slimdog

A bit more info can be found at:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/main_dispute.html

http://www.preah-vihear.com

http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=690

links added

hammered

The Democrats have filed a motion under Article 158/1 of the constitution

Under this Article, when they filed a motion against the Prime Minister they had to nominate a replacement. The Democrats nominated Abhist Vejjajiva.

If the vote of No- Confidence is passed on Thursday, then under Article 158/5 Abhisit's name is formally presented to His Majesty as the new Prime Minister.

Abhisit would not need to have a majority, meaning that technically he would need no coalition partners (Chuan was thinking of running a minority government back in the early nineties when Chamlong pulled the PDP out of the coalition), and the only way to unseat Abhisit would be a further vote of No-Confidence. Again technically this could not be submitted until the next General Ordinary Session, which would be in January, as the next session of Parliament starting in August is the legislative ordinary session.

Sutthichai Yoon mentioned in his column today that according to the Constitution, if the sensure debate motion is lodged, the PM can't dissolve the House to avoid it.

That can bring some interesting and unexpected turns, Samak can be well voted out by his own PPP.

Article 158

When a motion has been filed for the purpose of passing a vote of no-confidence in the Prime Minister, Such motion must nominate the suitable next Prime Minister who is also a person under section 171 paragraph two and, when the motion has been submitted, the dissolution of the House of Representatives is not permitted, except that the motion is withdrawn or the resolution is passed without being supported by the vote in accordance with paragraph three

When the Democrats filed their motion they nominated Abhisit as the Next Prime Minister.

Paragraph three states what is required:

The vote of no-confidence must be passed by more than one-half of the total number of the existing members of the House of Representatives.

If I remember correctly, Cabinet Members are not classified as being members of the House of Representatives, regardless of whether they have been elected or not and therefore do not have the right to vote in a censure debate, I also believe that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is also barred from voting. If the motion is passed then Abhisit becomes the next Prime Minister. If all the coalition members of Parliament vote against Samak, then they probably have sufficient numbers to pass the motion. However if Abhisit does become Prime Minister, the PPP would also have sufficient numbers by themselves to win a vote of no - confidence in Abhisit, if the Democrats use MP's to fill Cabinet Seats.

I read about it yesterday, it's really getting ridiculous - government ministers signing treaties clearly violating the Constitution.

From a business point of view enticing the Japanese to increase their investments in Thailand makes complete sense. From a legal standpoint government officials unilaterally signing bilateral agreements is a bombshell. The Khunying has never been the type to accuse without justification. Mingkwan has a lot of explaining to do.

BANGKOK, April 13 TNA) - Thailand, a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), will accrue more benefits after it signs the ASEAN-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership (AJCEP) agreement with Tokyo, Thailand's Deputy Prime Minister and Commerce Minister Mingkwan Saengsuwan said Sunday.

The AJCEP accord will cover commercial trade, service, investment and economic cooperation between both sides while Thailand has proposed to Japan that it would also adhere to the Japan-Thailand Economic Partnership Agreement (JTEPA) which has been in force since November 1, said Mr. Mingkwan.

Details of the Japan-ASEAN pact will be officially announced by the 10-member countries of ASEAN and Japan after all have signed the agreement.

For Thailand's part, the agreement which it had just signed for the AJCEP must first be approved by Parliament, he said.

Under the AJCEP accord, Japan will reduce up to 90 per cent of the total tariffs for goods imported from ASEAN and either reduce or waive another 6.7 per cent of goods tariffs within 10 years.

Thailand will gain more from AJCEP than from JTEPA as the Tokyo government will reduce taxes imposed on 71 goods items faster and also at the same time allows Thailand to use raw materials manufactured within the region, said Mr. Mingkwan.

Thai exporters will receive more benefits for goods exported to Japan under the AJCEP agreement, he said.

Currently, goods imported by Japan from ASEAN are valued at about US$162 billion annually, and Japan is the number one trading partner for the bloc. Its investment in ASEAN also ranks first, totaling about US$11 billion yearly.

Trade and investment between the partners are projected to increase after the AJCEP agreement comes into force. (TNA)--E111

source: http://enews.mcot.net/view.php?id=3773

Regarding the guy with kids, my conclusion would be that he does not have HIV at all

Your conclusion would be wrong....

