Ban Verdict Nears For Thai Ruling Party

[webfact]

Ban verdict nears for Thai ruling party

by Anusak Konglang

BANGKOK, November 28, 2010 (AFP) - Thailand's ruling party and its leader face a possible court decision on their future on Monday that threatens further upheaval for the kingdom's already fractured political landscape.

The Constitutional Court has the power to disband the Democrat party and hand down five-year political bans for senior figures, including Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.

It will hear closing remarks and is expected to reach a verdict on Monday, said Thailand's deputy prime minister, after a trial centred on accusations of misuse of a 29-million-baht (960,000 dollar) state grant in 2005.

Suthep Thuagsuban said there was "no contingency plan" in place for a ban ruling as the party was sure that it would win the case.

"The Democrats have been in politics for more than 60 years, everybody is confident," he said.

Thailand's Election Commission (EC) in April called for the Democrat Party -- the country's oldest party -- to be abolished over the accusations, as well as a separate case alleging an undeclared political donation.

The call coincided with the country's worst political violence in decades, which ultimately left more than 90 people dead and almost 1,900 wounded in a series of street clashes between opposition protesters and troops.

The Democrats are accused of paying 23 million baht to advertising firms, despite having permission to spend only 19 million on billboard marketing.

The prime minister on Saturday refused to speculate on when the court would reach its decision, but said he would be ready on Monday in case there was a verdict.

Abhisit, who was the party's deputy leader at the time, appeared as a witness for the defence during the trial, telling the court the election body had been informed about changes in campaign plans.

He has also had to defend the Democrats against accusations that a member of his party had attempted to influence the judiciary in the case.

Allegations that a Democrat lawmaker met an aide of a Constitutional Court judge ahead of a hearing in October -- and was captured doing so on video -- were splashed on the front pages of local media.

Three out of the original nine judges have since withdrawn from the case to pursue legal action against the aide, whom they accuse of leaking the video. This leaves an even number of judges remaining on the case, causing concern about a possible stalemate.

Some observers question whether Abhisit's backers in the military and Bangkok-based elite would allow the Democrats to be toppled.

Author and former Thai diplomat Pavin Chachavalpongpun said he does not believe the party will be disbanded because the powers behind the party "need someone to be in charge at this critical time in Thai politics".

"It's not really that those that back the Democrats really like the party that much, but they don't have any alternative," he said.

But he said the party could be disbanded by those elites uncomfortable that the court's reputation has been tarnished by "highly politicised" rulings, which have played a major role in shaping Thailand's political landscape in the past.

The Democrats came to power in a parliamentary vote two years ago after court decisions ousted allies of fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra, who was himself unseated in a 2006 military coup.

The judiciary forced two premiers from office in 2008 -- one of them, Samak Sundaravej, was removed for taking payments for hosting TV cooking shows.

Opposition Red Shirts accuse Abhisit's government of being undemocratic and their protests have called for immediate elections.

But Pavin said that while he believes Abhisit will call an election in the first three months of 2011, he thinks it will do little to heal the country's bitter divisions.

"It's pointless talking about elections... knowing that the results will not be accepted by the Bangkok elite and they will try unconstitutional means to get a different result -- through the court, or a military coup," he said.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2010-11-28

[webfact]

DEMOCRAT DISSOLUTION TRIAL

Don't blink

By Atthayuth Butrsripoom

The Nation

Democrat dissolution trial formally wraps up today, amid strong speculation of an immediate verdict

The Constitution Court will this morning hold a final session on the Democrat Party dissolution case amid persistent anticipation the verdict could be handed down in the afternoon.

The court has been subjected to controversies relating to potentially damaging video clips, and many people believe that to pre-empt even greater political pressure on the judges, the final verdict may be delivered immediately after the prosecution and the defence have made their closing statements.

Today's session is a mere formality to allow the prosecution and the defence to deliver verbal summations on their respective closing statements submitted earlier this month. The six presiding judges have reportedly drafted their individual opinions, paving the way for a vote on their collective decision on the case.

High court president Chat Chonlaworn is scheduled to preside over the session. For the defence, Democrat chief adviser Chuan Leekpai is expected to mobilise all his oratory skills to exonerate the name of his main coalition party.

