slimdog

The maximum penalty for this particular crime was 1 month in prison with a 1000 baht fine. It is classidied as a Class 4 (Petty offence) crime. Generally speaking when a court decides to suspend a sentence, they normally give a sentence towards the maximum amount permissable for the offence.

Breaking News

UPDATE : 1 December 2009

Pheu Thai MP Sentenced to 1 Month in Jail for Physically Assaulting Democrat MP

Pheu Thai MP Karun Hosakul has been sentenced to 1 month in jail, with a 2 year suspension, for physically attacking Democrat MP Somkiat Pongpaiboon.

-- Tan Network 01-12-2009

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

can you still be an MP with a criminal conviction?

No.

In this particular case the answer is Yes.

Generally an MP who has a final conviction (Supreme Court Ruling or a failure to appeal a verdict) is barred from remaining in his or her seat. There is however an exception for suspended judgements, where the offence is either defamation or is regarded as a petty offence. Constitution: section 105(11))

A case is regarded as petty when (as in this case) the maximum penalty for the crime is not more than 1 month imprisonment and/or a penalty not exceeding 1000 baht. These cases are held in the Criminal court (Petty crime Division).

A little bit about the background for anyone interested:

http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/03/31/pol...cs_30000597.php

Are you sure??

I complete missed that they revoked his ordinary PP

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/04/15...cs_30100576.php

I though that the Thai authorities had only revoked Thaksin's diplomatic-passport, leaving him his ordinary one, does this 'man of the people' refuse to use a normal passport, like normal people, or is his memory becoming unreliable ?

For reference:

On 12th December 2008, Thaksin's Diplomatic Passport was revoked.

On 12th April 2009, Thaksin's ordinary Passport was revoked.

Campaign donations aren't illegal.

Whilst political donations are legal (and encouraged), there are still a multitude of laws which have to be followed. Failure to abide by these laws can lead to serious consequences where the party can be dissolved, individuals jailed and fines meted out to those concerned.

In this instance a 258 million baht donation is alleged to have been made by TPI Polene to the Democrat Party prior to the 2005 General Election. As with all political donations, (in many countries) there is a law which allows the donator to use this as a basis for a tax deduction. When the administrators of TPI Prolene tried to do this they were informed by the revenue department that the donation was not registered with the Election Commission, and therefore no deduction would be allowed.

This matter was mentioned quite extensively in parliament during the censure debate and the Election Commission are currently investigating this matter, although they have issued a statement that they have no record of any such donation.

If the allegation has grounds then the Democrat Party will be looking at violation of the Organic law on Political Parties (1998):

Sections 37, 39, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51

The combination of these violations could be grounds for dissolution under Section 94 of the current Organic law

For 37 & 39 the penalty is a fine of 100,000 baht for each

For 43 & 44 the penalty is a jail sentence of not more than 6 months and a fine of 500,000 baht for each

For 45, 46 & 51 the penalty is a jail sentence of not more than 3 years and a fine of not less than three times the money donated for each

For 49 & 50 the penalty is a fine not less than 100,000 baht for each

The basis for this is that all donations must be fully reported, receipts issued and the money transfered to the Parties official bank account. In addition to this the Election Commission sets very strict rules on the amount of money a Political Party may spend in an election. Undisclosed donations are viewed as a way of circumventing these rules.

NCFC

In most countries, rules surrounding witness testimony is fairly open. When a court does wish for secrecy for some reason, then testimony of individual witnesses are normally in-camera. When high profile cases are being tried, then Justices can and frequently do tell a jury what information, be it newspapers or television they can and cannot see. How effective this is, no one really knows...

In Thailand, where there is no Jury system it is supposedly less of an issue.

One of my biggest complaints about cases like these, is that invariably the reader or listener gets very little information, and what information they do get is normally what the newroom view as the more juicy parts. As a result of this, when a verdict is finally given, readers are left wondering how this verdict could be possible. It takes a considerable amount of time and effort to get even some of the basic facts such as Who are the defendants, what are the actual charges, and who are the witnesses for each side, let alone the testimony.

Whether the Justices are swayed by public or personnel opinion is another issue.

Looking at the two main cases finalised against Thaksin, I would say that there was no clear right or wrong verdict. Under these circumstances, Justices maybe swayed more to one side than the other.

In the Ratchada-Phisek case; all of the criminal charges were cleared, which just left the conflict of interest verdict. This was really a matter of interpretation. Four of the Justices viewed that there was no conflict of interest, whilst five said there was. Whether it was public opinion, or Thaksins own actions,(Jumping bail, Giving negative interviews about the justice system and attempting to remove his lawyers from the trial) which finally resulted in the Justices not giving him the benefit of the doubt will never be known, but I am sure they did play a part, but that doesn't mean it was the wrong decision.

