slimdog

On a similar note, both the current Constitutional charter (and previous?) have restrictions on who can run for office, including the requirement that they all have a University degree (Masters?). I don't agree with that either, though that's not even on the agenda of any colored shirts. Any Thai citizen should be eligible to run for office. .

The 1997 Constitution did state that MP's and Senators must have at least a Bachelor's degree or equivalent. (Having passed through an Armed forces military acadamy was ruled to be the equivalent.)

The current Constitution states that MP's no longer require this, although a Bachelor's degree (or it equivalent) is still required for all cabinet members and members of the senate.

When is the next election scheduled as per the 2007 constitution?

The term of office is 4 years.

If the Government stay in office for the full term, then the House of Representatives will be dissolved on the 23rd December 2011, and a General election must be held within 45 days. So the latest an election can be held is Sunday 5th Feb 2012.

Should the Prime Minister dissolve Parliament early, then an election must take place within 60 days.

Noppadol will have trouble with this case as the constitutional and administrative courts have already ruled on the constitutionality and technicality leaving him very little room for an out. He would probably be better served to just fess up and say I did wrong but I didnt intend it to harm Thailand as some claim. However, Noppadol is a loyal servant to others and owes.

One thing to bear in mind..

Even after the Constitutional court ruled that the Joint Communiqué was un-Constitutional, all the Foreign Ministers who have taken their positions after Noppadol have resisted the demand to make the joint communiqué Null and Void.

Noppadol and Samak will have two separate cases to answer:

A Senate hearing to determine whether to retroactively remove both Samak and Noppadol from office under Article 274 of the Constitution, and ban them from office for 5 years.

A Supreme Court hearing to determine whether Noppadol and Samak used their Positions to the benefit of either themselves or others.

For the Senate hearing, the defence will include prior approval of the Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs, The Council of State and The National Security Council. Additionally neither individual is currently a Minister, and both are currently under a 5 year ban. It would also give far greater reason to cancel the Joint Communiqué, which is something the MFA seems to be very reluctant to do, probably because Paragraphs 3 & 4 are seen as being in Thailands best interest, especially if the case ever does go into any International hearing.

The Supreme Court hearing would have to prove that someone benefitted from the Joint Communiqué in an illegal manner. For that they will need some documentation, either bank accounts to prove financial reward, or contracts to prove commercial rewards, either for themselves or others. Supreme Court hearings have other issues as well, as by law every verdict must be accompanied by a written opinion by each of the Justices which must be published. Again, it may be the case that a guilty verdict against Noppadol and Samak could be used against any of Thailand's claim to the disputed land.

For Noppadol, I see him as welcoming the move, as he has already been convicted in the court of public opinion, and for him it probably is the only way he can see of changing that.

For Samak, If current rumours are correct, then he may well not be around long enough to be indicted let alone see the inside of the Senate or Courthouse.

~They cut the cost back 34 billion too it seems,

so not near as bad as before, hopefully the watch dogs

will have eyes this time around.

The original proposal was for 6000 NGV buses. This proposal was rejected by the Samak Sundaravej government in July of last year. A screening commitee set up in August last year made the recommendation that the number of buses should be reduced to 4000 with a price tag of 69 billion baht. In June of this year The Transport Minister, Sophon Saram, reduced the amount to 64 Billion baht for the 4000 buses.

Following disagreements with the current cabinet, the issue was once again handed over to the National Economic and Social Development Board to decide on whether to lease or lease-purchase the buses.

The cabinet earlier this week gave consent for the leasing of 4000 NGV buses at 64 billion baht, exactly as proposed earlier this year.

Playing hard ball. Be interesting to see reactions.

Remember that Abhisit only had until tomorrow afternoon to make an appointment.

Appointing an acting Police chief is given to the Prime Minister only when there is a current Police chief, otherwise regulations dictate that the senior officer is automatically made the acting Police chief until the position is formally filled by the Police board.

So more an action to prevent Priewpan Damapong from automatically assuming the position, than anything else.

Although the RV144 clinical trial is exciting, the discovery of 2 new antibodies is even more exciting.

Would totally agree with this statement.

