The Constitutional Tribunal Disbands Thai Rak Thai - Election cheating

[slimdog]

Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand BE 2540 (1997)

Section 116

The King has the prerogative to dissolve the House of Representatives for a new election of members of the House.

The dissolution of the House of Representatives shall be made in the form of a Royal Decree in which the day for a new general election must be fixed within sixty days and such election day must be the same throughout the Kingdom.

The dissolution of the House of Representatives may be made only once under the same circumstance.

[ColPyat]

Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand BE 2540 (1997)

Section 116

The King has the prerogative to dissolve the House of Representatives for a new election of members of the House.

The dissolution of the House of Representatives shall be made in the form of a Royal Decree in which the day for a new general election must be fixed within sixty days and such election day must be the same throughout the Kingdom.

The dissolution of the House of Representatives may be made only once under the same circumstance.

Now, does that mean that TRT has done nothing unconstitutional by calling in the snap elections and setting the date less than 60 days?

And that the nullification has basically only been because of the arrangement of the polling booths? Which would basically mean, that this was rather lucky for the opposition. But that in fact the boycott of the elections itself was not based on any legal interpretation, and just a form of protest?

And furthermore - that the TRT government had actually not much choice in setting the date as the fulfilling the 90 day rule would have itself been resulting in an unconstitutional election?

[soundman]

Now, does that mean that TRT has done nothing unconstitutional by calling in the snap elections and setting the date less than 60 days?

And that the nullification has basically only been because of the arrangement of the polling booths? Which would basically mean, that this was rather lucky for the opposition. But that in fact the boycott of the elections itself was not based on any legal interpretation, and just a form of protest?

And furthermore - that the TRT government had actually not much choice in setting the date as the fulfilling the 90 day rule would have itself been resulting in an unconstitutional election?

I seem to recall that the annullement of the election result was, in addition to the booth placement scandal, also attributed to some members of the EC (the ones now in prison) being found to be on Taksin's payroll.

Cheers,

Soundman.

[thedude]

thought i'd share this analysis published on the CNA website which presents a very balanced view of recent events and an assessment of where we are headed.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/ana.../279960/1/.html

[A_Traveller]

My understanding of this is that the charter is silent as to the PM's prerogative to call an election outside of term, though he may submit his request for Royal prerogative as per 116. If the election is by effluxion of time then the election must be called within 90 days. In both cases this means that the 90 day rule of Party membership remains in force, so there was no need for the 30 day rush to poll. The charter makes it clear that the EC, not the PM or other organs of state are solely responsible for the running of th election under the constitution. Further they are even provided legal protection from arrest and hindrance during the process.

Section 144 []

The Election Commission shall control and hold, or cause to be held, an election of members of the House of Representatives, senators, members of a local assembly and local administrators including the voting in a referendum for the purpose of rendering it to proceed in an honest and fair manner.

The Chairman of the Election Commission shall have the charge and control of the execution of the organic law on the election of members of the House of Representatives and senators, the organic law on political parties, the organic law on the voting in a referendum and the law on the election of members of local assemblies or local administrators and shall be the political- party registrar.

Section 145

The Election Commission shall have the following powers and duties:

1. to issue Notifications determining all activities necessary for the execution of the laws referred to in section 144 paragraph two;
   
2. to give orders instructing Government officials, officials or employees of a State agency, State enterprise or local government organisation or other State officials to perform all necessary acts under the laws referred to in section 144 paragraph two;
   
3. to conduct investigations and inquiries for fact-finding and decision on arising problems or disputes under the laws referred to in section 144 paragraph two;
   
4. to order a new election or a new voting at a referendum to be held in any or all polling stations when there occurs convincing evidence that the election or the voting at a referendum in that or those polling stations has not proceeded in an honest and fair manner;
   
5. to announce the result of an election and the voting in a referendum;
   
6. to perform other acts as provided by law.
   

