Former Thai PM Chuan Worried Over Party Ban

[webfact]

DEMOCRAT

Chuan worried over party ban

By Yossawadee Hongthong,

Naya Jaikawang

The Nation

Chuan

Don't be too confident of winning case, chief adviser tells party members

The Democrat Party's chief adviser, Chuan Leekpai, yesterday showed concern about the party dissolution case and told MPs not to be over-confident.

According to a source who asked not to be named, Chuan told the party meeting that MPs who are not |well-informed should not tell the public the party will certainly win |the party dissolution case related to the alleged illegal use of money.

The Election Commission's 5-0 resolution to propose the party's dissolution over the alleged illegal use of a Bt29-million political party development fund was unusual, he said. But in the meantime, the case relating to a donation from TPI Polene is in the hands of the Department of Special Investigation.

Chuan, a member of the party's legal team in charge of the case, told all concerned people to study the EC's regulations, the source said.

The Democrat Party's dissolution case verdict is expected to come after the House dissolution, a party legal expert said yesterday.

Another team member and Phatthalung MP, Nipit Intarasombat, said the party was confident of its innocence. But it should not underestimate the danger.

"I accept that we are worried about the time limit, as the deadline for counter-argument submission is on May 13. We are worried whether we will be able to submit it in time," Nipit said.

The party needs some time to gather evidence of what happened back in 2005, he said.

Nipit refused to comment on whether Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's announcement to have an election on November 14 would impact on the party dissolution case, saying he had not thought about the point.

The party dissolution case might take seven to eight months, judging by Constitution Court trials in the past.

Reacting to the possibility that during an election campaign, political opponents might claim electors should not vote for a party that might be dissolved, Nipit said "Until the court comes out with its verdict, our party must not be considered dissolved."

Nakhon Nayok MP Charchai Issasenarak, the party's deputy secretary-general, declared that the Democrat Party had no malicious intent - but it might have been in violation of the EC when the Bt29 million in funds was paid to subsidise the party's campaign billboards in the 2005 general election.

"It is unbelievable that the oldest political party may be punished by dissolution because it unintentionally made smaller-than-specified billboards which were, in fact, harder for voters to see," he said.

In the party dissolution case under the Constitution Court's review, the EC contends the main coalition party violated its financial rules relating to campaign billboards.

Under the rules, billboards paid by political party subsidies must have a specified size of 2.40 metres by 1.4 metres.

-- The Nation 2010-05-07

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[ozzieman05]

This is Thailand

Just as we seem to solve a major problem

Another one pops it head up

[animatic]

The TP Polene case is one thing, maybe a set up, maybe a smoking gun,

but to be dissolved because of making the bill boards the wrong size,

would be beyond nit picking.

Of course some will now bring up Samak and say he was banned for cooking,

and that that is absurd. But he wasn't banned for cooking,

but being paid, in conflict of interest, for a political talk show which featured cooking;

a ) no party dissolution happened for Samak's acts

b ) he lied in court and provided false evidence.

Making the billboards funded with EC funds, too small is not IMHO a banning offense,

it is a 'give us back the money plus a fine' offense.

TP Polene case I believe has;

one guy allegedly sending money to an advertising company

and allegedly sending small amounts to many many Dems accounts,

enough to look like a large number when added up,

but in any individual case, a small number. An accounting blip.

And then ONE fax of unknown provenance is the alleged smoking gun.

It just seems to have many holes in the publicly diffused story.

Behind the scenes is another thing.

edit> > Right on schedule for the Samak comment below...

Edited May 7, 2010 by animatic

[321niti123]

According to this article, the party is going to be dissolved because they can't make billboards to the correct size???

First they fire someone for cooking on tv, now they are gonna dissolve a party cuz of bad billboards---Only in thailand this could happen.

BTW, i see the Pheau Thai Billboard almost everyday, huge obviously bigger than 2.4X1.4 m

[chrislarsson]

The TP Polene case is one thing, maybe a set up, maybe a smoking gun,

but to be dissolved because of making the bill boards the wrong size,

would be beyond nit picking.