Although at present they have only discovered the antibody in hiv+ individuals, if they can find this in hiv- individuals with known exposure then it will be a real breakthrough.

One of the big problems with a viable hiv/AIDs vaccine is that the vaccine must not produce the standard hiv antibodies, but must offer protection against the actual virus. Having new antibodies to aim for gives the scientific community a far better chance of coming up with something.

Basically we seem to have a bad situation, which at each turn gets even worse.

Samak made a decission to purchase the firetrucks and fireboats. This was actually the first time that the BMA had ever had to do this as previously all Firefighting equipment was purchased by the Police who had been in charge of the fire and accident department in Bangkok. The original contract was a government to government contract signed between Austria and Thailand and was a barter deal, exchanging cooked chickens for firetrucks. This may explain slightly why the BMA cost was slightly higher than a cash purchase, but is not an unsual practice, and does eliminate foreign exchange risks plus of course gives a Thai company business.

The government to government contract was made void when Steyr was purchased by General Dynamics, which has meant that Thailand has had to pay for the equipment in cash.

Samak did make one big mistake though, when he presented the contract to the cabinet for endorsement, he made no provision for import duty, assuming that as before, all firefighting equipment was exempt from duty (This only applies to equipment purchased by the Police and armed forces), so when the first trucks started to arrive, the BMA had no budget to pay the duty. The actual cost of the equipment is already agreed, with the BMA paying 40% and the Interior Ministry 60%.

So before any of this equiment can be used, a very large import duty fee must first be paid (Or waved), plus the equipemt has been stored by the customs department, partly at the port, partly in Nonthaburi, and the full cost of storage must also be paid. Just on the port storage, we are looking at well over 100 million baht (and rising). Someone is going to have to pay this at it is being stored by a private company.

Apirak is also mentioned. This is because his signiture was required in order to turn a MOU, into an actual deal. One of the things that Apirak failed to do, was that even though he had misgivings over the contract, he relied on advise from the BMA and Democrat Party legal teams without consulting the Council of State, which could have given him an actual ruling on the contract.

Secondly, according to the contract, steyr had to manufacture one of each type of equipment for inspection prior to the start of production, and if the equipment failed to meet any of the specifications, then the contract was void. The BMA failed to send anyone to inspect the vehicles.

There is also the small question of where the fireboats actually are. When the TRT sent a team down to investigate (Both Samak and Apirak were linked either directly or indirectly to the Democrat Party at that time) they found that only one of the boats was actually left in storage, there should have been 30.

Final note.

Steyr's name has been dragged through the mud on this contract. Three years ago they sent a letter to the BMA saying that they would no longer tolerate their reputation being smeared.

http://thaksinbook.tripod.com/PDF/Apirak.pdf

It's time someone actually sorted this matter out and find out what is real and what is political posturing...

Yes, I stand corrected. But this was the isolated example I believe.

But they never did this vs Thaksin per se.

No, The AEC filed a separate charges in relation to the 2-3 digit lottery involving 44 individuals including former cabinet members and board members of the GLO. A decission is expected later this month. The case is being prosecuted by members of the law society

And after reading the NCCC rules again they realized they could 'file a suit' directly.

I think 'prosecute' is not the right word for this though.

It would be nice to see article 97 in plain English of course.

Section 97.

In the case where the N.C.C. Commission passes a resolution that any matter put in the allegation amounts to a criminal offence, the President shall furnish the report, documents and opinion to the Prosecutor- General or, in the case where the alleged culprit is the Prosecutor-General, proceed with the prosecution, for the purpose of criminal proceedings before the Court having competence to try and adjudicate the case. In this instance, the report of the N.C.C. Commission shall be deemed the inquiry file under the Criminal Procedure Code and the Court shall accept the case without conducting a preliminary examination.

When the Prosecutor-General has received the report and documents together with the opinion from the N.C.C. Commission under paragraph one and considers that the report, documents and opinion furnished by the N.C.C. Commission are not so complete as to justify the institution of the prosecution, the Prosecutor-General shall inform the N.C.C. Commission thereof for further proceeding. In this instance, the incomplete items shall, at the same time, fully be specified. In this case, the N.C.C. Commission and the Prosecutor-General shall appoint a working committee consisting of representatives of each side in an equal number, for the purpose of collecting full evidence and furnish it to the Prosecutor-General for instituting the prosecution.

