Panich Is Back In Thailand But Is He Still An MP?

[webfact]

Panich is back but is he still an MP?

By The Nation

Election Commission to consider Democrat's status next week following his conviction by Cambodian court

The MP status of Democrat lawmaker Panich Vikitsreth, who returned home yesterday from Cambodia along with four other Thais after a court conviction for trespassing, is now in question due to related possible legal consequences.

Panich, as well as Samdin Lertbutr, Tainae Moungmachon, Narumol Jittawarattana and Kitphonthon Chutnasewe were allowed to walk free after the nine-month jail term for illegal entry and unlawfully entering a Cambodian military zone was suspended.

Two other Thais - nationalist activist Veera Somkwamkid and his aide Ratree Pipatanapaiboon - are still in Cambodia. The seven were arrested near Sa Kaew province's Ban Nong Chan while inspecting a disputed border area on December 29.

Veera is still in jail while Ratree, who was granted bail, must remain in Phnom Penh pending trial on the additional charge of espionage, slated for February 1.

Regarding Panich's MP status, the Election Commission said yesterday that the case would be considered next week as the punishment by the Cambodian court could affect his legal status.

The Thai Constitution prohibits those who are jailed by a court from being a member of Parliament even though the jail term may be suspended.

Some argued that conviction by a foreign court should not affect the position of a Thai MP but Election Commissioner Sodsri Satyatham said there was a line of interpretation that conviction by any court affects such a status.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said Panich would maintain his MP status as long as no competent authority makes it clear about the legal consequence of the Cambodian court's verdict.

Abhisit called a meeting with concerned agencies yesterday to discuss the situation after the return of the Thais and issued guidelines to help the other two.

The prime minister instructed the Foreign Ministry and the Defence Ministry to coordinate with the Cambodian authority to help Veer and Ratree, according to Government Spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn.

Abhisit would also explain to the public that the Cambodian court's verdict only affected individuals involved in the case and would have no legal consequences for the territorial dispute with Cambodia.

Nationalist groups the Thai Patriots Network and the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) said Cambodia could assert its claim over the disputed areas near Ban Nong Chan after the Thai nationals, including the MP, admitted in court that they had walked into territory under Cambodian sovereignty.

"It is a matter of immigration law [the court ruling], not a verdict to settle the boundary," Panitan argued.

The patriot network is protesting in front of Government House and has vowed to stay there until their two other colleagues are freed from Cambodia. The PAD has called a rally on Tuesday, demanding the government scrap the deal with Cambodia on the land boundary demarcation.

The areas near Ban Nong Chan have been disputed by the two countries for more than three decades after a Cambodian community occupied the land in the late 1970s when they sought refuge from the civil war at home.

Many Thai local residents said the areas belong to them as a Thai authority had issued land titles to them long ago. The presence of the Cambodian community had led to them losing pieces of farming land, they said.

Abhisit has instructed the Interior Ministry to take care of the issue and find solutions to their problems, Panitan said.

To prevent recurrence of a similar situation, the PM also ordered officials on the ground to prevent Thais from entering the disputed border areas, he said.

-- The Nation 2011-01-23

[Siam Simon]

They even made the buffoon look like a convict. Som nam na.

[Buchholz]

They even made the buffoon look like a convict. Som nam na.

Sorry to disappoint you, but nobody "made" him cut his hair. You'll have to save your som na na for another occasion.

Panich [Vikitsreth] has developed an allergy to insects in the Prey Sar prison. Bugs bit him on the head and his body. He has had to shave off his hair, but is under treatment.

[Siam Simon]

Sorry to disappoint you, but nobody "made" him cut his hair. You'll have to save your som na na for another occasion.

Panich [Vikitsreth] has developed an allergy to insects in the Prey Sar prison. Bugs bit him on the head and his body. He has had to shave off his hair, but is under treatment.

Where did I state that anyone made him cut off his hair in my short one-line post?

[Buchholz]

Sorry to disappoint you, but nobody "made" him cut his hair. You'll have to save your som na na for another occasion.

