slimdog

The article 7 petition was never answered if I remember correctly. If the current petition is seen as contentious maybe a similar fate awaits it.

His Majesty rejected the call to invoke Article 7

source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/04/25...es_30002507.php

It is all about politics and propoganda anyway and always has been. Tactics and strategies to reach an end

On that you are absolutely right.

Staying on topic, I doubt the Privy Council's duties require them to act on third-party petitions.

The Privy council has no duty to act on any petition.

The problem for the Privy council is that regardless of their personel feelings, they are bound by the Constitution, not to show any loyalty or bias towards any political party. Whilst as individuals they may feel that the petition is inappropriate, the council cannot be seen in any way, to be putting any form of restriction or pressure on an individuals or groups fundamental right to petition His majesty when they feel an unjustice has been done.

In 2006, a petition was made by individuals, seeking for His Majesty to invoke Article 7 of the constitution, many people agreed with this petition, many didn't. But the petition was made, because it was their right to do so. As with the current petition many individuals expressed the view that the petition was inappropriate.

The Privy Council has a duty to render advice to the King on all matters pertaining to His functions as He may consult. As such the Privy Council will need to ensure that any advice they may be asked to give is both legally and Constitutionaly accurate.

is any arrest made by undercover or investigating or just tip offs

Generally by tip off's

The deal is that a major dealer is allowed to stay in business on the provision that they periodically provide the police with a tip off. Normally this will involve foreigners, as the dealers are a bit cautious about Thai and Burmese buyers incase they have mafia or gang connections.

At the end of the day, the dealer is happy, as he not only has the sale money, but also permission to continue to operate.

The police are happy, as they look good, plus the government gives the arresting officers money for each gram of heroin seized.

The government is happy, because they can show that they are serious about drugs.

The only person not happy is the buyer. But he never stood a chance..

If it is against the law and they took office without addressing the issue, then they are guilty and should be kicked out.

It is not this easy. It seems this easy and one of my first posts on this subject said what you have put above. However, it has since been reported that these guys took office with shareholdings based on what the EC allowed in the past. The current EC, according to what has been reported, are saying that they interpreted the law more leniently in the past, but are now interpreting it differently.

From what I understand in the past the EC was comfortable as long as members of the Senate and House didn't acquire related shares after they took office. Now, after these guys have assumed their positions, from what is being reported, the EC are interpreting the law saying the Senate and House shouldn't own these shares at all while in office.

While we can argue what is the right thing to do for members of the Senate and House, to me it doesn't seem fair to interpret the laws one way and then after members of the Senate and House take office, switch and interpret the laws a different way.

My understanding of this issue is slightly different.

Regarding the Senators, a complaint was filed with the Election Commission by Senator Ruangkrai Leekitwattana, that 17 of his collegues in the Senate had shares in companies in violation of Article 48 and/or Article 265 of the Constitution. These are new articles which were not present in earlier constitutions. As is normal under these circumstances, the Election Commission set up a committee to look into the complaint, and when finished the committee reported back to the EC, and included a recommendation.

Unfortunetely, both articles have been written in a way that is ambiguous.

Article 48 (Shares in television production, radio, newspaper and telecommunications) has been written in a way that could be interpreted as either; No shares shall be held by the Political office holder, his/her spouse, children or nominees; OR No shares shall be held by a Political Office holder, his/her spouse, children or nominee's enabling the management of any of these businesses.

The committee took the view that it was the latter interpretation. But the Election Committee decided to take the stricter interpretation.

Article 265 (shares in a company which has a monopoly contract or concession from either the state or a government owned business or enterprise) has been written in a way that could be interpreted as either; No shares shall be held by a Political Office holder, his/her spouse, children or nominee's; OR No shares shall be held by a Political Office holder, his/her spouse, children or nominee's in a company which becomes a concessionaire or receives a monopoly contract after the individual has come into office.

Again the commitee took the latter interpretation, but the Election Committee took the stricter one.

IMHO, In these instances, it probably is safer to take the stricter interpretation, otherwise you will in future have issues concerning what constitutes managerial control, particularly when it involves sons or daughters, or whenever a contract or concession or even an ammendment is issued by the state or government agency. It is also worth bearing in mind that two of the Election Commissioners were also part of the 2007 Constitution Drafting Committee, Sodsri Sattayatham and Praphan Naikowit.

• I cannot find fault with all his talk about economic recovery initiatives. I am not an economist, and this stuff simply "goes over my head". I am sure a legitimate, Democratically elected Government with a popular mandate would do just as well. In fact, it is the Bureacracy that is probably driving these economic recovery programs anyway, and would do so under any Government.
  

The biggest problem for Abhisit, is going to be the economy. Nearly everything else is secondary. Which means that if he doesn't start to begin sorting this out, and relatively quickly, then any other accomplishments will get ignored. Abhisit has got the theory, he has most of the finance, but putting it into practice is going to be a herculean task.