For the prosecution, lead prosecutor Kitinan Thatpramuk is to present the final argument on seeking to disband the Democrats.

With facts and evidence shown to the high court, the six presiding judges will have to address five issues before drawing a judicial conclusion.

The issues are:

- whether the petition to disband the party has adhered to lawful procedures;

- whether the judicial review on the case should be based on the 1998 Political Party Act or the 2007 Political Party Act;

- whether the Democrat's disbursement of Bt29 million subsidised funds was lawful;

- whether the Democrat's financial report of 2005 was lawful; and

- whether party executives should be penalised in case of a guilty verdict against the party.

According to legal pundits, there are three likely scenarios for the verdict - not guilty, guilty with the party disbanded and all 49 party executives barred from politics for five years, and guilty with the party disbanded but only those party executives linked to the fraud penalised.

Many political and legal observers said they were leaning toward an acquittal based on legal arguments presented during the judicial inquiry. They even predicted an overwhelming majority decision to render a verdict of not guilty.

They said the first issue of whether the petition to disband the Democrats was lawful would be crucial in saving the main coalition party from disbandment.

In regard to impact on the government in case of a guilty verdict, Deputy Prime Minister Sanan Kachornprasart is likely to be named caretaker prime minister if Abhisit Vejjajiva faces the five-year ban.

Sanan's two colleagues, Suthep Thaugsuban and Trairong Suwankhiri, would likely be penalised along with Abhisit.

Democrat MP Suthas Ngernmuen said he was uncertain whether the verdict would be handed down by tomorrow.

Suthas confirmed Chuan would make the verbal summation for the defence.

He dismissed speculation the high court wanted to rush its decision due to pressure from Democrats' opponents.

"I believe in the independence and integrity of the court," he said, adding he could not say the same for the Election Commission, which he believed acted under pressure to file the petition to disband his party.

He also rebutted the allegation about double standards if his party won a favourable verdict. The case involving the Democrats was based on factual and legal evidence differing from past decisions on party dissolution, he said.

He insisted there was no legal precedent to draw judgement on the Democrats.

'Justice will prevail'

"I believe justice will prevail regardless of attempts to sway the judicial decision," he said in reference to the release of a video tape by Pasit Sakdanarong, former private secretary to Chat and a fugitive involved in the court's clip scandal.

In his message posted on YouTube, Pasit urged the high court not to succumb to double standards in order to save the Democrats.

Lead defence lawyer Bandit Siripan said Chuan's summation would outline the attempts to intimidate the high court and sway the judicial decision. Chuan had no need to repeat the facts and legal arguments pertinent to the case, he said.

The prosecution had no actual case against the Democrats but the litigation happened under pressure to exploit the legal system as a tool for reprisal politics, he said.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said he had already instructed police to beef up security for the high court.

He said the security authorities would closely monitor the situation in the face of concern that the red shirts might try to invoke the case to disturb the peace.

-- The Nation 2010-11-29

[webfact]

Poll: 50% fear court result

By The Nation

Almost half the people questioned were afraid for the country's future in light of the dissolution case against the ruling Democrat Party - a scenario which could see Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva banned from politics and have to step down - according to an Abac poll released yesterday.

Some 53 per cent of total respondents asked how they felt about the party dissolution case said they still had hope and were ready to move forward. Nearly 47 per cent said they were concerned about the results of the trial.

Asked which politician they believed should help reform the country, 56.2 per cent said Chuan Leekpai, 49.3 per cent said Thaksin Shinawatra, 49.3 per cent Abhisit Vejjajiva, 47.4 per cent Suthep Thaugsuban, 46.8 per cent Sondhi Limthongkul, 40.9 per cent Jatuporn Promphan, 38.5 per cent Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, 31.2 per cent Newin Chidchob, 30.2 Banharn Silapa-Archa and 28.9 Sonthi Boonyaratagalin.

Asked to list the top 10 most serious threats to the country's development, 90.7 of respondents said national divisions, 87.5 per cent said corruption, 84.9 per cent said bad practices by politicians, 81.5 per cent said bad behaviour by bureaucrats, 73 per cent said centralisation of power, 69 per cent said ineffective management of state officials, 64.6 per cent said a coup, 62.8 per cent capitalists' taking advantage of the public, 60.9 per cent said lack of quality education, 53 per cent blamed the Constitution.

