Outcome Of Thai Democrats' Legal Drama Still Uncertain

webfact · October 9, 2010

Outcome of Democrats' legal drama still uncertain

By SOMROUTAI SAPSOMBOON,

TULSATHIT TAPTIM

THE NATION

To the Democrats, it must feel like watching a standard Hollywood horror flick at its near-climax. They are hoping the "hero" will survive - and there are good reasons for that - but they know deep down that what happens at the end is at the mercy of no one but an unpredictable script-writer.

Politically, only dissolution of the Democrat Party and a ban on their executives from politics might pave the way for real reconciliation. Such severe penalties, many believe, would lift the stigma of "double standards" or cries of injustice from the red shirts, who might otherwise never be pacified.

Legally, Thailand's oldest political party is hopeful. Bundit Siripant, a leading member of their legal defence team, has been satisfied with the group's strategy and arguments in the Bt29-million fund trial. He has even been encouraged by news that prosecutors were at times dismayed by the good defence performance by himself and Chuan Leekpai.

The strategy calls for the defence to weaken the legitimacy of the case. Bundit believes the team has done well in questioning the whole process, starting with a Department of Special Investigation probe. According to the Democrat lawyers, it was a wrong beginning, as the accusations were related to the Political Party Act and thus had nothing to do with the DSI in the first place.

The other law involved is the stock market law because the accusations were first directed at TPI. If the court rules that the Democrats were prosecuted under a faulty process as a "mistaken" DSI zeroed in on them through a misplaced channel, the tide will turn in their favour.

In a dual track, the defence has sought to point out that the Democrats should be tried under the 1998 Political Party Act, not the 2007 version of the law. The fact that the alleged offence took place in 2005 has been cited as the key reason.

Which law is applied will make a huge difference. First, the earlier law fully empowered the party registrar, who is also chairman of the Election Commission, to approve financial documents of political parties, whereas the 2007 law requires him to consult other commission members in the event of suspected irregularities.

Since the documents on use of the Bt29 million were approved once by the party registrar, whatever law is applied will play a big role here. And perhaps more importantly, the 1998 law prescribed only party dissolution as a penalty, whereas the 2007 law imposes heavier punishment, in the form of a five-year political ban on party executives.

The Bt29-million case is partly related to Bt258 million in allegedly "illegal" donations from TPI. The Democrats face a trial on the second case next year, but there is a growing belief among them that if they survive the first case, the second one will be easier to manage.

In the first case, the Democrats' spending on campaign posters was allegedly linked, partially, to TPI money. The alleged link was thought to be the only obvious connection the party had with TPI money. Wishful thinking or not, the ruling camp believes that if it is cleared of wrongdoing in the first case, the second case will be automatically undermined.

The party is accused of spending money on campaign posters before the EC gave its full approval. The trial has seen evidence of the EC's "approval" of Bt19 million in spending, but the Democrats allegedly "jumped the gun" by spending another Bt8 million without prior approval. How the defence tackles this accusation is crucial for the case, and the main argument so far has been that the party was ready to use its own money in the event of an EC rejection, which, however, did not happen.

In regard to the TPI-Messiah-Democrat Party triangle of suspicious money, the defence has tried to discredit some state witnesses and the investigation process, depicting a conspiracy theory to get the party dissolved.

"We are fighting on both fronts - legitimacy of the case and grounds of the accusations," said Bundit. Asked by The Nation how "confident" he was, the man once dubbed "super lawyer" replied: "In my whole career I've never answered that question, because no matter how they feel, lawyers are not the ones writing the verdict."

Asked how he felt about "sure-fire" charges of double standards if the Democrats survive the case, Bundit said the term "double standard" had been grossly overused and referred most of the time to incomparable incidents. A real "double standard" occurred when Thaksin Shinawatra was let off the hook in the share-concealment scandal in 2001 by the same judges who convicted Prayuth Mahakijsiri of similar charges on the very same day, Bundit said.

"The Thaksin and Prayuth cases were very similar but different logic was applied in their rulings," Bundit said. "That was a double standard in my book."

He admitted that Abhisit, who was party executive both when the campaign fund spending took place and when he signed off on a spending report in his new capacity as party leader, will be in a difficult situation if the court finds the party guilty in the Bt29-million case. Suthep Thaugsuban, who has been asked by the party to contest a by-election in Surat Thani, triggering speculation he is being "readied" to be a substitute for PM, was not on the party's board both during and when Abhisit signed the report.

-- The Nation 2010-10-10

asiawatcher · October 10, 2010

There is no rhyme or reason to Thai justice. This is just another example of the impossibility of keeping everyone happy. There is no way to pick the outcome and I believe the dissolution of the house prior to elections will remove the decision controversy if the court 'can' delay the outcome long enough.

whybother · October 10, 2010

There is no rhyme or reason to Thai justice. This is just another example of the impossibility of keeping everyone happy. There is no way to pick the outcome and I believe the dissolution of the house prior to elections will remove the decision controversy if the court 'can' delay the outcome long enough.

