slimdog

I posted this comment in another thread however I am of the opinion that after reading the post Hammered made I should post it here.

Possibly it would be a big step forward if the bloody ridiculous self protective rule regarding the necessity of Bachelors degree (in any subject) was removed as a pre-requisite for being able to stand for election and to be able to enter parliament in the event of being elected,

A wonderful example of a piece of legislation designed to protect the more well to do in exercising their power over the less well to do.

The requirement for a bachelor degree to be a candidate in a General Election has already been removed.

The only individuals who are required to have a minimum bachelor degree are:

• Cabinet Members
  
• Senators
  

The winner with the plurality is offered the opportunity to build a coalition to form a majority.

So a minority government could be in power?

Whilst in theory any party can attempt to form a Government through a coalition, providing that it can obtain more than half of the current members of parliament, one of the main issues that comes into play when forming a Government is section 177 of the Constitution.

This is a ruling which basically disallows Cabinet Members who are members of Parliament from voting in either a censure motion or the annual budget.

With 36 Cabinet Ministers, this means that a Government needs in theory at least 277* seats (241 + 36) as many motions require a vote of not less than half the number of Members of Parliament (480).

After the last General election, the PPP had a total of 233 Members of Parliament, which would have meant that a Democrat led Government at that time would only be able to gain a maximum of 247 Members.

For anyone interested, the last three Prime Minister were voted in by the following:

Samak = 310 votes

Somchai = 298 votes

Abhisit = 235 votes **

* The total numer of Cabinet Ministers is 36, however only 22 are Members of Parliament.

** The total number of MP's at the time was only 437 as 43 had recently been banned by the Constitutional Court.

The first thing to understand is that Thailand does not have an actual sugar shortage. This year Thailand will produce approx 7 million tonnes of sugar, whereas the actual amount needed for domestic use is only approx 2 million tonnes.

The Governement has allocated 2 million tonnes for the domestic market throught the Department of Internal Trade, and 5 million tonnes for the export market through the Department of Commerce.

The reason that there is a domestic supply shortage is because of the difference in price between the domestic price and the export price.

Historically, export prices have always been slightly lower than the domestic price. Therefore the very big local food manufacturers have always bought their supplies from the export quota.

This year these same manufacturers have purchased their supplies from the domestic quota because it is cheaper, therefore the Department of Internal Trade is suffering a shortage.

The Department of Commerce has plenty of sugar, but for various reasons, the amount of sugar on the world market is lower this year, therefore, there is a very big demand. Companies which have been allocated an export quota are naturally reluctant to divert some of their sugar to the cheaper domestic market.

Hence the headlines of Sugar Shortages...

What am I missing

The seized some 76 billion worth of assets

Did they not put a hold on all the bank accounts?

If they did, why would they have then removed

the hold until they calculated how how the seized total

value will be collected?

The first thing to remember is that not all bank accounts were frozen. The Asset Examination Committee (AEC) only had authority to seize assets which were directly linked to the Shin Corp sale (approx 73 billion baht*). Accounts which had no connection with the sale were left untouched.

As there was a long period of time between the sale and the asset being frozen, money from the sale was diverted to a number of different companies, individuals, charities and lawyers. Some of the money went directly into bank accounts, some into stocks, some into unit trusts and some into land.

By the time the money was frozen only about 71 billion baht was still in Thailand, as 2 billion baht had been legally transfered to the U.K**

This 70,986,126,023.48 baht was split between 23 separate entities and involved in excess of 100 bank accounts. (+ Cashier cheques, land deeds, unit trusts and stocks). All were frozen.

When the Supreme Court issued its ruling to seize 48,315,995,897.23 baht it specified 35 accounts which would be seized.

The accounts were in the names of:

Pangthongthae Shinawatra: 23,529,837,029.08 baht (7 accounts seized)

Pingthongtha Shinawatra: 17,132,675,411.57 baht (7 accounts seized)

Pojaman Shinawatra: 1,451,479,330.78 baht (11 accounts seized)

Thaksin Shinawatra: 548,480,533.78 baht (2 accounts seized)

Yingluk Shinawatra: 133,502,451.00 baht (2 accounts seized)

Bhannawat Damapong: 5,520,021,142.02 baht (6 accounts seized)

The problem for the Finance Minister is that nearly all of the proceeds from the Shin Corp sale in the names of Pangthongthae and Pingthongtha have been seized. (Pangthongthae Shinawatra was left approx 84 million baht in various assets). As a result of this, they probably have insufficient funds to pay the 12 billion baht tax bill from the sale (currently under appeal).

