Thailand's Democrats Seek Ban On Thaksin Party

[SeanMoran]

OK, I think you are saying nothing of this matters to you, and therefore, none of this matters to anyone, or to non-Thais anyway.

So I should now post on a GOLFING topic (which means nothing to me) and post lyrics of childish songs?

You're a pistol, dude.

I love Thailand. I wish I was born here. I was not.

My girl was born here. When I can think with my head and not with my heart, then I give the same appreciation to Thailand that Thailand has given to me, which is stuff all, but then there is my heart, and I love Thailand, and my girl was born here in Ban Khai Rayong, and I am happy that she is happy that Yingluck is happy.

so, at the end of the day, it is only my heart and my girlfriend's entire existance existence; her nationality and also her ancestry that makes my heart happy that Yingluck is taking care of the citizens. If I think with my head, and not my heart, I'd just catch a bus down to Patong and have a good time, and catch the next plane to Cebu. Too bad my head is not the only one writing this post.

Edited July 10, 2011 by SeanMoran

[Jingthing]

OK, I think you are saying nothing of this matters to you, and therefore, none of this matters to anyone, or to non-Thais anyway.

So I should now post on a GOLFING topic (which means nothing to me) and post lyrics of childish songs?

You're a pistol, dude.

I love Thailand. I wish I was born here. I was not.

My girl was born here. When I can think with my head and not with my heart, then I give the same appreciation to Thailand that Thailand has given to me, which is stuff all, but then there is my heart, and I love Thailand, and my girl was born here in Ban Khai Rayong, and I am happy that she is happy that Yingluck is happy.

so, at the end of the day, it is only my heart and my girlfriend's entire existance existence; her nationality and also her ancestry that makes my heart happy that Yingluck is taking care of the citizens. If I think with my head, and not my heart, I'd just catch a bus down to Patong and have a good time, and catch the next plane to Cebu. Too bad my head is not the only one writing this post.

I am happy your GF is happy too! Whatever.

[SeanMoran]

I am happy your GF is happy too! Whatever.

You're good, mate. Let's enjoy the party while it lasts, and be careful not to upset the natives in this wild jungleland.

---o0o---

I mean that things have been sweet since 2006 (2549) but anytime now it might turn sour, so take care of your life and be prepared for a change in the political style. It is a jungleland, but it's been most pleasant for a few years. That doesn't mean that it will be as pleasant tomorrow.

Edited July 10, 2011 by SeanMoran

[473geo]

But let Democrats busy themselves cleaning up politics, while PTP govern, then the Thai people can all move on together corruption free......... should be interesting times

This statement somehow disqualifies you from a serious discussion, I'm afraid.

Edit: Couldn't resist to add smiley.

But if you had bothered to read and follow the thread.....this is the aim of the investigation.......corruption free politics, and it starts here.....according to TVisa experts....every complaint should be investigated and appropriate punishment applied. A new start......don't you see.....a new dawn......every noodle serving politician banned......yes even a bowl of noodles will bring down the whole might of the law...........be careful who you feed if you are thinking of entering Thai politics......give out noodle soup and you could be in the soup

This isn't just an attack on Thaksin because he may have broken the rules (and along the way defeated the democrats).....no.....this is the start of something BIG.....a corruption free Thailand, where everybody will obey the law or suffer the appropriate punishment....the impeccable, corruption free, law abiding posters on Tvisa have spoken.............but of course this is only opinion and conjecture as it is illegal for foreigners to be involved in Thai politics....

[473geo]

If you're happy and you know it clap your hands,

If you're happy and you know it clap your hands,

If you're happy and you know it then you really ought to show it,

If you're happy and you know it clap your hands.

I'm speechless.

There is a god then

I asked for that one.

Taken in the spirit it was issued Jing

[SeanMoran]

I must knock off at 15:00 GMT or 22:00 Thai time. I have some crazy idea about replacing all the extra shell scripts in my Linux composition with functions within the main bash script, and there are a couple of dozen scripts to transpose before my girl gets home at midnight or whenever, so I logout in ten minutes, and wish you sweet dreams and a good night. Wake up bright and healthy and see you on Monday.

[MrsMills]

If you look back in the Political threads, there seems to be many Farang that would never and could never stay in Thailand if Thaksin came back.

I wonder how many of those are planning to leave now....................

I hope 100%.