Of course some will now bring up Samak and say he was banned for cooking,

and that that is absurd. But he wasn't banned for cooking,

but being paid, in conflict of interest, for a political talk show which featured cooking;

a ) no party dissolution happened for Samak's acts

b ) he lied in court and provided false evidence.

Making the billboards funded with EC funds, too small is not IMHO a banning offense,

it is a 'give us back the money plus a fine' offense.

TP Polene case I believe has;

one guy allegedly sending money to an advertising company

and allegedly sending small amounts to many many Dems accounts,

enough to look like a large number when added up,

but in any individual case, a small number. An accounting blip.

And then ONE fax of unknown provenance is the alleged smoking gun.

It just seems to have many holes in the publicly diffused story.

Behind the scenes is another thing.

edit> > Right on schedule for the Samak comment below...

How exactly is being compensated for appearing in a cooking show a conflict of interest??? And why would it be less of a conflict if doing it for free?

[shawndoc]

Anamatic, I agree with you on this. Seems extremely silly to dissolve a party based on billboard being TOO SMALL.

Whether or not the Democrats get dissolved over this, I hope the government has the foresight to fix this. Anyone know if this is a constitutional issue, or just a law that needs to be amended?

Also, since this happened in the 2005 election, has the law already been fixed?

[shawndoc]

How exactly is being compensated for appearing in a cooking show a conflict of interest??? And why would it be less of a conflict if doing it for free?

A) It was against the law

If it wasn't a big deal, why did he present falsified documents when he went to court?

And really, you don't think its a bit of a conflict of interest to have a major TV station paying money to the Prime Minister?

Also, his punishment was to lose the PM position, he wasn't banned. He could have been voted back as PM essentially the next day, except Thanksin had other plans.

[tonywebster]

How exactly is being compensated for appearing in a cooking show a conflict of interest??? And why would it be less of a conflict if doing it for free?

A) It was against the law

If it wasn't a big deal, why did he present falsified documents when he went to court?

And really, you don't think its a bit of a conflict of interest to have a major TV station paying money to the Prime Minister?

Also, his punishment was to lose the PM position, he wasn't banned. He could have been voted back as PM essentially the next day, except Thanksin had other plans.

so on one hand it is ok to break the law, but on another hand it is not. The dems have broke the law or election law and should be disbanded for it, if they are not then it will clearly show double standards and show in this country the penalty is based on who you are rather than what you have done. The courts either uphold the law or ignore the law, if they ignore the law do you think all the problems will just go away or do you think it will give more ammunition to the opposition.

[way2muchcoffee]

How exactly is being compensated for appearing in a cooking show a conflict of interest??? And why would it be less of a conflict if doing it for free?

A) It was against the law

If it wasn't a big deal, why did he present falsified documents when he went to court?

And really, you don't think its a bit of a conflict of interest to have a major TV station paying money to the Prime Minister?

Also, his punishment was to lose the PM position, he wasn't banned. He could have been voted back as PM essentially the next day, except Thanksin had other plans.

so on one hand it is ok to break the law, but on another hand it is not. The dems have broke the law or election law and should be disbanded for it, if they are not then it will clearly show double standards and show in this country the penalty is based on who you are rather than what you have done. The courts either uphold the law or ignore the law, if they ignore the law do you think all the problems will just go away or do you think it will give more ammunition to the opposition.

You are assuming penalties should be uniform for differing violations. That is a mistake. Your argument is unsound. If a country has the death penalty in place for premeditated murder, it does not mean the death penalty should be used for a traffic violation, particularly if there is unclear evidence to back up the traffic violation charges.

Edited May 7, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[minburi2]

The red-shirts and PPP or TRT or PTP might have shot themselves again in the foot,(i always thought that men had only two, so by now they should be in a wheely).

The whole situation about getting the DP disolved, and asking for amnesty for banned politicians might work in favour of Abhisit.

They still have time to set up a new political party, get amnesty as well and get lots of support for handeling the crices in a peaceful manner.