Justice should be about the law, not keeping people happy.

craigt3365 · October 10, 2010

If the dems are dissolved, the reds will still protest as the dems will just start a new political group, a new shirt color, new protests, and we are back to square one.

The problem stems with the few "rulers" at the top. Until they get their act together, nothing will change...IMHO. :jap:

hammered · October 10, 2010

So to sum up the cases are very weak. The cases are riddled with technical problems. The Dems need to be disolved for reconcilliation. The big double standards case was in 2001. So its anyone's guess

yellow1red1 · October 10, 2010

they did it; but the wrong agency laid the charges??? shouldn't the present government make sure the charges are properly laid?

just out law political parties, period. <<< that would be a good start!

whybother · October 10, 2010

they did it; but the wrong agency laid the charges??? shouldn't the present government make sure the charges are properly laid?

just out law political parties, period. <<< that would be a good start!

Irrelevant that they may not have broken the law, "they did it", whatever "it" is.

animatic · October 10, 2010

There is no rhyme or reason to Thai justice. This is just another example of the impossibility of keeping everyone happy. There is no way to pick the outcome and I believe the dissolution of the house prior to elections will remove the decision controversy if the court 'can' delay the outcome long enough.

Justice should be about the law, not keeping people happy.

EXACTLY!!!!!

mca · October 10, 2010

RUN!!! THE " GREYS " HAVE LANDED!!!!

Sorry......

Edited October 10, 2010 by mca

animatic · October 10, 2010

So to sum up the cases are very weak. The cases are riddled with technical problems. The Dems need to be disolved for reconcilliation. The big double standards case was in 2001. So its anyone's guess

I agree.

This is a very weak case based on apparently :

Revengeful motives from the printers who couldn't slide on evading taxes,

and got no under the table help from the Dems to do it.

And the Thaksin factions just wanting revenge on their loss of power

and a path to power yet again. And have shown they will do, say and

charge ANYTHING they hope might do this for them.

The whole case has seemed lame from day one,

and the more info that comes out, does nothing to dispel that impression.

I on the other hand, I don't see the Dems being dissolved reconciling anything.

Edited October 10, 2010 by animatic

whybother · October 10, 2010

So to sum up the cases are very weak. The cases are riddled with technical problems. The Dems need to be disolved for reconcilliation. The big double standards case was in 2001. So its anyone's guess

I agree.

This is a very weak case based on apparently :

Revengeful motives from the printers who couldn't slide on evading taxes,

and got no under the table help from the Dems to do it.

And the Thaksin factions just wanting revenge on their loss of power

and a path to power yet again. And have shown they will do, say and

charge ANYTHING they hope might do this for them.

The whole case has seemed lame from day one,

and the more info that comes out, does nothing to dispel that impression.

I on the other hand, I don't see the Dems being dissolved reconciling anything.

Agreed. The only thing that would reconcile anything from the reds point of view is them getting into power.

If the reds didn't get into power after the Dems were dissolved, they would go on doing what they are currently doing.

SergeiY · October 10, 2010

RUN!!! THE " GREYS " HAVE LANDED!!!!

Sorry......

the man once dubbed "super lawyer"

hehe. sorry...

but it sounds a little bit pessimistic, like that that super thingy was a thing of the past.

SergeiY · October 10, 2010

There is no rhyme or reason to Thai justice. This is just another example of the impossibility of keeping everyone happy. There is no way to pick the outcome and I believe the dissolution of the house prior to elections will remove the decision controversy if the court 'can' delay the outcome long enough.

Justice should be about the law, not keeping people happy.

EXACTLY!!!!!

So no space for hope that the "hero" will survive?

chantorn · October 10, 2010

The Democrat Partydid not intend to cheat. it was an honest mistake. Thai people and Thai court will understand, and will rule in their favor.

britmaveric · October 10, 2010

Dems are as corrupt as the rest, time to give them the boot and start fresh.

whybother · October 10, 2010

Dems are as corrupt as the rest, time to give them the boot and start fresh.

As we can see with the other banned politicians, it makes no real difference whether they can be MPs or not. They still control things.

rubl · October 10, 2010

There is no rhyme or reason to Thai justice. This is just another example of the impossibility of keeping everyone happy. There is no way to pick the outcome and I believe the dissolution of the house prior to elections will remove the decision controversy if the court 'can' delay the outcome long enough.

Justice should be about the law, not keeping people happy.

EXACTLY!!!!!

So no space for hope that the "hero" will survive?

Unless he copies k. Thaksin who in 2001 had his 'followers' successfully pressure the court which voted 8 - 7 and believed on his (tearful) brown eyes that he had made an 'honest mistake' and forgot he'd given some shares to a driver, maid, security guard, and housekeeper for safekeeping.

Edited October 10, 2010 by rubl

SergeiY · October 10, 2010

Dems are as corrupt as the rest, time to give them the boot and start fresh.

As we can see with the other banned politicians, it makes no real difference whether they can be MPs or not. They still control things.

But unlike to Newin (for example), i don't expect that Abhisit will be still a player in the background.

