Jatuporn 'Likely To Get Nod From Poll Chiefs'

[Lite Beer]

ELECTION COMMISSION

Jatuporn 'likely to get nod from poll chiefs'

By The Nation on Sunday

Lawyer will seek bail if he is endorsed

The Election Commission is likely to endorse Pheu Thai Party MP-elect candidate Jatuporn Promphan tomorrow, although it may suggest that his case be forwarded to the Constitution Court for legal interpretation, an EC source said yesterday

The source said that it was unlikely the EC would disqualify Jatuporn, as two of the five election commissioners had already turned down a petition questioning his qualification to contest the July 3 election.

Support from at least four out of the five commissioners is required to disqualify any MP-elect, the source noted.

The source said that the EC postponed its decision about Jatuporn until tomorrow because it wanted to make sure proper procedure was taken after endorsing him. According to the source, it was likely that the EC would suggest to the new House speaker that a petition be filed with the Constitution Court for interpretation of the charter in regard to questions about Jatuporn's qualification.

Jatuporn's lawyer Winyat Chartmontri said yesterday that he would seek permission from the Criminal Court for his client to be temporarily released if the EC endorses Jatuporn as an MP.

A key red-shirt leader, Jatuporn is being held in remand in connection with last year's unrest and rioting.

Earlier yesterday, Election Commissioner Prapun Naigowit said the EC would discuss legal issues tomorrow involved in endorsing Jatuporn. However, Prapun stopped short of saying whether the EC would make a decision tomorrow. He said it had to be careful in deciding if Jatuporn was still a Pheu Thai Party member as he failed to exercise his right to vote in the July 3 poll.

Prapun said the Pheu Thai Party leader must submit a report if Jatuporn lost party membership as the party amended its rules last year. He said the Constitution did not ban detainees from running as MP candidates.

Responding to reports that some EC members were intimidated by red-shirt threats if they failed to endorse Jatuporn, Prapun said he was not threatened.

He defended the EC against criticism that it had not worked effectively because it had not issued enough red and yellow cards. He said EC inquiries depended upon the collection and analysis of evidence. If there was not enough evidence, further investigation was needed. The EC has 176 cases pending, which it has one year to complete.

He said the July 3 election was accepted internationally and locally as one of the most successful polls in history, with a historic voter turnout of 75 per cent. The EC strictly followed the law so that the public accepted the election results, which would help bring about national reconciliation. He believed the EC achieved its goal in this respect.

Meanwhile, Wirat Kalayasiri, a member of the Democrat Party's legal team, called on the EC to make a "brave decision" tomorrow on whether to endorse Jatuporn.

Wirat said the EC had only two options on whether to revoke Jatuporn's electoral right: (1) If he did not have the right to be fielded as an MP candidate, or (2) if the EC decided that Jatuporn did not have the right to apply as an MP candidate since he lacked qualification to be a political party member, according to the law.

He said the EC could not delay the decision by citing that it needed another 30 days to make the final decision or endorse Jatuporn pending a final decision. Wirat said if that was the case, the EC would be regarded as committing malfeasance by showing favouritism to a particular party.

He said the fact that Pheu Thai Party leader Yongyuth Wichaidit knew the legal issues involved but allowed Jatuporn to apply as an MP candidate could result in the party being disbanded and Yongyuth could face up to 10 years imprisonment, plus a Bt200,000 fine and a 10-year political ban.

Responding to election commissioner Sodsri Satayathum's remark that if the red shirts pressure or intimidate the EC, Pheu Thai Party could lose the chance to form a government because the military would stage a coup, Pheu Thai spokesman Prompong Nopparit said the party did not pressure the EC and no one had intimidated the EC. If people said this they would face legal action.

-- The Nation 2011-07-31

[whybother]

Responding to election commissioner Sodsri Satayathum's remark that if the red shirts pressure or intimidate the EC, Pheu Thai Party could lose the chance to form a government because the military would stage a coup, Pheu Thai spokesman Prompong Nopparit said the party did not pressure the EC and no one had intimidated the EC. If people said this they would face legal action.

When are they charging Nattawut?

[Who, me ?]

^^^

never! Double standard is the main policy of the reds! As soon as they are in command, it will become more obvious

[sillybilly]

Can anybody provide a link as to what laws political immunity actually protects the politicians from since we hear so much about it being used.

It seems once they have it, it protects them from just about anything.