In the performance of duties, the Election Commission has the power to summon any relevant document or evidence from any person, or summon any person to give statements as well as to request the Courts, public prosecutors, inquiry officials, State agencies, State enterprises or local government organisations to take action for the purpose of performing duties, investigating, conducting inquiries and passing decisions.

The Election Commission has the power to appoint persons, a group of persons or representatives of private organisations to perform such duties as entrusted.

As may be seen from the above the EC is/was the check and balance to ensure that the election would be correctly managed. It was the view of the court in 2006 that the EC failed to uphold its constitutional requirement. It matters little what the court chose as their example, a single constitutional error was sufficient to invalidate the entire process.

The failure of the EC was demonstrable, and that led to the voiding of the election. Given the process it is difficult to continue this discussion. However, the EC should have ensured that any electoral call was appropriate before it went forward

This they did not do, they simply caved in to the PM's request for a 30 day poll, they had the authority and some would have argued the duty, to insist on a more suitable time-frame which, if memory serves, the opposition would have been more comfortable with.

Regards

[ColPyat]

My understanding of this is ...

So, basically - calling in the snap elections was basically not illegal or unconstitutional, but the way how the elections were handled posed the problems that led to the annulment.

Which then also follows the argumentation that also Dr Thitinan Pongsudhirak, in the link to Channelnewsasia, led, that the boycott of the Democrats did initiate the chain reaction leading to present yet unsolved mess.

Sorry, but how i see these verdicts, is that the law was used to legally justify the moves and actions of vested interests by those same vested interests, and not as an impartial tool to steer the country back on course. The letter of the law may have been followed, but not the spirit of the law.

There is also the slight problem, how to legally justify the verdict of a tribunal that was put in place by a military junta that has illegally usurped power. Who is going to put the junta on trial. The same law and constitution that was used to dissolve TRT also clearly states that military coups are illegal. How can one party be judged under this law, while another group which broke much severe laws under the same constitution is not even be brought to trial?

Considering all this - this whole thing is a perversion of justice. It would have been much more honest to straight away dissolve TRT by junta decree, and not just set the precedent that regardless which laws are written - they can still be abused, circumvented and taken advantage of by extra-constitutional powers, misleading the public with 10 hour justification that in the end mean absolutely nothing.

The Junta may have tried to give itself a veneer of due process, in the end though, it is a dictatorship doing what all dictatorships are doing.

Edited June 4, 2007 by ColPyat

[Mid]

and at what stage did the democrats rearrange the polling booths to void the voters right to privacy ?

[A_Traveller]

My understanding of this is ...

So, basically -

You either don't get it or are being deliberately abstruse, think about the process, think about exactly what happened, how the process functions, think about how any court in this country would be able or willing to rule on that process.

Regards

PS Line > 3 < 5 {Hint}

Link to Forum Rules

/edit to correct italics//

Edited June 4, 2007 by A_Traveller

[ColPyat]

My understanding of this is ...

So, basically -

You either don't get it or are being deliberately abstruse, think about the process, think about exactly what happened, how the process functions, think about how any court in this country would be able or willing to rule on that process.

Regards

PS Line > 3 < 5 {Hint}

Link to Forum Rules

/edit to correct italics//

Oh, yes, i think very much about the process, and its discrepancy between what is told, written and what happened in reality, and what happens every day here, and why every "legal" verdict is taking us miles away from a democracy instead of getting us towards one.

I am sorry, but i don't see any possible defense for what we see here now. There are countless papers published in Asian Studies Institutes all around the world (and some of them are available for free download as well - just go to places like 'newmandala' which has many links to those, others can be gotten if you ask academics, and if you want to spend the money - you can buy them as well online). I have not see one that does support what is happening here (and very few of those academics have supported what Thaksin has done), apart from a few that sprout more ideology than science.

Every single paper i have read expresses deep concern with the latest post coup developments here in Thailand, including and especially the latest verdict.

Like Thaksin or not, this is not the issue here. The issue is that democracy and a system of due process is deliberately and/or through ineptitude dismantled, and this is ignored by many traditional pro democracy activists in this country who have sided with the junta.

