Almost 30 Democrat Mps Face Disqualification

[HagenvonTronje]

Almost 30 Democrat MPs face disqualification

Published on June 23, 2009

As many as 28 Democrat Party MPs face disqualification for holding shares linked to state concessions, Thepthai Senpong, spokesman of Democrat Party leader said on Tuesday.

The Democrats will call a meeting on Wednesday to find ways for their MPs to fight the case in the Constitution Court.

He ruled out that the government's stability would be affected reasoning the Opposition could not launch censure motion since Parliament is in extraordinary session.

Five Pheu Thai Party MPs who face disqualification on the same ground would request the Election Commission to extend time for them to submit evidence related to their equity holding for another 15 days, an MP said on Tuesday.

"We need more time to check their equity holdings since they may have held the shares over ten years ago and some have wives or children who work in the state enterprises and were given shares as staffers,'' Pheu Thai Party party list MP Sunai Chulapongsathorn said.

Pheu Thai MPs who face disqualification include Sunai, party list MP Wirun Fuensaen, Phayao MP Pairot Tanbanchong, Bangkok MP Wicharn Meenchainant, Chiang Rai MP Itthidet Kaewlong.

At least 40 out of 61 sitting MPs are likely to be disqualified for holding stocks linked to state concessions, an Election Commission source said yesterday.

In its meeting today, the EC will consider the status of MPs - mostly from the opposition Pheu Thai and government coalition parties - named in a complaints filed by Senator Ruangkrai Leekitwattana and independent academic Somkid Homnate.

Six ministers are also included but they could resume their portfolios provided their shares aren't in media companies, the EC source said.

The six are Deputy Prime Minister Sanan Kachornprasart, Labour Minister Phaithoon Kaeothong, Energy Minister Wannarat Charnnukul, Deputy Interior Minister Boonjong Wongtrairat, Deputy Public Health Minister Manit Nop-amornbodi and Deputy Transport Minister Kuakul Danchaiwijit, according to the source.

It is up to EC chairman Apichart Sukhagganond whether the EC rules today on the MPs or waits, the source said.

Supachai Jaisamut, deputy government spokesman and Bhum Jai Thai Party spokesman, when he was deputy spokesman for the People Power Party, also filed a complaint to the EC against 28 Democrat MPs. But the EC panel in charge has not finished its investigation.

EC member Prapun Naigowit said the EC would announce its decision without waiting for the Constitution Court's verdict on similar charges against 16 senators.

The EC does not prosecute anybody, he said.

The Constitution's ban on political officeholders holding shares in companies with state concessions was also written into the 1997 charter and not just drafted against any particular politician, he said.

Whether senators holding shares before assuming their positions would get to keep them would be up to the Constitution Court. But the EC would observe the same standard in considering senators, MPs and ministers, he said.

The EC last week ruled against 16 senators with shares in 14 companies - PTT, PTT Exploration and Production, PTT Chemical, TPI Polene, Electricity Generating, Ratchaburi Holding, Sahacogen (Chonburi), Shin Corp, Thaicom, True Corp, TT&T, Manager, Bangkok Mass Transit System and Bangkok Expressway.

The disqualifications of the 16 senators would need endorsement by the Constitution Court before taking effect.

-- The Nation June 23, 2009

article here

[grandpops]

Wow. Surely this should be in the news clippings section.

SRJ must be spitting feathers. Did he really miss this?

And me thinking corruption was a thing of the past, or at worst, restricted to the Thaksin hordes.

Things will certainly hot up as the only way out seems to be a general election. We have a goverment that was unelected, installed, is failing and now appears to be as corrupt as everybody else in government over here.

Did I hear the Thaksin suitcase coming out of the wardrobe and the passport(s) being reddied? Can't be long now.... can't be long.

[HagenvonTronje]

EC postpones ruling on shareholding case of 44 MPs and senators

BANGKOK, 23 June 2009 (NNT) - The Election Commission (EC) has resolved to delay its deliberation on the shareholding case of 44 MPs and senators for another 15 days.

The EC’s 15-day adjournment of its ruling on the case is due to incomplete evidence and pending interrogation of witnesses on the plaintiff’s side. The commission is currently having the case file compared to those of 2 sub-panels investigating the involved 28 Democrat Party MPs and 16 senators.

The 44 individuals are accused of violating the Constitution by holding shares within private firms that have concessions with the government.

-- NNT 23 June 2009

article here

[catmac]

Now why do I have a funny feeling that the evidence against any Government MPs will somehow disappear, whilst that against any opposition MPs will be proven without a doubt?