In the case where such working committee fails to arrive at a conclusion as to the prosecution, the N.C.C. Commission shall have the power to initiate the prosecution of its own motion or appoint an attorney to institute the prosecution on its behalf.

But the AEC didn't BRING ANY CHARGES, they collected evidence

of alleged crimes by Thaksin and his cronies, and others.

When there was deemed sufficent evidence to believe a crime was

committed this evidence was then sent to the Attorney General.

The AG then decided to press charges or not.

In most cases enough evidence was found.

In some not enough and charges were not filed.

This is incorrect.

The AEC was setup under CDRM announcement 23 and later announcement 30. This gave the AEC the following powers:

• NCCC Act
  
• AMLO Act
  
• Revenue Act
  

In the case of the Rubber Sappling complaint, a case was made and submitted to the OAG. When the OAG declined to prosecute the case, the AEC used it's powers under Article 97 of the NCCC act to prosecute the case directly with the supreme court with no involvement from the Attorney General.

By the way, did anybody expect Potjaman to say the money was ill gotten? A bit of a silly headline really.

What you have to remember is that an asset seizure case is the absolute opposite of a normal court case.

In a case of asset seizure by the state, the defendant (Pojaman) is presumed guilty, and must prove otherwise. It is prosecuted under The NCCC Act section 81 which states:

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.

likewise in a standard court case, the prosecution is called first to make it's case, and then the defence then has the opportunity to present it's arguements. In an asset seizure case, the defence is called first, and then the state.

I am curious as to the reason the nasal vaccine is less versatile than a regular flu shot?

Generally you have two different vaccines, each of which have there own delivery method. According to the CDC, the nasal spray delivery is more effective in flu vaccination, however this particular vaccine is considered a "Live vaccine", as it consists of the actual virus, although in reduced form.

The standard flu shot is delivered by injection, and consists of elements of the inactivated or dead virus, therefore suitable for all.

Because the nasal vaccine is actually giving the patient the actual virus, this means that there is a real danger that the patient will actually become infected rather than just build up the anti-bodies, which is why there is a long list of people; young, old, people with asthma or other bronchial ailments and people with a reduced or low immune system are not suitable.

So basically you have the difference between effectiveness versus versatility

Have the PTP denounced the clip yet and offered full cooperation in the investigation? That would be what you would expect of a party innocent of anything rather than being fooled by A.N.Other. Oh plus the party would normally also apologise for any hurt the PM suffered due to its people being duped.

Or will it be the usual threaten defamamtion and try to make poltical hay from a clip many if not most believe came from them.

A theory....

Working on a few assumptions; the people involved; the time frame; the probable intention and motive.

It is entirely possible that PTP had absolutely no involvement with the manufacture of the tape recording, but they do have a pretty good idea as to who is responsible, and why it was made in the first place.

As with most incidents like this, the most obvious motive is revenge, with the hope that the victim gets embaressed in front of his or her peers, and even better yet, that the victim goes totally over the top, claiming all sorts of conspiracy theories, involving the police, accusing totally innocent people, and going straight to the national press with remarks about National Security.

From what has been reported, the initial recording became available on Thursday 27th August, so an assumption can be made that the tape was manufactured on Wednesday 26th August. From what has been reported, the tape itself is a collection of various soundtracks possibly coming from the Prime Ministers Sunday broadcasts.

The quality of the doctoring was not of an especially high standard, so all the individual(s) would need would be a copy of some of the recordings, a simple audio mixing program, some technical knowledge and a bit of time.

Interesting enough, the day before (I assumed) the tape was made, several highly placed individuals who definately had a source for the recordings, definitely had some technical knowledge, probably had at least some simple software, and found themselves with quite a bit of time on their hands were sacked for incompetance of a National tv station, because they repeatedly couldn't get the Prime Ministers show on the airwaves.

Maybe a motive for revenge...