IMHO, his problem is going to be the bureacracy. It is not that they are incapable, it just that too many decent bureacrats have either been dismissed, indicted or put under investigation because they have carried out the political will of the Government of the day. For them, the most natural thing to do is, nothing. They will certainly form a number of committee's, multiple sub-committee's and panels, they will hand the issue over to think tanks, in fact they will do anything, other than authorise the spending of the money.

And if the money doesn't get out, and circulated among the people, then there isn't any recovery until the world economy picks up, and the private sector starts investing on it's own. By that time Abhisit is politically dead..

Electoral Commission claims Deputy PMs scalp

By John Le Fevre

Mr Suthep, a list MP

For info:

Suthep is actually a constituent MP for Surat Thani district 1 (zone 8)

Two of the other MP's named by the Election Commission are Party list MP's

Trairong Suwankhiri

Chalermlak Kebsup

They are both party list members for zone 8, and so should the Constitutional Court agree with the Election Commission, their membership will automatically be taken by the remaining 2 Party list MP's (Democrats have already used 8 of the 10 party list candidates for this zone).

Should either or both of the remaining candidates be no longer eligible to be a member of Parliament,or should any future zone 8 List MP lose membership of parliament then their places will remain empty.

OK, I have a question.

If you are an expat here living on a non-immigrant visa and you have one the medical conditions normally putting you at the top of the queue to get the vaccine (such as asthma/diabetes) are you included on this priority or not?

It appears that for this spray type vaccine, any form of respiratory ailment, even temporary, it is unsuitable, regardless of whether you are a Thai national or foreigner.

However, GPO managing director Dr Witit Artavatkun, said the spray-type vaccine will not be suitable for people with certain ailments such as flu, emphysema, asthma, respiratory problems, HIV/Aids, or those who are allergic to chicken eggs

Election Commissioners appointed directly by the dictatorial junta

Werent they actually appointed before the coup?

Whilst the selection for the Election Commissioners took place before the coup, their actual formal appointment was made by Sonthi boonyaratglin a few days after the coup.

Newly selected commissioner, Wisuth Pothithaen is currently the only member of the EC who has been endorsed by royal decree.

Nothing absurd or hidden about it.There were pictures of the men with the cameras aimed at open to view voting booths.

Those cameras were out in the open making sure bought votes stayed bought. I saw a picture of same.

Hence the decision to annul the election AND the jail terms for ELECTION COMMISSIONERS. <<< FACT

December 2007 (ANFREL)

Thankfully with the Election Commissioners receiving multiple jail terms. The 2007 General Election was held ensuring total privacy for every voter.

Not sure of charged is the right word for the topic headline.

Seems called in for questioning fits better.

And would explain the lack of intention to stop working.

It is another step in the process of course.

But no one is 'charged' yet.

The correct word is summoned.

However, even though the case is still quite a way away from any formal charges let alone court appearances, there are other considerations which should come into the equation. The first consideration is the ASEAN summit later this month. During this summit the foreign Minister will play an important part, both with Heads of State and fellow Foreign Ministers. It would be irresponsible of the host country (Thailand) to place any of these dignitories in a position where photo's, meetings or treaties coming from the summit could be used by rivals of these dignitories for political gain.

Under the harshest laws of the country, which is basically Martial law under a new name, which even it's supporters acknowledge does take away some of the basic human rights of the people for a period of time, Thailand as the Chair of ASEAN is set to proudly unveil the first ever ASEAN human rights body (AHRB) in Phuket. The irony....

Might explain Johnathan Head's new posting to Turkey...?

Any chance of a source for this..

Terminology

MonteCristo.. A Brand of cigar just like Marloboro is a brand of cigarette

Habana.. Shows that the cigar is hand made in Cuba, which is the most sort after and expensive type

Corona.. Shows that the cigar is 5 1/2" in length

No.1.. Exactly the same diameter and shape as a No.3 but is 6 1/2" in length

No.3.. A straight cigar 42/64" in diameter and 5 1/2" in length

No.4.. Exactly the same diameter and shape as a No.3 but is 5" in length

Montecristo No.3

This Corona from Montecristo turns out to be an intermediate step between the world's most-sold Habano (the montecristo No.4) and the large formats of the brands. It occupies a very outstanding place, although more as substitute for the No.1, or as expansion of the No. 4. The surfeit of this brand has challenged its undoubted prestige, but those who are Montecristo smokers are faithful to all its formats. A Habano that never lets you down.

Translation

This type of cigar from Montecristo has the cheap and popular No.4, the less cheap and less popular No.3 and the expensive No.1. There are millions of Montecristo's on the market so it's hard work for the manufacturer to keep on claiming they are prestigious, but this type of cigar smoker doesn't care.

