Red Leader Jatuporn Could Still Be An MP: Election Commissioner

[webfact]

IF ELECTED,

Red leader Jatuporn could still be an MP: election commissioner

By Prapasri Osathanon

The Nation

Red-shirt leader Jatuporn Prompan, who is candidate No 7 on Pheu Thai's party list, might still be able to sit as an MP if elected, Election Commission member Prapun Naigowit said yesterday.

Prapun's comments conflicted with those made on Tuesday by EC member Sodsri Satayathum, who said Jatuporn might be disqualified from becoming an MP for not voting in Sunday's election.

Meanwhile, Natthawut Saikua, another red-shirt leader and No 8 on Pheu Thai's party list, said he would soon resubmit a bail request for Jatuporn.

He added that Sodsri should not pre-judge an incident that had not happened yet by saying Jatuporn would not be endorsed as an MP.

Prapun, the EC member in charge of election administration, said yesterday that Jatuporn would not have intentionally failed to vote and that he could inform the EC of his reason for not voting in Sunday's election.

Jatuporn, now in detention, on Tuesday failed to get court permission to come out and vote.

The law prohibits people detained by court order from voting. Those who fail to vote without a sound reason are disqualified from being MP candidates.

Prapun raised the example of a man who went into the monkhood during an election, saying he could still later apply for a political post.

However, Prapun said, the EC would discuss the issue again at a meeting.

EC member Wisut Phothitaen said that whether someone who had failed to vote could retain political rights should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Legal expert Komsan Phokong, former deputy secretary-general of the Constitution Drafting Committee, said that Jatuporn would qualify as an MP candidate and that he could inform the EC of his reason for not voting. "If Sodsri or the EC does not endorse Jatuporn, I believe they could be impeached just like former EC chairman Vasana Puemlarp was before," Komsan said.

Meanwhile Sodsri, in charge of political party affairs, said the EC was tomorrow scheduled to consider whether to disqualify an MP candidate in Si Sa Ket. The EC had received the complaint weeks ago.

The only evidence the agency has received from investigators is a video clip previously broadcast on television.

In another case, an EC source who asked not to be named said the EC had yesterday resolved to let the case of a provincial governor and police commander accused of biased behaviour be considered by their superiors.

Surin Governor Serm Chainarong and provincial police commander Maj-General Ronnapong Sapkaew have been accused of partisan behaviour after photos emerged showing the pair having dinner with Bhum Jai Thai MP candidates and Chai Chidchob, the father of Bhum Jai Thai's de-facto leader Newin Chidchob.

Between Thursday and yesterday, 119 election complaints were submitted, the source said.

-- The Nation 2011-06-30

[webfact]

Pheu Thai bids to seek Jatuporn’s release for election

BANGKOK, 30 June 2011 (NNT) – A law team of the Pheu Thai Party has planned to seek a temporary release of its key party-listed MP candidate Jatuporn Prompan from the Constitutional Court on 3 July, so that the detainee could take part in the election.

Pheu Thai party-listed MP candidate Natthawut Saikua, also the secretary-general to the United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), announced that the party’s law team would seek a permission from the Constitutional Court to release Mr Jatuporn to join the election.

Mr Natthawut also noted that Mr Jatuporn is a qualified MP candidate as guaranteed by the Election Commission itself.

Earlier, Election Commissioner Sodsri Satayathum said the qualifications for the MP post of Mr Jatuporn, may get affected if he does not travel to cast his ballot this Sunday since MP candidates failing to vote will not be qualified for MP status.

Mr Jatuporn, also UDD deputy chairperson, and another UDD core leader Nisit Sinthuprai are now being detained at the Bangkok Remand Prison on terrorism charge as their bails have been revoked after they violated a court order by speaking on a UDD stage.

The Criminal Court on 28 June refused to allow Mr Jatuporn to leave the prison to cast his vote in the 3 July general election.

-- NNT 2011-06-30

[OzMick]

Pheu Thai party-listed MP candidate Natthawut Saikua seeks voting privileges for Jatuporn not granted to other prisoners. You have to know what comes next; DOUBLE STANDARDS!

