Thailand's Democrats Seek Ban On Thaksin Party

[webfact]

Thailand's Democrats seek ban on Thaksin party

by Anusak Konglang

BANGKOK, July 8, 2011 (AFP) - Thailand's defeated Democrats launched a legal bid Friday to ban the victorious party of fugitive former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, threatening fresh political turmoil.

The Democrat Party asked the Election Commission (EC) to recommend the abolition of Puea Thai, the winner of Sunday's election, on the grounds that disqualified politicians were involved in its campaign.

"We asked EC to recommend to the Constitutional Court to dissolve Puea Thai," Wiratana Kalayasiri, head of the Democrats' legal team, told AFP.

"The accusation is that Puea Thai allowed people subject to five-year political bans to become involved in policy planning, phone-ins and video addresses and also the selection of candidates," he said.

A Democrat member has also lodged a complaint against premier-in-waiting Yingluck Shinawatra -- Thaksin's youngest sister -- accusing her of giving away free noodles during campaigning in an attempt to buy votes.

The legal process is expected to take some time and is not expected to prevent Yingluck from becoming Thailand's first female prime minister.

But any attempt to remove her party from power would be sure to anger Thaksin's "Red Shirt" supporters, who were behind mass protests in Bangkok last year that turned deadly.

"If this case proceeds it will be enormously damaging for efforts for reconciliation because it will underline the feeling that the Democrats and their allies in the military and the palace and the judiciary simply don't accept election results," said Thailand expert Andrew Walker.

"This is an invitation to the most hardline, radical and violent elements in the Red Shirts to do their stuff. To subvert this result would be an invitation to mayhem," said Walker, a senior fellow at Australian National University.

The Thai judiciary has a record of intervening in politics. Two Thaksin parties have been dissolved by the courts in the past and their top executives, including the controversial former leader, were banned from politics.

Thaksin was ousted in a 2006 military coup and lives in self-imposed exile to avoid a jail sentence for corruption.

Yingluck, however, and most other Puea Thai lawmakers are not executives, so should avoid a ban themselves and could in theory move to another party.

But Walker said the dissolution case might be just one of several legal steps against her party, including the possible disqualification of Puea Thai candidates that could erode their majority.

Thaksin's party lashed out at the Democrats' move and suggested it would retaliate with legal action of its own.

"The Democrats don't respect the people's decision. More than 16 million voted for Puea Thai," deputy party leader Plodprasob Suraswadi said.

"They're so confident in the judicial process, we'll have to revive our case against the Democrats too," he added.

The Democrats, led by outgoing Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, narrowly escaped a ban themselves in late 2010 over allegations of misuse of state funds and an illegal donation.

After two-and-a-half years in power, Abhisit resigned as leader of the establishment-backed Democrats on Monday after his party clinched just 159 seats against Puea Thai's 265.

It was unclear whether Abhisit was involved in the legal complaint. He has been keeping a low profile since his defeat.

Yingluck is yet to be officially appointed by a new parliament but has formed a six-party coalition that will control about three fifths of the lower house seats.

Signs that the powerful military is ready to accept a Puea Thai-led government had raised cautious hopes that the country's various political actors might be ready to put aside their differences.

Yingluck has floated the idea of an amnesty to allow Thaksin to return, which would anger many in the Bangkok-based elite around the palace and army and could prompt protests by the royalist "Yellow Shirt" movement.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2011-07-08

[animatic]

A predictable and legitimate complaint.

The majority of PTP MPs will not be lost of course.

Just parts of the umbrella supporting them.

But the leadership that hadn't pre-resigned, prior to the election to avoid being ousted in the event of this logical filing, will all go bye bye.ANd the control mechanism will be weakened, and that is the likely aim.

I have little doubt that PTP would do EXACTLY the same to them if they thought it would bring advantage.

Edited July 8, 2011 by animatic

[doctormann]

Anyone else have a sense of deja vu?

