More than three weeks after the December 23 general election, the new House of Representatives is still unable to hold its inaugural meeting because of the lack of a quorum. The Constitution stipulates that the House must hold its first meeting within 30 days of the election. In the event that a full House of 480 MPs is unable to have its first sitting by that time, at least 95 per cent of the House membership, or 456 MPs, shall be considered a quorum. This is designed to prevent a power vacuum and any damaging effects during the transition.

The quorum provision also gives the Election Commission time to investigate alleged poll fraud and to decide whether to invalidate poll outcomes in constituencies where dishonest and illegal practices are believed to have taken place.

Even so, there is still a big question as to whether the House will open by next Tuesday (January 22), when the 30-day limit is up, as required by the Constitution.

The problem is that the EC has so far invalidated 28 poll winners. Of these, seven were given a red card and lost their right to compete in repeat by-elections, while those who got a yellow card are allowed to run again in a new round of voting.

A total of 431 MPs-elect have been confirmed by the EC. That number is 25 short of the minimum to form a quorum. Meanwhile, the EC has yet to look into poll fraud complaints against 24 other winning candidates.

By all appearances, it will be difficult for the new House to open for business within the 30-day limit. There will be legal debate regarding what must be done and who must take responsibility for the delay.

Be that as it may, the EC - whose job it is to ensure free and fair elections - must do the right thing, which is its utmost to screen out as many cheating candidates as possible, even if that means the new House is declared open later rather than sooner. Any delay in opening of the House will also affect the formation of the new civilian government.

It all began with poll outcomes that represented no clear mandate for either the pro-Thaksin People Power Party or the Democrat Party. A divided nation is split right down the middle, with the PPP garnering enthusiastic support from the rural masses and the Democrats receiving the strong backing from the urban middle class.

Alleged widespread vote-buying and other poll fraud also complicated the matter.

But the number of red and yellow cards to be handed out by the EC will have little impact on the formidable six-party alliance led by the PPP, which looks set to form a coalition government with an ample majority in the House of Representatives.

However, the numerical superiority of the PPP-led alliance can still be scuttled by the ongoing legal challenge against the PPP in a landmark case being considered by the Supreme Court. The highest court has been asked by former Democrat candidate Chaiwat Sinsuwong to rule on whether the PPP served as a nominee of deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his disbanded Thai Rak Thai Party.

The complainant pointed out that the PPP leader himself admitted publicly that he was a nominee of Thaksin and that the party had contested last month's election on behalf of the former PM, who, along with 110 other Thai Rak Thai executives, was banned from politics for five years by the Constitution Tribunal.

In so doing, Chaiwat asserted that the move was in breach of the spirit of the law barring politicians guilty of poll fraud from running as election candidates.

A court ruling on this case could either lead to possible dissolution of the PPP, or clear the way for the pro-Thaksin party to take over power.

Whichever way the court's decision swings, the Thai people must accept it as an opportunity to put divisive politics behind them and a starting point for national reconciliation leading to the restoration of full democracy.