Election Commission Disqualifies 16 Senators Over Illegal Stock Shares

[TAWP]

And no usage of real precedence is very common here and the basis of their legal system. Which sounds odd for those coming from countries with case-law.

[Thai at Heart]

And no usage of real precedence is very common here and the basis of their legal system. Which sounds odd for those coming from countries with case-law.

Which in no way helps to solve the higgledy-piggledy legal system in Thailand. Every interpretation is unique but not binding for the future.

[slimdog]

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.

[sriracha john]

Prasopsuk: Shareholding case of 16 Senators to be presented to Constitution Court this week

BANGKOK, 24 July 2009 (NNT) - The shareholding case of 16 Senators will be forwarded to the Constitution Court within this week, according to Senate Speaker Prasopsuk Boondej.

Mr. Prasopsuk stated that he would submit the Election Commission (EC)'s ruling to the Constitution Court on the shareholding case of the 16 senators, who were dismissed for breaching the Constitution by holding shares in companies related to the media and state concessions.

The Senate Speaker said the officials were working on the production of duplicates of the EC's ruling, which would be forwarded to the 16 Senators for defending against their allegations.

The Secretariat of the Senate indicated that the process would be time consuming as the EC’s ruling was as long as 4,000 pages and was not categorized individually on the disqualification of each senator.

-- NNT 2009-07-24

[animatic]

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 think these two EC Commision/Drafting Committee members are/were in the perfect positions to understand

and interpret the INTENT of the constitutional clauses in question. Now it is more a question of the court

validating and clarifying the actual wording for, this instance and for future use.

[sriracha john]

Administrative Court still undecided on EC's ruling to remove 16 Senators

BANGKOK, 13 August 2009 (NNT) - The Administrative Court has not yet decided whether or not it will review the Election Commission's (EC) case against 16 Senators. No date has also been set for the court’s consideration on the case.

Administrative Court Secretary-General Suchart Veroj stated in an interview today that the EC's ruling to remove 16 Senators due to their stock holdings in concessionary companies had been taken on by the court.

Mr Suchart also dismissed the rumors that an emergency hearing had been held over the issue that resulted in a temporary injunction. The court's Secretary-General said news of the injunction was most likely fabricated in an attempt to gain a political advantage.

Mr Suchart stated that the administrative court had worked constantly to have the public understand its protocols and do away with misunderstandings.

-- NNT 2009-08-13

[noahvail]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know y'all will) but doesn't the US provide for office holders to place their holdings into a blind trust over which they can have no control or influence? And wouldn't it be nice if Thailand could do that - except of course for the word influence

[animatic]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know y'all will) but doesn't the US provide for office holders to place their holdings into a blind trust over which they can have no control or influence? And wouldn't it be nice if Thailand could do that - except of course for the word influence

Yes it does for many positions.

They haven't got that far here.

But even that does squat with the likes of Dick Cheney and his 800 million in Haliburton stock,

and not much else in his blind trust....

He gets Vice Devil In Charge and gives his company sweetheart oil contracts of gargantuan proportions.

What trust manager will sell off stocks that are growing madly....

Cheney knew he could turn his shares into 2 billion even while blind.

[sriracha john]

16 Senators' appeal petition accepted

The Supreme Administrative Court has accepted for consideration a petition filed by 16 Senators found by the Election Commission to have breached the constitution by holding shares in companies granted state concessions or linked to the media, a public relations official of the court said on Friday.

If the EC's ruling is endorsed by the Constitution Court, the 16 Senators would lose their seats in the upper house. The court official said the EC has been told to submit a defence statement to the court within 30 days.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/15...tition-accepted

-- Bangkok Post 2009-08-14

[sriracha john]

Court to review EC ruling banning Senators

The Supreme Administrative Court will review an Election Commission ruling disqualifying 16 Senators for constitutional violations, a source says. The disqualified Senators have submitted four separate petitions with the court asking it to negate the EC's decision on grounds that it was unlawful.

The court is awaiting statements from the Commission defending its ruling, the source said. The Commission disqualified the 16 Senators after finding them guilty of violating the constitution by holding stakes in media organisations and companies doing business with the state.

The ruling has been forwarded to the Constitution Court for legal review.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/2206...anning-senators

-- Bangkok Post 2009-08-15