What appears to be happening, is that accounts which were never frozen, (They had nothing to do with the shin corp sale) are now being drained, and the money is going into purchasing various stocks & shares. Unless the revenue department freezes these accounts, then it is totally legal.

* The asset seizure case involved the total amount from the Shin Corp sale + all dividends received between 2001 - 2006

** If memory serves me correctly, 2 billion baht was transfered to "Shinawatra family assets Ltd" which is registered in the U.K.

The real issue is that the Democrats suspected Speaker Chai Chidchob's thinly veiled attempt to bring the draft constitution for consideration by both Senators and MP's. Why would both houses need to be convened together, if not to consider major agenda like draft constitution.

The fact remains, that in the next few days, The Democrats are going to be begging Chai to hold a Joint Sitting of Parliament.

If they fail, then at the ASEAN meeting next week, Thailand will remain the only country who has not signed the Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateralisation Agreement (CMIM), even after giving its word that it would do so.

Whether they get there request, will be totally up to Chai. He has technically already given the Government an allocation of time for this bill, but they boycotted the session...

If a person has been convicted of a crime in The Court of 1st Instance (Kwang Court), then they have two options:

Appeal of Sentence

This is unlimited. It means that the defendant accepts the judgement of the court, but is appealling against the sentence imposed.

It should be noted that as well as reducing a sentence or fine, it is within the courts power to also increase a sentence or fine, on the provision that it is still within the sentencing guidelines.

Appeal of Fact

This is limited. It means that the defendant disagrees with the judgement. The limits are:

No term of imprisonment has been given (even suspended)

A fine has been imposed of less than 1000 baht

It should be noted that although there are limits to an appeal of Fact; If one of the judges is of the opinion that an appeal maybe in the public interest, even if it is outside the limits, then an appeal will be allowed.

Anyway, the next government will be a coalition of many parties again.

One thing to remember.

Under the present Constitutional Organic laws, No political parties are allowed to merge except after the house has been dissolved.

There has been talk about some of the small/medium sized parties joining together, in particular Social Action, Ruam Jai Thai, Rassadorn, Puea Pandin and possibly Pracharaj. Combined these parties are far larger than both Chart Thai or Bhum Jai Thai, yet they have considerably less influence.

So it is possible that in the next election the medium sized parties, who will ultimately decide who is the Government, will only consist of Chart Thai Pattana, Bhum Jai Thai, and one other.

If this does happen, then the next Coalitition Government will Consist of only 2-4 parties rather than 7 we have at present.

On the premise that the house goes to the full term, then elections are likely to be held on Sunday 19th February 2012, or 59 days after the house has completed its full term.

The term of office in Thailand is 4 years, and starts on the day of the election. At the end of the term, a Royal Decree comes into effect, dissolving the house, with an election date set between 45 - 60 days later.

All Thai politians give out largesse to electors in a bid to gain popularity but whether those people vote for them nobody knows as you can't look over their shoulder when they vote.

Yes you can. You can arrange the polling booths in such as way as to see who votes for whom. It's been done in Thai elections recently, and for a well-defined reason: to see whether voters voted the way they were paid to vote. ....and/or to ensure those same voters knew their vote wasn't secret - in order to add to the pressure to vote the way the TRT/PPP/PT pu yai ban required they vote.

You must think that Thai election officials and Thai Party Agents are very, very, very stupid people. Do you not think that they would not spot something a ten year old would point out.

This is why the WHOLE EC was jailed for screwing up the 2006 snap election.

They changed the polling booth positions so that Thaksins side could verify the votes cast.

Out of the two photo's, one was taken in April 2006 and the other December 2007. One was deemed legal, one illegal. Guess which ?

If I understand correctly, for the red shirts to win, they require two things to happen; New elections and the current conviction to be quashed.

For the first, there are a number of possibilities:

Protestors force the Prime Minister to dissolve parliament.

The Speaker of the House calls on the Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament.

Opposition wins a vote of no-confidence and dissolves parliament.

The number of members of Parliament drops below the 95% lower limit.

The first is highly unlikely.