Now if this theory has any merit.

• Would you be expecting PTP to be denouncing the tape, or laughing themselves silly ?
  
• Would you be expecting PTP to be offering full cooperation in an investigation or being totally bemused ?
  
• Would you be expecting PTP to be offering any form of apology for hurt feelings of the Prime Minister ?
  
• Would you be expecting PTP to be taking full advantage of the situation ?
  

Mind you. its far more fun to blame it on some machavalian plot by political rivals...

thank s for your help i'will try to find out where to get the truvada, but i hope this price is from bumrungrad or any hospital as well?.

Price quoted are from Bumrungrad hospital as of July.

Not sure what other hospitals are supplying Truvada, as my Doctor only stated that several of the bigger hospitals were now importing it, although no names mentioned.

Slimdog

Sanitex

To the best of my knowledge, Atripla is not yet available in Thailand.

As you are probably aware Atripla is a combination drug using:

Viread

Emtricitabine

Efavirenz

The best option available in Thailand would be Truvada + Stocrin.

Truvada is a combination of:

Viread

Emtricitabine

And Stocrin is a brand name for Efavirenz, also known as Sustiva in other countries.

Truvada has only been on the market here for a few months, but the big International hospitals such as Bumrungrad are now recommending this in place of Viread + lamivudine + Stocrin. Generally Thailand is a little slow getting some of the newer drugs, but they do manage to get good deals. Truvada is currently priced at 3000 baht for 30 tablets, and Stocrin about 1900 baht for 30 tablets.

Hope of some help

Slimdog

Would you by any chance have a list of all of the accused?

Not much information available I'm afraid..

Charge:

Violation of the State Bidding Act

Violation of the Bidding Collusion Act 1999

Violation of Articles 83, 157 and 351 of the Criminal Law

Case number: Black 4/2551

Politicians

Newin Chidchob

Somkid Jatusripitak

Varathep Ratanakorn

Sora-at Klinprathum

Adisai Bodharamik

Civil Servants

Rachen Potjanasunthorn (Former Director-General of the Foreign Trade Department)

Siripol Yodmuangcharoen ( Former Director-General of the Department of Internal Trade)

The Farmers Central Committee of Thailand

Companies

Charoen Pokphand Seeds

Resort Land

Ekcharoen

There is no doubt. All will be found guilty. Several will join their master "Doing a runner". The evidence in this case is quite strong (so says my brother in law, a prosecutor for the Thai Government, although not overseeing this particular case).

As your brother in law is probably aware, the case went to the Attorney General, who refused to prosecute the case. As a result of this the AEC filed the case directly with the supreme court, and is now being prosecuted by private lawyers representing the NCCC.

The evidence will be strong against some, but I highly doubt all will be found guilty. There are 44 involved and this includes some companies as well. In addition, Siripon hit it on the head that given so many are involved, this case will be delayed. It will be awhile before we know who they find guilty and who they don't. Then there are the appeals.

Whilst there is a mechanism to file appeals, which have to be lodged within 30 days of the verdict, to date none have ever got past the initial screening committee, let alone gone to the full Supreme Court for a ruling. In many ways the Supreme Court for political Office holders is totally different from most criminal court cases.

To start with, the Judges are charged with determining exactly what happened, and have full authority to question witnesses, and even to call witnesses if they feel that someone’s testimony could be beneficial to establish the facts of the case.

Because of this, only completely fresh evidence which would totally change the outcome of the trial is allowed in the appeal (Article 278 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand).

For anyone who is interested in some of the early background into the case:

http://report.globalintegrity.org/Thailand/2007/notebook

Since the article was written, other events which have occurred include:

• AEC had to threaten the Rubber replanting board with criminal charges for refusing to file a complaint.
  
• Rubber replanting board revealed that as of 2007, no payments had yet been made to CP and therefore they had no grounds for a complaint.
  
• Rubber Replanting board finally filed a complaint
  
• Prime Minister Surayud cancelled the contract with CP Seeds for the rubber saplings
  
• The cabinet under Prime Minister Surayud authorized 235 Million baht for the remaining 15 million saplings, with the stipulation that any company could supply saplings, and they would be paid immediately on delivery.
  