This country is rapidly slipping down a very ugly path. A political crises is not solved, every "legal" verdict is taking us away from a solution, there is no elected parliament, and politics are done by extra-parliamentary pressure groups from within and without.

What more does it take to understand that there is only one thing that can be done: wipe the slate clean, issue wide ranging amnesties, re-introduce the '97 constitution, make elections, and then try to amend the problematic points in the constitution by democratic process.

The debates about the verdict are already crippling, what do you think is the referendum going to look like? You have already all sorts of pressure groups trying to include their niche demands, you will have demonstrations from all possible sides trying to get the new constitution accepted or not, you will most likely have the government mobilizing the shady state sponsored volunteer organizations with hundred thousands of members putting pressure on. We don't know when political activity by the parties are allowed again, and which political parties are going to be allowed, and how the ones will react who are not allowed. Can you imagine the mess we will have with an election under these conditions, well, if the referendum will accept the new constitution? Can even elections be held under such conditions?

We have the head of the junta retiring from his position as Army Commander, and the power struggles between the different possible successors, some of them hold frighteningly outdated views on how a state should be run.

Even without that political crises this country has more than a few severe problems, such as an escalating insurgency soon to be war down south for which there is no solution yet.

I think i get a headache...

[jdinasia]

Colp ----

did you really just say ... go back to the '97 constitution (that failed and left us in this mess) and give amnesties? LOL ...

As for reading everything in the world written by academics .... well ..... having a degree and being able to ise critical thinking is a good thing! Don't you think?

[lukamar]

So, basically - calling in the snap elections was basically not illegal or unconstitutional,

That is a correct assesment and as the palace was the party that issued a Royal Decree to hold the elections, not the PM at the time, it must have been valid legally although the ethics may be a bit suspect but the legality is not.

[ColPyat]

Colp ----

did you really just say ... go back to the '97 constitution (that failed and left us in this mess) and give amnesties? LOL ...

As for reading everything in the world written by academics .... well ..... having a degree and being able to ise critical thinking is a good thing! Don't you think?

No, the '97 constitution did not cause the mess.

What caused the mess was TRT having dismantled many of the watchdogs, the opposition parties boycotting the last possible elections, and the military staging a coup before elections could take place.

No constitution is worth its paper if people and vested interests only look for its loopholes.

And yes, if you would read academic studies, you would see that those scholars do very much use critical thinking, even if it may not conform to your opinions. Maybe, the problem is not with the academics, but maybe you should amend you opinions. But that only works if you actually read them with an open mind.

[jdinasia]

Colp ----

did you really just say ... go back to the '97 constitution (that failed and left us in this mess) and give amnesties? LOL ...

As for reading everything in the world written by academics .... well ..... having a degree and being able to ise critical thinking is a good thing! Don't you think?

No, the '97 constitution did not cause the mess.

What caused the mess was TRT having dismantled many of the watchdogs, the opposition parties boycotting the last possible elections, and the military staging a coup before elections could take place.

No constitution is worth its paper if people and vested interests only look for its loopholes.

And yes, if you would read academic studies, you would see that those scholars do very much use critical thinking, even if it may not conform to your opinions. Maybe, the problem is not with the academics, but maybe you should amend you opinions. But that only works if you actually read them with an open mind.

Thanks ... I have a few degrees .. and an open mind

Yes the failures of the constitution coupled by Thaksin's greed tore open this rift in society .... after the constitution failed last year and with no obvious way out .. something had to give! I would have rather seen an appointed interim government ... but as I have said before ... as coups go this one aint half bad!

[lukamar]

y ... go back to the '97 constitution (that failed and left us in this mess) and give amnesties? LOL ...

The '97 constitution had some problems but it also had some good points. Scrapping it because of some bad points rather than fixing so it is improved is like crushing your car every time you have a flat tire. It's not worth the cost. The '97 constitution was basically good for 10 years and should have been changed slightly to address the problems in it not totally rewritten. It also should be changed as part of the political process in an elected parliament with input from the electorate. If the '97 constitution is the People's Constitution, the new one is definitely the "Militarized Constitution" and no matter how well intentioned they may be it is not their place to write the constitution, their place is to guard the country from attacks from other countries over Thai borders.