None of those stories really say what the Internal Security Act is. That would help, probably. And Draconian? Come on.

The draft of the ISOC act can be found at:

http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/wp...translation.pdf

Will we get new elections if some of the MP's currently being investigated get disqualified?

In the case of Constituency MP's then yes, a new election must take place.

In the case of Party list MP's then there are 3 possibilities:

• The next candidate on the Party List takes the place
  
• If the Party never stood in the 2007 election then there will be no replacement
  
• If all 10 Party List candidates have been used then there will be no replacement
  

So if a Party List MP from one of the newer parties is disqualified then there will be no replacement and the house of representatives will consist of the remaining MP's.

In Region 8 of the Party List votes, 8 positions were taken up by members of the Democrat Party, so should three or more Party List MP's from this region be disqualified then replacements will only be for two of the positions, but that is on the provision that they are still qualified.

Accusing the court of prejudice in parliament, on national TV? What else do you expect?

Try that in the US, see how long you'll hold off contempt of court charges.

IMHO, Article One of the American Constitution:

Section 6:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

Just for Info...

1) Somchai Sawaengkarn...................Selected (Professional Sector)

2) Pornphan Boonyaratphan................Selected (Professional Sector)

3) Assoc Prof Atchara Settharitpithak..Selected (Professional Sector)

4) Truengjai Buransomphop................Selected (Academic Sector)

5) Thaworn Leenutpong......................Selected (Private Sector)

6) Boonchai Chokwattana...................Selected (Private Sector)

7) Phichai Uttamapinan......................Selected (Private Sector)

8) Worawut Rojanaphanit...................Selected (Other Sector)

9) Thippawan Samutharaks................Selected (Other Sector)

10) Naruemol Siriwat...........................Elected (Uttaradit)

11) Pol Gen Kowit Phakdeephum........Elected (Anthong)

12) Sitthissak Yontrakul.....................Elected (Kalasin)

13) Supoj Liadprathom.......................Elected (Trat)

14) Phikulkaew Krirrirk...................... Elected (Phitsanulok)

15) Jaral Juengyingruengroong........... Elected (Saraburi)

16) Jittapoj Wiriyaroj..........................Elected (Si Sa Ket)

17) Somchart Phanpat.......................Elected (Nakhon Pathom)

Where do you get Atripla? How much its cost?

Atripla is not available in Thailand.

The nearest you can get, which has the same ingredients Tenofovir/emtricitabine/efavirenz would be Truvada + Stocrin

For one month supply (30 days)

Truvada cost = approx Baht 3000

Stocrin cost = approx Baht 1200

Both available at Bumrungrad hospital and maybe other large International hospitals in Bangkok. As Truvada has only just become available, then unlikely that small hospitals will have at present.

The NCCC promises a court case really soon

Ahh, but the case is already with Attorney General now, got you!

The problem for the Attorney General is going to be Steyr imho.

Taking on a small Austrian company is one thing, but prior to the deal being signed, Steyr was 100% purchased by the American company General Dynamics. So to start with you have to include the foreign corruption policy act (FCPA) into the equation, which means a Department of Justice investigation.

The Attorney General is going to want an absolutely airtight case before taking Steyr into the Supreme Court for Political office holders, and without Steyr then I am not sure what the case for corruption is.

Without knowing in advance what a DOJ investigation unfolds, then in my opinion I see delay as being possibly the more pragmatic solution for the Attorney General.

But then again who knows....

That is a surprising comment above. Given the facts, I wouldn't be so quick to think the boycott of the April 2006 elections made the Sept. 2006 coup possible since the boycott had nothing to do with it. The fact is, as it ended up, in May 2006, the April 2006 elections were annulled by the Constitutional Court for "systematic violation of the secrecy of the vote." To jog your memory, this was the election that eventually lead to members of the Election Commission being thrown in jail.

Hence, it didn't matter that three political parties (not just the Democrats) boycotted the April 2006 election, because even if there was no boycott these elections would still have been declared null and void.

You or anyone else interested in this period of Thai history can google it and find numerous articles about this election and why it was annulled.

The boycott led to a prolonged interim government, especially because it went hand in hand with PAD demands and protests, which has weakened the system to the extend that the coup group was able to justify their takeover. With a stable and elected government in place the coup group would have had much more difficulties to explain the possibly worst infraction against democratic development imaginable to both the Thai population and to the outside world. The system still suffers from this coup, and will so for the foreseeable future.

And , please, the so called "systematic violation of the secrecy of the vote" was a technicality because of a slightly wrong placing of the booths in some constituencies.

The April 2006 election would have been annulled regardless of whether all parties participated or not. The non participation by the three parties was a side issue.

I find humorous your description of the systematic violation as being a technicality because of a slightly wrong placing of the booths in some constituencies as clearly, the violation was widespread (hence, members of the Election Commission being thrown in jail). Enough has been written about this already.