[laurentbkk]

I thought the people have chosen already ? In all "Democracy" voice of people is usually legitimate . I understand they might be disappointed but I don think it will help to reunited Thais.

[animatic]

Anyone else have a sense of deja vu?

Agreed.

TRT got nailed. PPP also got nailed.

It seems they still haven't learned from experience and have left themselves open yet again. It seemed pretty obvious before hand that this case would be filed whether or not the Dems won...

Edited July 8, 2011 by animatic

[Skink]

Legitimate? If the judiciary were neutral, which they are not (yet), how could they defend dissolving the party with such a mandate from the people? Parliament is the law, and the people have chosen a new parliament haven't they?

[onnut]

We all knew this was going to happen!

[spacemand]

Here we go again

[bifftastic]

So, here they go again? Can't win at the ballot box, let's get the winning party banned in the courts? Do they have an aversion to being in opposition?

If they're successful, what will they say to the Thai people? "We know you didn't vote for us, but we didn't like the results of the election, so we changed it?"

Democrats? In name only!

[princejohnjay]

Democrats and its allies are the problem facing Thailand today.

[animatic]

I thought the people have chosen already ? In all "Democracy" voice of people is usually legitimate . I understand they might be disappointed but I don think it will help to reunited Thais.

The point is, that if PTP has committed a dissolvable infraction, then it is totally legitimate to dissolve them,

If the party has NOT, then there should be no worries for them.

Historically they have screwed up. And considering the public extolling of banned players in their midst, this doesn't bode well. I have wondered when they would learn from past mistakes, we will now see if they have or not.

[whybother]

Legitimate? If the judiciary were neutral, which they are not (yet), how could they defend dissolving the party with such a mandate from the people? Parliament is the law, and the people have chosen a new parliament haven't they?

The people voted. Who cares about the law?

[animatic]

Legitimate? If the judiciary were neutral, which they are not (yet), how could they defend dissolving the party with such a mandate from the people? Parliament is the law, and the people have chosen a new parliament haven't they?

Because they broke the law.

If proved so, nothing more need be said.

A large mandate is not a free pass to break election laws.

Parliament is not the law.

Parliament MAKES laws, and STILL must abide by them as much as everyone else must. Also the new parliament, yet to be confirmed and installed, can not necessarily make laws retroactive to absolve from existing charges.

Edited July 8, 2011 by animatic

[Boater]

here we go again....

[kropotkin]

Can they not just appoint a new electorate?

[Thailand]

Surprise,surprise!

The people have had their say, hopefully he courts will throw this out before it even gets off the ground.

Upholding anything like this would probably be the simple way to allow the military to do exactly what they said they won't on the basis that they would be intervening in a potential civil war.

Let the democratically elected government to get on with their job, if they fail the people will have an opportunity to go to the polls again in the future.

[rixalex]

Legitimate? If the judiciary were neutral, which they are not (yet),

What's your proof for that? They found Thaksin guilty so they can't possibly be neutral? They refused the 2 million baht bribe his lawyers offered on his behalf, so they must be biased?

[Puccini]

I thought the people have chosen already ? In all "Democracy" voice of people is usually legitimate . I understand they might be disappointed but I don think it will help to reunited Thais.

Legitimate? If the judiciary were neutral, which they are not (yet), how could they defend dissolving the party with such a mandate from the people? Parliament is the law, and the people have chosen a new parliament haven't they?

The people have elected (chosen) the members of the house of representatives, not the party leaders. These are two separate issues, covered separately by applicable laws.

[animatic]

Legitimate? If the judiciary were neutral, which they are not (yet),

What's your proof for that? They found Thaksin guilty so they can't possibly be neutral? They refused the 2 million baht bribe his lawyers offered on his behalf, so they must be biased?

Or the just thought he was trying to buy them WAY too cheap...