The second is a possibility. To avoid this the Prime Minister will have to guarantee that no further house sittings are ever cancelled due to a lack of a quarom. Today, must be the first time ever that a Government has ever boycotted a Parliament session which was due to debate a Government sponsored bill...

The third will require the support of at least 2 of the mid sized parties, a possibility but not likely, as it will accomplish nothing in regards to solving any of the current problems.

The last is questionable. The Constitution does state that a minimum of 95% of seats must be taken, for the House of Representatives, to be formed. It would be upto the Constitutional Court to decide whether dropping below this amount would constitute a lack of quorum. In my opinon it would also set a very dangerous precident.

For the Second, there are also a number of possibilities.

A Royal pardon

A Pardon granted by Parliament

A change in the law.

The first is possible, but highly unlikely

The second is also possible, but would need support from both houses. Some form of guarantee would also be absolutely required, but maybe a little too controversial though.

The third is an interesting possibility. Section 100 of the Counter Corruption Act is poorly written, to the extent that from a technical point, even having a phone line or electric supply could be construed as being in violation of the Conflict of Interest law.

A change to Section 122 of the NCCC Act (The section which provides for punishment) to include that a violation of Section 100 would only be punishable if either sections 152 or 157 of the criminal code (The standard charges when used for any acts of corruption) were also violated, would possibly be sufficient for Penal Code, Chapter 2, Section 2 to be valid. This states that if someone is sentenced for a crime where the law has changed to the extent that the person could no longer be punished, then the original verdict is invalid.

There was a lack of a certain decree to allow the acceptance of that election in 2006, as well, if I recall correctly.

The royal decree which dissolved parliament was signed on the 2nd March 2006.

The Constitutional Court, in it's ruling on May 9th 2006 nullified the election of April 2nd 2006, and whilst it criticised the time period allowed for the election as being unfair, it upheld the Royal Decree.

In it's ruling, the Constitutional Court stated that a new election would have to take place, and an additional Royal decree would be required, but this would be classified as an amendment to the original. As such the Cabinet in place at the time of the original decree being issued had to, by law remain in place, and act as the outgoing Government. No new Cabinet members were allowed to be appointed.

Officially, Thaksin Shinawatra remained the Prime Minister of Thailand until 20th September 2006, when Sonthi Boonyaratglin as President of The Administrative Reform Council (ARC) officially took over the powers of Prime Minister. His position was Royally endorsed on the 22nd October.

the pure existence of point 10 in that ISA list makes Thailand to a failed state if the government really need such a law. if they will actually practise point 10 its over.

Then I guess you think that both Singapore and Malaysia are failed states as well. They both have far more severe ISA's have both used them far more then Thailand ever has.

TH

For that matter take a look at the US's Patriot Act and it didn't have to be called up each time it was/is needed.

The failed state argument certainly doen't hold water when you look at laws in other places!

You are aware that "point 10" as highlighted by Mazltov (Internal security Act be 2551; Section 21), is designed purely for individuals who may have breached an ISOC order because of a mistake or ignorance. It isn't allowed to be applied to individuals who intentionally break a law or ISOC order.

* Just for clarification, Bhanapot did pay the tax as soon as a demand was made. On appeal, the taxes were returned due to the statute of limitations.

How absurd "justice" can be at times.

Excuse me if I have this wrong, but after being found guilty not only are they allowed to walk free but they ALSO got back the money that they originally stole?

If memory serves me correctly, the appeal on the taxes was concluded a few days prior to the ruling on tax evasion.

The three individuals are currently out on bail pending a court of appeal review.

Because the AEC froze 10 billion baht of assets in the name of Pojmans brother. This money came directly from the sale of shin corp shares.

Previously, the criminal court ruled that there was a normal transaction of shares between Pojaman and her brother Bhanawat, and this transfer could not be classified as a gift (which is tax free) between relatives. According to the law, they decided that taxes had to be paid*, and that Pojaman, Bhanapot and the secretary were guilty of evading taxes.

Therefore the court has ruled that Bhanapot is the legal owner of those shares, and therefore exempt from any confiscation of assets under the NCCC act

You cannot say that someone is the legal owner in one case, and not the legal owner in a subsequent case. Therefore to confiscate the full 76 billion baht**, they will have to nullify the original conviction.

* Just for clarification, Bhanapot did pay the tax as soon as a demand was made. On appeal, the taxes were returned due to the statute of limitations.