[Redsunset]

The TP Polene case is one thing, maybe a set up, maybe a smoking gun,

but to be dissolved because of making the bill boards the wrong size,

would be beyond nit picking.

Of course some will now bring up Samak and say he was banned for cooking,

and that that is absurd. But he wasn't banned for cooking,

but being paid, in conflict of interest, for a political talk show which featured cooking;

a ) no party dissolution happened for Samak's acts

b ) he lied in court and provided false evidence.

Making the billboards funded with EC funds, too small is not IMHO a banning offense,

it is a 'give us back the money plus a fine' offense.

TP Polene case I believe has;

one guy allegedly sending money to an advertising company

and allegedly sending small amounts to many many Dems accounts,

enough to look like a large number when added up,

but in any individual case, a small number. An accounting blip.

And then ONE fax of unknown provenance is the alleged smoking gun.

It just seems to have many holes in the publicly diffused story.

Behind the scenes is another thing.

edit> > Right on schedule for the Samak comment below...

How exactly is being compensated for appearing in a cooking show a conflict of interest??? And why would it be less of a conflict if doing it for free?

Dude!!!! Nothing is for free in Thailand when it comes to politics!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Redsunset]

Despite being an ineffective administrator, Chuan is a thoughtful guy.... his concerns are valid. I would be worried too. The Dems are good, but you cannot control everyone... in a country where the "end justifies the means," I'm sure there were leaks here and there with how the Dems got funding... so I wouldn't be surprised if there is evidence they violated some election rule..... Be afraid... be VERY afraid!!!

[shawndoc]

Way to quote me, and then post a reply that had nothing to do with the content of the quote.

[animatic]

The TP Polene case is one thing, maybe a set up, maybe a smoking gun,

but to be dissolved because of making the bill boards the wrong size,

would be beyond nit picking.

Of course some will now bring up Samak and say he was banned for cooking,

and that that is absurd. But he wasn't banned for cooking,

but being paid, in conflict of interest, for a political talk show which featured cooking;

a ) no party dissolution happened for Samak's acts

b ) he lied in court and provided false evidence.

Making the billboards funded with EC funds, too small is not IMHO a banning offense,

it is a 'give us back the money plus a fine' offense.

TP Polene case I believe has;

one guy allegedly sending money to an advertising company

and allegedly sending small amounts to many many Dems accounts,

enough to look like a large number when added up,

but in any individual case, a small number. An accounting blip.

And then ONE fax of unknown provenance is the alleged smoking gun.

It just seems to have many holes in the publicly diffused story.

Behind the scenes is another thing.

edit> > Right on schedule for the Samak comment below...

How exactly is being compensated for appearing in a cooking show a conflict of interest??? And why would it be less of a conflict if doing it for free?

Two reasons, one;

as head of government he has some control over television broadcasting stations,

and so some control over revenue streams. advertising and makes a vested interest for

the production company and broadcasters to make him happy,

in exchange for not shutting them down or ginning up fines and hoops to jump through

on his whim... which Thaksin proved IS possible. Plus it was a political talk show

"Talking While Cooking", so effectively free political advertising, subsidized by

the production company and the advertisers and the broadcasters.

A neat little package to leverage. How much pay was never the point,

but POWER and patronage was the main issue.

Secondly

the constitution states no PM may hold ANY position working for any company.

Let alone one that makes it's bread and butter from contracting to entities under state control.

So on two levels he was in violation.

His own lawyers told him so, and his ego over ruled them...

Edited May 7, 2010 by animatic

[animatic]

How exactly is being compensated for appearing in a cooking show a conflict of interest??? And why would it be less of a conflict if doing it for free?

A) It was against the law

If it wasn't a big deal, why did he present falsified documents when he went to court?

And really, you don't think its a bit of a conflict of interest to have a major TV station paying money to the Prime Minister?

Also, his punishment was to lose the PM position, he wasn't banned. He could have been voted back as PM essentially the next day, except Thanksin had other plans.

so on one hand it is ok to break the law, but on another hand it is not. The dems have broke the law or election law and should be disbanded for it, if they are not then it will clearly show double standards and show in this country the penalty is based on who you are rather than what you have done. The courts either uphold the law or ignore the law, if they ignore the law do you think all the problems will just go away or do you think it will give more ammunition to the opposition.