Whilst I am not the person refered to by Chris Lawrence, I also have a wife, 2 children all of whom are hiv-, I on the other hand was diagnosed with full blown AIDS, meaning I had virtually no immune system left (CD4 count of 8), a viral load of 85,000 plus pcp pneumonia. Now, nearly 5 years later my Viral load is undetectable, thanks to ARV medication, additionally my CD4 count is hovering around the 250 level (Normal level should be 1000 - 1500), but is still slowly increasing.

Thankfully, my wife and family have been brilliant, giving 100% support and encouragement, which was definately needed for the first few months, which can only be described as hel_l.

There are quite a few people on Thai Visa, who are either hiv+ themselves or are giving complete support to loved ones who are hiv+, and to those who stood by their loved ones, you have my complete and total admiration.

I read that he is the first Foreign Minister who doesn't come from diplomatic corps.

Considering the major roles during the past two years of two previous Foreign Ministers, neither of whom served with the Diplomatic corps, I find that a strange statement.

On September 29th 1992 Chuan Leekpai appointed Squardron-Leader Prasong Soonsiri as Minister of foreign Affairs, he was succeeded on the 25th October 1994 by Police Lieutenant Colonel Thaksin Shinawatra...

Actually Voting in an election is not optional, and whilst the penalties for not voting are not particularly serious, eg not being able to stand in an election (National or Provincial), it is still a requirement under the Constitution.

Constitution of Thailand BE 2550 (2007)

Section 72. Every person has a duty to exercise their right to vote in an election

I am not sure of the time for registration, but according to the Election Commission, Advance voting is scheduled to take place on February 23-24, so your 30th Jan deadline does sound about right.

source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/pag...amp;id=30063381

Yongyuth resigns as People Power deputy leader

People Power Party party-list MP Yongyuth Tiyapairat has resigned as deputy leader and an executive of the party.

Samarn Lertwongrat, the registrar of the People Power, said Yongyuth resigned from the executive board Monday morning.

The Nation

Sounds like they know what is coming. I don't think jumping ship works anymore.

Bit of a strange comment, so I am going to assume (perhaps wrongly) that you are unfamiliar with the Parliamentry procedure.

As you will be well aware, Yongyuth Tiyapairat is going to be nominated, (and will undoubtedly succeed) in becoming the President of the House of Representatives (House Speaker) tomorrow. In order to assume this position, the Constitution states:

Article 124 (5)

While in office, the President or Vice-Presidents of the House of Representatives cannot be an executive or hold any position in a political party.

A very interesting thing I learned today, but apparently the 52 storey building that burned yesterday is owned by non other than Pojaman Shinawatra and the fire was nothing more than a good old fashion Thai style message to her. I need someone to verify this but I do trust my source.

Minor damage at Cyber World

A fire yesterday morning at Cyber World Tower on Ratchadaphisek Road is expected to slightly delay its opening but physical damage was marginal, according to the owners.

The damage and cause are currently being investigated by the Office of Police Forensic Science and civil engineers from the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA), said an executive with T.C.C. Land Development Co, a subsidiary of T.C.C. Land controlled by tycoon Chadhroen Sirivadhanabhakdi.

source: http://www.bangkokpost.com/Business/10Jan2008_bus18.php

Those are not just people campaigning for him, they are local government officials in Thai system that traditionally hold mush sway over the villagers and cannot be involved in canvassing votes for any party, especially if they are paid to do so.

You mean they cannot by law? Or they cannot because you feel they cannot? I just googled it and it seems a Kamnan is an elected official, so presumably aligned with a political party or structure.

I'm hesitant to give examples outside of Thailand for fear we'll lose focus, but the concept of supporting an elected local politician to campaigning on behalf of for example a presidential candidate, then surely this local campaigner would have expenses for organizing political rallies right? So it seems plausible that the main campaign organization would transfer funds in such a case?

Of course Thai law may be different, but then I'd like to hear what the law says; this in addition to hearing personal opinions of course, I do value those as well but I'd like to see which is which. )

Hi Lilawadee

What Plus means is that they cannot by law..

In Particular the Organic Act on the Election of Members of the House of Representatives and Iinstallation of Senators B.E. 2550

What has changed, is a recently passed law regarding Kamnan's and Poo Yai baan, who whilst still elected, are now elected until the age of 60, subject to periodic assessments. What this means is that since the enactment in October 2007, they are now re-classified as Permanent employee's of the Interior Ministry, or State Officials, and as such are barred from showing any bias towards any Political Party.