The survey found the country's gross national happiness had dropped from 6.57 in September to 5.42 in November - a fluctuation which meant the public was not secure.

The pollster pointed to a host of problems haunting the country - from national divisions, corruption, bad practices by politicians, bureaucrats, and centralisation of power by a small group of people.

A total of 2,260 families with respondents over 18 years took part in the survey from November 10-27 (Saturday). It was conducted in 17 provinces across the country including Bangkok.

-- The Nation 2010-11-29

[virtualtraveller]

Does anyone else find this disturbing;

percentage of respondents believing the following individuals should help reform the country;

47.4 per cent Suthep Thaugsuban, 46.8 per cent Sondhi Limthongkul, 40.9 per cent Jatuporn Promphan,

[whybother]

Does anyone else find this disturbing;

percentage of respondents believing the following individuals should help reform the country;

47.4 per cent Suthep Thaugsuban, 46.8 per cent Sondhi Limthongkul, 40.9 per cent Jatuporn Promphan,

Maybe they misquoted the question:

"believing the following individuals should help reform the country by leaving it".

[virtualtraveller]

The problem we have here is a great many people in this country don't believe in the integrity of the law and fail to respect the outcome. This is a long running syndrome of Thailand, and is part of the greater problem of inequality and double standards plaguing this country at present. Certainly there is favouritism at all levels when it comes law enforcement and I'm under the impression most Thais would rather have access to that 'favouritism'. Unfortunately that favouritism is working for only one side.

Now, in the past few years we've had a political deadlock where the 'people's choice' of leader has not had access to that favouritism and the 'elite' (or whatever you want to call them) have used the long-arm of the law to go after and shut out the so-called Thaksin clique. The court have ruled according to the letter of the law, sometimes rather ridiculously (e.g. Samak the TV cook), and have never had much trouble finding reasonable justification for their verdicts since most politicians have some dirt in their background or shady dealings. It seems particularly easy to dig something up on the TRT/PPP/PT lot since they appear more 'dodgy' than most.

In Thaksin's case, (to quote him) 'the court in Thailand is a joke' because it ruled against him in January, and he didn't have any influence over it this time. The court probably won't be a joke if it rules against the Democrats today. However, if they do not it will certainly seem like favouritism to many Thais, who don't understand the details of the verdict or court procedure and probably think that the outcome depends on who you are rather than what you did or didn't do.

The Redshirts and Puea Thai very effectively demonstrated this in the video clip scandal which they were undoubtably responsible for setting up. Since Thailand's courts and law enforcement (starting at the evidence gathering level) are long suspected to be tampered with, they had no difficulty showing the public that the highest court wasn't very transparent. The contents of video doesn't prove them guilty beyond doubt, but the judges unwillingness to come clean on the meetings are certainly a smoking gun. So, either the court feel that they have no choice but to restore their integrity by ruling against the Dems if the case is marginal, or else face the heat with a 'I told you so' accusation from the 'Red' public if the decide the Dems are not guilty. Either way the Red/PT instigators win a moral victory here.

What they have set out to do is to show Thailand that the courts are biased and stacked against them and that the current situation is all part of a plot by the powers that be, in cahoots with a compliant court, to shut Thaksin and his clique out of the system.

The truth is probably somewhere in between. The legal system here may not be 'whiter than whiter' but I think they are lot more balanced than during Thaksin's latter years, and have gone to great lengths to justify their verdicts. They are under a lot of pressure and high profile political cases like this attract considerable international attention, so if anything was blatantly amiss I'm sure outside observers would comment. This case should not even have come to trial originally, but pressure from 'Reds' forced them to consider it and show they aren't biased.

Unfortunately we have a political grouping in Thailand that believes legal verdicts result from heavy lobbying, or having the right people in place, you don't need to follow or respect the law, you simply need to have people in place to subvert it or get you off the hook.

Edited November 29, 2010 by virtualtraveller

[webfact]

5 companies of police deployed to keep security at Constitution Court

Five companies of policemen were deployed to keep security at the Constitution Court Monday morning when the Democrat Party and the Election Commission are scheduled to make closing statements in the party dissolution case.