In the asset concealment case you had a strange situation. The law was designed to check if a politician had more assets when he left office than when he went in, it was equally designed to prohibit politicians from owning more than a certain percentege of a company whilst in office. The problem was that when Thaksin took office in mid August 1997, he did so under the 1991 Constitution, where no such requirements were required, and on leaving office two months later (26 days after the 1997 Constitution became law), he was forced to fill out an Asset declaration form which didn't exist, and give it to a non existing agency. (The NCCC which was named in the 1997 Constitution only came into existance in April 1999. And the laws governing the procedure for Asset declaration were finally made law in Octover 1999). On this instance, the Justices gave him the benefit of the doubt, and again I am sure that both personal and public opinion did come into the final decission, and again it doesn't mean the decision was wrong.

I am equally sure that when the verdict is read out for this case, there will be people surprised by the outcome, but it doesn't mean it's wrong...

Anyway thats my humble opinion

Should we not hear from the defence and subsequently the verdict before the expected result of guilty is confirmed?

Or is it already a given?

The way the system works for this type of case is actually the opposite of most types of trial.

The Asset Examination Committee (which was given the full powers of the NCCC) froze the accounts of the defendants, and then gave them the opportunity to present evidence that the assets in question did not constitute Unusual wealthiness as defined in the NCCC Act Section 4/9 :

"unusual wealthiness" means having an unusually large quantity of assets,

having an unusual increase of assets,

having an unusual decrease of liabilities

or having illegitimate acquisition of assets in a consequence of the performance of duties or the exercise of power in office or in the course of duty.

The AEC sub-committee which investigated this case was of the opinion that the evidence provided by the accused was insufficient, and presented it's findings to the full AEC, who on inspecting the evidence from both the accused and the investigators decided that there were grounds to seize the assets and passed the case to the Attorney General, who filed the case with the Supreme Court (Criminal Division) for Political Office holders.

During the hearing of the Supreme Court, Section 61 applies:

In the case in which a request is made that the property be ordered to devolve upon the State,

onus of proof to the Court that the said property does not result from the unusual wealthiness is upon the alleged culprit.

For this reason, the defendants in the case, present their evidence, arguements and witnesses to the court first. It is upon them to prove that the assets in question were obtained legally. Once completed, the prosecution has the opportunity to present their evidence, arguements and witnesses. In total 55 witnesses appeared for the defendants, and 52 for the prosecution.

The easiest way to understand this, is to say that the people on trial here are actually the AEC. The AEC made a decission, and now the "defendants" have to prove that they made the wrong one...

As with all Supreme Court hearings, once a verdict has been delivered, the defendants do have an opportunity to appeal. But the appeal must be made within 30 days and must include completely fresh evidence which would be sufficient to change the verdict. This evidence will be put before a screening committee who will decide whether the evidence produced meets this requirement. If it does then a hearing of the full Supreme Court will sit and pass judgement. To date, no appeal has ever got passed the screening committee.

I must admit that when I first moved to Thailand I did find it really useful that most of the roads were written in English, especially in Bangkok. But..

I can also remember the first time I tried to get a taxi to go to Rama 1 and getting completely blank expressions.

First time to the British Embassy was fun too.....

"The tape records widths of between 49 and 56 millimetres"

I first thought that scale is diameter, but after looking on our caliper I doubt that. Thai men would be monster.

Than I took the size /3.14: 56/3.14=17.8 mm that looks too small.

What mistake did I made???

I have the same confusion. "Width" surely means diameter as you interpret, too, but that would make Thai men comparable to horses.

Circumference of 56 mm is not realistic either.

???

The 49 - 56 mm is not the width of the penis, it is the width of the condom needed...

So the circumference of the condom is double these sizes as the condom is rolled out and measured when it is flat.

( with regard to Ungpakorn's political stripes,I take it that you are also aware of the background of Chaturon Chaisang who is a unifying, very popular and hugely influential member of the Thaksin team)

Those of you who were here in 2006 may remember that Chaturon was acting PM for a few months when Thaksin 'stepped aside' from politics during the Temmasak/Shincorp fiasco. Of course, after being out of the limelight for a while Thaksin reminded everyone that he 'hadn't really resigned, he'd just been resting' & it was out with the acting PM and back into the driver's seat for Thaksin!

Must be the first time a Thai PM rescinded a resignation. Wonder how Chaturon felt about that at the time.

I doubt if Chaturon felt anything..