[Plus]

In case MPs are disqualified, there will be by-elections, and for party list MPs, the next in line will take their place.

>>>

The Nation

The EC postponed for 15 days its deliberation on the cases involving 44 MPs, including six Cabinet members, secretary-general Suthiphon Thaveechaiyagarn said.

It also decided to give to its committee investigating 28 MPs from the ruling Democrat Party in a separate case of violating shareholding rules more time to gather information before completing its probe, he said.

...

Of the 44 MPs, 23 are from the Pheu Thai Party, eight from Puea Pandin, three each from Chart Thai Pattana, Pracharaj and Bhum Jai Thai, two from Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana, and one each from the Democrat and Social Action parties.

[HagenvonTronje]

VOTING IN THE HOUSE

PM seeks review of ban

By Piyanart Srivalo,

Atthayut Butrsripoom

The Nation

Published on June 24, 2009

Council of State urged to look into Article 177 of Constitution

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday assigned the Council of State to review the constitutional ban on Cabinet members voting in the House because of a possible conflict of interest, a source said.

Concern has been mounting that many coalition MPs could face legal problems involving their shareholdings.

During the weekly Cabinet meeting, Abhisit instructed the government's legal advisory arm to study Article 177, the source said.

The clause prohibits Cabinet members who are MPs from voting in the House on "a matter connected with the holding of office, the performance of duties or the possession of any interest in such matter".

The Election Commission last week resolved to ask the Constitution Court to disqualify 16 senators for owning shares in media businesses or companies with state concessions.

More than 70 MPs are suspected of violating the asset rules in the same way as the senators. As many of them are coalition MPs, Abhisit is worried about the coalition's slim majority, the source said.

The EC postponed for 15 days its deliberation on the cases involving 44 MPs, including six Cabinet members, secretary-general Suthiphon Thaveechaiyagarn said.

It also decided to give to its committee investigating 28 MPs from the ruling Democrat Party in a separate case of violating shareholding rules more time to gather information before completing its probe, he said.

The panel has asked for information from 306 companies with shares held by those MPs and 234 of them have responded, he said, adding that the MPs would also be allowed more time to explain their investments.

Suthiphon dismissed allegations that the EC had an ulterior motive, saying the EC had been petitioned to probe the MPs and that it did not initiate the investigation by itself.

Of the 44 MPs, 23 are from the Pheu Thai Party, eight from Puea Pandin, three each from Chart Thai Pattana, Pracharaj and Bhum Jai Thai, two from Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana, and one each from the Democrat and Social Action parties.

Interior Minister Chaovarat Chanweerakul, the Bhum Jai Thai leader, said he was worried that the issue might rock the government, but expressed optimism that the coalition still has enough votes to push government legislation through the House.

"But during the voting, coalition MPs may need to suppress the call of Nature," he quipped.

Theptai Senapong, spokesman for the Democrat Party leader, said the party was preparing to defend its MPs in court, as it would be a grave concern if as many as 28 party MPs fell into legal trouble.

However, Abhisit was not overly concerned about the matter, he said.

The party would contest by-elections for any disqualified constituency MPs, and for any disqualified party-list MPs, the next persons on the list would replace them.

The cases would not threaten the government's stability as the House was now in recess and new MPs would be in place before the beginning of the next parliamentary session in August, he said.

The opposition Pheu Thai Party complained that the EC did not provide sufficient time for the MPs to defend themselves.

MP Sunai Jullapongsathorn said some of them were informed in writing by the EC to testify about their stocks but some were later told they no longer were allowed to do so as the EC was about to make its ruling soon.

-- The Nation June 24, 2009

article here

[HagenvonTronje]

Sodsri threatens to publicise MPs who refuse to testify in share cases

Published on June 24, 2009

Sodsri Sattayatham, a member of the Election Commission, Wednesday threatened to name MPs who refused to testify to the EC over allegations that they hold shares in firms which have received concessions from the government.

Sodsir said a sub-committee of the EC had summoned the MPs to testify but many refused to cooperate.

She said the panel had 15 more days to hear explanations of the MPs.

If they refuse to testify, the EC would announce their names, she said.

-- The Nation June 24, 2009

article here

[monkfish]

What goes around comes around! hehe

Could this be the scandal of the decade??

or will they change the Constitution very soon??