Edited July 10, 2011 by MrsMills

[SeanMoran]

If you look back in the Political threads, there seems to be many Farang that would never and could never stay in Thailand if Thaksin came back.

I wonder how many of those are planning to leave now....................

I hope 100%.

Come to think of it. if Thaksin was still here, I'd have had 20,000 baht more to feed soi dogs, rather than have to pay for my friend's sister's and my friend's daughters medical expenses. Governents change but I stay the same. Only the soi dogs go hungry.

[473geo]

If you look back in the Political threads, there seems to be many Farang that would never and could never stay in Thailand if Thaksin came back.

I wonder how many of those are planning to leave now....................

I hope 100%.

Nah at least only 98% I can think of a couple who have gone a bit quiet so may be intending to stay....

[OzMick]

It's not up to me to criticize court decisions, I was talking about the perception of (probably) most Thais, which of course I cannot prove, just my humble opinion derived from a few discussions with 'neutral' Thais.

The perception of many thais, especially those in Isaan, have been altered by the spreading of mis-information, biased POV and downright lies spread by the red-shirts, and under the direction and funding of k. Thaksin.

[OzMick]

If you're happy and you know it clap your hands,

If you're happy and you know it clap your hands,

If you're happy and you know it then you really ought to show it,

If you're happy and you know it clap your hands.

I'm speechless.

There is a god then

Actually there have been hundreds, but only in the minds of the faithful.

[rubl]

It's not just not being allowed to be a party leader or executive.

It's basically, not allowed to be involved in politics. That would generally include not being allowed to campaign.

I would respectfully suggest that this is no more than your opinion; as I said before "involved in politics" is vague and is too all-encompassing to be acceptable in any legislation as an offence. What I asked was whether there is a clearer definition of what the offender has to be shown to have done for an offence to have been committed. This thread has been going for a very long time with many posters claiming that they are supporting the rule of law but apparently none can say how that law has been broken

Correct, none of us posters seem specializes in Thai law in general and the Election Law specifically. Still applauding 'rule of law' means to accept that the Dem's filed a legal claim for the EC to investigate, for the EC to rule on the validity of the claim and for the EC to decide with lots of argumentation as to why or why not they forward the case to the appropriate court to judge.

As foreigner, non-law specialist I can only say, let the judicial system have a go at it.

Edited July 10, 2011 by rubl

[473geo]

It's not just not being allowed to be a party leader or executive.

It's basically, not allowed to be involved in politics. That would generally include not being allowed to campaign.

I would respectfully suggest that this is no more than your opinion; as I said before "involved in politics" is vague and is too all-encompassing to be acceptable in any legislation as an offence. What I asked was whether there is a clearer definition of what the offender has to be shown to have done for an offence to have been committed. This thread has been going for a very long time with many posters claiming that they are supporting the rule of law but apparently none can say how that law has been broken

Correct, none of us posters seem specializes in Thai law in general and the Election Law specifically. Still applauding 'rule of law' means to accept that the Dem's filed a legal claim for the EC to investigate, for the EC to rule on the validity of the claim and for the EC to decide with lots of argumentation as to why or why not they forward the case to the appropriate court to judge.

As foreigner, non-law specialist I can only say, let the judicial system have a go at it.

Well done Rubl after 38 pages you have finally come up with the perfect solution.......let the Thai deal with their own issues their own way

Wasn't that difficult was it?

[rubl]

If you look back in the Political threads, there seems to be many Farang that would never and could never stay in Thailand if Thaksin came back.

I wonder how many of those are planning to leave now....................

I hope 100%.

Come to think of it. if Thaksin was still here, I'd have had 20,000 baht more to feed soi dogs, rather than have to pay for my friend's sister's and my friend's daughters medical expenses. Governents change but I stay the same. Only the soi dogs go hungry.

Without further details of the Pheu Thai health care scheme (apart from charging 30B again) I think you shouldn't spent that 20,000 yet. The scheme was never really funded as in some other countries and lots of stuff was not included.

Anyway watch your typing. A small typo in a <any type of> shell script can be deadly

Edited July 10, 2011 by rubl

[geriatrickid]

OK ... the argument for Thaksin being allowed to do ANYTHING seems to follow a predictable pattern. There need be no checks and balances if a large number of people approve of whatever is being done. Sorry gang but that isn't "democracy". Thaksin trashed the checks and balances needed for a democracy to function while he was in office and now this appeal to mob rule offered by many participants on the board looks like exactly the same thing.