** The actual amount frozen still seems to be in dispute. Earlier reports indicated that 69 billion had been frozen, then recent reports indicated that the full 76 billion baht the prosecution is demanding seized has been frozen. Now The Nation is going back to the 69 billion figure.

Having READ your post and those on the rest of this thread and having followed the story in detail I think she is every bit as quilty as him and it should all be seized.

As someone else pointed out, She was found quilty by the courts and sentenced to 3 years in Prison .. SO WHEN is she going to serve her time ?

You do appreciate, that if the court decides to confiscate the full 76 billion baht, then they will have to overturn that conviction..

He has one month to appeal, but he must do so in person.

If Thaksin, or any of the other defendants wish to appeal the verdict, they need to sign the appeal motion, but they do not need to be present when it is handed over to the court.

In 2008, Vatana Asavahame, did appeal his 10 year conviction, but the screening committee ruled that no new evidence was produced, and so it never went to the full Supreme Court for a hearing. (Vatana was in Cambodia at the time).

Under the law (2007 Constitution, Section 278) an appeal can only be made within 30 days of a verdict being handed down, on the provision that fresh evidence is provided likely to result in a material alteration of facts

This basically means that unless completely new evidence is produced, which would by it's very nature be likely to overturn the verdict, then there is no basis for an appeal, and therefore the verdict is final. After so many years preparing for this trial, the possibility of "New Evidence" being available is extremely small.

"Deceitful amendment of contract by Thaksin´s administration causes severe public burden"

Wow, 7 years after the fact, someone actually thinks this is "news".

In 2006, similar charges were levelled at Thaksin in regards to itv. That he ammended the contract with the Office of the Prime Minister to allow a different percentage of news to entertainment ratio. The result was, that itv was hit with a massive fine, and ordered to restructure the ratio back to it's original format.

itv, couldn't afford the fine, and with less income, became a non viable company. As a result, the concession was returned to the State. As a result, we now have TPBS. Which, whilst argueably more beneficial, has to be totally funded by the State. The fact is, the original concession structure was never really financially viable, and after the concession fee free period lapsed, 7 of the original 10 companies which made up itv, sold out.

Most of the mobile telecom companies are coming towards the end of their concessions, with approx 5 years left. None of the companies are interested in extending the concession periods because 3G (if it ever comes) will totally change the way the financial structure works.

With TOT and CAT very quickly (although some would argue, not quick enough), losing their monopoly status, it is possible that a restructuring of the mobile phone business could be a possibility...

You see the gag has nothing to do with you, me or TV. They want persons directly involved in the case to stop spinning in the press. Not an un common request in a court case. Nothing to do with US.

again from the first post:

"The gag order, if approved, will also prohibit members of the defunct Asset Examination Committee from commenting on the asset seizure."

No need to even mention it if the gag would have applied to everyone in the country now would it.

Actually RKASA, the motion filed by Panthongtae and Pinthongta Shinawatra has nothing to do with with gagging anyone...

It is a very clever way of introducing evidence to the court which could not be introduced via normal means. Regardless of whether the motion is granted or not, evidence that members of the AEC might have been in violation of section 46(3) of the NCCC Act has been submitted.

Section 46:

The person under the following circumstances shall not be appointed as a member to an inquiry sub-committee:

(3) Having current animosity towards the person making the allegation or the alleged culprit;

This could not be introduced in court, as the AEC were not themselves on trial....

ThomChook

The gag order is being sought by two individuals who are defendants in a civil court law suit. The gag order is not about limiting information, it is about limiting speculation on the final verdict.

There is no reason that the media can not report on the case, maybe even give some interesting valuable information to the public.

Without speculating on the verdict, the press can inform the public on the possible verdicts and how they could have some effect, particularly on the telecommunications sector within the country.

A verdict which finds that Government policy was only introduced to benefit Shin Corp, will result in considerable pressure to have many, if not all Government resolutions on the telcom sector during the 2001 - 2006 period made void. After all you cannot say that a policy can be kept, when a court has decided that it was introduced without benefit to the general public, or even to the detriment of the state.

That could well result in considerable price increases, particularly in the pre-paid phone market, and roaming services between operators.

There is also real fears regarding the future viability of Thaicom (Thailands Satelite system). If a guilty verdict is made, then the Government may have no other option than to revoke the concession. (Thaicom is already attempting to sell the concession, but with it losing money and possible future penalties, even if the concession is not revoked, Thaicom may have no option than to forfeit the final 5 years. This will effect Thailands future Satelite program and in particular Thaicom 6.

