None of the candidates being touted for the top job - Somkid Jatusripitak, Bhokin Bhalakula, Sudarat Keyuraphan or Pongthep Thepkanchana - can become prime minister until Parliament convenes and a vote can be taken.

The question is, whether Parliament can open within 30 days of the April 2 election, as stipulated by the Constitution.

Apart from the swathe of legal and constitutional problems arising from the election, there is also the question of the legitimacy of many MPs who claim to have won, but were out-voted by dissenting "no votes".

The first legal question is that for Parliament to open it must have all 500 MPs - 400 elected by direct voting and 100 from party lists. According to Article 159 of the Constitution, Parliament must convene its first session 30 days after the election, and Article 161 states that only His Majesty the King, who is Head of State, can summon Parliament for its opening.

It seems that the constitutional requirement for all 500 MPs to be present for Parliament to open will not be met. At least one chair will be empty. Dr Premsak Phiayura, a former member of Thai Rak Thai's 100-strong party list quit just before the election to join the monkhood. The Constitution says only those parties that win at least 5 per cent of the popular vote can claim a share of the party list pie. On April 2 Thai Rak Thai was the only party to win more than 5 per cent, so it should provide all 100 party list MPs. But its list now has only 99 names and, if the law is interpreted strictly, it is impossible for the Parliament to open because of Premsak's absence.

Thai Rak Thai's legal and constitutional experts, particularly Bhokin, have hinted that the law must be interpreted in such a way that a deadlock can be resolved, to get the country moving along. Bhokin has made it clear that even though there may not be 500 MPs, there will be no problem for Parliament to open its first session.

Another legal problem is that candidates in 36 constituencies in 16 provinces failed to get 20 per cent of eligible votes, so re-elections must be held.

It is not certain whether another election on April 23 will produce MPs in those 36 constituencies. The Election Commission has opened the field to candidates from all parties, but the Democrat Party is crying foul because it deems the move illegal.

Then there is the equally important question of the legitimacy of the new Parliament, because it comes from an abnormal process.

First, Parliament should not have been dissolved because Thaksin did so simply to avoid answering questions about his family's tax-free sale of Shin Corp to Temasek of Singapore.

Second, the election was held 37 days after the announcement of the House dissolution and the opposition parties did not have time to prepare. The Constitution allows 60 days after a House dissolution for an election to be held.

Third, more than 100 Thai Rak Thai candidates claim to have won the election with fewer votes than the "no-votes" cast by protestors who were saying, presumably, that they didn't want to be represented by Thai Rak Thai. In Bangkok's 36 constituencies, 26 Thai Rak Thai candidates were outvoted by the protest votes. Do they have the legitimacy to represent their constituencies?

Fourth, Parliament will look like a joke. There will be only Thai Rak Thai MPs, except for one MP from the Debt Moratorium Party who sneaked in with fewer than 4,000 votes in Nakhon Si Thammarat. The new Parliament will not have an opposition.

Somroutai Sapsomboon

The Nation