[Insight]

Lets see which ones go kicking and screaming

[Denim]

If it threatens the govournments position then nothing will come of it. They didn't have a coup , ban a party , ban a load of MPs and then finaly shoe horn Mark and co into the driving seat just to have a silly little thing like a constitution spoil the show. Constitutions are ripped up wholesale here so they'll have no trouble doing a bit of tinkering with the rulebook to save peoples bacon. In Thai politics ,rules are what you beat over the heads of your foes and bend to suit your friends.

[Denim]

Wow. Surely this should be in the news clippings section.

SRJ must be spitting feathers. Did he really miss this?

Nope......just no Thaky bashing in it

[baht&sold]

Actually, it was Puea Thai who initially demanded a constitution change on the issue:

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Pheu Thai seeks shareholding rights for MPs

By THE NATION ON SUNDAY

Published on June 21, 2009

Suraphong plans petition to Speaker

The opposition Pheu Thai Party yesterday suggested constitutional amendment to allow shareholding by MPs and senators in media businesses and companies that are state concessionaires, but the proposal was rejected by a spokesman for the ruling Democrat Party.

The moves came after the Election Commission decided to disqualify 16 senators for violating equity rules. Almost 30 coalition MPs are expected to have a similar problem when the EC makes its decision next week.

Pheu Thai MP Suraphong Tovijakchaikul yesterday called for constitutional amendment to allow MPs and Senate members to hold shares in media businesses and companies that are state concessionaires. He said it was unfair for MPs or senators to be disqualified simply because they held a negligible amount of shares.

Suraphong said some MPs were now ready to sign a petition to House Speaker Chai Chidchob and he would head the move.

The Pheu Thai MP said he had discussed the matter with MPs from his own and other parties and they were concerned about the current attempt to oust 16 MPs and senators because they held shares.

He said some held just Bt400 worth and were mere ordinary shareholders with no sway over the company.

"So it's time to urgently amend the ambiguously written article in the charter to make the intention clear," he said, adding that he wanted to see the House pass a resolution on the matter in three straight readings.

Suraphong said he was confident that other MPs would support his move and that the public would not oppose it as they recognised that the matter was problematic. He added that part of the 2007 charter was "idiotic".

Asked if the ruling Democrat Party would support the bid, he said he believed MPs from the ruling party wanted to see an amendment although they might be afraid of a public backlash and added that MPs should boldly amend what they needed to as they were empowered to do.

Theptai Senapong, spokesman for the Democrat Party leader, said he believed the Constitution Court would rule fairly on the matter and the party was not worried.

Theptai also insisted that the party would not amend the charter for its own benefit and some politicians were wrong to claim they were not familiar with the details of article 265 (2).

Any disqualification, he said, could result in a by-election but not a general election.

Meanwhile, Vicharn Meench-ainan, Pheu Thai MP for Bangkok and head of the Bangkok group of MPs for Pheu Thai, launched an attack on those behind the junta-sponsored 2007 charter, saying they were not politicians and had been bent on destroying politicians.

He said that if seven of the 16 MPs were disqualified it would certainly compromise the functioning of the opposition.

Vicharn criticised the charter article as "pedantic" and added that it was unfair for government officials to hold shares in private firms.

http://nationmultimedia.com/2009/06/21/pol...cs_30105664.php

[animatic]

What ever happened to blind trusts?

I'll note, of the 44, 23 were PTP weren't they?

No wonder that petitioned to change the law.

Suthiphon dismissed allegations that the EC had an ulterior motive, saying the EC had been petitioned to probe the MPs and that it did not initiate the investigation by itself.

Of the 44 MPs, 23 are from the Pheu Thai Party, eight from Puea Pandin, three each from Chart Thai Pattana, Pracharaj and Bhum Jai Thai, two from Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana, and one each from the Democrat and Social Action parties.

Edited June 24, 2009 by animatic

[HagenvonTronje]

Lets see which ones go kicking and screaming

exPM Somchai Wongsawat had to face similar accusations - 'owning shares in a company that are state concessionaires'. but as we know - met his 'fate' for other reasons. not that big crime in my opinion and maybe hard to avoid if you hold any portfolio, that there isn't maybe some company includes does make also business with state enterprises. the writer of the constitution maybe had a good idea to prevent corruption, but that looks sometimes also impractical in reality. you don't get a parliament full of wise men of the diogenes type without any worldly possessions.