No the Dems have been charged by the EC with possibly breaking a law.

Until a court rules they are 100% innocent...

so you have slandered the party... since it is not proved they have broken the law.

[mavup]

From OP:

The party dissolution case might take seven to eight months

It's good to see that the timeline reality has been posted.

I've seen many, many members' posts that surmise that the Democrats will be dissolved next week or some other ridiculous short timeline.

The documentary evidence submitted numbers 80,000 pages.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the court's decision isn't made until 2011.

[Chang_paarp]

If they do an amnesty to the otherside, they can include any of their own folk while they are at it. No loss there.

[kissdani]

Chuan told the party meeting that MPs who are not |well-informed should not tell the public the party will certainly win |the party dissolution case related to the alleged illegal use of money.

...

Chuan, a member of the party's legal team in charge of the case, told all concerned people to study the EC's regulations, the source said.

Could be my words.

Anyone who beliefs that is a non-issue and the Democrats don't have to be afraid of a dissolution is lacking information.

And of course study the EC regulations, study the EC and the courts ruling in previous dissolution cases is essential and will be an eye opener.

Before th EC came forward with the recommendation the dissolution of the Democrats a lot of people said that will never happen. But they have been totally wrong.

I have no doubt that the court will follow the the EC, it will of course take some time, a couple of month, until the final ruling which will be nothing else than the dissolution because of the Dem's wrongdoings.

Chuan worried over party ban - i interpret that as a soft spoken version of 'he sees no hope'.

[kissdani]

Until a court rules they are 100% innocent...

so you have slandered the party... since it is not proved they have broken the law.

:D

For the fun, try that line when the Reds or Thaksin are on topic at TVF.

[mavup]

I have no doubt that the court will follow the the EC, it will of course take some time, a couple of month,

or more likely not until 2011 and that is IF they are found guilty.

Chuan worried over party ban - i interpret that as a soft spoken version of 'he sees no hope'.

I interpret that as he is worried over his party getting banned despite evidence to the contrary.

[Samuian]

TiT!

General Amnesty for each and everyone and forever - let's do it!

And then let's see "genuine edible democrazy" develop .... the Novel's title

would read something like "Kemnan Dam and his 7 dwarfs" or maybe

"the wizard of Thai"

"not seen anything yet"

"go and get it"

...

anyone?

[monkfish]

Well what a spin!

Didn't realize it was about making bill boards the wrong size

Don't know why I was under the impression the whole case is based around the Dems receiving an Illegal donation of BT 29 000 000

But hey there you go learn something new every day.

Edited May 7, 2010 by monkfish

[kissdani]

Well what a spin!

Didn't realize it was about making bill boards the wrong size

Don't know why I was under the impression the whole case is based around the Dems receiving an Illegal donation of BT 29 000 000

But hey there you go learn something new every day.

There are two different cases about financial issues.

One is the donation scandal of unlawfully receiving Bt 258 000 000, the money came from TPI Polene.

The other one is about alleged misuse of Bt 29 000 000, that money came from the EC fund for political party development.

In both cases the EC recomended the dissolution of the Democrats.

edit: add quote form The Nation article and link

Dissolve Democrat Party, EC recommends

Embattled Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva is now staring at a possible five-year ban from politics after the Election Commission voted yesterday to seek dissolution of his Democrat Party in connection with two financial controversies.

...

The EC voted 4:1 to request a Constitution Court order to dissolve the Democrat Party for unlawfully receiving Bt258 million in donations from TPI Polene in 2005.

Another case involved alleged misuse by the Democrat Party of a Bt29-million government subsidy. The EC voted 5-0 to seek dissolution in this case.

...

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/...s-30127141.html

Edited May 7, 2010 by kissdani

[cheguevara]

Well, Samak had to leave because of his cooking show. Seems only fair that the Democrats now face the same because of making billboards the wrong size.

