Invalidate July 3 Vote, Impeach Thai EC, Say Activists

[webfact]

Invalidate July 3 vote, impeach EC, say activists

By The Nation

Two leading activists yesterday launched separate legal proceedings aimed at invalidating the July 3 vote outcome on grounds of unfairness due to the lapse of supervision by the Election Commission.

n the first case, People's Alliance for Democracy leader Chamlong Srimuang petitioned the Supreme Court's Elections Division to cancel the balloting outcome and order a revote.

The high court has scheduled next Wednesday to rule whether the case merits a judicial review.

In his petition, Chamlong contends he was among almost 2 million voters who had their balloting rights wrongfully denied by the EC.

Along with the other 2 million, Chamlong was an absentee voter registered to cast an advance vote outside a designated polling station in the 2007 general election. He registered to vote at a Kanchanaburi polling station in lieu of his constituency in Bangkok's Dusit district.

The EC invoked Articles 97 and 101 of the Elections Act to back its ruling that absentee voters could not automatically switch to balloting at their designated polling station unless they had cancelled their previous voting registration.

Chamlong said such a ruling was unconstitutional and impractical. Furthermore the EC had on Tuesday wrongfully endorsed the votes for 358 of 500 MPs-elect despite his Monday's petition for a probe into the unfairness inflicted on the two million voters, he added.

As complainant, he asked for the high court's intervention so as to allow the two million voters to exercise their rightful duty of balloting.

For the second case, PAD ally Chaiwat Sinsuwong lodged a petition calling for the impeachment of the five EC members.

Chaiwat notified Senate Speaker Teeradej Meepien of his intent to launch a signature campaign to solicit the support of 20,000 voters to activate the impeachment proceedings against the five. The campaign is expected to be complete in 180 days.

In justifying his signature campaign, Chaiwat said the EC had deliberately neglected to keep barred party executives out of the campaigning. He said the barred party executives acted as if they held the real power behind parties and candidates despite their removal from the electoral process.

He said the EC failed to do its job in the face of several campaign promises designed as a vote-buying ploy.

He went on to say that the EC wrongfully endorsed certain electoral candidates despite their previous records as instigators to disrupting peace.

In addition to impeachment, he called for the dissolution of six major parties for involving barred party executives in campaign activities.

He also singled out the Pheu Thai's lingkage to the red shirts as additional ground for disbandment. He claimed that prime minister-elect Yingluck Shinawatra was the financial backer of the red shirts.

The six are Pheu Thai, Democrat, Bhum Jai Thai, Chart Thai Pattana, Chart Pattana Puea Pandin and Palang Chon parties.

-- The Nation 2011-07-14

[OzMick]

Chamlong Srimuang wants a new election because he didn't get to put in a NO vote?

[Thaddeus]

More illogical table banging.

Just what the country needs.

[whybother]

Which banned politician did the Democrats use?

[kamluan]

slowly we hear news we used to hear...in thailand,

better pick you bags and fly home while you still can....

[Zolt]

Regardless of any irregularities observed with this election, there's one thing it did very well: show who supports the PAD and their antics.

According to the "No Vote" statistics, practically no one

[alexakap]

Two leading activists yesterday launched separate legal proceedings aimed at invalidating the July 3 vote outcome on grounds of unfairness

Here we go. Again. Round and round.

Show must go on....

[whybother]

The other paper says that the court rejected the petition, saying it was not within it's jurisdiction and was up to the Constitution Court.

At least they got another "No" vote.

[hammered]

Cant see that happening unless instant and utter chaos is desired

[rubl]

Chamlong Srimuang wants a new election because he didn't get to put in a NO vote?

When k. Chamlong came to vote, he couldn't because his name was still on the 'advance-voting' list, he should have voted the week before. He was told he could lodge a complaint. Seems he did. Democratic right, etc., etc.

Forget about getting a new election now though, that would be a bit ridiculous, but at least once more attention is put on the advance voting issue. For next time it should really be changed into a 'one off' choice automatically withdrawn after an election

Edited July 14, 2011 by rubl

[geriatrickid]

Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to call a new election in 60 days time and allow campaigning for a period of 30 days only. I expect that the PTP would win an even bigger margin and then this nonsense could be stopped.