Another UDD core leader Nisit Sinthuprai also being held on the same charges, as well as a large number of interred UDD members Natthawut would consider political prisoners. There is no mention that he seeks voting rights for these people. If this is the case, Jatuporn is being treated in a manner not only above all prisoners, but above his fellow UDD prisoners. Triple standards?

[noahvail]

Pheu Thai party-listed MP candidate Natthawut Saikua seeks voting privileges for Jatuporn not granted to other prisoners. You have to know what comes next; DOUBLE STANDARDS!

Another UDD core leader Nisit Sinthuprai also being held on the same charges, as well as a large number of interred UDD members Natthawut would consider political prisoners. There is no mention that he seeks voting rights for these people. If this is the case, Jatuporn is being treated in a manner not only above all prisoners, but above his fellow UDD prisoners. Triple standards?

Nah, no double or triple standards. One person, one standard.

Kinda reminds me of the amnesty proposal....

[Buchholz]

Two, quite strange, analogies put forth by two different individuals...

First one

Prapun raised the example of a man who went into the monkhood during an election, saying he could still later apply for a political post.

Likens someone joining the monkhood with someone being held in prison on terrorism charges with a potential death sentence.

And number two:

Legal expert Komsan Phokong, former deputy secretary-general of the Constitution Drafting Committee, said that Jatuporn would qualify as an MP candidate and that he could inform the EC of his reason for not voting. "If Sodsri or the EC does not endorse Jatuporn, I believe they could be impeached just like former EC chairman Vasana Puemlarp was before," Komsan said.

Likens someone convicted of corruption for voting themselves an illegal pay raise with someone voicing an opinion based on a logical and legal conclusion (no vote, no MP position).

.

[animatic]

He made his bed and must lay in it,

and likely will be a ex MP and push pull toy for the boys in stir.

[themockrat]

What's so dangerous about driving with Jatuporn to a polling station, letting him vote and then returning him to prison? Surely the next polling station can't be so far away from the prison. Police officers drive farther every day to see their mia noi's. They've let two dozen other red shirt "terrorists" out of prison and they're walking around freely. Surely they're more of a "threat" than Jatuporn escorted by police officers to cast a vote and return to his cell.

So yes, I agree with the posts above, clearly he's a political prisoner and it's an attempt to prevent him from becoming an MP.

[noahvail]

What's so dangerous about driving with Jatuporn to a polling station, letting him vote and then returning him to prison? Surely the next polling station can't be so far away from the prison. Police officers drive farther every day to see their mia noi's. They've let two dozen other red shirt "terrorists" out of prison and they're walking around freely. Surely they're more of a "threat" than Jatuporn escorted by police officers to cast a vote and return to his cell.

So yes, I agree with the posts above, clearly he's a political prisoner and it's an attempt to prevent him from becoming an MP.

If you let one remand prisoner out to vote, you have to let ALL remand prisoners out to vote - otherwise you have the "double standard" scenario that the UDD (including it's deputy director Jatuporn) decries. Even if they let him out, he must vote in his home district, which may not be "the next polling station." So, let's say his home district is in Chiang Mai (it's not, but for the sake of argument...) it's a long drive, eh. Now multiply that by the hundreds, if not thousands, of remand prisoners across the entire country, and you have an unworkable situation.

Jatuporn is in remand having violated his bail conditions. Had he kept his activities legal, he would not have his bail revoked, and would have been free to vote.

[whybother]

What's so dangerous about driving with Jatuporn to a polling station, letting him vote and then returning him to prison? Surely the next polling station can't be so far away from the prison. Police officers drive farther every day to see their mia noi's. They've let two dozen other red shirt "terrorists" out of prison and they're walking around freely. Surely they're more of a "threat" than Jatuporn escorted by police officers to cast a vote and return to his cell.

So yes, I agree with the posts above, clearly he's a political prisoner and it's an attempt to prevent him from becoming an MP.

"What's so dangerous about driving with Jatuporn to a polling station"

Besides the fact that he doesn't have the right to vote, do you want them to drive all the other prisoners in on remand to vote as well?

