Almost 30 Democrat Mps Face Disqualification

[animatic]

Since you only read what you want into anything I write.

Regardless of what I actually wrote.

As they say in LA. : "Talk to the hand."

[HagenvonTronje]

Former senator makes comments on disqualification of MPs and senators

BANGKOK, 25 June 2009 (NNT) – Former Senator Kaewsan Atibodhi deemed the decision to disqualify membership of MPs and senators holding prohibited shares would depend on the interpretation of related laws by the Constitutional Court.

As a lawyer, the former senator said although the law forbids the holding of shares of state concession, the law did not prohibit individuals to hold shares of the companies receiving the state concession.

Mr. Kaewsan elaborated that anyone holding more than 5% shares would be considered having a stake with the company. Meanwhile, if the company is holding a state concession, disqualification of that individual as an MP or a senator could occur. However, he said this would depend on the interpretation of the Constitutional Court, adding that the intention and related laws should be used in the consideration as well.

Nevertheless, the former senator declined to make comments or criticism towards the operation of the Election Commission (EC), saying that he only had different opinions.

-- NNT 25 June 2009

article here

[animatic]

The intent of the law would or should likely be to prevent those in power from

'Substantially making a profit from their actions while in power.'

Such that it influences their actions in power to make greater profit.

So 5% or more in a company, would indicate makinga substantial profit from

a contract or concession or more favorable terms or monopoly is awarded

with a MP or gov functionaries help.

A few hundred penny stock shares as part of a larger balanced portfolio,

would not indicate gross profits, but a non-controlling incidental share holding.

Making 5,000 baht a year for your shares, is not going to cause too much malfeasance.

So yes, it remains to be seen WHAT interpretation the courts will use.

It also needs to differentiated from being a low paid 'employee' like Samak was.

He did work for a small fee. but that fee was incidental to his ego getting stroked

by an actual media producer potentially dependent on HIS DECISIONS for it's

bread an butter business. He controlled their profit's if he so choose.

Not quite the same thing as blind owning 100 shares out of 50,000 shares on the bourse.

We shall see.

IS the line in the sand absolutist or logically shaded.

Edited June 26, 2009 by animatic

[Plus]

There's a report on conclusions of charter amendements committee

They want senators and MPs allowed to work in executive branch, where all the money is, as legislating doesn't pay much.

They want to scrap party dissolutions and only punish designated scapegoats in electoral fraud cases.

They want amnesty for those currently banned.

They want to curb the powers of Election Commission and leave all electoral judgments to the court.

They want changes in the selection process, role and authority of the said court (among other agencies).

They want more money, welfare, and benefits for hard working politicians.

They missed lifting the limits on shareholding, however, so it's not on the cards and will likely stay as is.

The Nation

Hail the politicians!!!

[wefearourdespot]

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.

[TAWP]

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.

No, there is no case law since the Thai judicial system doesn't use case law.

But don't let facts cloud your judgment.

[TAWP]

The Thaksin-appologists come screaming and trashing. Unusual, not.

Anyone that is guilty should go, simple as that.

Now can please any Thaksin-appologists proudly proclaim they believe the same thing?

[otherstuff1957]

I think that the 23 - 28 confusion comes from the usual sloppy writing in the Post and Nation.

If I'm reading the articles correctly, there are over seventy PMs facing disqualification: 28 Dems, 23 PT & others from various small parties. Therefore, even if they are all booted out, new by-elections are unlikely to change the makeup of Parliament much.

[HagenvonTronje]

EC to strictly go by the laws

Published on June 30, 2009

The Election Commission would strictly interpret the relevant laws when considering whether to disqualify MPs for unconstitutional shareholdings, EC member Sodsri Satayathum said yesterday.

She said the subcommittee investigating the matter was divided on the disqualification proposal. A team of legal advisers - academics and constitution writers - had been appointed to offer advice to the subcommittee.

Sodsri said she thought the panel should base its decision on legal advice from the expert team.

When asked if her comment would pressure the subcommittee, Sodsri said panel members should heed legal advice from the experts. She added that it would be the EC's duty to make the final decision whether to pursue the case with the Constitution Court.

She said there had been differences before between a probe panel and a team of legal advisers involving a case of political party dissolution, but the EC agreed to the legal experts' advice to pursue the case. The Constitution Court finally concurred with the EC and ruled for party dissolution.

Sodsri, who is in charge of political party affairs, said EC members must consider the matter carefully because it was "life and death" for the MPs involved. She said it would be all EC members - and not the subcommittee or the advisers - who would face the legal responsibility if something went wrong.

The Constitution prevents MPs and senators from holding shares in a media business and companies awarded with state concessions.

In a related development, three MPs from the opposition Pheu Thai Party yesterday testified before the EC investigation subcommittee about their shareholdings. They are Sunai Jullapongsathorn, Pairote Tanbanjong and Panhathai Serirak.

Sunai said his wife is an employee of PTT, entitled to hold shares in the petroleum company. He said the constitutional provision preventing public holders and their spouses from holding shares in such companies was, to him, against the constitutional liberty of occupation.

However, he would accept whatever the EC decided about the matter.

"This is a present from the CNS. Since this constitution was promulgated, problems have continued unabated," the politician said, referring to the view the charter was a legacy of the coup by the Council for National Security.

Meanwhile, Senate Speaker Prasopsuk Boondet expressed hope yesterday the EC would change its recent decision that would disqualify 16 Upper House members for equity rule violations. He said the EC might have obtained new information involving the matter.

The Speaker said some senators told him the EC had never allowed them to explain that some of them held only a small amount of shares worth Bt400. "They held shares with innocence," he added.

Prasopsuk is entitled by law to forward any petition from the EC to the Constitution Court for a ruling about shareholding cases. He said the EC had yet to hand him the case involving the 16 senators.

-- The Nation June 30, 2009

article here

[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.

I knew I would have explain this to someone.

The Dem's are in power. They are at risk on the shareholding issue, yet, they will not change the constitution to benefit themselves. Compare this to Thaksin and all the laws he changed to benefit his business dealings and political party (TRT). Some support Thaksin and think he was smart in getting control of the country and then using his control for his own benefit, but I don't and fortunately, neither do the Democrats. Capiche?

[animatic]

I wonder if the Election Commission will be as 'By The Book'

over 'Banned Politicians' influencing elections

via promises and phone in's and influence peddling?

One can but hope so.

Yes OMR I agree;

the Dems let the chips fall where they may,

not rejigger the game to save their member's asses.

I am sure, at the top, they are equally unhappy with their own membership

being as arrogantly stupid as TRT /PPP/ PTP members in similar situations.

I tyhink part of the problem is that these new antyi-corruption laws are such a new

and radical concept here that many pols are not really sure what it all means.

Some learn faster than others it seems. On all sides of the divide.

Edited June 30, 2009 by animatic

[HagenvonTronje]

EC postpones ruling on shareholding case of MPs to 14 July

BANGKOK, 30 June 2009 (NNT) - The Election Commission (EC) has resolved to reschedule its ruling on the shareholding case of 28 Democrat MPs until 14 July 2009.

EC Secretary-General Suthipol Thaweechaikarn reasoned that the postponement to 14 July was necessary since Election Commissioner Praphan Naikowit had to perform his duty in monitoring an election in Indonesia.

Mr Suthipol added that the EC earlier expected to start its examination on the case today after receiving the petition from Puea Thai Spokesman Supachai Jaisamut last week, which alleged that the 28 Democrat MPs had breached the Constitution due to their shareholding in private companies that had concessions with the government.

-- NNT 30 June 2009

article here