3 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Those are good people....

Sorry. I repent of my suspicious thoughts.

6 hours ago, KhunBENQ said:

Desperately searching article by article.

In the end a 44 must help.

What a farce.

Article 44, 66...is there a '22' trait here (actually 11). I think someone in the government has been studying metaphysical numerology, Ha!

????

On 5/20/2019 at 3:55 PM, nahkit said:

You do know that up until he declared his intention to run as a politician Thanathorn was head of the Thai Summit group, a company that his family owns and had revenues of 80 billion baht in 2017?

 

Are you seriously questioning where he could have come up with 3.5 million USD?

No. Hence my question. Or is it not allowed to ask for information?

15 hours ago, kandi said:

No. Hence my question. Or is it not allowed to ask for information?

No-one told you about google?

 

Just offering some information.

On 5/20/2019 at 4:42 PM, sjaak327 said:

Sure, but I doubt there is even a single country that prohibits a candidate using his own money to fund his own party. I wonder how ppp was funded, but I guess the NCPO is exempted from those laws...

You wonder how PPP was funded? Thaksin wrote them a cheque.

Has anyone actually bother to read the Political Party Organic Act to find out if there are any inclusion of loan as source of funds. It’s all there in public domain and in English. If it’s not specific in the Act, I question how the EC can possibly made reference to Act being violated. Just typical political enemy harassment; pure and simple. 

On 5/20/2019 at 3:21 PM, sjaak327 said:

The real question here is, why can a political candidate not use his own money to subsidize his own party ? Crazy stuff

Might be worth checking where the junta party's money came from, but guess that's different.... 

22 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Has anyone actually bother to read the Political Party Organic Act to find out if there are any inclusion of loan as source of funds. It’s all there in public domain and in English. If it’s not specific in the Act, I question how the EC can possibly made reference to Act being violated. Just typical political enemy harassment; pure and simple. 

In the BP article 19/5/19 a former charter writer explained that only "juristic persons" and companies are allowed to borrow money under Thai law (not the Organic Act, I assume). 

Which brings in the question of if it wasn't a loan, what was it? 

9 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

In the BP article 19/5/19 a former charter writer explained that only "juristic persons" and companies are allowed to borrow money under Thai law (not the Organic Act, I assume). 

Which brings in the question of if it wasn't a loan, what was it? 

This was the direct quote from Srisuwan, paraphrased to avoid copyright infringement. 

 

“He called for the EC to take up the case as Thanathorn risked breaking the Political Parties Act”,

 

9 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

This was the direct quote from Srisuwan, paraphrased to avoid copyright infringement. 

 

“He called for the EC to take up the case as Thanathorn risked breaking the Political Parties Act”,

 

Doh! If he gave his political party money, and the party isn't allowed to borrow, then it looks very much like an illegal donation rather than a loan. THAT is illegal under the PP Act.

3 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

Doh! If he gave his political party money, and the party isn't allowed to borrow, then it looks very much like an illegal donation rather than a loan. THAT is illegal under the PP Act.

You know that registered political parties are required to disclose full financial statement. The balance sheet list him as creditor. Isn’t that clear enough for you. By the way, the Act have no mention of loan or borrowings.

You wonder how PPP was funded? Thaksin wrote them a cheque.

I was not refering to ptp.... I was referring to the party that wants to nominate a dictator and coup monger, how were they financed. I think it is dead sure they are violating quite a few articles.

Sent from my SM-J730F using Tapatalk

35 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

You know that registered political parties are required to disclose full financial statement. The balance sheet list him as creditor. Isn’t that clear enough for you. By the way, the Act have no mention of loan or borrowings.

In the opinion of Chartchai na Chiang Mai, a former charter author, political parties are not allowed to borrow, as expressed in the BP. I will take his opinion over yours as he possibly talks sense and is capable of logical argument. Listing him as a creditor for a loan that cannot legally exist is worth nothing. I have already said that I believe that is NOT part of the Organic Act, and IMHO it is quite possible he was unaware that the loan was not legal, but that doesn't reduce his culpability under that act. 