Ten mobile detention trucks were put up outside the court. Police also set up metal barricades around the court.

Police also use mobile phone jammer to turn off mobile phone signals in the area.

The court is expected to announce its ruling in the afternoon.

-- The Nation 2010-11-29

[SomTumTiger]

Remember when Thaksin's lawyer's tried to "lobby" the court with a lunch bag full of cash? lol

If the Dems are dissolved, and Abhsit is banned, he will continue to act with class and dignity, and take his punishment like a man. Not like the crying, sniffling, little baby Thaksin is. That is the difference between the two, and that is why it was wonderful having Abhisit in charge the past 2 years. :jap:

[webfact]

Ruling Democrat Party's judgement day

BANGKOK, Nov 29 -- The ruling Democrat Party and its executives face a possible court decision today on their future--a judgement that could order the party to be disbanded and its leaders banned from politics.

The Constitution Court on Monday will hear closing remarks of the prosecution and the defence and will then decide whether or not to deliver a verdict on that day, as was done with three previous party dissolution cases.

High court president Chat Chonlaworn is scheduled to preside over the session when the Constitution Court judges meet to decide whether the Democrat Party misused Bt29 million in political campaign funding allocated by the Election Commission (EC) prior to the April 2005 election.

For the defence, Democrat chief adviser Chuan Leekpai is to deliver a closing statement, while for the prosecution, lead prosecutor Kitinan Thatpramuk will present the final argument on seeking to disband the Democrats.

The six presiding judges have reportedly drafted their individual opinions, paving the way for a vote on their collective decision in the case.

The Democrat Party, contesting the charges, will say they are unlawful and that spending restrictions affecting the party depend on which Political Act – either the now defunct 1998 or the present 2007 act.

The party had spent the funds on projects which had been approved and the party had reported its spending accurately.

Under the current constitution, senior leaders, including party leader Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, could be banned from politics for five years if the party is found guilty. Mr Abhisit was a deputy leader of the party at that time.

Mr Abhisit earlier said this case differed in its essential nature from the electoral fraud charges brought at other times against the Thai Rak Thai, People Power and Chart Thai parties.

He admitted that if the court disqualifies him it will cost him the prime minister's seat and his post will be filled by a caretaker who is most senior among the cabinet ministers.

Deputy prime ministers Suthep Thaugsuban, Trairong Suwannakhiri and Maj Gen Sanan Kachornprasart have all been mooted as possible caretaker prime ministers.

Mr Suthep is the most senior deputy followed by Mr Trairong.

Mr Suthep and Mr Trairong are both Democrats. Gen Sanan, once the Democrat secretary-general, is a member of the Chart Thai Pattana Party.

Mr Suthep, Mr Trairong and Maj Gen Sanan do not face the threat of a political ban as they were not Democrat executives at the time of the alleged misuse of the election campaign subsidy.

The Democrat Party has also been accused of violating the Constitution and faced dissolution by receiving a Bt258 million donation, exceeding the legal limit, from TPI Polene Plc, one of the country's leading cement manufacturers, founded by former Matchimatipatai Party leader Prachai Leophairatana. (MCOT online news)

-- TNA 2010-11-29

[hammered]

A weak legal case that most lawyers think doesnt stand a chance of a guilty verdict but very strong poltical implications that already have had an impact in that it was ever brought in the first case. So a political or legal decision? Interesting day if there is indeed a verdict.

[Thai at Heart]

Remember when Thaksin's lawyer's tried to "lobby" the court with a lunch bag full of cash? lol

If the Dems are dissolved, and Abhsit is banned, he will continue to act with class and dignity, and take his punishment like a man. Not like the crying, sniffling, little baby Thaksin is. That is the difference between the two, and that is why it was wonderful having Abhisit in charge the past 2 years. :jap:

As much as I may or may not like Abhisit personally, politically he hasn't done a bad job in very difficult times.

The problem is that for Thai politics to slowly pull itself out of the sewer, the process of banning politicians and parties for breaking the rules will have to continue, and continue, and continue until one day, people play by the rules.