Anyway, as far as this discussion is concerned, the extent of the violation is academic. The fact remains that the election was annulled by the courts and hence, the non participation of the three political parties had nothing to do with the prolonged interim government as you claim.

Whilst the Election Commissioners were jailed, their convictions had nothing to do with the placements of the polling booths.

The first conviction in July 2006 (4 years), was on charges filed by Thaworn Senneam, regarding allowing additional candidates to contest in an re-election which had been caused by the winning candidate not securing 20% of the constituencies vote without first obtaining a new royal decree.

The second conviction in september 2006 (2 years) was on charges filed by Suthep Thaugsuban, regarding the Election Commissioners failure to investigate claims that the TRT party had hired small parties to run in the April 2006 election in order to overcome the 20% rule.

The irony of it all of course, is that today, the 20% rule (Section 88 of the organic law) has been re-written to the extent that it would not be neccessary for a political party to do what TRT did....

And this was a sealed container, not a beach where some parts would get continuously grinded by sand and stones...

Earlier report from TANN News stated:

During the examination, they were able to take underwater photographs, which revealed that there are no skeletons in the container, except shells and those of three Nurse Sharks. The team was also able to take a sample of silt from around the container to determine if there were toxic substances, even so there was a group of sharks nearby

source: http://www.thailandoutlook.tv/toc/ViewData...?DataID=1015496

It may have been a sealed container when it was dumped 20 years ago, but it doesn't sound as though it was sealed when they went to investigate.

If the two expelled MPs go to courrt and win they will immediatley be able to join any party they want. This is a giant case if it happens as it could open up PTP for a firesale if more MPs start to do things to get expelled, or PTP will face having to run as a party with nominal strength in numbers but in fact with a whole load of MPs they darent expel.

If they by some unlikely event lose Sakhon Nakhon there could be a deluge or at least a massive renegotiation to stay

For Information:

The 2 MP's do have the right to petition the court, however it is the Constitutional Court, not the Criminal court to which they have to appeal, they also have just 30 days and not the 60 days that is mentioned in the Nations article.

The 2 MP's were dismised under Article 20 (4) of the Political parties act (2007)

Their only grounds for appeal is under the constitution Article 65:

The ressolution is contrary to the status and performance of duties of a member of the House of Representatives under this

Constitution or contrary to or inconsistent with fundamental principles of the democratic regime of government with the King

as Head of the State

Basically the 2 MP's were given full freedom to choose which political party they wanted to join, but once they joined a political party they had to abide by that parties rules and regulations. Under the constitution the Peau Thai Party had full right to dismiss the 2 providing it was voted on in accordance to the rules, and as such the 2 not only lose membership of the Puea Thai Party, but they all lose their status as MP's, and because of the 90 day rule they will not be able to compete in the new election to fill the vacancies.

Has any of the trucks been delivered?

Not sure of the actual numbers, but according to the press, hundreds of trucks are currently being stored by the Port Authority of Thailand, for which the BMA are being sued for unpaid storage (117,000,000 baht). And more keep on arriving...

Basically every six months:

• The BMA acknowledges that there maybe corruption in the deal
  
• The BMA threatens to cancel the contract
  
• The BMA threatens not to pay the next installment
  
• The BMA stores the new firetrucks delivered
  
• The BMA pays the next installment
  
• The Bangkok City Assembly begs the Bangkok Governor to utilise the vehicles
  
• The Bangkok Governor promises to look into the matter
  
• The NCCC promises a court case really soon
  

Lots of cross party agreement on reducing checks and balances on themselves.

The original idea to use purely the court system for confirming yellow and red cards was proposed at the start of the hearings into political reconciliation and constitutional amendments. This proposal came from the Election Commission secretary-general, Suthiphon Thaveechaiyagarn. His comments were made when he disclosed that 100 % of all yellow and red cards issued by the Election Commission within 30 days of the last election were endorsed as being legally correct by the Council of State. When the 30 day period had finished and all cases had to be endorsed by the supreme court the figure went down to less than 40%.

Over sixty percent of the Election Commission's ruling were found to be seriously flawed, and the yellow and red cards were revoked.

As two political parties, Chart Thai and Matchima were dissolved because an executive had been red Carded within the first 30 days, requiring no legal review of the actual case, other than that the correct legal requirements had been made, then maybe it is not such a bad idea, especially as legally, any constituent MP who is red carded can be forced to personally pay the full cost of a re-election amounting to millions of baht.

Checks and balances should work both ways

Nothing was paid so far, the contract is stalled.

5 payments have been made so far:

Feb 2007 = 845,000,000 baht

Aug 2007 = 743,000,000 baht

Feb 2008 = 600,000,000 baht

Aug 2008 = 700,000,000 baht

Feb 2009 = 750,000,000 baht

The sixth payment out of nine is due in Aug 2009..