Argument by parable or analogy doesn't work. One of the pillars of democracy is the "rule of law".

Let's look at Wallaby's continuation of the bank robbery analogy. A large number of depositors in the bank know that insurance will cover them AND that the thief will give them a bonus a'la Jesse James. That the rest of the depositors who may not be covered by insurance and won't get that bonus from Jesse doesn't matter ??

Back to reality. Break the law and suffer the consequences. That is the rule of law ... Can there be mitigating factors for violating a law? Yes. Is popularity one of those factors? No.

Again ---- PTP tried this very same tactic in the past (but foolishly went for the wrong people.) Then again since they had so many banned politicians in their own ranks pulling the strings they couldn't go after Newin directly -- so they tried to hit the Dems with it. They forgot that Newin isn't a Democrat.

Laudable sentiment , the checks and balances. Where was the check and balance when the Thai military launched an illegal military coup allowing the Demoocrats to ascend to power? Where were/are the checks and balances on the Democrats key interest group, the military? Where are the checks and balances on the funding of the Democrat political activities? Where were the checks and balances on the military's appointement of key members of the judiciary that decided on the issues that directly affect political activities in Thailand? I wholeheartedly agree with the concept of checks and balances. However, the playing field was significantly tilted in favour of the Democrats since the illegal military coup which you seem to feel had no impact on the laws that were promulagated subsequent to that illegal act, nor to the associated appointment of officals that will enforce these "checks and balances". Apparently, checks and balances is the way to go as long as the military's proxies are overseeing the process.

[whybother]

OK ... the argument for Thaksin being allowed to do ANYTHING seems to follow a predictable pattern. There need be no checks and balances if a large number of people approve of whatever is being done. Sorry gang but that isn't "democracy". Thaksin trashed the checks and balances needed for a democracy to function while he was in office and now this appeal to mob rule offered by many participants on the board looks like exactly the same thing.

Argument by parable or analogy doesn't work. One of the pillars of democracy is the "rule of law".

Let's look at Wallaby's continuation of the bank robbery analogy. A large number of depositors in the bank know that insurance will cover them AND that the thief will give them a bonus a'la Jesse James. That the rest of the depositors who may not be covered by insurance and won't get that bonus from Jesse doesn't matter ??

Back to reality. Break the law and suffer the consequences. That is the rule of law ... Can there be mitigating factors for violating a law? Yes. Is popularity one of those factors? No.

Again ---- PTP tried this very same tactic in the past (but foolishly went for the wrong people.) Then again since they had so many banned politicians in their own ranks pulling the strings they couldn't go after Newin directly -- so they tried to hit the Dems with it. They forgot that Newin isn't a Democrat.

Laudable sentiment , the checks and balances. Where was the check and balance when the Thai military launched an illegal military coup allowing the Demoocrats to ascend to power? Where were/are the checks and balances on the Democrats key interest group, the military? Where are the checks and balances on the funding of the Democrat political activities? Where were the checks and balances on the military's appointement of key members of the judiciary that decided on the issues that directly affect political activities in Thailand? I wholeheartedly agree with the concept of checks and balances. However, the playing field was significantly tilted in favour of the Democrats since the illegal military coup which you seem to feel had no impact on the laws that were promulagated subsequent to that illegal act, nor to the associated appointment of officals that will enforce these "checks and balances". Apparently, checks and balances is the way to go as long as the military's proxies are overseeing the process.

oh, I'm sorry. I feel sorry for you. I didn't realise you only got to listen to red propaganda all day.

[rubl]

Laudable sentiment , the checks and balances. Where was the check and balance when the Thai military launched an illegal military coup allowing the Demoocrats to ascend to power? Where were/are the checks and balances on the Democrats key interest group, the military? Where are the checks and balances on the funding of the Democrat political activities? Where were the checks and balances on the military's appointement of key members of the judiciary that decided on the issues that directly affect political activities in Thailand? I wholeheartedly agree with the concept of checks and balances. However, the playing field was significantly tilted in favour of the Democrats since the illegal military coup which you seem to feel had no impact on the laws that were promulagated subsequent to that illegal act, nor to the associated appointment of officals that will enforce these "checks and balances". Apparently, checks and balances is the way to go as long as the military's proxies are overseeing the process.

