Seemingly a united front, the ombudsmen have started to address the court pertaining to a constitutional query. The issue at hand is the prevention of Pita Limjaroenrat, the Move Forward Party leader, from being presented as a PM candidate once more in the recent Wednesday session, dated July 19. The decision instigated from the parliamentarians has sparked a thorough debate across the senate.
In accordance with the outgoing coalition associates, senators and members of parliament declared that the PM election falls under Article 41 of the parliamentary meeting regulation as a categorical mandate. This specific Article 41 maintains a particular stance, it specifies that a motion that has been dismissed by the Parliament cannot be reintroduced for debate in the ongoing session unless certain circumstances have altered, a decision which only lies within the jurisdiction of the meeting chair.
As the decision was presented by the ombudsmen, Senator Somchai Sawaengkarn, who is also an advisor to the Senate’s whips, voiced his opinion on the matter. He professed that the senators have no opposition if the country’s 30th prime minister voting was subjected to a delay. Defending the potential postponement, Somchai further goes on to highlight that House Speaker Wan Muhamad Noor Matha holds full authority in deciding this possible shift in the voting session. He can declare his verdict during the pre-meeting session on the forthcoming Tuesday, dated July 26.
Broadening his speculations, Somchai predicts that the alternate dates in consideration for the voting could possibly fall on August 3 or later, probably after the Constitutional Court has put forth its verdict on the ombudsmen’s appeal. He logically reasons that scheduling the vote on the original date of July 27 might create hindrances for members of the parliament and senators. As they would need to participate in commemorative events for His Majesty the King’s birthday on July 28 in their respective provinces, the feasibility of the original date seems less promising.
Throwing light on another important consideration, Somchai brought up that July 28, being a national holiday, is another reason to reconsider the original date. With the hopeful anticipation that the Constitutional Court accepts the ombudsmen’s appeal within the following week, Somchai feels the issue could possibly take up to one month to reach a firm resolution.
Be First to Comment