[ColPyat]

Thanks ... I have a few degrees .. and an open mind

Yes the failures of the constitution coupled by Thaksin's greed tore open this rift in society .... after the constitution failed last year and with no obvious way out .. something had to give! I would have rather seen an appointed interim government ... but as I have said before ... as coups go this one aint half bad!

The only person that could have appointed an interim government at the time has refused to do so, for good reasons - constitutional ones, if i may add. Be careful what you wish for in this issue - you are moving in dangerous waters...

As coups go - we haven't seen the end of it yet. We have seen only a widening friction in society, a dismantling of democratic institutions, the military re-establishing their powers similar to Premocracy, we have seen a huge escalation of violence in the south, a government that is consistent only in one thing - its ineptitude.

I really don't want to see things going fully bad, half bad is bad enough.

[A_Traveller]

Responsibility for the position Thailand is in?

In my view the fault lies fairly and squarely on Thaksin’s shoulders. Even if we ignore, as many seem happy to do, or at least downplay, his curious relationship to democratic principals, the sale of Shin Corp. was ultimately his nemesis.

Why?

Well even allowing for the ‘Don’t ask me, it’s up to my children’ comments, something called into question anyway by the dispositions in the tax case, the reality was that SC had been ‘on the block’ for sometime. There had been interest in the mobile phone unit but much less, like zero, in the accreted parts. However, the marketplace view was that there was a strong intention to sell the whole through the stock market for tax reasons. This led to the various close calls but no consummation until Temasek decided to go ahead on that basis.

The Puzzle

What I cannot for the life of me understand was why political advisors did not recommend to Thaksin that on the day of the ‘family’ sale, that he announce the creation of an educational/health/development trust of x billion Baht, say 50% of the non-SET tax liability, to be governed by [insert great and the good].

At a stroke he would have made over a billion dollars, divested himself of the conflict of interest charges, and created a public service politically neutral trust which would have further enhanced his visibility within the targeted TRT voter community as a public benefactor.

As PM with a House majority, a compliant Senate, and as was to be shown all too clearly, an easily manipulated bureaucracy he could have continued and seen off even the most concerted challenge to his position.

Further, this would have pushed the Democrats, for example, to read and understand ‘The Tale of Two Democracies’ and possibly find a way to both implement the appearance {as in TRT} but also the substance of economic and political change in the ‘city beyond Bangkok’, e.g. everywhere else, with a view to building the kind of progressive party many would like to see take root in Thailand.

Given that Thakisn was unlikely, as the leopard, to change his attitude {or spots}, he would have given the Democrats, in such a configuration, plenty of ammunition for the elections in 2010.

By not making that decision he set in train a series of events which ultimately led us to, as the old joke goes. ‘How do I get to [insert locale]? Well I wouldn’t start from here.’

Asides

Were there better ways to handle things? Probably, hindsight is a wonderfully clear vision, but overall given that the checks and balances that were so critical to the operation of the constitution, were failing, it is understandable how we got where we are. As I mentioned earlier, why didn’t the EC not insist, as was their right {and perhaps their duty} to a more realistic time-frame for the election? The answer given by the court case is unfortunately obvious. Why didn’t Thaksin respond positively to the opportunity that his retirement presented. By deciding he was above such considerations he placed the entire country on a very unpredictable path. Of course, his perceived attitude to the historic circles of influence was a further irritant, as was his ‘if you don’t vote for me, why should you expect anything from me {my government}’ divisive approach.

I’m sure some will accuse me of downplaying others responsibility, that is not my intention herein, but to concentrate on how the overarching responsibilities of the Office of Prime Minister {the oath should be noted herein too} should have been really factored into the critical, allegedly private & family, decisions which inevitably affected the entire country.