Interesting that Suthep have nothing to worry here and can continue without staying in the shadow behind. He isn't exactly the best what the Dems have to offer.

phiphidon · October 17, 2010

Unless he copies k. Thaksin who in 2001 had his 'followers' successfully pressure the court which voted 8 - 7 and believed on his (tearful) brown eyes that he had made an 'honest mistake' and forgot he'd given some shares to a driver, maid, security guard, and housekeeper for safekeeping.

Which, it seems, is exactly what the democrats appear to be trying to do i.e influence the court;

BANGKOK, Oct 17 - Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, leader of Thailand's oldest political party, Democrat Party, said Sunday his party had not lobbied the Constitution Court over the party dissolution case as earlier charged by the opposition Puea Thai Party.

Mr Abhisit's comments were made as the Constitution Court is set to hearhis testimony in the last hearing Monday on the dissolution case regarding his party's possible violation of the Political Party Act by mishandling the Bt29 million political development fund allocated by the Election Commission(EC). for campaign ads in the last general election.

The Election Commissioners earlier voted to dissolve the Democrat Party on grounds of violating the Political Party Act by acquiring donations of Bt258 million fromThai Petrochemical Industry (TPI) Plc and mishandling the political development monies of Bt29 million allocated by the EC.

In his weekly address broadcast on radio and TV, Mr Abhisit said he expected the court wouldissue the verdict on the first charge on the campaign fund given by the EC next month and that his party did not lobby the court to prevent it from being dissolved. .

Mr Abhisit said he was checking video clips which the opposition Puea Thai Party said showed a Democrat MP lobbying a close aide of the court over the dissolutioncase.

He said there was no need for the Democrat Party to lobby as he had said earlier that the Constitution Court must act as a "pillar for the country"and that the judgment must be carried out in accordance with the legal framework.

Later Sunday, Mr Abhisit went to Democrat Party headquarters to prepare his court testimony with supporting witnesses from his party. (MCOTonline news).

Apparently these are the video tapes in question;

And then this;

Democrats demand proof that mp lobbied court

By THE NATION ON SUNDAY

Published on October 17, 2010

The Democrats have challenged Pheu Thai Party's spokesman to show evidence to support his claim that a Democrat MP lobbied the Constitution Court over the partydissolution case.

Pheu Thai spokesman Prompong Nopparit claimed yesterday he had received reports plus video and audio clips that a Democrat MPlobbied a person close to a Constitution Court judge to prevent the party being dissolved.

"High ranking people of both sides must have acknowledged this, as they sent representatives to negotiate. From theevidence I've got, it's a plan about testimony to the court. This shows the Democrats, who always present that they do no wrong, are afraid of the mistake they made. Otherwise, they would not have lobbied," Prompong alleged.

"Iwill play the clips on October 17 [today] at 10am. The clips were not edited or modified," he said.

Prompong said the Democrats defended the case on legal angles but not the facts of what happened. They also discreditedthe plaintiff's witnesses. But he claimed there were irregularities that might have shown the Democrats did violate laws and were afraid of losing the case.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, the Democrat leader, saidthe party planned to release details of the case to the public as there were political moves to pressure the court and frame the party.

"They said if the Democrat Party is not dissolved, that means [there is a] double standard. Therefore I asked the legal team to collect the allegations and the party's clarification and compare them with otherpolitical and party-dissolution cases," Abhisit said.

"We will release the information to the public. This is not to influence the court, but we should let people understand this case. Otherwise, somepeople might think that they could surround [to pressure] the Election Commission and they would be able to surround the Constitution Court [to pressure it to act in a certain way] also."

Abhisit is due totestify in the court case tomorrow in the last hearing on the dissolution case related to whether the party spent Bt29 million in EC funds on campaign ads as it said it did.

Other witnesses include Science and TechnologyMinister Khunying Kalaya Sophonpanich, Justice Minister Pirapan Salirathavibhaga and Deputy Interior Minister Thaworn Senneam.

Abhisit said: "The court might be able to read the verdict within next month. I'm notin a place to say whether the party will win the case or not. But I am satisfied with the party's testimony both on the facts and the legal aspects."

He said the Court's verdict would apply to other cases relatedto all agencies in the future. Meanwhile, results of a separate dissolution case the party faces over a Bt258-million donation a number of years ago, was also related to the EC funds case. So the verdicts were likely to bein line with each other.

"If we win in the first case, we will win the second case too," Abhisit said.

"In general, if the party is dissolved in the first case, it will be dissolvedagain in the second case. But I think the party executives are not likely to be banned for ten years, just five years.

"But I closely follow the case, and we are satisfied with what has happened so far. Likewise,we should clarify this to people."

Democrat executive Satit Pitutecha said the Democrats had not behaved shamefully or illegally, as claimed by Prompong. But there are some moves to frame the party.

Hedared Prompong to show the clips but hoped the spokesman would not show a doctored clip to the public.

Abhisit's spokesman Thepthai Seanapong said Prompong's accusation could be contempt of court.

phiphidon · October 17, 2010