At the time Thaksin "rescinded" his resignation, the Caretaker PM was Chidchai Vanasatidya. Chaturon was Caretaker Education Minister

Chaturon became Acting leader of the TRT Party in October 2006, and continued to be labelled thus until May 30th 2007 when the party was dissolved.

His position was never formally registered though, as there was a ban on all Political activities immediately after the coup until June 2007..

.

So, er, is this good or bad then?

A little background info..

From the CPI site you can get the CPI from the past 12 years. The lower the ranking the lesser the perceived corruption.

There is also a CPI score where the higher the score, the less corruption is perceived.

During the 12 years the number of countries in the index also changed from 85 in 1998 to 180 in 2009

Year--- Rank---Score

1998 --- 61 --- 3.0 (85)

1999 --- 68 --- 3.2 (99)

2000 --- 60 --- 3.2 (90)

2001 --- 61 --- 3.2 (91)

2002 --- 64 --- 3.2 (102)

2003 --- 70 --- 3.3 (133)

2004 --- 64 --- 3.6 (146)

2005 --- 59 --- 3.8 (159)

2006 --- 63 --- 3.6 (163)

2007 --- 84 --- 3.3 (179)

2008 --- 80 --- 3.5 (180)

2009 --- 84 --- 3.4 (180)

Make of it want you want....

What's your point? There were non members of APEC in attendance. Cambodia has official observer status, as does Laos. My point was that Cambodia kept a low profile at the international political gathering. Cambodia has sent large observer delegations to other APEC meetings.

See, I do read the APEC news releases including the schedule of events and functions.

I guess my point was that as an APEC member, Abhisit is obliged to attend, whilst as a non-member Hun Sen has the option.

Cambodia is also hoping to acquire membership in the near future, so it is definitely in their interest to not rock any boats at the moment.

As for your other points in your previous post, I would agree with all.

Did you see how the Cambodian leader avoided the APEC meetings?

Just for info:

The reason that the Cambodian leader avoided the APEC meetings is, that Cambodia is not a member country.

If they'd manage to capture Thaksin like the claim they want (extraditon request) then there wouldn't be any 'upper hand', then they would have won the game, check mate, done. They would have been able to send Thaksin to jail for two years, during which they have the time to prepare so many LM and corruption cases that he'd never get out of jail for the rest of his life. Solved. Or?

An extradition doesn't give a country Carte Blanche to do what it wants..

A country requests extradition for specific matters, it then has to prove that the crime for which they are wanted has foundation.

In the case of serving a prison sentence, this would include not only the court verdict, but also the transcript of the trial, and possibly the evidence used, in the case of extradition for trial, then they have to provide the same evidence as would be used in the court.

If the country where the individual is held is not satisfied that either there is sufficient evidence, or that any court verdict was not reached in a fair or honest fashion, then extradition is denied.

For this reason, countries usually try and keep the extradition request as simple as possible, as the more cases involved the greater the chance that an extradition is denied.

Once an individual has been extradited, they can only be subjected to the charges for which an extradition was approved, whether it be trial or prison, and once the matter has been dealt with, either a not guilty verdict or the completion of a sentence, then the individual must be allowed free access to leave the country. Only if the individual remains in the country for a period of time (usually about one month) after being freed, can any additional charges be brought.

I don't get it.. TOT doesn't operate a cell phone network right? How will this work? People are with AIS, DTAC or True.. Where does TOT come in?

Or do they plan this for non-cell phone use, such as providing a USB 3G stick as part of their Internet business?

I am really suprised at you WTK.

TOT is the proud owner (Well 58%) of the best run, most efficient, least corrupt and by far the most well managed mobile phone network that Thailand has. The other 42% is owned by that other well run, tranparant and totally efficient CAT.

I am of course refering to Thai Mobile

O.K it is in debt to the tune of about 7 billion, but that proves it is more concerned about giving its' many (well not that many really) subscribers the best value that money can buy.

It will probably be the only 3G company that actually loses money.

This will prove something (I haven't got a clue what...)

How does Thailand dare to think about joining the G-20 ? The settlement of internal politics takes first priority - everything else might follow later on.

I think the BoT Deputy Governor was commenting on the fact that whilst Thailand is not a member of the G-20, for the past year as head of ASEAN, it has enjoyed the privilage of sitting in on G-20 meetings (Finance Minister,Korn Chatikavanij is currently in Scotland at the G-20 Economic Ministers conference). This privilage will be given to Vietnam next year, and therefore any influence Thailand has with the G-20 will disappear, and Thailand should base it's economy on the reality that it's main sphere of influence is local (Asia) rather than global.