This case is considerably more important than just Thaksin Shinawatra. There are a total of 22 defendants in this case.

And don't forget, if the full 76 billion baht is seized, 19 billion baht is due to be paid out in rewards to individuals who made the seizure possible. This is covered by law (Section 30 of the NCCC act). A lot of people (not only the defendants) have a vested interest in the outcome of this case.

Just my thoughts....

Easier to monitor vote buying? Try easier to buy votes instead.

Different people have different views on this.

For the people who support the larger constituencies, they mention that with three times the number of voters, vote buying becomes more expensive, and therefore having a large constituency actually reduces the feasibility of vote buying.

For people who support the smaller constituencies, they mention that with just a single vote, people are likely to use this more discerningly, and this reduces the effectiveness of vote buying.

There was a lot of talk about vote buying in the mid 90's when they were drafting the new Constitution. The arguement for adopting the smaller constituencies, was that research showed that voters nearly always used their first vote for the individual or party that they supported, the second mostly went to the party that they supported, but the final vote they could be persuaded either by fame (mostly actors and actresses), money or simple peer pressure (Puu Yai, Commanding Officer, village head etc).

This is also supported by results in by-elections. These are nearly always for single seats, and yet the instances where red or yellow cards are issued in a by-election are almost unheard of.

Come on Temasak (AIS), pay for your own network and make these two bit loser mobile companies step up to the plate. Then make the others pay through the bloody nose to have access. Then route all your international roaming and internet through your own satellite and put CAT out of business.

The fact is, until AIS gets a 3G licence from the NTC, they are still under their original TOT concession which only allows them to operate in the 900 mhz frequency.

This concession is a build,Transfer & Operate (BTO) which means that any new equipment they install, (including their 900 mhz 3G system), they have to transfer ownership over to TOT, and then they are allowed to use it for the period of the concession, which finishes I believe in 2015.

Come the end of the concession, TOT gets a free 900 mhz gsm network, which they can utilise, sell or negotiate to a new concession owner.

AIS is not going to spend billions of baht to set up any new network until they have a new licence, knowing that the new network belongs to them and not TOT.

Something's not right here

I suspect that BAT have decided to suspend all operations in Thailand until the outcome of the case involving Phillip Morris is settled.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2010/01/20...ss_30120700.php

Pojaman pleads Not Guilty

The graft trial is under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court's Criminal Tribunal for Political Office Holders, a fast track review by nine senior judges.

Source. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/01/23...cs_30063197.php

So sorry but that is not true.

The court that heard the case against Thaksin had no jurisdiction over his wife. THAT is why the charges were dropped in THAT court. The court that heard Thaksin's case was only for holders of political office, his wife did not hold a political office.

The Supreme Court (Criminal Division) for political office holders has full jurisdiction on the provision that one of the defendants in a case is eligable to be tried in the court.

Many non political office holders have been tried by the Supreme Court (Criminal Division) for Political office holders, including civil servants and even executives of companies (C.P).

In the case of Thaksin and Pojaman Shinawatra (case No. 1/2550) NO charges were dropped, and a ruling was given on ALL Charges.

The actual sale was deemed lawful by the Supreme Court in the original hearing in 2007, which is why Pojaman was never asked to return the plot.

Would you like to quote a source for this statement, please.

source: http://www.supremecourt.or.th/file/crimina...ment_1_50_6.pdf

Thaksin and Pojaman Shinawatra were charged with violating the Organic Act of Counter corruption BE 2542 (1999).

It was ruled that he was a Political Office holder as stipulated in section 4, and that he had violated sections 100 (1)(4) as the Prime Minister has the power of Inspection over the FIDF, he was therefore forbidden to enter into a contract with the State. In accordance with Section 122 of the Organic act, he was sentenced to two years in prison. His former wife was ruled to be not covered by the Organic Act and the charges for her under the Organic Act were dismissed.

In addition to the Conflict of interest charge, seven additional criminal charges under the criminal code were also lodged.

(Sections 33,83,86,90,96,152 &157)

The most relevent were Section 33 (Property forfeited to the state), Sections 152 (Using Official position to benefit yourself or others) & Section 157 (Using official position to wrongly take action/inaction on others).

For each of the criminal charges, both Thaksin and Pojaman Shinawatra had all charges dismissed.