The Bangkok Post hat not much about the cases reported and also The Nation could have more details or at least some approach of explanation what that actually mean, instead of letting us alone with that must read headline. i wouldn't be surprise if the outcome here is much less dramatic and without much kickings.

anyway, if you go to the advanced forum search and use +Somchai +Loxinfo as search terms will that brings up the old 'news' on the Somchai case and also some funny drama comments by the usual suspects, that haven't been seen so for in this new case, new thread with their insight knowledge on the overall corruption. this thread would be an example - New Thai Prime Minister Faces Investigation, but with the search engine are more to find.

[HagenvonTronje]

What ever happened to blind trusts?

I'll note, of the 44, 28 were PTP weren't they?

No wonder that petitioned to change the law.

The suggestion to amend the law is no wonder but would be some wise solution and is nothing fishy.

In addition, you get the numbers wrong. Not sure where you get that from but okay, there are confliction reports on the overall figure and it got also mixed up with the cases of the senators, who are sitting in a different house and are not members of any political party.

However, was seems to be clear that it concerns 28 MP that are democrats.

There are much higher figurers than 44 around and also PTP cases, there are also 6 members of the cabinet mentioned, but that are maybe coalition partners. That seems to be related to complaints files by notorious litigious Ruangkrai Leekitwattana. He files complaints against everybody, he was also suing the Revenue Department for NOT tax him in some inheritance matter.

Same as for the 28 Dems, that all are at the moment only allegations so far. And the suggested constitutional amendment makes some sense.

Just having some shares of a company that makes also business with state enterprises does not makes the holding MP to a corrupt politician. Before he becomes corrupt, a few further steps and misuse of influence and abuse of his position have to be happen to make it to a corruption scandal. To prevent such an abuse control mechanism are necessary, of course. The simple solution to forbid any possession of stakes and shares doesn't match with reality and especially if that also included spouses, children and maybe other relatives of the politician in question. If you go share shopping or build up a portfolio it isn't so easy to avoid some 'hot' stake that maybe contain nuts. In addition, that sleepy share that you bought some 15 years ago can be today a .5 share of a company that had developed to some other business model without that you as the .5 shareholder did take so much notice of it. To be save it would be the best for a MP or Senator not to have any possessions and better also no relatives. But politicians rarely come that way and if they are probably nuts or unqualified for other reasons. Exceptions possible but not a whole bunch of them that can fill the parliament.

A hypothetical example, if the politician is sitting in a commission for issues on the education reform and also all his other work as MP is mostly related to this it doesn't make him to a corrupt MP or Senator if his daughter for some odd reasons gets hold of some small stock of a company that selling light bulbs to the state railway company. Calling him corrupt or even raise that suspicions some more evidence should be there, like his spouse is the owner of the company that is the sole contractor to print all schoolbooks.

That 'flaw' of the constitution was noted by more than a few commentators and that it could lead to ongoing law suits that could prevent any political work and/or also give the judiciary to much power. To seek there some amendments is a sign of common sense and not that of a greedy person.

The constitution also says that “No person holding a political position shall be the owner of, or hold shares in, newspaper, radio or television broadcasting or telecommunication business, irrespective of whether he so commits in his name, or through his proxy or nominee, or by other direct or indirect means which enable him to administer such business as if he is the owner of, or hold shares in, such business.” Chapter III, Part 7, Section 48.

That leaves me with some question concerning the new party of the PAD movement, a movement that is nearly solely build around a Television channel. A constitutional amendment to allow shareholding in media business would also prevent the PAD party from some unfunny surprises in the future.

Nevertheless, having said all that, I would also have a good laugh if they kick out all the 28 Democrat MP and the cabinet members as well. In this legislative period, until the next election, should all MP met with the same rules. Rules that send you home for cooking some food on a Television show.

Edited June 24, 2009 by HagenvonTronje

[grandpops]

If it threatens the govournments position then nothing will come of it. They didn't have a coup , ban a party , ban a load of MPs and then finaly shoe horn Mark and co into the driving seat just to have a silly little thing like a constitution spoil the show. Constitutions are ripped up wholesale here so they'll have no trouble doing a bit of tinkering with the rulebook to save peoples bacon. In Thai politics ,rules are what you beat over the heads of your foes and bend to suit your friends.

PM Samak was booted exactly because of this with his little TV cooking show.

Already case law on this so why don't the Dems resign as Samak did?

Election looming for next high season so better get it out of the way now me thinks.

[animatic]

I said 23, you copy paste too fast.

I got it from the quoted article earlier on the page.

And others conveniently ignore that

MORE from other parties are cumulatively in the hotseat.