My point being, for those not sober enough to recognize it, is that even if quality of the local formal print media is lacking, the reader knows who the author is.

For all anyone knows, thailandjumpedtheshark is Noppadon and *ink is Jakrapob. Would that be information worthwhile knowing when considering what they are blogging?

Knowing who an individual blogger is can help first time viewers, however for most bloggers its their reputation which is of more importance than their actual identity. Reputations have to be earned, and when earned can be an important source of additional information, even if it is only to put a completely opposite twist on a story.

The main (English Language) bloggers involved with Thai politics are individuals who have taken a particular subject and made it their own.

Bangkokpundit is broadly about politics, but gives his viewers the insight of not only the English Language publications but also the Thai Language ones too. This with an insight into the players, means that his views are quite often interesting. Generally well respected, one of the very few blogs to be mentioned in the English language newspapers, and his tweets as well as Thailandjumpedtheshark are followed by some very influential individuals including the current Prime Minister and Finance Minister.

Thailandjumpedtheshark (TJTS), is a blogger by the name of Fonzi, his speciality is decomposing The Nation editorials and columnists. Sometimes insightful, sometimes funny. But he does seem to do his homework considerably better than the individuals who's columns are decomposed.

In this particular blog, the story is an editorial about a parliamentry debate featuring Chalerm Yoobamrung, when he questioned whether Article 3/1 (Reasons for Mandatory refusal) of the Treaty between Cambodia and Thailand could be used by Cambodia in Thaksins case due to the trial having taking place in The Supreme Court for Political Office Holders. The editorial in questioned attacked Chalerm saying that he was trying to muddy the waters and that the crime was legal matter rather than Political one, and that Thaksin deserved to be in Jail for his crime..

Fonzi attacked the editorial as using lies to justify their own political bias and proceeded to list a number of facts, which are actually a matter of public record, as the judgement by the Supreme Court is published and available at the Supreme Court's website.

For me it would have been more interesting for The Nation to have written about the nature of the court (Political Office holder) and how it may affect any extradition request, rather than saying that it is simply a legal matter rather than Political. All extradition requests are of a legal nature, and involve legal matters, but that doesn't mean that they cannot be construed as being of a Political Nature as well.

Extradition of Thaksin is always going to come up with the "Politcial Nature" and the "Dual Criminality" of the offence.

As an aside, the Thaksin conviction has thrown a rather big issue at the NCCC. During the next 12 months the NCCC are going to be re-writing Article 4 of the NCCC Act, at the moment (especially regarding Article 100, which is Thaksins offence) only covers around a 100 or so individuals; Cabinet Members, Senior Officials, Senior BMA officials and State enterprise Directors, within the next year, the list is due to add an additional 150,000 individuals (Lower level officials as well as all Tambon and provincial officials) as these will be covered by the newly created PACC (Public Sector Anti Corruption Committee). The NCCC has already commented that Article 100 may need to be ammended, so that only cases of corruption linked to the article are covered, however, Thaksin (who is the only individual to have been tried under Article 100) was convicted where no evidence of corruption was found. Sections 152 & 157 of the criminal code (Malfeasance in Office) were dismissed by the judgement of the court.

Whilst this in no way changes the verdict of the court, it may have a bearing on any future extradition request and would generally play into Thaksins hand.

I think this fellow may wish to consider a plea bargain of some sort.

From a strictly legal perspective, Thailands Criminal Procedure law does really allow for many forms of plea bargaining. Turning States evidence for example is illegal in Thailand

There is also a lot at stake politically, including the reputation of the Thai financial system. By that I mean whether or not the regulations are there.

I am not quite sure about this.

Remember that any charges against Saxena are for crimes committed under the 1995-1996 laws and regulations. Provided that the Bank of Thailand, Finance Ministry, Stock exchange of Thailand or Anti Money laundering Organisation can show that rules and regulations put in place since 1995-1996 would not allow for a similar case to be committed then I think that the reputation of the Thai Financial system shouldn't be too seriously affected regardless of verdict. IMHO..

The 2007 constitution (can't remember which article) also has some interesting bits to do with the Privy Council and its powers.

All articles related to the Privy Council (12 - 25) in the 2007 Constitution are exactly the same as the 1997 Constitution..

Another important one seems to be article 190 whereby treaties have to be passed through parliament before the govt. can sign.

Various articles have pointed out that there is confusion about what is a treaty and what not. One of its sticking points seems to be that it is entangled in the Phear Viharn case. For the democrats to agree with the reform of this article would be hypocritical, it was one of the main attack strategies saying that the opposition determined foreign affairs without parliamentary approval.

It would look a bit strange for the Democrats to do an about turn now and say its OK to amend because they are in power.