• CP Group announced that companies owned by them had supplied all the remaining 15 million saplings
  
• AEC lodged the case with Attorney General
  
• Attorney General refused to prosecute
  
• AEC filed the case directly with the Supreme Court
  
• AEC froze 1.44 billion baht from Thaksin Shinawatra in order to cover the losses
  
• NCCC took over the case, when the AEC's term finished
  
• Trial began
  

Not totally sure about what happens with the Thaksin money.

At the same time as the money for the rubber saplings was frozen, money was also frozen to cover losses in the Ratchada Phisek land case (772 million baht). When the Supreme Court gave it's verdict on this case, they ruled that there was no evidence of criminal actions (Articles 152 & 157 of the Criminal code) and as a result they ruled against seizing the property (Article 33 of the criminal code) and seizing the money used to purchase the property (Article 83 of the criminal code), and I believe the 772 million baht was unfrozen.

Help me understand why you guys hate Thaksin so much. I'm keeping an open mind, and will reserve my vote until I hear a lot more from both sides.

In many ways, the Thaksin issue is similar to your typical boy meets girls, boy loves girl, boy leaves girl story.

If you speak to the boy you will get one side of the story, he will firmly and passionately believe what he tells you is the truth.

Naturally, if you then speak to the girl in question, the story will be slightly or even totally different, although again she will firmly and passionately believe each and every part she has stated is fact.

It's not that either side is particularly stating untruths, just the two individuals have totally different perceptions of the same event.

Of course, when you meet the boy's best friend you will get a fresh perception, as you will from the girl's best friend.

Past lovers may give further insights.

Thailand's politics doesn't make the seeking of truth especially easy either, as the outsider eventually learns that the two are in fact not simply boy and girl, but brother and sister.

If you still don't understand or are like the majority of people, totally disgusted by the whole incestuous act, then welcome to the club.

How does one abuse the rule of law?

The simple answer to that is:

• To take an existing law, and use it in a way for which it was never intended
  
• To threaten an individual or organisation with legal action if charges are not brought
  
• To add charges for which you have no proof in order to get a lesser charge for which you do have proof accepted by a court of law
  

Now that the Thailand online Lottery has been ruled lawful by the Council of State as printed in the Bangkok Post today, will that now allow expats to play online lotto for Australian and UK lotterys etc.

I like to buy lotto online but in the regulations of one lotto provider it states purchasing online lotto from a country that rules online gambling illegal can deem the ticket purchase not legal and payment can be stopped " not the exact words but thats what it is basically saying".

Hopefully this new ruling will now let us buy our tickets without the worry of not getting paid if our numbers come up.

If I remember correctly, the "online lottery" as used in Thailand refers only to special machines provided by a concession holder (Loxley) which will be directly linked to the central GLO building in Bangkok. There will still be no opportunety to purchase lottery tickets other than by individual sellers or these remote machines. Thailand will still have laws governing internet based gambling, and the ruling by the Council of State, will have no effect on these rules and regulations.

Just what the world needed right now...

Most people seems to think that the plague was wiped out centuries ago, which is by no means true. The CDC (& P) receives about 1000-3000 cases worldwide each year of which a number are in the USA. Last known death in the USA, was a park ranger in late 2007, but they report on average 10 -15 people a year getting infected within the USA.

Within modern countries, if treated quickly ( ~ 24 hours) by antibiotics then the person will survive.

I have been in south West China on at least two seperate occasions when there were reported cases of the (Bubonic) plague, you only hear about it afterwards if at all, and generally they seal of the village for weeks at a time, and whoever survives is allowed out.

Bit more info can be found at:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/plague/

Wasn't Aphirak forced to resign as governor of Bangkok because under him installments were paid in line with the contract made by the Samak administration? Wouldn't the current governor be similarly accused if more payments went ahead?

The present Bangkok Governor, M.R. Sukhumbhand, was elected into office in January 2009. A month after taking office, the BMA paid a further installment to the supplier.