One thing you will learn when you get to Thailand is western thinking does not match what is going on. The new constitution can be described as a significant shift west as compared to the old one. There are laws that set about punishing bad politicians that I have nicknamed “teeth.’ It is those teeth that are the basis of the majority of this thread in that the bad politicians are feeling the bite of those teeth now.

This is way too complex to explain and I suggest you start with threads that are about 1 year old to see the picture.

So John K, can you please explain to an ill-informed poster (Me), why the New Constitution reverted back to the 1991 method of holding an election even though it was judged in the 1996 national consensus to be the main reason for the prevalance of vote buying

He is facing serious charges in Thailand. He can't be extradited.

Thailand has extradition treaties with numerous countries.

They could not get him out of the UK. Do you seriously think he will return if he doesn't have a SPECIAL DEAL from PPP that he will not be jailed and not have all his money taken from him? That's ridiculous. PPP ran as a TRT THAKSIN proxy. Get the connection. Are you so naive as to think it is coincidence that only NOW he is talking about coming back in February? Do you think he will come back if Abhisit is PM?

Kindly refrain from being so rude. I am merely pointing out that Thailand has had extradition treaties in position already for some time. The military government could have initiated proceedings if it had bothered to.

The quality of discussion on this topic is abysmal. In the absence of being in possession of facts, just mindless repetition of speculative, opinionated, editorialising, unreadable codswallop from the usual roster of Washington Square blowhards.

There are/were several reasons why it was not possible for any procedings to be initiated:

1. For any successful extradition, an extradition treaty, which covers the crime in question is required. The extradition treaty which Thailand has with the UK dates back to 1911, and whilst it covers many crimes (31 in total), abuse of power by an elected official is not covered, as this is a prerequisite before any extradition request can proceed, then this ensures that no extradition proceedings could proceed.

2. Even should Thailand manage to get around the Extradition treaty problem, they would also have the issue that should the same crime, have been committed in the U.K, then the person in question, would be arrested. To this point, the Thai government would have to prove and supply evidence, that should The Prime Minister of the U.K (or his wife) have carried out the same act, then they would be arrested. This is required due to the fact that once an extradition request is initiated, the person must be arrested and put before a court of law.

3. Additionally, Thailand would have to provide Prima Facie evidence that the crime did take place, and that the accused was in fact guilty, according to British Law.

As Thailand is regarded as a category 2 territory (For extradition purposes), the onus is far more on the requesting territory, to prove that there was no political motivation in the request, as this would automatically ensure that the request was denied. As any request would have to include Pojamon Shinawatra, the government would have to show convincing arguements as to why a non political person would have to stand trial in the Supreme Court for Political Office holders, and not a civil or criminal court.

More reading if you are interested:

1911 Treaty between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Siam can be found at:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1911/9.html

2003 Extradition Act can be downloaded by going to:

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operationa...o/extrad-part-2

One other snippet:

Once extradited, no other criminal proceedings may take place, other than for the crime which the suspect was extradited, and once proceedings have been fully completed, if found innocent, then the person must have the opportunety to return to the U.K, and if guilty, then once a sentence has been completed, then the person must also be allowed the opportunety to return to the U.K

Not known by me, got a source?

program on the BBC some few years ago.

some scientists try to find a solution to HIV based on the fact

An update to this story can be found at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/619316.stm

This is what was published for Bangkok:

Dec 15-16: Vote in advance for Bangkok

Published on Oct 19, 2007

The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) Friday has asked non-resident voters, who would not enable to return to cast ballot in their constituencies on December 23, to make registration with it as they would be eligible to vote in advance.

Supporting the Election Commission in term of management, Yodsak Khongmak, director of the Administration and Registration Division, said the voting in advance would be held from December 15-16 at all 50 district offices.

However, the non-resident voters needed to register with BMA from October 22 to November 22 to be qualified for the in-advance vote, he said

source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/pag...amp;id=30053114

I would assume that Pattaya (or Chon Buri) would have a similar scheme, although the dates for registering may vary depending on the Province. They certainly had a similar scheme for the referendum, where about 100,000 people voted outside of their province...