Panich [Vikitsreth] has developed an allergy to insects in the Prey Sar prison. Bugs bit him on the head and his body. He has had to shave off his hair, but is under treatment.

Where did I state that anyone made him cut off his hair in my short one-line post?

In the one=liner quote you clipped out,

"They" and "made" which infers exactly what I posted in reply.

p.s. thanks for raising the bar on this discussion so early on.

[Siam Simon]

Sorry to disappoint you, but nobody "made" him cut his hair. You'll have to save your som na na for another occasion.

Panich [Vikitsreth] has developed an allergy to insects in the Prey Sar prison. Bugs bit him on the head and his body. He has had to shave off his hair, but is under treatment.

Where did I state that anyone made him cut off his hair in my short one-line post?

In the one=liner quote you clipped out,

"They" and "made" which infers exactly what I posted in reply.

p.s. thanks for raising the bar on this discussion so early on.

"They even made the buffoon look like a convict. Som nam na." = "Sorry to disappoint you, but nobody "made" him cut his hair. You'll have to save your som na na for another occasion." Does it? .

[Buchholz]

Panich [Vikitsreth] has developed an allergy to insects in the Prey Sar prison. Bugs bit him on the head and his body. He has had to shave off his hair, but is under treatment.

Where did I state that anyone made him cut off his hair in my short one-line post?

In the one=liner quote you clipped out,

"They" and "made" which infers exactly what I posted in reply.

p.s. thanks for raising the bar on this discussion so early on.

"They even made the buffoon look like a convict. Som nam na." = "Sorry to disappoint you, but nobody "made" him cut his hair. You'll have to save your som na na for another occasion." Does it? .

ok, let's continue to raise that bar.

Who is "they" and what does "made" mean in the context of your one-liner?

[Siam Simon]

ok, let's continue to raise that bar.

Who is "they" and what does "made" mean in the context of your one-liner?

"they" are the Cambodian court which convicted Panich and gave him a suspended prison sentence. The Thai authorities are obfuscating at the mo, stating that the conviction may not be relevant, but Panich is now a convicted criminal in Cambodia. (note: Not in Thailand; but "they", the Cambodian authorities, have made him look like one in Thailand) Any more wild mis-interpretations you want to make?

[geovalin]

Very interesting discussion Siam Simon and Buchholz, is it a sketch? Who is Laurel? Who is Hardy?

[Siam Simon]

Very interesting discussion Siam Simon and Buchholz, is it a sketch? Who is Laurel? Who is Hardy?

I'm about 10 kilos overweight at the mo, so I'll accept Hardy .

[whybother]

They even made the buffoon look like a convict. Som nam na.

ok, let's continue to raise that bar.

Who is "they" and what does "made" mean in the context of your one-liner?

"they" are the Cambodian court which convicted Panich and gave him a suspended prison sentence. The Thai authorities are obfuscating at the mo, stating that the conviction may not be relevant, but Panich is now a convicted criminal in Cambodia. (note: Not in Thailand; but "they", the Cambodian authorities, have made him look like one in Thailand) Any more wild mis-interpretations you want to make?

So when you say they made him look like a convict, you didn't mean anything about his physical appearance?

[Siam Simon]

So when you say they made him look like a convict, you didn't mean anything about his physical appearance?

As far as I'm aware, Panich was not a convicted criminal in Thailand upon his return to Thailand from his Cambodian adventure. Do you know something about this that I don't?

[whybother]

So when you say they made him look like a convict, you didn't mean anything about his physical appearance?

As far as I'm aware, Panich was not a convicted criminal in Thailand upon his return to Thailand from his Cambodian adventure. Do you know something about this that I don't?

SO when you say they made him LOOK like a convict, you didn't mean anything about his physical appearance?

Is it really that difficult to answer a question?

edit: as far as I'm aware, he was convicted in Cambodia, and given a suspended sentence.

Edited January 23, 2011 by whybother

[Siam Simon]

So when you say they made him look like a convict, you didn't mean anything about his physical appearance?

As far as I'm aware, Panich was not a convicted criminal in Thailand upon his return to Thailand from his Cambodian adventure. Do you know something about this that I don't?