Former Governor Apirak, resigned from office in November 2008, after being indicted by the NCCC for his role in the scandal. From what I can make out:

2003

• A Government to Government (G2G) contract was signed between Thailand and Austria. This exchanged a combination of Firetrucks, Fireboats and modified pick-ups (Austria) with Cooked Chickens (Thailand).
  
• Bangkok Fire and Rescue department was transfered from the Police Department to the BMA
  
• Steyr was purchased by the American corperation, General Dynamics
  

It is not stated, but it appears as though both the transfer and foreign acquisition voided the original G2G contract, and a new contract was made for purchase to be paid in cash, with the BMA paying 40%, and the Interior Ministry the remaining 60%.

2004

• On his last day in office, Samak Sundaravej signed a MOU with the supplier Steyr
  
• Apirak opened a letter of credit, which formally allowed the deal to commence
  

Apirak always stated that he was pressured by the Interior Minister to open the letter of credit.

What is also known is that some of the people involved didn't fully appreciate that once the Fire and Rescue department was taken over by the BMA, they would no longer enjoy the privilege of Duty Free imports which the Police (and Armed Services) enjoy.

2006

• The first consignment of the firetrucks were delivered
  
• It was found that the modified pickup's chasis was actually made in Thailand and then exported to Austria for refitting.
  
• The BMA were presented with a large import duty bill, for which they had no budget
  

2008

• The BMA were taken to court for 117 million baht for unpaid storage charges
  

Since then, the trucks have been left in customs, and every 6 months the BMA threaten to cancel the payment, the NCCC threaten to take the matter to court, everyone pleads innocent of any wrong doing, the Fire and Rescue department plead to have their firetrucks, and everyone seems to say the matter is mired in total corruption, although they are not sure exactly what the corruption was....

Red, yellow and Black

The perfect shirt for todays thailand

I would not want a petition to be stopped, it's hardly democratic to do so is it? However I would not want to see the criminal get off Scott free.

Most Thai people want him pardoned?.... You think that an English language newspaper is an accurate representation of the Thai people? How many those are not Thai?

If the question was whether or not people want Thaksin pardoned, then why did they not ask just that ?

Because the question they asked was far more important.

All petitions, will be to some individuals, both controversial and unwelcome, to others, just and deserved. So the question then becomes:

Should the Prime Minister be allowed to stop a petition to His Majesty the King by his subjects ?

Whatever the outcome of a petition is not the issue, it's the fundamental principle that is questioned, especially when the issue is something that the individual finds controversal and unwelcome.

You understood the question. I wonder, how many others didn't....

I never heard of a constitution made by the Junta, there was a committee .....And the draft was subject to a public referendum, but under the terms of the 2006 Constitution. A majority voted for the new constitution.

The miltary Junta formally suspended the 1997 Constitution on the 20th Sptember 2006. At the same time they instructed Meechai Ruchuphan to draft an Interim Constitution until a new Constitution was drafted by a committee, this became law on the 1st October 2006. Within the Interim Constitution was Article 37 which stated that all individuals who were involved in the 19th September 2006 were absolutely exempt from any responsibility, action or wrong doing, regardless of whether such acts were unlawful.

The present Constitution includes Article 309, which states that everything that was included in the Interim Constitution was also deemed constitutional and binding in the present Constitution.

The 2006 Interim Constitution never stated that the coup was legal, just that all individuals involved with the coup were exempt from any legal responsibility or actions.

Now for sake of argument let us say these are 5.5 million genuine signatures of people whom genuinely believe Thaksin should be let free ....

This country has over 65 million people so less than 10 percent feels this way. Not even close to a majority ........

W

Or to look at it another way - of those 65 million, how many are under 18? Or can anyone of any age sign this thing? Let's say 70% or roughly 45 million are over 18. They have one in nine of those people on that petition??? And if you consider Bangkok, and the south, where Takky has little or no support, then where did all these signatures come from? Common sense says there is no way it is possible. So they are trying to defraud the most revered institution in the country. Nice. But not surprising.

Every person who signs has to fill in details on the form provided at the bottom of the petition. This gives:

• The persons name
  
• The persons signature
  
• The persons full address
  
• The persons I.D number
  
• The persons phone number