So what can we conclude:

1. Thai authorities don't know that applications for extradition have to be handed to the Home Secretary, not to the courts.

2. Thai authorities haven't realised that the current Extradition Act in force in the UK is dated 2003, not 1960 (There has never been an extradition act of 1960)

3. Even if they do proceed, the person they are trying to extradite would probably be delighted, as this would give him far more options than he currently has, which at the moment is either to stay in exile, or come back to Thailand and face a multitude of charges. Extradition for him, especially for the Ratchada land deal would be a wonderful break:

1. It is probably the weakest case they have

2. Even the plaintiff had to be threatened with legal action to file a complaint

3. The likleyhood is that he would receive at worst a suspended sentence

But the good news for Thaksin is that the Thai authorities would be compelled to comply with the Extradition treaty of 1911, part of which reads:

Article 6

A person surrendered can in no case be detained or tried in the State to which the surrender has been made, for any other crime or on account of any other matters than those for which the extradition shall have taken place, until he has been restored or had an opportunity of returning to the State by which he has been surrendered.

Which means that once the Ratchada land case had been concluded, the Thai authorities have to allow him to return to the U.K, should he so desire, and until the procedings have been completed and Thaksin is given the opportunety to return to the U.K, no further legal procedings can take place...

What is the day they need to be locked in to a party? I though it was already past. All this jumping from party to party is confusing to say the least. I don’t like him because he wants “x” and so on. From what I have seen all the party jumpers have been jumping for self serving reasons.

Iirc, and I no doubt stand to be corrected, it is now 30 days before candidate registration for the election.

The proposed date for Candidate Registration for Party List is 7th - 11th November

The proposed date for Candidate Registration for Constituency Candates is 6th - 12th November

According to the Election Commission, the last date for being registered with a Political Party in order to contest the next election is 7th November.

The 30 day rule as stipulated in the Constitution (Article 296) only states that a person has to be a member of a political party for a continuous period of 30 days prior to the election, so is in reality totally irrelevant..

One of the reasons that there has been so much jumping about by people over the last week, is that it was only in the last few days that the Election Commission actually told the Political parties what each constituency was going to comprise of, as they had to cut the number of constituencies from 400 in the last election down to 157 in the up-coming election, and there are now 8 party list constituencies instead of a Single National constituency. As there were a few suprises when they published the constituencies, there were a few people who decided to change parties rather rapidly...

Details of the new party list constituencies can be found at:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/10/17...cs_30052751.php

And given that it is yet very early days in the (hopefully successful) extradition process, it would be well into the term of the new government before he was bought back to face the music. The British government would then be in a better position to make the judgment on whether or not he was likely to receive a fair trial.

Be careful what you hope for; I would certainly suggest you read the Extradition Treaty between the U.K and Siam (Thailand), in particular Article 6.

I don't think he can move around freely while fighting his extradition case. I think he's stuck in England for good.

What would be the impact of his refusal to appear before the court when he finally decides it's safe to return?

He won't score many brownies with the judges for sure, but what legal implications does it have. Has there been any precendent?

Whilst fighting an extradition request, you are correct in saying that he will not be able to freely move around, that is because the second stage of an extradition process is the immediate arrest of the person in question. But for that to happen the Thai authorities have to get past the 1st stage, which is Administrative, where they have to provide ALL the documents which are required by law (Extradition Act of 2003), 2 of which are an existing Treaty of extradition which covers the alleged crime, and documentary proof that should the person have carried out the same crime in the U.K, then they would be arrested and charged. As both of these are non-existent, then there will be no extradition case, at least not for the Ratchada Land Case..

As for the implications for his refusal to appear before the court, the only two that spring to mind would be on the application for bail, and if sentenced, then the refusal could impact on the severity of the sentence.

Regarding the actual prosecution, then it is immaterial, as the prosecution will still have to prove that the person has commited a crime.

Have the organic laws been pased by the NLA? If they havent then the legitimacy of any election would be highly questionable to say the least. I also dont ever seem to be able to find out when the senate election/selection will occur and if any laws have been passed relating to this. Without a senate the lower house will be unable to pass legislation without a caveat to cover the lack of a senate. The whole issue of the election and the next governmet is not only shrouded in semi-mystery but any statement leaves more questions than answers. That the NLA and the Surayud government seem locked in a power struggle may also mean the answering of these questions/resolving of these issues becomes increasingly difficult.