By the way, the much bigger case against the Democrats is that they took 250+ million Baht in illegal donations during the last election. It's not about the billboards. They're just trying to distract the public from the real case against them.

[whybother]

Well, Samak had to leave because of his cooking show. Seems only fair that the Democrats now face the same because of making billboards the wrong size.

By the way, the much bigger case against the Democrats is that they took 250+ million Baht in illegal donations during the last election. It's not about the billboards. They're just trying to distract the public from the real case against them.

Samak, and only Samak, had to step down as PM because of the cooking show. There was no party disbanding because of that. Apparently, Samak could have stood as PM the next day, but Somchai was put forward instead.

[cheguevara]

Why is Abhisit allowed to hold a weekly Sunday TV show and doesn't have to step down?

[whybother]

Why is Abhisit allowed to hold a weekly Sunday TV show and doesn't have to step down?

He doesn't get paid for it.

Also, Abhisit is talking directly about government issues, where as Samak was making political comments masquerading as a cooking show. But being paid is the main difference.

Edited May 7, 2010 by whybother

[rabo]

Well, Samak had to leave because of his cooking show. Seems only fair that the Democrats now face the same because of making billboards the wrong size.

By the way, the much bigger case against the Democrats is that they took 250+ million Baht in illegal donations during the last election. It's not about the billboards. They're just trying to distract the public from the real case against them.

The 249 million baht contribution may not be the "bigger" of two evils. There is some question as to whether it was illegal or not, possibly because it was made at a time when constitutional laws were not in effect. Also, the EC committee was not unanimous in their vote on this charge, so there was a lack of agreement even at the EC level.

If a party must be disbanded in Thailand, it seems more appropriate to do so because of sub-size billboards.

Otherwise, there will be those that ask "Samak was thrown out for cooking, why not Abhisit for illegible signs?".

Then one could also ask, who is responsible for the tiny flight schedule signs at Suvarniphumi. Could it be Mr T?

Edited May 7, 2010 by rabo

[Kilgore Trout]

How exactly is being compensated for appearing in a cooking show a conflict of interest??? And why would it be less of a conflict if doing it for free?

A) It was against the law

If it wasn't a big deal, why did he present falsified documents when he went to court?

And really, you don't think its a bit of a conflict of interest to have a major TV station paying money to the Prime Minister?

Also, his punishment was to lose the PM position, he wasn't banned. He could have been voted back as PM essentially the next day, except Thanksin had other plans.

so on one hand it is ok to break the law, but on another hand it is not. The dems have broke the law or election law and should be disbanded for it, if they are not then it will clearly show double standards and show in this country the penalty is based on who you are rather than what you have done. The courts either uphold the law or ignore the law, if they ignore the law do you think all the problems will just go away or do you think it will give more ammunition to the opposition.

Agreed, perhaps the days of double standards against the poor are coming to an end. Perhaps the elite will just have to deal with it and move on toward a real democracy. I'm not saying peua Thai is right or just but democracy doesn't always equal what is right. Just look at Gaza.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Kilgore Trout

[cheguevara]

Well, Samak had to leave because of his cooking show. Seems only fair that the Democrats now face the same because of making billboards the wrong size.

By the way, the much bigger case against the Democrats is that they took 250+ million Baht in illegal donations during the last election. It's not about the billboards. They're just trying to distract the public from the real case against them.

The 249 million baht contribution may not be the "bigger" of two evils. There is some question as to whether it was illegal or not, possibly because it was made at a time when constitutional laws were not in effect. Also, the EC committee was not unanimous in their vote on this charge, so there was a lack of agreement even at the EC level.

If a party must be disbanded in Thailand, it seems more appropriate to do so because of sub-size billboards.

Otherwise, there will be those that ask "Samak was thrown out for cooking, why not Abhisit for illegible signs?".

Then one could also ask, who is responsible for the tiny flight schedule signs at Suvarniphumi. Could it be Mr T?

I wonder if the billboards were made smaller on purpose? So that they could print more of them from the same amount of money.