This isn't to mean I want him or the Dems banned for any other reason than if they have provably broken rules. I firmly believe if the judges hadn't decided that Thaksin giving his shares to his maid hadn't been an innocent mistake, Thailand would not be sitting in the political quagmire it is today. Expedient judgements cannot be allowed any more.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Thai at Heart

[SomTumTiger]

Remember when Thaksin's lawyer's tried to "lobby" the court with a lunch bag full of cash? lol

If the Dems are dissolved, and Abhsit is banned, he will continue to act with class and dignity, and take his punishment like a man. Not like the crying, sniffling, little baby Thaksin is. That is the difference between the two, and that is why it was wonderful having Abhisit in charge the past 2 years. :jap:

As much as I may or may not like Abhisit personally, politically he hasn't done a bad job in very difficult times.

The problem is that for Thai politics to slowly pull itself out of the sewer, the process of banning politicians and parties for breaking the rules will have to continue, and continue, and continue until one day, people play by the rules.

I have no problem with that. Ban away. I am sure the PTP is due for a banning. Look at the mouthbreathers running it.

[animatic]

Does anyone else find this disturbing;

percentage of respondents believing the following individuals should help reform the country;

47.4 per cent Suthep Thaugsuban, 46.8 per cent Sondhi Limthongkul, 40.9 per cent Jatuporn Promphan,

Maybe they misquoted the question:

"believing the following individuals should help reform the country by leaving it".

Clearly a VERY bad poll when they put out figures totaling 135.1% .

Uh, how can you have 35% more than are polled responding?????

Edited November 29, 2010 by animatic

[hammered]

Remember when Thaksin's lawyer's tried to "lobby" the court with a lunch bag full of cash? lol

If the Dems are dissolved, and Abhsit is banned, he will continue to act with class and dignity, and take his punishment like a man. Not like the crying, sniffling, little baby Thaksin is. That is the difference between the two, and that is why it was wonderful having Abhisit in charge the past 2 years. :jap:

As much as I may or may not like Abhisit personally, politically he hasn't done a bad job in very difficult times.

The problem is that for Thai politics to slowly pull itself out of the sewer, the process of banning politicians and parties for breaking the rules will have to continue, and continue, and continue until one day, people play by the rules.

This isn't to mean I want him or the Dems banned for any other reason than if they have provably broken rules. I firmly believe if the judges hadn't decided that Thaksin giving his shares to his maid hadn't been an innocent mistake, Thailand would not be sitting in the political quagmire it is today. Expedient judgements cannot be allowed any more.

A poltical problem may be that banning Abhisit is going to undermine business and investment sentiment. Suthep or Sanan are not going to inspire confidence and PTP has nobody who wouldnt collapse confidence. For a few years now business and investment has put up with the ups and downs of the Thai poltical game. However, the point may well be close when if another round of instability, doubt and a choice of joke PM possibilites comes about Thailand will suffer.

It cant be easy for thsoe judges on the court today.

[animatic]

Remember when Thaksin's lawyer's tried to "lobby" the court with a lunch bag full of cash? lol

If the Dems are dissolved, and Abhsit is banned, he will continue to act with class and dignity, and take his punishment like a man. Not like the crying, sniffling, little baby Thaksin is. That is the difference between the two, and that is why it was wonderful having Abhisit in charge the past 2 years. :jap:

As much as I may or may not like Abhisit personally, politically he hasn't done a bad job in very difficult times.

The problem is that for Thai politics to slowly pull itself out of the sewer, the process of banning politicians and parties for breaking the rules will have to continue, and continue, and continue until one day, people play by the rules.

This isn't to mean I want him or the Dems banned for any other reason than if they have provably broken rules. I firmly believe if the judges hadn't decided that Thaksin giving his shares to his maid hadn't been an innocent mistake, Thailand would not be sitting in the political quagmire it is today. Expedient judgments cannot be allowed any more.

Agreed, I think they can also see that this past Thaksin judgement has put the mess into gear, an they may be the only entity that can put on the breaks. Are they squeaky clean, of course not this is Thailand and it is only now correcting it's act in baby steps. But that fact something is being done is at least a positive sign.