Regards

/edit bracket missing//

Edited June 4, 2007 by A_Traveller

[ColPyat]

Responsibility for the position Thailand is in?

In my view the fault lies fairly and squarely on Thaksin’s shoulders. Even if we ignore, as many seem happy to do, or at least downplay, his curious relationship to democratic principals, the sale of Shin Corp. was ultimately his nemesis.

I do agree with your puzzlement why Thaksin has not done the logic thing and set up a fund, or whatever. Maybe he underestimated the opposition the sale will cause, and the powers poised against him.

The problem with your view, and the country is, that we are all loosing ourselves in attaching guilt while it is overlooked that a way out of the mess will need to see a compromise, a clean start, and not legal analities or dictatorial measures.

[SiamSquare123]

coup is needed to restore democracy

Edited June 5, 2007 by SiamSquare123

[SiamSquare123]

bye bye taskin

Edited June 5, 2007 by SiamSquare123

[ando]

coup is needed to restore democracy

This coup, as with all coups, was designed solely to overthrow the government. The fact that the pre-existing democracy was less than perfect does not excuse the military take over of a democratic government. The forgone conclusion now is that in the next election, the previous ruling party will have been removed and the former opposition will gain power, --- against the wishes of the majority of the countries voters. That is not democracy. That is a perversion of democracy, and is what it is seen as by the majority of Thai voters and the vast majority of the worlds political spectators.

[Jai Dee]

Foreign Affairs Ministry will clarify party dissolution case to foreigners

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs will explain the Constitutional Tribunal's verdict on the political party dissolution case to foreign diplomats and international agencies.

The Director-General of the Department of Information, Mr. Tharit Charungwat, says the explanation will be carried out at the Foreign Affairs Ministry today at 13:00 hours.

The Permanent Secretary for Justice Jarun Pukditanakul and Permanent Secretary for Foreign Affairs Virasak Futrakul will clarify the case and answer to queries from the audience. Translated documents on this case will also be distributed.

Mr. Tharit will later hold a press conference at about 14:30 hours today.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 05 June 2007

[tettyan]

I've seen a couple in the Nation a few months ago.

haksin called in the snap elections was not exactly fair, having circumvented the 90 day ruling.

Actaully it's been called illegal and Democrats refused to participate in a dirty political game and kept country's best interest in their hearts.

Illegal? Here's the relevant constitutional provision:

Section 116. The King has the prerogative to dissolve the House

of Representatives for a new election of members of the House.

The dissolution of the House of Representatives shall be made in the form of a Royal Decree in which the day for a new general election must be fixed within sixty days and such election day must be the same throughout

the Kingdom.

The key word is "within." Doesn't say the election MUST be held IN sixty days, but must be within 60 days.

As far as I know, there have been no media reports that Thaksin didn't follow the proper procedures.

Furthermore, it was widely reported in the media at the time (including The Nation, if you want to see the article, I'll find time later to find the link) that Thaksin called the election at the behest of a certain Privy Council member. This figure also favored an early election date, in the hopes that the political crisis would be settled before the BIG celebrations of June last year.

Look, I despise Thaksin, and I think he's done a LOT of things wrong. But calling the election was not one of them.

[nick2k]

Responsibility for the position Thailand is in?

In my view the fault lies fairly and squarely on Thaksin’s shoulders. Even if we ignore, as many seem happy to do, or at least downplay, his curious relationship to democratic principals, the sale of Shin Corp. was ultimately his nemesis.

I do agree with your puzzlement why Thaksin has not done the logic thing and set up a fund, or whatever. Maybe he underestimated the opposition the sale will cause, and the powers poised against him.

The problem with your view, and the country is, that we are all loosing ourselves in attaching guilt while it is overlooked that a way out of the mess will need to see a compromise, a clean start, and not legal analities or dictatorial measures.

personally, your "puzzlement" about thaksin NOT doing a "logical" thing and setting up a fund with money from the sale - puzzles me.

that is NOT a logical thing to do. at least not to a working stiff.

if I work all day for my money, and then, someone comes up to me telling me that I should share some of it with them. well, to put it bluntly, I would tell them to go to hel_l.

reminds me of the that japanese movie where these bandits invade this village telling the villagers that they are hungry, and needed to be fed. it didn't matter to the bandits that the villagers toiled to grow their food, the bandits had the right to live. and so, they forced the villagers to feed them. it was that or death.

if I told you to give me 30% of your money because I think that is "logical", what would you say to me?