[wolf5370]

Legitimate? If the judiciary were neutral, which they are not (yet), how could they defend dissolving the party with such a mandate from the people? Parliament is the law, and the people have chosen a new parliament haven't they?

but the law of the land isn't scraped just because a new government comes in - acts and laws are passed by parliament, but interpreted by the courts. If the new Gov wants to change the law and can get it through parliament, that still does not excuse people processed under the earlier law as it stood then - unless a specific law is written to do just that (de-legitimise the previous law). This would be a very unsafe thing to do in this case - the best legal way would be to try and overturn the rling of the court in so far that they believe it was an unsafe presecution of that law (i.e. the judgment can not be trusted for whatever reason) - this would take a court of appeal (or above) hearing. Therefore, they do have a case which can be made. However, given the support just shown by the people and the passion last year, how wise a decision it is to push it remains to be seen. As stated above already, this will have little impact as there are so many TPT MPs now sitting - and it would take a lot to prove a case of complete party dissolution I would think (and I doubt there is the appetite currently either - people in the judiciary are probably worrying about their jobs as it is).

[whybother]

What the Democrats should have done is stood over the voters and handed a thousand baht to everyone that voted Democrat.

The people would have voted. And the Democrats would have been democratically elected.

I know it's against the law, but that doesn't matter in Thailand, does it?

[rixalex]

Surprise,surprise!

The people have had their say, hopefully he courts will throw this out before it even gets off the ground.

Upholding anything like this would probably be the simple way to allow the military to do exactly what they said they won't on the basis that they would be intervening in a potential civil war.

Let the democratically elected government to get on with their job, if they fail the people will have an opportunity to go to the polls again in the future.

So you are in favour of any wrong-doing by the winning party being overlooked because they won?

Personally my hope is that laws are not thrown out the window, but abided by, and that it can be shown that Puea Thai did. If they didn't, well then they get what's coming.

[bifftastic]

Even so, more people voted for PT than voted for the Dems. A mandate from the people should mean something to people calling themselves democrats. Hanging on to power by means of the courts will not bring stability to the country. How can they not see that this move will bring more problems than it solves? In fact, what problem will it solve?

If PT and their supporters realise that they have a majority, and a mandate, but are not allowed to have power by democratic means, that does not mean that they will just say "oh ok then, fair enough, you run the country...sorry!"

Really really stupid idea. If you don't like the party that's been voted in, fair enough. Let them rule, show themselves for what they are, then the next election, you campaign against them. If you're right, and they're not popular, you'll win.

If you don't agree with how they rule, but they still have a majority, you lose.

Not all majority parties/governments are what we think they should be. That's just tough. The alternatives are worse. You get a large portion of your population who see no point in the democratic process and resort to other means to get what they think they deserve.

The result is a bloody mess.

Whatever 'side' you're on, things like this never make things better.

[slim]

Perhaps all the Thaksin haters and by implication Democrat supporters will now wake up and realize the true nature of the people they support.

No-one who support the current government support democracy.

The people in as free and fair election as you are ever going to have in Thailand have decided and they've come out in their millions to defeat the current administration.

This current Democratic Party move (Democratic? - what a joke) opens the door for a return to seeing tanks on the streets of Bangkok yet again.

I dont suppose it will be long.

[lifeincnx]

And to think this party calls itself "Democrat." They have absolutely no grasp of the term.

They lost, Puea Thai won with a true voting mandate. Move on.

[kropotkin]

Legitimate? If the judiciary were neutral, which they are not (yet),

What's your proof for that? They found Thaksin guilty so they can't possibly be neutral? They refused the 2 million baht bribe his lawyers offered on his behalf, so they must be biased?

or perhaps the Chidchob/Sunthep government offered more?

[hansnl]

I thought the people have chosen already ? In all "Democracy" voice of people is usually legitimate . I understand they might be disappointed but I don think it will help to reunited Thais.

The people have chosen, oh yes.

[HAL9000]

How stupid can you get. Being banned means they cannot serve in office. It doesn't mean they have to wear muzzles on their mouths.

[stuandchris]

I believe the dems haven't won an election for twenty years?

Shouldn't that tell them something?

[taff33]

May be the Democrats have not had enough time to cover up all the graft