Precisely BECAUSE k. Thaksin in his questionable extended caretaker PM role tried to remove checks and balances to be able to justify his dubious and illegal actions in a new election which was planned for MORE THAN 60 days after the last was declared invalid, we had a coup which although in principle illegal was bloodless and welcomed by many.

The clause in the new constitution absolving the military for the coup makes sense, but is legally dubious as well. I'm sure this will be touched upon at a later stage. In the mean time there were many more really violent, seemingly indiscriminate acts which are illegal, boundering, or maybe even are acts of terrorism funnily enough seemingly pushed for by some UDD leaders who just now happen to have become MP-elects for Pheu Thai (the 'Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts' party).

Anyway here we are dealing with the ruthless request by the Dem's to investigate possible irregularities and breach of the Election Law by the Pheu Thai. Terribly sorry and all that, but can you have a look, please?

Edited July 10, 2011 by rubl

[jdinasia]

OK ... the argument for Thaksin being allowed to do ANYTHING seems to follow a predictable pattern. There need be no checks and balances if a large number of people approve of whatever is being done. Sorry gang but that isn't "democracy". Thaksin trashed the checks and balances needed for a democracy to function while he was in office and now this appeal to mob rule offered by many participants on the board looks like exactly the same thing.

Argument by parable or analogy doesn't work. One of the pillars of democracy is the "rule of law".

Let's look at Wallaby's continuation of the bank robbery analogy. A large number of depositors in the bank know that insurance will cover them AND that the thief will give them a bonus a'la Jesse James. That the rest of the depositors who may not be covered by insurance and won't get that bonus from Jesse doesn't matter ??

Back to reality. Break the law and suffer the consequences. That is the rule of law ... Can there be mitigating factors for violating a law? Yes. Is popularity one of those factors? No.

Again ---- PTP tried this very same tactic in the past (but foolishly went for the wrong people.) Then again since they had so many banned politicians in their own ranks pulling the strings they couldn't go after Newin directly -- so they tried to hit the Dems with it. They forgot that Newin isn't a Democrat.

Laudable sentiment , the checks and balances. Where was the check and balance when the Thai military launched an illegal military coup allowing the Demoocrats to ascend to power? Where were/are the checks and balances on the Democrats key interest group, the military? Where are the checks and balances on the funding of the Democrat political activities? Where were the checks and balances on the military's appointement of key members of the judiciary that decided on the issues that directly affect political activities in Thailand? I wholeheartedly agree with the concept of checks and balances. However, the playing field was significantly tilted in favour of the Democrats since the illegal military coup which you seem to feel had no impact on the laws that were promulagated subsequent to that illegal act, nor to the associated appointment of officals that will enforce these "checks and balances". Apparently, checks and balances is the way to go as long as the military's proxies are overseeing the process.

Sadly since Thaksin had destroyed the checks and balances prior to his ouster from a position he had resigned from (Remember "Thaksin Quits!"?) and then stepped back into the military WAS the checks and balances for Thaksin's power-grab.

Your next statements are simply fallacious. The Military stepped in -- pushed through a new constitution (that was voted for--- but it was still pushed through) that, although it wasn't put in place very democratically, it did restore the checks and balances that Thaksin had ripped apart. It didn't allow the Dems "to ascend to power", in fact the elections after the new constitution were put in place returned a coalition government led by a Thaksin proxy party that was finally dissolved based upon video of a PPP exec making political payoffs. The judges you say? How many of the Supreme Court were changed? When the appeal for the Thaksin assets forfeiture case came before the full court (119 out of 142 judges were present, the appeal was denied 103:4 (12 abstentions). The Dem funding case was hearsay with no foundation or paper trail .. but hey ... apparently you'd convict them on hearsay

Nope, the coup happened. The 2007 constitution restored the checks and balances that Thaksin tore apart.

From Wikisource ---

The section of the 2007 constitution that deals directly with the courts.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Thailand_(2007)/Chapter_10

[sjaak327]

^ actually he does make some compelling points, some of these (the militiary coup being the prime one) doesn't come from the red propaganda, but was there to see for all of us. It might be convenient to overlook these if you developed a dems bias, but for neutral people, these remain painstakinly obvious and ecertainly put the holier then tough attitudes into the correct perspective.

[jdinasia]

Anyway here we are dealing with the ruthless requests by the Dem's to investigate possible irregularities and breach of the Election Law by the Pheu Thai. Terribly sorry and all that, but can you have a look, please?