SO when you say they made him LOOK like a convict, you didn't mean anything about his physical appearance?

Is it really that difficult to answer a question?

edit: as far as I'm aware, he was convicted in Cambodia, and given a suspended sentence.

I've answered it. Maybe you should get your twin brother to ask it next time? You won't look as daft then.

[Siam Simon]

Btw, the line you added in your edit just repeats what has already been stated in this thread.....Ah.....I just spotted a dead horse outside for you to flog. Good whipping...... .

[whybother]

I've answered it. Maybe you should get your twin brother to ask it next time? You won't look as daft then.

No. You didn't answer it. You went off on a tangent about him being a convicted criminal or not.

I am trying to understand what your first post meant. Was it about his physical appearance or not?

Maybe you can highlight where you actually answered it, because as far as I can see you are just skirting around the question.

Maybe you can make it easy for me and just answer the question that I asked with a Yes or a No.

[Buchholz]

ok, let's continue to raise that bar.

Who is "they" and what does "made" mean in the context of your one-liner?

"they" are the Cambodian court which convicted Panich and gave him a suspended prison sentence. The Thai authorities are obfuscating at the mo, stating that the conviction may not be relevant, but Panich is now a convicted criminal in Cambodia. (note: Not in Thailand; but "they", the Cambodian authorities, have made him look like one in Thailand) Any more wild mis-interpretations you want to make?

hahaha... no your wild mis-representation of your original wording suffices.

[princejohnjay]

Common guys stop the arguing...Panich looks more a convict and he's one...take it or live it, he's a convict...

[whybother]

Btw, the line you added in your edit just repeats what has already been stated in this thread.....Ah.....I just spotted a dead horse outside for you to flog. Good whipping...... .

What, is it against forum rules to repeat things in threads now?

[Siam Simon]

I've answered it. Maybe you should get your twin brother to ask it next time? You won't look as daft then.

No. You didn't answer it. You went off on a tangent about him being a convicted criminal or not.

I am trying to understand what your first post meant. Was it about his physical appearance or not?

Maybe you can highlight where you actually answered it, because as far as I can see you are just skirting around the question.

Maybe you can make it easy for me and just answer the question that I asked with a Yes or a No.

Here:

"they" are the Cambodian court which convicted Panich and gave him a suspended prison sentence. The Thai authorities are obfuscating at the mo, stating that the conviction may not be relevant, but Panich is now a convicted criminal in Cambodia. (note: Not in Thailand; but "they", the Cambodian authorities, have made him look like one in Thailand) Any more wild mis-interpretations you want to make?

This is boring. Is that the latest technique of you right wing forum propagandists? To bore contrary posters away?

[Scott]

If you want to continue to post, then do so in a civil manner and stay on topic. The topic is not specifically about his looks.

The bar hasn't been raised; it's been lowered, so back on topic please.

[jayjay0]

Thanks Scott

Get tired of the twins arguing. Kinda like who can out bore the other one.

My question is why is there any question? He is a convicted criminal. He knowingly broke a law. If Thailand can not except that would they not be in a back handed way saying it is OK for Cambodians to enter Thailand illegally.

To allow him to maintain his seat would be tantamount to saying we don't care how much of a low life a person is as long as they don't do it in Thailand.

[slapout]

I thought that was a given.

[animatic]

Very interesting discussion Siam Simon and Buchholz, is it a sketch? Who is Laurel? Who is Hardy?

I'm about 10 kilos overweight at the mo, so I'll accept Hardy .

It's more like Hatfields vs McCoys, Intelligent Design vs Logical Though, or Lindsay Lohan vs. Sobriety...

Panich is a convicted criminal now, but not in Thailand.

Unless the constitution states convictions out of country count, then we can assume he is still a MP.

Of course there would have to be a constitutional court ruling to state so, since no impeachment proceedings have taken place. So we can safely assume he still holds his elected post.

Of course his stature standing in the post is greatly diminished.

In any case this little nationalist misadventure really was much ado about nothing.