He can't be expected to be treated differently to other prisoners, can he?

And you don't want them to break the law, just so that he can be an MP?

[Buchholz]

What's so dangerous about driving with Jatuporn to a polling station, letting him vote and then returning him to prison? Surely the next polling station can't be so far away from the prison.

He wants to be let out of prison for 7 hours. Where is he voting? Surat Thani?

No, that can't be right. He can't go home there for other reasons.

As part of the request, Jatuporn asked for the court's permission for a one-day leave from 8 A.M. to 3 P.M. on July 3 to vote.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Buchholz

[themockrat]

So the Thai Police can't find any officers to accompany Jatuporn for 7 hours? Are they worried he'll take them to a brothel or a casino? Or what's the excuse?

[themockrat]

What's so dangerous about driving with Jatuporn to a polling station, letting him vote and then returning him to prison? Surely the next polling station can't be so far away from the prison. Police officers drive farther every day to see their mia noi's. They've let two dozen other red shirt "terrorists" out of prison and they're walking around freely. Surely they're more of a "threat" than Jatuporn escorted by police officers to cast a vote and return to his cell.

So yes, I agree with the posts above, clearly he's a political prisoner and it's an attempt to prevent him from becoming an MP.

"What's so dangerous about driving with Jatuporn to a polling station"

Besides the fact that he doesn't have the right to vote, do you want them to drive all the other prisoners in on remand to vote as well?

He can't be expected to be treated differently to other prisoners, can he?

And you don't want them to break the law, just so that he can be an MP?

It's a pointless issue anyways, since he can still become MP even without voting. He just needs a proper explanation as to why he didn't vote. If he simply didn't appear he could not become an MP.

[Buchholz]

What's so dangerous about driving with Jatuporn to a polling station, letting him vote and then returning him to prison? Surely the next polling station can't be so far away from the prison. Police officers drive farther every day to see their mia noi's. They've let two dozen other red shirt "terrorists" out of prison and they're walking around freely. Surely they're more of a "threat" than Jatuporn escorted by police officers to cast a vote and return to his cell.

So yes, I agree with the posts above, clearly he's a political prisoner and it's an attempt to prevent him from becoming an MP.

If you let one remand prisoner out to vote, you have to let ALL remand prisoners out to vote - otherwise you have the "double standard" scenario that the UDD (including it's deputy director Jatuporn) decries.

There's also the law that applies to ALL 20,000 prisoners along at Jatuporn's prison that if you are incarcerated, you don't vote. Period. Simple.

.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Buchholz

[themockrat]

True, but Jatuporn can still become an MP even if he doesn't vote. He just needs an acceptable explanation as to why he wasn't able to vote.

[whybother]

It's a pointless issue anyways, since he can still become MP even without voting. He just needs a proper explanation as to why he didn't vote. If he simply didn't appear he could not become an MP.

Yes. That's what I would have thought too.

The 111 banned TRT MPs would hope that the simple explanation of "I wasn't allowed to vote" is accepted, otherwise they won't be able to stand in the next election either.

[Buchholz]

So the Thai Police can't find any officers to accompany Jatuporn for 7 hours? Are they worried he'll take them to a brothel or a casino? Or what's the excuse?

The 1997 as well as the 2007 Thai Constitutions say no.

.

[noahvail]

What's so dangerous about driving with Jatuporn to a polling station, letting him vote and then returning him to prison? Surely the next polling station can't be so far away from the prison. Police officers drive farther every day to see their mia noi's. They've let two dozen other red shirt "terrorists" out of prison and they're walking around freely. Surely they're more of a "threat" than Jatuporn escorted by police officers to cast a vote and return to his cell.

So yes, I agree with the posts above, clearly he's a political prisoner and it's an attempt to prevent him from becoming an MP.

If you let one remand prisoner out to vote, you have to let ALL remand prisoners out to vote - otherwise you have the "double standard" scenario that the UDD (including it's deputy director Jatuporn) decries.

There's also the law that applies to ALL 20,000 prisoners along at Jatuporn's prison that if you are incarcerated, you don't vote. Period. Simple.

.