[KKvampire]

" Pheu Thai Party leader Yongyuth Wichaidit knew the legal issues involved but allowed Jatuporn to apply as an MP candidate could result in the party being disbanded and Yongyuth could face up to 10 years imprisonment, plus a Bt200,000 fine and a 10-year political ban."

Yongwuth knew many things and banking on winning the General Election would allow PTP to flex its muscles,thats how they operate. The EC, the judiciary are all told " We Won" " so don;t you interfere with our plans, no matter what the laws are and anyway we will change all that soon."

As I've said many times, the Lunatics are about to take over the Thai asylum

Edited July 31, 2011 by KKvampire

[Crushdepth]

Pathetic to see the EC passing the buck under pressure.

[Lite Beer]

Red shirts will not pressure EC to endorse Jatuporn

BANGKOK, 31 July 2011 (NNT)-Pheu Thai Party List MP Mr. Natthawut Saikeua said Red Shirt protesters would not try to pressure the Election Commission (EC) to endorse the MP status for Mr. Jatuporn Pormpan. He said the EC should be given respect and time to do their jobs.

Mr. Nattawut has also wanted a third party to stop threatening the EC and allow the officials to deliberate on the qualifications of the remaining MP elects within their own timeframe.

He further explained that even though a few members of the Red Shirt protesters had been elected to the Parliament, they would adhere to their priority to restore democracy in Thailand.

Meanwhile, Mr. Natthawut said the decision to select a House Speaker had not been decided, whoever the Party chose; everyone must respect the choice.

-- NNT 2011-07-31

[hbullinger]

Does anyone out there know of any other democratic country where someone can

A)be a candidate for an election and

B)become an MP

while he is held in prison?

[Crushdepth]

Does anyone out there know of any other democratic country where someone can

A)be a candidate for an election and

B)become an MP

while he is held in prison?

...on terrorism charges...

[atyclb]

May as well just let release him since the party that won was guided(if not outright controlled) and funded by by the godfather in dubai. officials may be especially kind as they can smell money from the new government.

[whybother]

Does anyone out there know of any other democratic country where someone can

A)be a candidate for an election and

B)become an MP

while he is held in prison?

...on terrorism charges...

Brought to my attention in antoher thread.

Bobby Sands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Sands#Election

[hanuman1]

Does anyone out there know of any other democratic country where someone can

A)be a candidate for an election and

B)become an MP

while he is held in prison?

The United Kingdom.

[rubl]

Does anyone out there know of any other democratic country where someone can

A)be a candidate for an election and

B)become an MP

while he is held in prison?

The United Kingdom.

Before someone asks 'yeah, but what about the law change after Bobby Sands was elected', Wiki says:

"Following Sands' success, the British Government introduced the Representation of the People Act 1981 which prevents prisoners serving jail terms of more than one year in either the UK or the Republic of Ireland from being nominated as candidates in UK elections.[24][25] This law was introduced so as to prevent the other hunger strikers from being elected to the British parliament.[26]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Sands

[nurofiend]

Does anyone out there know of any other democratic country where someone can

A)be a candidate for an election and

B)become an MP

while he is held in prison?

...on terrorism charges...

Brought to my attention in antoher thread.

Bobby Sands. http://en.wikipedia...._Sands#Election

What thread was that in?

[hellodolly]

Does anyone out there know of any other democratic country where someone can

A)be a candidate for an election and

B)become an MP

while he is held in prison?

...on terrorism charges...

Brought to my attention in antoher thread.

Bobby Sands. http://en.wikipedia...._Sands#Election

Do you think Jatuporn will starve himself to death.

On a side note my spell check on Jatuporn said Stupor how fitting

[whybother]

Brought to my attention in antoher thread.

Bobby Sands. http://en.wikipedia...._Sands#Election

What thread was that in?

Does it matter?

[tigermonkey]

Does anyone out there know of any other democratic country where someone can

A)be a candidate for an election and

B)become an MP

while he is held in prison?

He is not in "prison" -- he is in remand. Most democaratic countries do not deprive citizens of their normal rights while in remand.

Remand is a restriction placed on an accused, because the courts feel there is either a risk of flight or a risk to society , in that he will re-offend in the same area as the original charges.

[tigermonkey]

Pathetic to see the EC passing the buck under pressure.

Tit for tat - the EC had the buck passed to them by the courts, when they decided that Jutaporn would not be allowed to vote.

