'Technical' Escape Leaves Thai Politics More Or Less The Same

[webfact]

ANALYSIS

'Technical' escape leaves politics more or less the same

By Tulsathit Taptim

The Nation

The outcome had to please someone and upset another. That much we could easily predict. It was the manner in which the Democrats got off the hook in the party dissolution case that surprised supporters and foes alike.

After months or speculation, anxiety and anticipation, the Constitution Court simply declared there was no case.

Immediate reactions from all parties were almost muted bewilderment. When the court announced that the case was being dropped, only about 40 minutes had passed in the reading of the ruling. For the Democrats and their supporters, relief came too fast. The other side was stunned and it took time for anger to sink in.

When the impact of the anti-climax fades, key questions will come to the fore. What took the court so long to arrive at the decision that the case had expired? Was Apichart Sukakanont, whose mixed-up roles as party registrar and chairman of the Election Commission contributed to the collapse of the case, in fact a "Trojan Horse"? How will the court ruling affect another party dissolution case against the Democrats? What will the red shirts do now?

So, what kept the court from throwing the case out from the start? One sympathetic explanation would be that doing so would have triggered furious reaction nonetheless. Or it could be that arguments against legitimacy of the case required inquiry into activities or technicality that needed time to clarify. Moreover, the trial allowed impression that the court did not imprudently reject the case out of hand.

Of course, rivals of the Democrats must be suspecting an "easy way out". Even many neutral observers were bemused, saying they would rather see the court deal with "evidence" instead of technicality.

The court's possible answer to that, however, may have to be read in between the lines of its ruling, which gave a lot of emphasis on Apichart's double hats as political party registrar and EC chairman. The ruling noted that Apichart, as party registrar, had exercised his legal power one way and Apichart the EC chairman the other. From the ruling, the case collapsed around Apichart's changes of stand and the EC's mistimed activities in bid to formulate the charges.

Democrats' political rivals, however, will put everything under a microscope. The Pheu Thai Party vowed an autopsy of the aborted case and relevant ones in the past. Previous dissolution of parties will be restudied and compared with yesterday's ruling and no stone will be left unturned for any discrepancies.

The red shirts are expected to at least wait for loopholes to be found in the ruling before mapping out key strategies. Protests over "double standard" could be intermittent in the meantime, but any major move will have to be accompanied by a solid rallying cry. The Thai public can rest assured that they will continue to be bombarded with legal technicality for a long time after this.

The Bt258 million "illegal donation" case is still alive, but it is intertwined with the Bt29 million case which was dropped yesterday. Initial reports that the Democrats might petition the court to also nullify the remaining case on the same grounds were laughed off by some Democrat lawyers, but possibility of them resorting to that strategy will persist.

The Bt258 million case will also put Apichart right back in the centre stage as his past role concerning it will carry a weight on the trial. The court has not set any date but proceedings are expected to begin early next year, and take months if the case is not rejected outright.

The Democrats will be stronger politically, at least for a while, with greater bargaining power to deal with naughty allies. Their opponents will have to rethink strategies.

Pheu Thai was saying yesterday that the Bt29 million ruling would make its campaign for the next election much easier. That was little more than self-consolation. While the ruling may have deepened the divide, it's unlikely to make members of "the other camp" embrace the red cause. Guilty or not guilty, case dismissed or solid, double standard or single standard, Thailand's political landscape will essentially not change. Reds will be reds and will vote for Pheu Thai in elections come what may, and their rivals will continue to reject candidates associated, blatantly or perceptively, with Thaksin Shinawatra.

-- The Nation 2010-11-30

[webfact]

DEMOCRAT SURVIVES

Two legal points lead court to drop case against Democrats

By Kornchanok Raksaseri

The Nation

The Democrat Party is free from the party dissolution charges relating to the alleged illegal use of Bt29 million it received from the Political Party Development Fund after the court found the legal proceedings of the case were against the law.

From one perspective, the case was filed outside its time frame. From another angle, it can be considered that the political party registrar - who was authorised to file the case - had not given his crucial comment for the case to proceed, while the Election Commission had no authority to do so, the court said.

Democrat key members, including leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, chief adviser Chuan Leekpai, former party leader Banyat Bantadtan and the party's legal team were present for the court's ruling.

The court spent less than an hour in the afternoon delivering its verdict after special attorney Kitinan Tatpramook represented the EC, and Chuan represented the party, for case-closing statements presented in the morning.

Constitution Court Judge Nurak Marpraneet read the Constitution Court's verdict beginning with a description of the five issues the court would consider.

The first issue was on whether the legal proceedings of the case were according to law.

The Democrat's argument was that the EC had no authority to file the case and the political party registrar had not relayed his intention to file the case with the court. The EC's attitude was the political party registrar had already presented his opinion at the EC's meeting.

The party dissolution case, which was filed against the Democrat Party for allegedly not using the money it received from the Political Party Development Fund according to law, must be referred to Article 93 of the 2007 Political Party Act, the court said.

The Article requires a political party to use and file correct reports about the use of the Political Party Development fund to the Election Commission, otherwise, the party must be dissolved.

Judge Udomsak Nitimontree continued to read the court's verdict.

The court referred to Article 93 which states the political party registrar, "with the approval of the EC", must file the case before the Constitution Court within 15 days of acknowledgement of the political party's conduct.

Although the Election Commission chairman Apichart Sukhagganond is also the political party registrar by position, his role must be defined, Udomsak read in the court's verdict.

The political party registrar both collaborates and balances (checks-and-balances) the EC's work.

While Apichart clearly identified his role as political party registrar while saying the Democrat Party might have violated Article 94 of the law- which could lead to party dissolution and the EC appointing an investigation panel - Apichart's comment in the EC's meeting on the Democrat's use of the Bt29 million fund was in the role of EC chairman, not political party registrar, the court said.

"When the political party registrar had not commented on dissolving the defendant party according to Article 93 of the 2007 Political Party Act, the EC's approval on April 21 then was significantly in the wrong order. It then had no effect on authorising the plaintiff (political party registrar) to file the case before the Constitution Court to dissolve the party," Udomsak read in the court's verdict.

Udomsak also offered another angle on the political party registrar's action being required within the time frame, as a flaw in the case proceedings. When Apichart had already given his opinion in the EC's meeting, the case should have been filed before the court within 15 days.

"The case must proceed according to Article 93 of the 2007 Political Party Act. It states the case be filed before the Constitution Court within 15 days since December 17 which is the day the Election Commission majority voted on the report of the investigation committee, led by Issara Limsiriwong. It can be regarded as the day the plaintiff, as the political party registrar, acknowledged the issue.

"The plaintiff filed the case [before the Constitution Court] on April 26 and therefore exceeded the 15-day time frame according to the law. The process in filing the party dissolution case was then against the law, and it is not right for the Constitution Court to consider the other issues," Judge Udomsak Nitimontree said reading the court's verdict.

"The Constitution Court then resolved with the majority, 4:2, that the legal proceeding for this party dissolution case is against the law and there's no need to consider the other issues. The case is dismissed," said Udomsak completing the verdict.

A Constitution Court source, who asked not to be named, said the two minority votes were from Constitution Court President Chat Chonlaworn and Judge Boonsong Kulbupar.

Judges Nurak, Udomsak, Supoj Khaimuk and Charan Pakdithanakul were among the majority.

Democrat lawyer Bundit Siripant said he believes the court would also drop the case related to the Bt258 million scandal. Otherwise, the party would again use the time frame as an argument in defending the case.

-- The Nation 2010-11-30