Agreed. I didn't bother to mention it as it has been said quite a few times in these threads already, so I figured everyone knew. My bad, Mock Rat obviously didn't read those posts.

[themockrat]

It's a pointless issue anyways, since he can still become MP even without voting. He just needs a proper explanation as to why he didn't vote. If he simply didn't appear he could not become an MP.

Yes. That's what I would have thought too.

The 111 banned TRT MPs would hope that the simple explanation of "I wasn't allowed to vote" is accepted, otherwise they won't be able to stand in the next election either.

That's a different issue. They were banned from politics. Jatuporn isn't banned from politics, he's just in jail.

[Buchholz]

It's a pointless issue anyways, since he can still become MP even without voting. He just needs a proper explanation as to why he didn't vote. If he simply didn't appear he could not become an MP.

proper explanation incarceration in prison for violating bail on terrorism charges.

[whybother]

That's a different issue. They were banned from politics. Jatuporn isn't banned from politics, he's just in jail.

It's a similar issue. By law, they aren't allowed to vote. Not voting precludes them from becoming an MP.

[jdinasia]

The 2 EC commissioners did not contradict each other. They both qualified their statements (at least in the English language papers) with may or might.

The truth is that a single commissioner cannot decide on his own. They will have to meet and discuss the question as a group if and when it occurs. (I said in the other thread -- Jatuporn gets until the 10th to notify the EC of why he didn't vote (if he doesn't) and then they decide the matter.

Red-shirt leader Jatuporn Prompan, who is candidate No 7 on Pheu Thai's party list, might still be able to sit as an MP if elected, Election Commission member Prapun Naigowit said yesterday.

Prapun's comments conflicted with those made on Tuesday by EC member Sodsri Satayathum, who said Jatuporn might be disqualified from becoming an MP for not voting in Sunday's election.

What they both said (as stated in this article above) is actually the same thing.

[Crushdepth]

"I failed to vote because I was locked up for breaching my bail conditions relating to terrorism charges".

Sound reasonable?

Edited June 30, 2011 by Crushdepth

[themockrat]

"I failed to vote because I was locked up for breaching my bail conditions relating to terrorism charges".

Sound reasonable?

Sounds reasonable enough to me. After all, Sondhi Limthongkul & friends, who are also facing terrorism charges, are also allowed to vote.They also held political rallies after being charged with terrorism, but of course, were not arrested. Oops, double standards, I forgot

Edited June 30, 2011 by themockrat

[jdinasia]

"I failed to vote because I was locked up for breaching my bail conditions relating to terrorism charges".

Sound reasonable?

Exactly --- but even worse because it REALLY says I was locked up for failing to follow a court order. (The charges behind the bail conditions don't matter as it is possible he could be acquitted -- but the failure to follow yet another lawful order .....?

IMHO he's done for 5 years ... but the EC doesn't rule on "possibilities" it rules on breaches.

[whybother]

"I failed to vote because I was locked up for breaching my bail conditions relating to terrorism charges".

Sound reasonable?

Sounds reasonable enough to me. After all, Sondhi Limthongkul & friends, who are also facing terrorism charges, are also allowed to vote.They also held political rallies after being charged with terrorism, but of course, were not arrested. Oops, double standards, I forgot

They have both been in court. The difference is that Sondhi didn't break his bail conditions.

[Who, me ?]

True, but Jatuporn can still become an MP even if he doesn't vote. He just needs an acceptable explanation as to why he wasn't able to vote.

So, why the fuss? He is a prisoner same as thousands others who will NOT have the privilege that he is seeking for himself alone.... Let him rot, accordingbto the law, and if later he is proven to be innocent, then free him..... No double standard then... The law, only the law.

[Buchholz]

"I failed to vote because I was locked up for breaching my bail conditions relating to terrorism charges".

Sound reasonable?

Sounds reasonable enough to me. After all, Sondhi Limthongkul & friends, who are also facing terrorism charges, are also allowed to vote.

There's an entire gaggle of Red Shirt Leaders that will similarly also vote... while out on bail.

Lesson learned hopefully.... don't violate bail.

.