Edited January 23, 2011 by animatic

[yellow1red1]

ok, let's continue to raise that bar.

Who is "they" and what does "made" mean in the context of your one-liner?

"they" are the Cambodian court which convicted Panich and gave him a suspended prison sentence. The Thai authorities are obfuscating at the mo, stating that the conviction may not be relevant, but Panich is now a convicted criminal in Cambodia. (note: Not in Thailand; but "they", the Cambodian authorities, have made him look like one in Thailand) Any more wild mis-interpretations you want to make?

good luck Simon, your 10 Posts per year are no match for Bcz 10 per day!

anti govt anti yellow he not allows.

[Buchholz]

ok, let's continue to raise that bar.

Who is "they" and what does "made" mean in the context of your one-liner?

"they" are the Cambodian court which convicted Panich and gave him a suspended prison sentence. The Thai authorities are obfuscating at the mo, stating that the conviction may not be relevant, but Panich is now a convicted criminal in Cambodia. (note: Not in Thailand; but "they", the Cambodian authorities, have made him look like one in Thailand) Any more wild mis-interpretations you want to make?

good luck Simon, your 10 Posts per year are no match for Bcz 10 per day!

anti govt anti yellow he not allows.

He's catching up... he's posted nearly 3 years worth just in the past 24 hours...

Today's Top 20 Posters

Siam Simon 27

Anyway, to try and return this to the topic and away from the over-personalizations, the EC's initial response is:

Election Commission: Panich remains MP

Edited January 23, 2011 by Buchholz

[random]

I think i read a few days ago about one of abhisits aides being found guilty in Thailand of defamation and was given a suspended sentence. If memory serves me right this guy has kept his position as an aide and MP ( the case was brought by the police agaisnt him after he claimed irregularities in buying bullet proof vests).

I seem to recall reading that his position as an MP is not affected despite being found guilty, did I also hear that being guilty of defamation does not mean removal from post?

It seems the constitution allows for MPs to keep their positions based on what they are convicted of, so it is not guarantee that this oaf will lose his position, although here's hoping he does.

[asiawatcher]

Does anyone really care about Veera and Co? The convicted have been returned, fined and have a slur against their names in Cambodia. Here? They are just back as Thai's. So I can't see why they cannot remain MP's unless they have brought deliberate disrespect on Cambodia thus not acting up to the standards of their station as MP's representing Thailand...

[Buchholz]

I think i read a few days ago about one of abhisits aides being found guilty in Thailand of defamation and was given a suspended sentence. If memory serves me right this guy has kept his position as an aide and MP ( the case was brought by the police agaisnt him after he claimed irregularities in buying bullet proof vests).

I seem to recall reading that his position as an MP is not affected despite being found guilty, did I also hear that being guilty of defamation does not mean removal from post?

It seems the constitution allows for MPs to keep their positions based on what they are convicted of, so it is not guarantee that this oaf will lose his position, although here's hoping he does.

It was a case from 2003 (so not an Abhisit aide) and yes, it was decided 8 years later, 2 days ago.

He was given a suspended sentence on his jail sentence (six months).

AFAIK, defamation is specifically mentioned as an exclusion to proceedings to terminate membership in the House of Representatives in Article 106(11) of the Constitution based on a criminal conviction.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Buchholz

[jayjay0]

Does anyone really care about Veera and Co? The convicted have been returned, fined and have a slur against their names in Cambodia. Here? They are just back as Thai's. So I can't see why they cannot remain MP's unless they have brought deliberate disrespect on Cambodia thus not acting up to the standards of their station as MP's representing Thailand...

Makes no difference what country you commit a crime in. You are still a criminal. Some countries might not see it that way but makes no difference what they say. You are a criminal. Thailand law allows Criminals to hold posts.

What I would be and am looking at is the moral charicter that knowingly breaks the laws of another country.

Legally he can hold his post. But for my personal standards he should resign. It speaks to his lack of character.

Ask your self if you were a business man would you hire some one if you knew for a fact he willingly breaks law's in other countries?

Edited January 23, 2011 by jayjay0