The Organic laws were passed by the NLA on the 26th September

Once the Organic laws have been promulgated then according to the new Constitution (Section 296), a general election must be held within 90 days and the election/Selection of the Senate must be completed within 150 days. Although for the General election they do have to keep within the 60 day rule (Section 108)

Where a Senate is required, eg the Start of the first Parliamentry session (Section 127) the NLA will retain its role as the Senate for this purpose, and it will remain the Senate until a new Senate is formed, although it will lose the power to appoint or remove a person from Office ( Section 293).

Regarding legislature. As you know, the Parliamentry year is split into two parts, the Ordinary General Session, which takes place at the start of each parliamentry year and normally last 120 days, which is followed by the Ordinary Legislative session, whose length is decided during the Ordinary General Session, but is usually about the same length. Generally laws, Organic laws, Acts of Parliament etc are left until the legislative session, although there are provisions to enact laws, decrees etc during the Ordinary General Session, should the need arrive.

One of the issues currently doing the rounds is that the Organic laws should be scrutinized by the Constitutional Court (Tribunal), as stipulated in the constitution (Section 141), although Section 303 (3) does specify that this doesn't apply to the 3 Organic laws in question. It's a bit ironic that the person who was in charge of drafting the Constitution, who was also in charge of drafting the Organic laws, and was finally made the head of the panel that scrutinzed the laws for the NLA, is now asking for the laws to be checked to see if they are Constitutional....

Basically the problems Thailand faces (regarding extradition) are quite simple:

In order for the U.K to issue an extradition order, a request has to be made to the Home Secretary. He will then issue a certificate to the request stating that he had documents showing that the crime for which the request was made is covered by an existing extradition treaty, and that he had evidence or information that would justify the issue of a warrant for arrest in the UK, within the jurisdiction of a judge of the court that would hold the extradition hearing.

Thailand would also have to provide prima facie evidence in support of their request for extradition, prior to a certifcate being issued.

So if Thailand was unable to supply an Existing treaty which covered the alleged crime; proof that said offence is also an arrestable offence in the U.K, and solid evidence that there was a case to answer, then the Home secretary would have no option under the Extradition Act 2003 than to refuse to issue a certificate, without which no judicial proceedings can take place.

The reason that the offence has to be an arrestable offence in the U.K is that once the Home Secretary issues a certificate to a request, the person has to be arrested. So they will have to prove that if Gordon Brown (or his wife in the case of the Rachada-Phisek land deal) had carried out the same actions in the U.K, then they would be arrested..

Some details of Extradition requests and links to the Extradition Act 2003 can be found at:

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operationa...o/extrad-part-2

hey, I've hated Thaksin equally throughout his entire political career, including his first forays into Phalang Darma back in 1997. I'm no Johnny come lately....

Then maybe you should have stated that you had followed Thaksins Political career since Mr Chuan Leekpai made him Minister of Foreign affairs on 25th October 1994

source: http://www.cabinet.thaigov.go.th/eng/cab_50.htm

A relatively realistic portrayal of what happened to Northern Rock can be found in the Daily Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtm...4/cnrock314.xml

Quoting from the article:

The issue here is a technical one and what is really at stake is the company's growth plans.

The technical issue is quite complicated and comes back to those US sub-prime mortgages. Because banks still don't know where some $100bn-$200bn of bad sub-prime debt may emerge, they are not lending to anyone. This inter-bank market greases the wheels of the financial system but it has shut down.

Some banks raise most of their money from the likes of you and I - in retail deposits such as current or savings accounts. They then lend it back to us at a higher rate of interest. Others raise most of their funding in the inter-bank market. Northern Rock is one of the latter and, because those markets are closed to business, so is it.

Customers with existing fixed rate mortgages have nothing to worry about because Northern Rock locked in its financing at the time the deal was offered. But those on floating rate mortgages will almost certainly find themselves paying a higher rate soon.

Northern Rock finances those "Standard Variable Rate" mortgages every three months. The latest round of financing has come up and, through no fault of its own, no one was willing to lend. So it has had to tap the Bank of England at a penal rate.

also

It is important to remember that this is not a Barings. Northern Rock has done nothing to orchestrate its own downfall. If anything, the banks in the US who have sent tremors through the market by lending to uncreditworthy households are to blame for gumming up the global financial system.