[sriracha john]

Phinij Jarusombat

Phinij quits assembly in a 'show of spirit'

Plans to discuss his future with Suwat

Phinij Jarusombat resigned from the National Legislative Assembly yesterday, after having been barred by the Constitution Tribunal from politics for five years as a former executive of the now-disbanded Thai Rak Thai party Mr Phinij gave his resignation letter to NLA president Meechai Ruchupan yesterday afternoon. Mr Phinij is one of the 111 executive members of the dissolved party who lost the right to vote and were barred from running as an election candidate under announcement No.27 issued by the coup leaders. He would discuss his political future with the ''path of reconciliation'' alliance formed by former TRT executive member Suwat Liptapanlop.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/05Jun2007_news15.php

====================================

For future purposes, I suppose it usually looks better if one quits from a job rather than getting fired from it.

[tettyan]

Thanks ... I have a few degrees .. and an open mind

In what fields, if you don't mind me asking? (apologies in advance if you do mind).

Just curious....

I've been pretty open about my background. Seeing how vociferous you are in your views, I was wondering what type of background informs the interesting perspectives you bring to the table.

Apologies again if I cause offense. I feel like I have a sense of where many of the posters here come from, but you still seem like a bit of a mystery to me ...

Edited June 5, 2007 by tettyan

[Jai Dee]

Thanks ... I have a few degrees .. and an open mind

In what fields, if you don't mind me asking? (apologies in advance if you do mind).

Just curious....

I've been pretty open about my background. Seeing how vociferous you are in your views, I was wondering what type of background informs the interesting perspectives you bring to the table.

Apologies again if I cause offense. I feel like I have a sense of where many of the posters here come from, but you still seem like a bit of a mystery to me ...

Please take up this line of private discussion by Personal Message... not publically in the News Forum.

Thank you.

[sriracha john]

Pinij resigns as NLA member following party dissolution

Pinij Charusombat has resigned as member of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), saying he wanted to "show spirit" after the Thai Rak Thai party was dissolved and 111 executives banned from politics for five years.

Pinij is included in the 111 executives. He quit the Thai Rak Thai party after the September 19 coup. Although there was no legal reason for him to be removed from NLA, he said he wants to make a "standard for politics".

"My resignation was not in lacking qualifications for the NLA, but to prevent any confusion," he said.

- The Nation

==================

If you say so, pal.... and sorry if you mistakenly thought that by quitting the Party it actually had some relevance to your banning.

Edited June 5, 2007 by sriracha john

[hammered]

Considering all the bickering going on about who was to balame for what and whio did nothing wrong, I thought I'd post this long and pre-coup but light and amusing piece on the the rise of Thaksin, an analysis of the Thaksin system, April 2 and senatorial elections and weaknesses of the 1997 constitution:

http://www.focusweb.org/thailand-democracy....html?Itemid=94

[sriracha john]

Suwat Liptapanlop

Tony Clifton News Services

Suwat may form new party

Former TRT Deputy Prime Minister Suwat Liptapanlop said yesterday he and 30 defectors from the Thai Rak Thai Party plan to set up a new party to try to continue political activities.

The group call themselves Saman Chan (reconciliation), and currently has 30 members.

Suwat said he, plus Pinij Chaturombat, Suwit Khunkitti, Preecha Laohapongchana were thinking of forming a new party to carry out political activities - without violating last week's court verdict.

All four were Thai Rak Thai Party executives banned from politics for five years by the Constitution Tribunal. The ban means they cannot contest elections or be party executives.

"But we can be advisers," Suwat claimed.