Just for reference:

On March 18th 2009, Democrat MP, Ratchada Thanadirek introduced a bill to Parliament to allowing the Government to curcumvent Article 190 of the Constitution. After objections from the opposition, the bill passed it's first reading and is currently in the committee stage. It requires two further readings before this bill becomes law.

Details can be found at: http://thainews.prd.go.th/en/news.php?id=255203180064

A professionally designed, developed and societally accepted constitution arrived at during the time of a democratically elected, nationally representative Government

The 1997 Constitution was certainly designed, developed and written with a particular goal. Many of the new provisions were certainly innovative and it was a massive improvement on the 1991 Constitution. One of the reasons that the 1997 Constitution received widespread appeal, (although not by politicians) was that the writers looked at the main issues and tried to recognise their origins, and overcome this seemingly endless circle, whilst at the same time incorporate a far more social element into the supreme law.

Two years after the 1997 Constitution was passed into law, one of the drafters, Borwornsak Uwanno, wrote a paper explaining the reasoning behind the Charter.

Within this paper he explained what he termed the vicious circle of Thai Politics:

The Beginnings of the Vicious Circle of Thai Politics

In 1947, a military coup overthrew a civilian government, and this event marked the beginning of a vicious circle in Thai political development that would repeat itself right up to the last coup which occurred in February, 1991. This circle starts with increasing public pressure on the civilian regime (normally functioning with the approval of the military) usually fomented by its social, political and economic dysfunction. This dysfunction is typically exacerbated by the media reporting on the regime's overt corruption. This in turn provokes increasing political conflict between factions in the government coalition. Finally in compliance with the bureaucracy, the military steps in to restore order and establish a functional legislature, able to pass the laws the bureaucracy has drafted. Usually an interim constitution is quickly implemented followed by a permanent constitution with possibly an election to create an ostensibly civilian government. Once the government is up and running, it is allowed a honeymoon period where everyone settles back to the business of state affairs. But then rumours of corruption arise yet again. And renewed social and political turmoil causes the governmental factions to again turn on one another. And the vicious cycle begins yet again

I think Borwornsak Uwanno had a pretty good grasp of the situation

VS.

a coup originated, military constitution designed during the time of an unelected, unrepresentative Government

Whilst it is easy to write off the 2007 Constitution as just another Military Charter, it must be accepted that there are some generally good parts to it as well, particularly in the social and community aspects of the charter. These certainly go farther than the 1997 version.

Politically it is a mixture of 1991 and 1997 Charters with a few innovations. Whilst many people are against the new formula regarding the Senate make-up, it has to be remembered that the 1997 version never achieved its goals either, and I would have to conclude that whilst the current Senate is no worse than the previous chamber, it is not particularly any better either.

I do like the innovations regarding the Party List, both in calculating the number of members and the fact that it is regional.

Do you try to fix the latter, or bring back the former?

Both have their good points, although the 1997 Charter was at least well written without the Ambiguities that exist in the current charter.

Thanks, Slimdog.

Sondhi must have a plan, though. It took them several months to get the paperwork right, they couldn't have overlooked this little hurdle.

There are no rules stating that a Party leader must contest an election..

One of the things that suprised me was that Sonthi allowed himself to be elected as the leader, as section 49 of the political parties act (2007) stipulates that the leader and all executives must declare all assets of themselves, spouse and children under the age of 18. Whilst the declaration is to the registrar of Political parties (Chairman of the ECT) and not the NCCC as a politician would have to, it still has provisions for investigation and the penalties include imprisonment. Sondhi has always tried to keep his financial dealings very much to himself.

And the other thing is that the Thaksin Government as soon as it was in office started to amend and amend

the constitution till a big, big share deal went tax free...and several other things...

Just for reference.

From 11th October 1997, when it was promulgated until it's abolition on 20th September 2006, the 1997 Constitution was never amended.

The last time a Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand was amended was on 22nd October 1996, when the sixth and final amendment to the 1991 Constitution was passed allowing for the drafting of a new permanent Constitution.

More likely he thinks fighting off his court cases would be easier once he is mighty and popular politician.

Perhaps offloading Manager is like Shin sale - there's no more room to grow, so need to sell.

It is currently impossible for Sonthi to offload his (Very small 0.75%) stake in the Manager group as the selling of shares in the company are suspended by SET. All assets of Sonthi (Manager Newspaper, ASTV etc) have been transfered to another compay Thaidaydotcom.

He is currently stuck with these shares in a media company, which is under a rehabilitation plan.

This will probably mean that under the current Constitution, he will be unable to stand in an election as he will be in violation of Article 48.