Do you believe that foreign interests may be allowed to raise their stakes in Thai banks from 25% to say 49% at any near point in the future? Some of them might be worth a dabble, if so.

Accoding to the SET website TMB is currently allowed 49% foreign shareholding, of which there are currently 2 billion shares still available (out of a total of about 170 billion ordinary shares issued)

Actual Figures are:

Authorized Capital :

- Common Stock : 167,367,412,790.00 Baht

- Preferred Stock : 19,919,972,000.00 Baht

Paid-up Capital :

- Common Stock : 165,367,412,790.00 Baht

- Preferred Stock : 19,919,972,000.00 Baht

Voting Stock :

- Common Stock : 16,536,741,279 Shares

- Preferred Stock : 1,991,997,200 Shares

Foreign Limit : 49.00000 %

Foreign Available : 2,066,314,193 Shares

Source: SET

To answer your questions:

1. NPKC Order No7 (Which banned Political activity and groupings of more than 5 people) was revoked on 9th May 1991

2. In total 86 Border Districts were kept under Martial law these were spread throughout 21 Provinces. Only 2 of these Provinces were under total Martial law (Trat & Mae Hong Son).

Not really colonel, since the early 1990s, 25 provinces , including your wife's Chiang Rai, have been under martial law.

I don't think it affected TRT activity.

No, my wife is not from Chiang Rai.

Any substantiation that 25 Provinces have been since he early 90's under martial law?

There are a few references, although ALL refer to 21 Provinces rather than the 25 Siripon stated.

A recent one is from The Nation,s Avudh Panananda, which stated:

Many parts of Thailand have remained under martial law for decades and no one seems to have noticed it.

To allow soldiers to protect the porous borderline, martial law has been enforced since the Cold War. In 1991, the Anand Panyarachun government placed 21 provinces under martial law and at least three general elections have taken place smoothly despite the security measures.

The CNS has enlarged the martial law areas with 14 additional provinces.

source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/09/04...cs_30047630.php

However a perhaps more accurate account is from the Bangkok Post 3rd May 1991

Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun countersigned a royal command last night lifting martial law in most of the country, effective from today. But martial law will remain in force in border districts (in 21 provinces around the country) and the ban on political gatherings issued by the NPCK has yet to be revoked. Under NPCK Order No.7, political gatherings of five person or more are banned.

Martial law will remain in force in the following provinces and districts:

Kanchanaburi: Muang, Thong Pha Phum, Sai Yoke, Sri Sawat & Sang Khla;

Chanthaburi: Pong Nam Ron & Ma Kham;

Chiang Rai: Chiang Khong, Chiang Saen, Thoeng, Mae Chan, Mae Sai & Wieng Kaen;

Chiang Mai: Chiang Dao, Fang, Mae Ai, Wieng Haeng & Chiang Dao;

Trat: All districts;

Tak: Tha Song Yang, Pob Phra, Mae Ramat, Mae Sot & Um Phang;

Narathiwat: Cha Nae, Ra Ngae, Waeng, Sri Sa Khon & Su Khi Rind;

Nan: Chiang Klang, Thung Chang, Na Noi, Pua, Mae Cha Rim, Wiang Sa, Bo Klua & Santisuk;

Buriram: Ban Kruat & La Han Sai;

Prachinburi: Klong Hat, Ta Phraya, Wang Nam Yen, Wat Tananakhon & Aranya Prathet;

Phayao: Chiang Kham;

Phitsanulok: Chart Trakarn & Nakhon Thai;

Mae Hong Son: All districts;

Yala: Tharn To, Betong, Banang Sata & Yaha;

Loei: Chiang Khan, Dan Sai, Tha Lee, Na Haew & Phu Rua;

Sisaket: Khu Khan, Khun Han & Kantharalak;

Song Khla: Nathawee, Sa Dao & Sa Ba Yoi;

Satun: Muang;

Surin: Kab Choeng, Bua Chet, Prasat & Sang Ka;

Uttaradit: Nam Pad & Fak Tha;

Ubon Ratchathani: Kemma Rath, Khong Chiem, Cha Nu Man, Na Chaluey, Nam Yuen, Undarik and Pibunmang Sahan.