[TAWP]

Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to call a new election in 60 days time and allow campaigning for a period of 30 days only. I expect that the PTP would win an even bigger margin and then this nonsense could be stopped.

After openly declaring that their 300baht for the nation was an election lie?

I think not, I think their voting-tally would decrease - but then again perhaps I am underestimating the power hold of the local mafia-heads in the north...

Edited July 16, 2011 by TAWP

[nurofiend]

Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to call a new election in 60 days time and allow campaigning for a period of 30 days only. I expect that the PTP would win an even bigger margin and then this nonsense could be stopped.

After openly declaring that their 300baht for the nation was an election lie?

I think not, I think their voting-tally would decrease - but then again perhaps I am underestimating the power hold of the local mafia-heads in the north...

or could it be possibly that the last time thaksin was in power they reduced rural poverty by half in four years?

[TAWP]

or could it be possibly that the last time thaksin was in power they reduced rural poverty by half in four years?

Hahaha - that was a good one. But more suited for the Jokes-forum.

[rubl]

Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to call a new election in 60 days time and allow campaigning for a period of 30 days only. I expect that the PTP would win an even bigger margin and then this nonsense could be stopped.

After openly declaring that their 300baht for the nation was an election lie?

I think not, I think their voting-tally would decrease - but then again perhaps I am underestimating the power hold of the local mafia-heads in the north...

or could it be possibly that the last time thaksin was in power they reduced rural poverty by half in four years?

Pray tell me?

[nurofiend]

or could it be possibly that the last time thaksin was in power they reduced rural poverty by half in four years?

Hahaha - that was a good one. But more suited for the Jokes-forum.

see page 14

http://siteresources...full-report.pdf

i'll meet you in the jokes forum

[TAWP]

or could it be possibly that the last time thaksin was in power they reduced rural poverty by half in four years?

Hahaha - that was a good one. But more suited for the Jokes-forum.

see page 14

http://siteresources...full-report.pdf

i'll meet you in the jokes forum

Perhaps you need to take a class in economics.

Thaksin didn't create the world economies upswing nor it's local repercussions.

Infact, I would venture to say that if a real 'peoples man' had been in power during the years the improvement for the population in general and the poorer in particulate would have been greater.

[Jingthing]

Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to call a new election in 60 days time and allow campaigning for a period of 30 days only. I expect that the PTP would win an even bigger margin and then this nonsense could be stopped.

That would be fine. But Thaksin has to back off. No proxies. No Thaksin Thinks BS. In other words, Yingluck is a TAINTED brand and she isn't even PM yet. PTP did this to themselves. They aren't legitimate because of the blatant proxy tactic.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Jingthing

[nurofiend]

or could it be possibly that the last time thaksin was in power they reduced rural poverty by half in four years?

Hahaha - that was a good one. But more suited for the Jokes-forum.

see page 14

http://siteresources...full-report.pdf

i'll meet you in the jokes forum

Perhaps you need to take a class in economics.

Thaksin didn't create the world economies upswing nor it's local repercussions.

Infact, I would venture to say that if a real 'peoples man' had been in power during the years the improvement for the population in general and the poorer in particulate would have been greater.

No in fact what i stated was factually correct

who is held accountable for a countries economy, they're government!

of course i'm not saying it was solely down to him, i don't need to take a class in economics

i bet if it was the opposite during his time, you'd be singing a different tune tho

so i repeat, when he was in power the poverty line decreased by half in four years...that is fact, it doesn't belong in the jokes forum thank you very much

[Siam Simon]

Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to call a new election in 60 days time and allow campaigning for a period of 30 days only. I expect that the PTP would win an even bigger margin and then this nonsense could be stopped.

That would be fine. But Thaksin has to back off. No proxies. No Thaksin Thinks BS. In other words, Yingluck is a TAINTED brand and she isn't even PM yet. PTP did this to themselves. They aren't legitimate because of the blatant proxy tactic.

Name me a Thai government in recent years that wasn't formed through jiggery pokery and illegal practice. The outgoing government was formed with a coalition blatantly involving one of the country's most senior banned politicians. It was allowed to stand because the military brokered the deal and nobody in a position to do so was prepared to stand up to said military. Personally, I would like to have seen Abhisit given a decent stab at the job, but such is Thai politics that even his own side wasn't prepared to do that. Pheu Thai, with all it's baggage, is infinitely preferable to Old Money interference: It's still a halting step forward from said Old Money.

