded from a charter by fiat rather than being put to a vote by the people.

Hooly freecking dooly man.  lord give me strength.

I have not said weather the question should or should not have been put to the vote,  That is not the issue in the OP nor in my post...

THE OP is about the CDC amending the draft because the rule on who can and who can not vote for the PM in a dead lock situation should have been put in place before the tacked on question was voted on...   NOT the additional question it's self that was tacked on to the referendum and voted yes to by a very very small part of eligible voters.

[baboon]

6 minutes ago, halloween said:

Yeah, a particularly intelligent response to ' Give me one valid reason why a controversial issue should be included or excluded from a charter by fiat rather than being put to a vote by the people. '

Indeed it was. This is why I am the summit of human thought.

[halloween]

2 minutes ago, aussieinthailand said:

Hooly freecking dooly man.  lord give me strength.

I have not said weather the question should or should not have been put to the vote,  That is not the issue in the OP nor in my post...

THE OP is about the CDC amending the draft because the rule on who can and who can not vote for the PM in a dead lock situation should have been put in place before the tacked on question was voted on...   NOT the additional question it's self that was tacked on to the referendum and voted yes to by a very very small part of eligible voters.

Hooly freecking dooly man.  lord give me strength.  Try to understand there is a HUGE difference between "VOTE" and "NOMINATE". When you work out the difference and learn how to express that difference clearly, re-read your own posts.

[smutcakes]

1 minute ago, halloween said:

Hooly freecking dooly man.  lord give me strength.  Try to understand there is a HUGE difference between "VOTE" and "NOMINATE". When you work out the difference and learn how to express that difference clearly, re-read your own posts.

 

Halloween, you are a switched on guy. You wont admit it, even though you know its true, that despite this for the time being being rejected, you, i and anyone can clearly see that it makes little difference as the whole parlimentary system has been amended so that it is a nigh on certainty that there will not be an agreement on a PM and hence the Senate will be involved, and with their buddies from the Democrats and other swayable smaller parties it will be a non elected PM.

[Plutojames88]

If you think the Thai population are going to tolerate the elites much longer ....then all this matters.

I see no mandate to an already treasonable gang of thugs holding a nation ransom by gun.

 

This won't fly in the face of international opinion.

And the country is sliding with declining human rights , and tensions growing.

 

 

I think these military junta men posing as legitimate government will be shot by the election date....or victim to uprising and torn to pieces first.

[aussieinthailand]

2 minutes ago, halloween said:

Hooly freecking dooly man.  lord give me strength.  Try to understand there is a HUGE difference between "VOTE" and "NOMINATE". When you work out the difference and learn how to express that difference clearly, re-read your own posts.

Not the problem man, the problem is you not understanding my very simple point,  THAT the rule on who can and who can not vote in that situation SOULD HAVE BEEN IN PLACE BEFORE AND NOT AFTER THE QUESTION WAS PUT TO THE PEOPLE.........!  CRIKEY.

[halloween]

5 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

Halloween, you are a switched on guy. You wont admit it, even though you know its true, that despite this for the time being being rejected, you, i and anyone can clearly see that it makes little difference as the whole parlimentary system has been amended so that it is a nigh on certainty that there will not be an agreement on a PM and hence the Senate will be involved, and with their buddies from the Democrats and other swayable smaller parties it will be a non elected PM.

In your rush, did you neglect to read the OP.

"In case the prime minister cannot be selected from the party lists, at least half of the members of the House can nominate a new prime minister for submission to the parliament president who will seek approval from the parliament. At least two-thirds of the votes of the two chambers are required to endorse the prime minister."

You have a problem with that resolution method?

[halloween]

3 minutes ago, aussieinthailand said:

Not the problem man, the problem is you not understanding my very simple point,  THAT the rule on who can and who can not vote in that situation SOULD HAVE BEEN IN PLACE BEFORE AND NOT AFTER THE QUESTION WAS PUT TO THE PEOPLE.........!  CRIKEY.

Not the problem man, the problem is you not understanding the very simple point,  the difference between vote and nominate. Nominate was the recent decision, vote was the extra question.

Have another go, or take a hike, I really don't care either way.

[aussieinthailand]

Just now, halloween said:

Not the problem man, the problem is you not understanding the very simple point,  the difference between vote and nominate. Nominate was the recent decision, vote was the extra question.

Have another go, or take a hike, I really don't care either way.

OK you win, my bad,  You see I can admit when I make a mistake and acknowledge it when many here will run and hide.

Now remove the word "vote" and replace it with the word "nominate".

Also a person can vote for a person for a position as to they can nominate a person for a position,  same result with numbers different term.

My point was the rules should have been in place before the whole sham was put too the people.

[halloween]

3 minutes ago, aussieinthailand said:

OK you win, my bad,  You see I can admit when I make a mistake and acknowledge it when many here will run and hide.

Now remove the word "vote" and replace it with the word "nominate".

Also a person can vote for a person for a position as to they can nominate a person for a position,  same result with numbers different term.

My point was the rules should have been in place before the whole sham was put too the people.

You can't vote for your preferred candidate if you weren't able to nominate him, can you?

The whole question has been resolved in what I consider the most democratic option, where only the elected members of the house can nominate a PM, so what's the problem?

You would have preferred that the matter was resolved on the hypothetical assumption the extra question would be approved. That is not how things are done.