Rubl ---- sorry for deleting part of your post ---- but I thought it was important to emphasize your last statement.

This thread isn't about the 2006 coup, PPP corruption, etc ...

It is about a stakeholder in the election asking the EC to look into possible rule violations by another stakeholder in the elections.

[pastitche]

It's not just not being allowed to be a party leader or executive.

It's basically, not allowed to be involved in politics. That would generally include not being allowed to campaign.

I would respectfully suggest that this is no more than your opinion; as I said before "involved in politics" is vague and is too all-encompassing to be acceptable in any legislation as an offence. What I asked was whether there is a clearer definition of what the offender has to be shown to have done for an offence to have been committed. This thread has been going for a very long time with many posters claiming that they are supporting the rule of law but apparently none can say how that law has been broken

Correct, none of us posters seem specializes in Thai law in general and the Election Law specifically. Still applauding 'rule of law' means to accept that the Dem's filed a legal claim for the EC to investigate, for the EC to rule on the validity of the claim and for the EC to decide with lots of argumentation as to why or why not they forward the case to the appropriate court to judge.

As foreigner, non-law specialist I can only say, let the judicial system have a go at it.

Well done Rubl after 38 pages you have finally come up with the perfect solution.......let the Thai deal with their own issues their own way

Wasn't that difficult was it?

OK, as a foreigner I read the Act in the IFES (International Foundation for Electoral Systems) website. It said that a banned politician could not be a leader or executive member of a political party but made no mention of any other activity... what I want to know and have been asking is what is the alleged infringement that Thaksin has committed if the Act does not have provision for "acting in a manner to suggest that he holds such a position" . Why has nobody thought of this?

Surely the Democrats must know that without a ruling on their case is doomed without such a proviso; I believe that they know perfectly well and have consulted the EC and been given the go-ahead

[rubl]

Correct, none of us posters seem specializes in Thai law in general and the Election Law specifically. Still applauding 'rule of law' means to accept that the Dem's filed a legal claim for the EC to investigate, for the EC to rule on the validity of the claim and for the EC to decide with lots of argumentation as to why or why not they forward the case to the appropriate court to judge.

As foreigner, non-law specialist I can only say, let the judicial system have a go at it.

Well done Rubl after 38 pages you have finally come up with the perfect solution.......let the Thai deal with their own issues their own way

Wasn't that difficult was it?

It seems it was difficult, as I'm the first and till now only one to say so. You haven't been much help either, my dear annoying chap

[JAG]

^ actually he does make some compelling points, some of these (the militiary coup being the prime one) doesn't come from the red propaganda, but was there to see for all of us. It might be convenient to overlook these if you developed a dems bias, but for neutral people, these remain painstakinly obvious and ecertainly put the holier then tough attitudes into the correct perspective.

Very well put.

[rubl]

OK, as a foreigner I read the Act in the IFES (International Foundation for Electoral Systems) website. It said that a banned politician could not be a leader or executive member of a political party but made no mention of any other activity... what I want to know and have been asking is what is the alleged infringement that Thaksin has committed if the Act does not have provision for "acting in a manner to suggest that he holds such a position" . Why has nobody thought of this?

Surely the Democrats must know that without a ruling on their case is doomed without such a proviso; I believe that they know perfectly well and have consulted the EC and been given the go-ahead

The website of the EC list 'Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2550 (2007), unofficial translation by IFES'. Unfortunately you have to refer to documents in THAI to have an official status and point of view.

BTW some info, but not really much on the EC site http://www.ect.go.th/newweb/en/sitemap/

Edited July 10, 2011 by rubl

[jdinasia]

OK, as a foreigner I read the Act in the IFES (International Foundation for Electoral Systems) website. It said that a banned politician could not be a leader or executive member of a political party but made no mention of any other activity... what I want to know and have been asking is what is the alleged infringement that Thaksin has committed if the Act does not have provision for "acting in a manner to suggest that he holds such a position" . Why has nobody thought of this?

Surely the Democrats must know that without a ruling on their case is doomed without such a proviso; I believe that they know perfectly well and have consulted the EC and been given the go-ahead

Care to provide a link?

Thaksin as the de facto leader of both the reds and the PTP has never much been in dispute. The only people that can make the final calls on this are the EC and the Constitution court. The wording you are giving is certainly up to interpretation in English in several ways. "cannot be a leader or..." could mean exactly what it says. If you are the one picking the #1 position on the party-list, then you ARE the leader and whatever the by-laws of the organization says are moot. If the party MP's bypass the executive committee and fly to see you for cabinet level positions, then again, you ARE the leader if you have the power to make that decision.