I can't predict a verdict from this simple because 'TIT', but based on what testimony I have seen quoted, I don't think this case should cause dissolution. Of course political expedience might mean this verdict could be guilty, but that would be bending over backwards to kow tow to the red mob, if the testimony quotes of the last months are to be believed. And they would know political expedience got them in this mess to begin with

I do also think it would be a sad day for Thailand where a party is dissolved even after an EC ruling that what they have done is OK'd BEFORE the election, and again ruled OK afterward, but then prosecuted ONLY after Arissaman and crew threatened the EC.

This case is BS IMHO, the next case might be more worrying but that's another day yet to come

Edited November 29, 2010 by animatic

[EyesWideOpen]

The Democrats are accused of paying 23 million baht to advertising firms, despite having permission to spend only 19 million on billboard marketing.

This a joke right?  4 million baht ? While BILLIONS of baht were flying around in corruption money at the new airport,with no one getting charged.. For a country so concerned with face, am amazed they keep making fools of themselves on the international stage.....

[Piengrudee]

"Are they squeaky clean?" Yes. Mark is squeaky clean. Chuan is squeaky clean. Suthep is squeaky clean. Sondhi is squeaky clean. Chamlong is squeaky clean.

[Piengrudee]

The Democrats are accused of paying 23 million baht to advertising firms, despite having permission to spend only 19 million on billboard marketing.This a joke right?  4 million baht ? While BILLIONS of baht were flying around in corruption money at the new airport,with no one getting charged.. For a country so concerned with face, am amazed they keep making fools of themselves on the international stage.....

The law is the law. Are you saying that Thai law is a joke; like the constitution, which can be thorn by any army coup?

[phiphidon]

Does anyone else find this disturbing;

percentage of respondents believing the following individuals should help reform the country;

47.4 per cent Suthep Thaugsuban, 46.8 per cent Sondhi Limthongkul, 40.9 per cent Jatuporn Promphan,

Maybe they misquoted the question:

"believing the following individuals should help reform the country by leaving it".

Clearly a VERY bad poll when they put out figures totaling 135.1% .

Uh how can you have 35% more than are polled responding?????

Edit added this ; I can only assume that the people taking the poll were asked to choose which of the politicians could help reform the country and were allowed to choose more than one? Then the Pollsters took all the " votes" and calculated percentages from that.

It's even worse when the whole paragraph is quoted, accordingly all the politicians vote shares add up to 418.7% ! I'm not sure how this is meant to be meaningful?

Edited November 29, 2010 by phiphidon

[animatic]

Remember when Thaksin's lawyer's tried to "lobby" the court with a lunch bag full of cash? lol

If the Dems are dissolved, and Abhsit is banned, he will continue to act with class and dignity, and take his punishment like a man. Not like the crying, sniffling, little baby Thaksin is. That is the difference between the two, and that is why it was wonderful having Abhisit in charge the past 2 years. :jap:

As much as I may or may not like Abhisit personally, politically he hasn't done a bad job in very difficult times.

The problem is that for Thai politics to slowly pull itself out of the sewer, the process of banning politicians and parties for breaking the rules will have to continue, and continue, and continue until one day, people play by the rules.

This isn't to mean I want him or the Dems banned for any other reason than if they have provably broken rules. I firmly believe if the judges hadn't decided that Thaksin giving his shares to his maid hadn't been an innocent mistake, Thailand would not be sitting in the political quagmire it is today. Expedient judgements cannot be allowed any more.

A poltical problem may be that banning Abhisit is going to undermine business and investment sentiment. Suthep or Sanan are not going to inspire confidence and PTP has nobody who wouldnt collapse confidence. For a few years now business and investment has put up with the ups and downs of the Thai poltical game. However, the point may well be close when if another round of instability, doubt and a choice of joke PM possibilites comes about Thailand will suffer.

It cant be easy for those judges on the court today.

No doubt on this point, but I think the lame prosecutors case they have to judge on holds greater weight, and the confidence problem just adds to that side of a not guilty verdict if it weighs at all in the decisions. It's whether or not they will feel their lives or at least livelihoods, are in danger from red zealots if they find based on testimony and acquit, is the most pressing issue for the individuals judging this case.

Edited November 29, 2010 by animatic

[hammered]

Chuan's closing speech is brutal.