14 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

In the opinion of Chartchai na Chiang Mai, a former charter author, political parties are not allowed to borrow, as expressed in the BP. I will take his opinion over yours as he possibly talks sense and is capable of logical argument. Listing him as a creditor for a loan that cannot legally exist is worth nothing. I have already said that I believe that is NOT part of the Organic Act, and IMHO it is quite possible he was unaware that the loan was not legal, but that doesn't reduce his culpability under that act. 

Well, if you are going to be pedantic. Those laws have been drafted by people without a mandate to do so. It was drafted by criminals that staged a coup. So those laws to me are absolutely meaningless. 

 

As I said before, the junta will not get away with this, any legitimacy they hoped to gain with these elections are now completely out of the window. By going after FFP they are digging their own grave. Watch this space, I give it another month or two before it will all come crashing down. 

Edited May 25, 20197 yr by sjaak327

13 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

In the opinion of Chartchai na Chiang Mai, a former charter author, political parties are not allowed to borrow, as expressed in the BP. I will take his opinion over yours as he possibly talks sense and is capable of logical argument. Listing him as a creditor for a loan that cannot legally exist is worth nothing. I have already said that I believe that is NOT part of the Organic Act, and IMHO it is quite possible he was unaware that the loan was not legal, but that doesn't reduce his culpability under that act. 

I will rather take the comment of the EC Chairman Ittiporn because they are presiding on this case (not my opinion). 

 

Again paraphrasing:-

Ittiporn said that the commission will base its decision whether to admit the loan case primarily on Section 62 of the Political Party Organic Act.

 

And the gem:-

He further said that the Act do not

mentioned anything about loan But nevertheless they will look at it. 

 

He needs to look into the constitution being savagely ripped apart for a few select groups advantage. That is unconstitutional right there. 

8 minutes ago, holy cow cm said:

He needs to look into the constitution being savagely ripped apart for a few select groups advantage. That is unconstitutional right there. 

If that is not vile enough, they interprete laws and exploit to their advantage against their political enemies.

56 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Well, if you are going to be pedantic. Those laws have been drafted by people without a mandate to do so. It was drafted by criminals that staged a coup. So those laws to me are absolutely meaningless. 

 

As I said before, the junta will not get away with this, any legitimacy they hoped to gain with these elections are now completely out of the window. By going after FFP they are digging their own grave. Watch this space, I give it another month or two before it will all come crashing down. 

I don't know WHO enacted the law that a political party cannot raise loans, as it is not contained in the organic PP Act. Or for that matter which act it comes under, though it may well be a financial or banking act. Apparently you do, please enlighten us. 

2 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

I don't know WHO enacted the law that a political party cannot raise loans, as it is not contained in the organic PP Act. Or for that matter which act it comes under, though it may well be a financial or banking act. Apparently you do, please enlighten us. 

Does the title of the OP not give away that story ?

Article 66 of the political party act according to the OP. You can bet these laws have been drafted and subsequently approved post coup. Drafted to stiffle any competition.

 

As I said before, where was Srisuwan when we really needed him, the 2007 constitution needed defending from Prayuth, yet he kept quiet then. Follow the money I would say.... 

Edited May 25, 20197 yr by sjaak327

21 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Does the title of the OP not give away that story ?

Article 66 of the political party act according to the OP. You can bet these laws have been drafted and subsequently approved post coup. Drafted to stiffle any competition.

 

As I said before, where was Srisuwan when we really needed him, the 2007 constitution needed defending from Prayuth, yet he kept quiet then. Follow the money I would say.... 

http://thailaws.com/law/t_laws/tlaw0498.pdf

 

Read it. You will find nothing about loans.

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

If that is not vile enough, they interprete laws and exploit to their advantage against their political enemies.

Yeah noticed that as well. They twist and smooth the icing on the constitution cake as fits them.  

A flame has been removed