[Siam Simon]

or could it be possibly that the last time thaksin was in power they reduced rural poverty by half in four years?

Hahaha - that was a good one. But more suited for the Jokes-forum.

see page 14

http://siteresources...full-report.pdf

i'll meet you in the jokes forum

Perhaps you need to take a class in economics.

Thaksin didn't create the world economies upswing nor it's local repercussions.

Infact, I would venture to say that if a real 'peoples man' had been in power during the years the improvement for the population in general and the poorer in particulate would have been greater.

Do we have any figures available for percentage rise in income for the poor in other SEA countries for the same period? Surely that would be a good indicator wrt this?

[rubl]

or could it be possibly that the last time thaksin was in power they reduced rural poverty by half in four years?

Hahaha - that was a good one. But more suited for the Jokes-forum.

see page 14

http://siteresources...full-report.pdf

i'll meet you in the jokes forum

Page_2:

Poverty reduction remains high on the national agenda. Under the recently revised poverty line, incidence of poverty in terms of headcount has fallen from 21.3 percent in 2000 (14.2 percent in 2000 based on the old poverty line) to 11.3 percent in 2004. This decline was mainly contributed by the reduction in the number of poor in the Northeast. The Northeast, which is the most populous region and houses more than half of Thailand’s poor, has seen a reduction in headcount from 35 percent of population in 2000 to 17.2 percent in 2004.

Page_12:

2.2 Poverty

The revised poverty line shows that substantial reduction in overall poverty has been accomplished by Thailand between 2000 and 2004. Based on the new poverty line2, the number of poor fell from 12.7 million in 2000 to 9.5 million in 2000 to 7.1 million in 2004 (see Table 2). The largest decline in the number of poor was seen in the Northeast, home to the half the poor in Thailand in 2004.

Page_14:

The poverty headcount ratio in Thailand fell by 10 percentage-points from 2000 to 2004. It fell from 21 percent of population below the poverty-line in 2000 to 11 percent in 2004 (see Figure 3).

Somehow I think these figures need an explanation which is understandable by non-worldbank-economists and other normal people

[nurofiend]

do you mean explain how the reduction happened or what the figures mean?

because what they mean is pretty clear

my point wasn't to go through every in and out of the economic policy during that time, i was simply stating a fact.....and that's what it is, a fact

Edited July 16, 2011 by nurofiend

[nurofiend]

see page 14

http://siteresources...full-report.pdf

i'll meet you in the jokes forum

Perhaps you need to take a class in economics.

Thaksin didn't create the world economies upswing nor it's local repercussions.

Infact, I would venture to say that if a real 'peoples man' had been in power during the years the improvement for the population in general and the poorer in particulate would have been greater.

Do we have any figures available for percentage rise in income for the poor in other SEA countries for the same period? Surely that would be a good indicator wrt this?

great question and point.

[rubl]

do you mean explain how the reduction happened or what the figures mean?

because what they mean is pretty clear

my point wasn't to go through every in and out of the economic policy during that time, i was simply stating a fact.....and that's what it is, a fact

Actually I wonder what those figures really mean. I mean 10 percent points and 10% and ... and ...

It's not like 1 + 1 = 2. Without proper explanation it's just numbers I cannot relate to anything real. The three bits I posted give an example (I think) of this unclear use of numbers and percentage. Absolute those numbers may be facts, but realisticly the value and relation between them and some base reference are unclear. Maybe we need a certified economist, or an auditor to explain this to us, mere mortals?

[nurofiend]

do you mean explain how the reduction happened or what the figures mean?

because what they mean is pretty clear

my point wasn't to go through every in and out of the economic policy during that time, i was simply stating a fact.....and that's what it is, a fact

Actually I wonder what those figures really mean. I mean 10 percent points and 10% and ... and ...