[animatic]

"Are they squeaky clean?" Yes. Mark is squeaky clean. Chuan is squeaky clean. Suthep is squeaky clean. Sondhi is squeaky clean. Chamlong is squeaky clean.

But they all don't fit in the same box you have placed them in.

[Piengrudee]

Chuan's closing speech is brutal.

All Chuan does was blame Thaksin for buying up Judges & Senators. I didn't know that Thai Judges are for sales?

Edited November 29, 2010 by Piengrudee

[animatic]

Chuan's closing speech is brutal.

In his quiet but direct way.

[hammered]

Chuan's closing speech is brutal.

All Chuan does was blame Thaksin for buying up Judges & Senators. I didn't know that Thai Judges are for sales?

I dont think you understand Thai if that is what you think he said

[Thai at Heart]

Remember when Thaksin's lawyer's tried to "lobby" the court with a lunch bag full of cash? lol

If the Dems are dissolved, and Abhsit is banned, he will continue to act with class and dignity, and take his punishment like a man. Not like the crying, sniffling, little baby Thaksin is. That is the difference between the two, and that is why it was wonderful having Abhisit in charge the past 2 years. :jap:

As much as I may or may not like Abhisit personally, politically he hasn't done a bad job in very difficult times.

The problem is that for Thai politics to slowly pull itself out of the sewer, the process of banning politicians and parties for breaking the rules will have to continue, and continue, and continue until one day, people play by the rules.

This isn't to mean I want him or the Dems banned for any other reason than if they have provably broken rules. I firmly believe if the judges hadn't decided that Thaksin giving his shares to his maid hadn't been an innocent mistake, Thailand would not be sitting in the political quagmire it is today. Expedient judgements cannot be allowed any more.

A poltical problem may be that banning Abhisit is going to undermine business and investment sentiment. Suthep or Sanan are not going to inspire confidence and PTP has nobody who wouldnt collapse confidence. For a few years now business and investment has put up with the ups and downs of the Thai poltical game. However, the point may well be close when if another round of instability, doubt and a choice of joke PM possibilites comes about Thailand will suffer.

It cant be easy for thsoe judges on the court today.

This is precisely the type of political thinking that the judges have to avoid.

Korn will be the next PM if the reformed Dems have any sense.

[hammered]

Remember when Thaksin's lawyer's tried to "lobby" the court with a lunch bag full of cash? lol

If the Dems are dissolved, and Abhsit is banned, he will continue to act with class and dignity, and take his punishment like a man. Not like the crying, sniffling, little baby Thaksin is. That is the difference between the two, and that is why it was wonderful having Abhisit in charge the past 2 years. :jap:

As much as I may or may not like Abhisit personally, politically he hasn't done a bad job in very difficult times.

The problem is that for Thai politics to slowly pull itself out of the sewer, the process of banning politicians and parties for breaking the rules will have to continue, and continue, and continue until one day, people play by the rules.

This isn't to mean I want him or the Dems banned for any other reason than if they have provably broken rules. I firmly believe if the judges hadn't decided that Thaksin giving his shares to his maid hadn't been an innocent mistake, Thailand would not be sitting in the political quagmire it is today. Expedient judgements cannot be allowed any more.

A poltical problem may be that banning Abhisit is going to undermine business and investment sentiment. Suthep or Sanan are not going to inspire confidence and PTP has nobody who wouldnt collapse confidence. For a few years now business and investment has put up with the ups and downs of the Thai poltical game. However, the point may well be close when if another round of instability, doubt and a choice of joke PM possibilites comes about Thailand will suffer.

It cant be easy for thsoe judges on the court today.

This is precisely the type of political thinking that the judges have to avoid.

Korn will be the next PM if the reformed Dems have any sense.

If poltical thinking wasnt involved the case wouldnt even be at court;) Interesting decision to come. It wont be easy and it all dates back to 2001 ironically in rationale for decisions.

A 3-3 has it seems been confirmed as meaning not guilty as expected

[craigt3365]

Court drops Democrat party dissolution case on ground of wrongful process.Vote is 4-2.

[webfact]

topic continues

Constitution Court Acquits Thai Democrat

//CLOSED//