I don't know what you are implying with your last line, the first 1/2 is opinion and the second half looks like innuendo ....

[pastitche]

OK, as a foreigner I read the Act in the IFES (International Foundation for Electoral Systems) website. It said that a banned politician could not be a leader or executive member of a political party but made no mention of any other activity... what I want to know and have been asking is what is the alleged infringement that Thaksin has committed if the Act does not have provision for "acting in a manner to suggest that he holds such a position" . Why has nobody thought of this?

Surely the Democrats must know that without a ruling on their case is doomed without such a proviso; I believe that they know perfectly well and have consulted the EC and been given the go-ahead

The website of the EC list 'Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2550 (2007), unofficial translation by IFES'. Unfortunately you have to refer to documents in THAI to have an official status and point of view.

BTW some info, but not really much on the EC site http://www.ect.go.th...web/en/sitemap/

So are you saying that it is incorrect or just that it is an unofficial translation?

[rubl]

The website of the EC list 'Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2550 (2007), unofficial translation by IFES'. Unfortunately you have to refer to documents in THAI to have an official status and point of view.

BTW some info, but not really much on the EC site http://www.ect.go.th...web/en/sitemap/

So are you saying that it is incorrect or just that it is an unofficial translation?

I just provide info found on the EC website. One of the pages lists that 'unofficial translation' part. Keep in mind that ONLY the official THAI text as published in the Government Gazette (or whatever it's called) is legally valid in Thailand.

[pastitche]

OK, as a foreigner I read the Act in the IFES (International Foundation for Electoral Systems) website. It said that a banned politician could not be a leader or executive member of a political party but made no mention of any other activity... what I want to know and have been asking is what is the alleged infringement that Thaksin has committed if the Act does not have provision for "acting in a manner to suggest that he holds such a position" . Why has nobody thought of this?

Surely the Democrats must know that without a ruling on their case is doomed without such a proviso; I believe that they know perfectly well and have consulted the EC and been given the go-ahead

The website of the EC list 'Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2550 (2007), unofficial translation by IFES'. Unfortunately you have to refer to documents in THAI to have an official status and point of view.

BTW some info, but not really much on the EC site http://www.ect.go.th...web/en/sitemap/

So are you saying that it is incorrect or just that it is an unofficial translation?

I give you the fact that the website I mentioned is not in Thai but the the website you referred me to had no relevant information that I could find. If you can show me that there is a part of the legislation that widens the scope of the Act as I have read it then I will be happy to accept that but for now I remain suspicious that advice has been sought from the EC as to whether the legislation as enacted can be widened in scope to include Thaksin's activities which do not appear to infringe the law

I have no regard for either party in this election but I suspect that there is a plan to change the rules with a judicial ruling which will cause yet more division in Thai society at a time when there is a greater need for reconciliation.

[animatic]

Executives 'officially' make the decisions for a large entity.

You can have a executive title on the name plate, and not make a single decision, and sit at the table as emeritus former PM and all decisions defer to you. See Singapore till last month.

Of course you don't need to be the president to have actual control of something and such as predominant investor dictating to the board, without being on the board.

Having illegal control of a political party is the question at hand.

Edited July 10, 2011 by animatic

[lannarebirth]

I give you the fact that the website I mentioned is not in Thai but the the website you referred me to had no relevant information that I could find. If you can show me that there is a part of the legislation that widens the scope of the Act as I have read it then I will be happy to accept that but for now I remain suspicious that advice has been sought from the EC as to whether the legislation as enacted can be widened in scope to include Thaksin's activities which do not appear to infringe the law

I have no regard for either party in this election but I suspect that there is a plan to change the rules with a judicial ruling which will cause yet more division in Thai society at a time when there is a greater need for reconciliation.

Section 97 Where a political party has been dissolved due to the violation of

Section 42 paragraph two, Section 82 or Section 94, a person who was previously a

member of the Executive Committee of the dissolved political party shall not, within a

period of five years from the date of the dissolution, apply for the formation of a new

political party, be a member of an Executive Committee of a political party, or

promote a new political party.

http://www.ect.go.th...20by%20IFES.pdf

From 2007 Organic Act On Political Parties

Edited July 10, 2011 by lannarebirth