He would not ask the government or military leaders for a political amnesty because he would like to see reconciliation in the country.

"Actually, we did nothing wrong. There were over 100 executives. Some of them might have committed wrong doings without telling others. But we all have to shoulder the consequences of their wrongdoings."

Asked if he would revive the Chat Pattana Party, Suwat said he could not make the decision now, even though the name was still popular among the people in Nakhon Ratchasima.

"It is one alternative. I have not made up my mind because I cannot become a party leader."

Suwat said he and his faction would not return to work with the Thai Rak Thai group. Last week's historic rulings have dramatically altered the political landscape. The old Thai Rak Thai looks to be splitting up, with sources saying Thaksin Shinawatra has stopped financing it.

Somsak Thepsuthin had earlier tried to set up a new party called Matchima, but he has also been banned. Somkid Jatusripitak, head of the Thammathipatai Group, has tried to garner MPs from the North and Central regions. But he has also been banned.

This has left Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh with the possibility of trying to revive his former New Aspiration Party. But a political source indicated he had no money or power to revive New Aspiration.

The picture remains murky about new breakaway factions from Thai Rak Thai.

Asked if it was possible his group would become the Saman Chan Party, Suwat said it was difficult because they had not found a suitable leader.

"We cannot run in the election. In the battlefield, you need a commander. When there is no commander, there is no real battlefield," he said. The group was searching for political allies.

"We have few choices because many people have been banned and we have to find someone acceptable to the public," he explained.

- The Nation

[hammered]

Suwat Liptapanlop

Tony Clifton News Services

Suwat may form new party

Former TRT Deputy Prime Minister Suwat Liptapanlop said yesterday he and 30 defectors from the Thai Rak Thai Party plan to set up a new party to try to continue political activities.

The group call themselves Saman Chan (reconciliation), and currently has 30 members.

Suwat said he, plus Pinij Chaturombat, Suwit Khunkitti, Preecha Laohapongchana were thinking of forming a new party to carry out political activities - without violating last week's court verdict.

All four were Thai Rak Thai Party executives banned from politics for five years by the Constitution Tribunal. The ban means they cannot contest elections or be party executives.

"But we can be advisers," Suwat claimed.

He would not ask the government or military leaders for a political amnesty because he would like to see reconciliation in the country.

"Actually, we did nothing wrong. There were over 100 executives. Some of them might have committed wrong doings without telling others. But we all have to shoulder the consequences of their wrongdoings."

Asked if he would revive the Chat Pattana Party, Suwat said he could not make the decision now, even though the name was still popular among the people in Nakhon Ratchasima.

"It is one alternative. I have not made up my mind because I cannot become a party leader."

Suwat said he and his faction would not return to work with the Thai Rak Thai group. Last week's historic rulings have dramatically altered the political landscape. The old Thai Rak Thai looks to be splitting up, with sources saying Thaksin Shinawatra has stopped financing it.

Somsak Thepsuthin had earlier tried to set up a new party called Matchima, but he has also been banned. Somkid Jatusripitak, head of the Thammathipatai Group, has tried to garner MPs from the North and Central regions. But he has also been banned.

This has left Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh with the possibility of trying to revive his former New Aspiration Party. But a political source indicated he had no money or power to revive New Aspiration.

The picture remains murky about new breakaway factions from Thai Rak Thai.

Asked if it was possible his group would become the Saman Chan Party, Suwat said it was difficult because they had not found a suitable leader.

"We cannot run in the election. In the battlefield, you need a commander. When there is no commander, there is no real battlefield," he said. The group was searching for political allies.

"We have few choices because many people have been banned and we have to find someone acceptable to the public," he explained.

- The Nation

Matchima, Suwat, Phinij who have all ruled out staying with TRT control up to about one third of previous TRT MPs scattered over the central region, lower north, northern Isaan and Korat. We have already seen Sonthaya and earlier Snoh leave TRT plus some more independent MPs from the lower North. Is it possible that TRT is now starting to break up back into the original parties and party factions it came from?

Edited June 5, 2007 by hammered