It's not like 1 + 1 = 2. Without proper explanation it's just numbers I cannot relate to anything real. The three bits I posted give an example (I think) of this unclear use of numbers and percentage. Absolute those numbers may be facts, but realisticly the value and relation between them and some base reference are unclear. Maybe we need a certified economist, or an auditor to explain this to us, mere mortals?

i understand what your getting at but i think to actually prove that exactly half of the poor people were lifted above the poverty line,

you would have to go door to door to every poverty stricken person and go through their unique earnings etc,

which would be impossible, or at least that's what i think....

i won't pretend i know the ins and outs of it

but i think they use similar studies worldwide to get these figures, so it's the only way you can tell

i think they do it on averages of income by population, so they workout that per person the poverty line had decreased by half...again not sure

but yes i'm sure that doesn't necessarily mean that exactly half of everyone below the poverty line came out of it

agh maths

[whybother]

From that report

- the poverty incidence went from 32% of the population in 1988 to 11.6% in 1996. It dropped to 14.2% by 2000 mainly because of the AFC. By 2002 it has dropped to 9.8%.

If you look at the trend, it dropped by 3.3 percentage points per year between 1988 and 1996, then got hit by the AFC, then dropped by 2.2 percentage points per year between 2000 and 2002 during global economic growth.

So under Thaksin, it actually reduced at a lower rate than it did before the AFC.

Edited July 17, 2011 by whybother

[animatic]

From that report

- the poverty incidence went from 32% of the population in 1988 to 11.6% in 1996. It dropped to 14.2% by 2000 mainly because of the AFC. By 2002 it has dropped to 9.8%.

If you look at the trend, it dropped by 3.3 percentage points per year between 1988 and 1996, then got hit by the AFC, then dropped by 2.2 percentage points per year between 2000 and 2002 during global economic growth.

So under Thaksin, it actually reduced at a lower rate than it did before the AFC.

Can't see him advertising this fact can you?

[nurofiend]

another statistic i came across is this

'The Thai economy almost doubled between 1990 and 1995 (from 2.2 to 4.2 trillion baht.)* But from 2000 to 2005, the economy grew more slowly (from 4.9 to 6.9 trillion baht.) Effectively, Thai GDP grew by 91% during the earlier period, but only by 41% during a period largely coinciding with Thaksin's rule

From 1990 to 1994, the percent of Thais living in poverty fell from 34% to 18%.

From 2000 to 2004 the percent in poverty fell from 21% to 11%.

During both periods, the percentage of Thais classified as poor decreased by almost half, despite the slower economic growth of the second period.'

this shows that thaksin governments policies did have an impact i think

also, i just wanna clear up, i'm not pro-thaksin at all... i just believe in looking at things impartially and taking people up on their views if i see them as biased

[animatic]

another statistic i came across is this

'The Thai economy almost doubled between 1990 and 1995 (from 2.2 to 4.2 trillion baht.)* But from 2000 to 2005, the economy grew more slowly (from 4.9 to 6.9 trillion baht.) Effectively, Thai GDP grew by 91% during the earlier period, but only by 41% during a period largely coinciding with Thaksin's rule

From 1990 to 1994, the percent of Thais living in poverty fell from 34% to 18%.

From 2000 to 2004 the percent in poverty fell from 21% to 11%.

During both periods, the percentage of Thais classified as poor decreased by almost half, despite the slower economic growth of the second period.'

this shows that thaksin governments policies did have an impact i think

also, i just wanna clear up, i'm not pro-thaksin at all... i just believe in looking at things impartially and taking people up on their views if i see them as biased

No it shows that

Poverty increased post '97 , after Chavalit, with Thaksin one step behind him,

crashed the Asian Tiger and caused the start of the AFC.

Which caused an increase in Thailand general poverty from 18% to 21%.

Which the Chuan government worked hard to fix,

tough medicine that eventually worked.

Then as Asia as whole recovered, and the world economy was booming,

Thaksin admin. 1 reaped benefits, that it can't possibly see this time around in a very bad world economy.

But that in 00-04, because of a WORLD economy greatly improved and the recovery of Asia as a whole there was a parellel connected drop in Thai poverty levels.

The greatly increased infrastructure and surviving investments from the pre '97 spike in investment and productivity, was still there when the regional economy returned to growth, so this benefited faster the lowering of poverty yet again. NBot from Thaksins doing but from basic structural changes from before his time.

But remember who crashed the regional economy while in office,

and who fixed it taking a hit for hard choices made,

and who takes credit for the work of others, even to this day.

Edited July 17, 2011 by animatic