This is far from strictly a Democratic problem.

Most all members of all parties can be nailed for something with enough digging.

Edited June 25, 2009 by animatic

[filingaccount]

What ever happened to blind trusts?

I'll note, of the 44, 23 were PTP weren't they?

No wonder that petitioned to change the law.

Suthiphon dismissed allegations that the EC had an ulterior motive, saying the EC had been petitioned to probe the MPs and that it did not initiate the investigation by itself.

Of the 44 MPs, 23 are from the Pheu Thai Party, eight from Puea Pandin, three each from Chart Thai Pattana, Pracharaj and Bhum Jai Thai, two from Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana, and one each from the Democrat and Social Action parties.

Let us stick to verifiable figures shall we?

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/1885...-by-accused-mps

"The poll regulating agency will this week rule on the questionable shareholdings of 57 MPs suspected of holding them in breach of the charter.

Twenty-eight Democrat MPs are expected to be accused of holding prohibited shares along with other members of the coalition. Among them is Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban.

Apart from the coalition MPs, seven Puea Thai MPs are also facing disqualification for the same reason."

[stumonster]

Now why do I have a funny feeling that the evidence against any Government MPs will somehow disappear, whilst that against any opposition MPs will be proven without a doubt?

because you are living in some time warp pre dating 2006 ?

if you wish to be elected to represent your constituency divest yourself of all business interests and shares - the job should not be part time.

[Plus]

Just having some shares of a company that makes also business with state enterprises does not makes the holding MP to a corrupt politician. Before he becomes corrupt, a few further steps and misuse of influence and abuse of his position have to be happen to make it to a corruption scandal.

Letting businessmen/stockholders with their own vested interests to be in the government and hoping that someone will catch them afterward is the stupidest idea I've heard in a while.

In the past ten years only two have been punished, the rest got away scott free.

These odds are overwhelmingly in favour of corruption.

[animatic]

What ever happened to blind trusts?

I'll note, of the 44, 23 were PTP weren't they?

No wonder that petitioned to change the law.

Suthiphon dismissed allegations that the EC had an ulterior motive, saying the EC had been petitioned to probe the MPs and that it did not initiate the investigation by itself.

Of the 44 MPs, 23 are from the Pheu Thai Party, eight from Puea Pandin, three each from Chart Thai Pattana, Pracharaj and Bhum Jai Thai, two from Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana, and one each from the Democrat and Social Action parties.

Let us stick to verifiable figures shall we?

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/1885...-by-accused-mps

"The poll regulating agency will this week rule on the questionable shareholdings of 57 MPs suspected of holding them in breach of the charter.

Twenty-eight Democrat MPs are expected to be accused of holding prohibited shares along with other members of the coalition. Among them is Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban.

Apart from the coalition MPs, seven Puea Thai MPs are also facing disqualification for the same reason."

Statistical precisions is not the forte of either The Nation nor Bangkok Post,

nor most any paper here...

Sad state of affairs of course.

23 or 28, depends on which papers reporter had the greater dyslexic moment.

Divestiture of these stocks at the value of the day of election

would be that fairest outcome for all involved.

Saves the cost of the people paying for new elections,

and stops the use of this as a partisan weapon.

All those running for election should be putting any investments into blind trusts,

with the understanding these trusts can be shuffled and resold by the trustees

as they see fit, and what they put in could be quite different than what they get on leaving office.

This works in USA,

except in cases like Dick Cheney who put in $750 million of Halliburton

and not much else. Then got Halliburton seriously big government contracts.

No doubt knowing that his stock would not be sold off because it was a good earner.

2,000 baht in stock should not be a disqualifier,

but over 1% in any company should be no matter what the business.

Edited June 25, 2009 by animatic

[HagenvonTronje]

I said 23, you copy paste too fast.

I got it from the quoted article earlier on the page.

Nope, you said as i quoted it "I'll note, of the 44, 28 were PTP weren't they?"

Why it is different? Reason: You pressed the Add Reply button too fast without attentive reading the articles first and a control check of your 20somewhat words long text. After putting it online, you maybe saw your mistake, edited your entry, correct yourself and added also some additional quote. Actually, you completely rewrote your post, with your edit.

I am not obliged to wait and wait until your final version is fixed.

Take your time before press the Add Reply Button, there is no pressure to reply as fast as you can and it is also not a chat here but somekind of a bulletin board where you can communicate with others in form of open letters.

[redscouse]

Fantastic news, I can't wait to see all those yellow shirts taking over government buildings and airports protesting about the Government attempting to change the constitution to avoid loss of seats or prosecution.

Oh wait, I doubt they will do that to the party the helped put into power

[Plus]

Are Democrats going to amend constitution to save their asses? I don't see it.

Why do some people need to accuse them of everything under the sun - they avoid calling elections by citing the need to const amendments or do they must rush the amendments to avoid being ousterd?

You can't have it both ways.

[Old Man River]

Are Democrats going to amend constitution to save their asses? I don't see it.

I agree. Whoever is guilty has to go, just like with other parties. This is the most stupidest thing to be caught on, since it is a well known part of the constitution. Any politician caught on this (regardless of who it is) shouldn't be holding a public office.

The Democrats are not going to amend the constitution because of this. To do so, would lower themselves to the level of Thaksin's horde. They are better than this.

[animatic]

I said 23, you copy paste too fast.

I got it from the quoted article earlier on the page.

Nope, you said as i quoted it "I'll note, of the 44, 28 were PTP weren't they?"

Why it is different? Reason: You pressed the Add Reply button too fast without attentive reading the articles first and a control check of your 20somewhat words long text. After putting it online, you maybe saw your mistake, edited your entry, correct yourself and added also some additional quote. Actually, you completely rewrote your post, with your edit.

I am not obliged to wait and wait until your final version is fixed.

Take your time before press the Add Reply Button, there is no pressure to reply as fast as you can and it is also not a chat here but somekind of a bulletin board where you can communicate with others in form of open letters.

You are making assumptions as usual.

I only changed 28 to 23 to match the text I pasted earlier.

An easy to make mistake seeing 3 as 8 and visa versa.

Two of the easiest to transpose numbers.

In retrospect seeing what the B. Post says it WAS 28, I could have as easily left it.

But I was trying to reflect the quoted text I took the number from.

I could care less if you wait,

the typing window is not near as easy to scan for errors as the printed text window,

thus you should base your misanthropic assumptions on a finalized version.

But seem to you prefer to jump on everything with exaggerated and verbose zealousness.

Edited June 25, 2009 by animatic

[BigSnake]

Sounds like big trouble for the PM is on the Horizon, WOW!! here we go again.

[hardy1943]

Now why do I have a funny feeling that the evidence against any Government MPs will somehow disappear, whilst that against any opposition MPs will be proven without a doubt?

I second that motion....Thai politics work only one way

[stumonster]

Sounds like big trouble for the PM is on the Horizon, WOW!! here we go again.

He has no share problems

I would suspect there is a coalition upheaval in the wind and the Bhum Jai Thai party are the ones meant to be left holding the sh1tty end of the stick.

[HagenvonTronje]

I said 23, you copy paste too fast.

I got it from the quoted article earlier on the page.

Nope, you said as i quoted it "I'll note, of the 44, 28 were PTP weren't they?"

Why it is different? Reason: You pressed the Add Reply button too fast without attentive reading the articles first and a control check of your 20somewhat words long text. After putting it online, you maybe saw your mistake, edited your entry, correct yourself and added also some additional quote. Actually, you completely rewrote your post, with your edit.

I am not obliged to wait and wait until your final version is fixed.

Take your time before press the Add Reply Button, there is no pressure to reply as fast as you can and it is also not a chat here but somekind of a bulletin board where you can communicate with others in form of open letters.

You are making assumptions as usual.

I only changed 28 to 23 to match the text I pasted earlier.

In retrospect seeing what the B. Post says it WAS 28, I could have as easily left it.

But I was trying to reflect the quoted text I took the number from.

...

But seem to you prefer to jump on everything with exaggerated and verbose zealousness.

facepalm...., why aren't here some mods that explain the AOL noobs how it works with Add Reply and Preview Post, what is the difference and that once they pressed the reply button their text is online. and that the later use of the Edit option isn't some super magical undo and a travel back in time.

A. look at the screen shot how your entry appeared to me BEFORE your editing.

don't blame me for things you got wrong.

and yeah you could have stick to the 28 number, and to the topic and also take the 28 from this bangkok post article that got linked here. but there is is one difference, all different sources talking about 28 Democrat Party MPs facing disqualification and are under investigation of violating shareholding rules and not 28 PTP member. the figure of 28 Dems got mentioned a couple of times.

upper right of the the typing window are some bottons that allow you to make that typing window appear bigger or switch to some WYSIWYG editor.

or you could use an external text editor before you copypaste that text that seems ready to send.