It would have been so easy for the courts to allow Jutapron to vote, while escorted and manicled. As it stands, the court has disenfranchised him from his right to vote as a Thai citizen, while he is merely held in remand --- and convicted of nothing.

If the courts had not made this overzelous decision, they would not have created the present problem for the EC.

[hammered]

The game of tossing the hot potato around continues

[whybother]

Pathetic to see the EC passing the buck under pressure.

Tit for tat - the EC had the buck passed to them by the courts, when they decided that Jutaporn would not be allowed to vote.

It would have been so easy for the courts to allow Jutapron to vote, while escorted and manicled. As it stands, the court has disenfranchised him from his right to vote as a Thai citizen, while he is merely held in remand --- and convicted of nothing.

If the courts had not made this overzelous decision, they would not have created the present problem for the EC.

Would you expect every person in remand to be let out to vote?

[webfact]

UDD denies threatening EC to certify Jatuporn’s MP status

BANGKOK, 1 August 2011 (NNT) – The United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) has denied threatening the Election Commission (EC) to speedily endorse MP status for its deputy chairperson Jatuporn Prompan, a winning candidate on Pheu Thai's party list.

Acting UDD Chairperson Thida Thavornsret downplayed the rumour, saying she has neither instructed UDD supporters to intimidate the EC nor made threatening phone calls to any of the election commissioners.

Earlier, Election Commissioner Sodsri Satayathum disclosed that she had received a phone call threatening the EC to speedily endorse MP status of Mr Jatuporn who is the only UDD key member left to be certified by the EC.

Ms Thida expressed her confidence that no UDD supporters made the phone calls against the election commissioner. She also suggested Ms Sodsri to remain calm and show her responsibility instead of speaking with the media this way.

If the EC failed to certify MP status for Mr Jatuporn in today’s meeting, the acting chairperson told the press that the UDD would not mobilise its supporters to the EC but would file a legal action against the whole election commission for failure to perform its duties.

-- NNT 2011-08-01

[hammered]

Pathetic to see the EC passing the buck under pressure.

Tit for tat - the EC had the buck passed to them by the courts, when they decided that Jutaporn would not be allowed to vote.

It would have been so easy for the courts to allow Jutapron to vote, while escorted and manicled. As it stands, the court has disenfranchised him from his right to vote as a Thai citizen, while he is merely held in remand --- and convicted of nothing.

If the courts had not made this overzelous decision, they would not have created the present problem for the EC.

Would you expect every person in remand to be let out to vote?

Obviously most will answer no that, but in this case if it proves that Jatuporn cannot be seated as he couldnt/didnt vote or something, even though not guilty by final decision which is it seems the constitutional standard for removal of political rights, so it opens things to accusations of using bail refusal to remove the rights of political opponents. It is a bit of a mess and one that likely will end up in the constitutional court one way or another whatever the EC decide and no doubt whatever they decide the EC will be sued.

Of course there is also the issue of whether Jatuporn is guilty or not but that is nothing to do with this technical mess. It seems Thailand has had its fair share of technical messes in the political arena in recent years and sadly most of them have led to extremely heated accusations and much distrust.

[jdinasia]

Obviously most will answer no that, but in this case if it proves that Jatuporn cannot be seated as he couldnt/didnt vote or something, even though not guilty by final decision which is it seems the constitutional standard for removal of political rights, so it opens things to accusations of using bail refusal to remove the rights of political opponents. It is a bit of a mess and one that likely will end up in the constitutional court one way or another whatever the EC decide and no doubt whatever they decide the EC will be sued.

Of course there is also the issue of whether Jatuporn is guilty or not but that is nothing to do with this technical mess. It seems Thailand has had its fair share of technical messes in the political arena in recent years and sadly most of them have led to extremely heated accusations and much distrust.

I would see it your way IF Jatuporn was only one of 20 or so UDD in remand after violating bail terms. Since he was sitting alone in the cell and not alongside the others facing the same charges that were not found to be in breach of their bail conditions it appears to be what it is. Isolated and (imho) appropriate.

[whybother]

Obviously most will answer no that, but in this case if it proves that Jatuporn cannot be seated as he couldnt/didnt vote or something, even though not guilty by final decision which is it seems the constitutional standard for removal of political rights, so it opens things to accusations of using bail refusal to remove the rights of political opponents. It is a bit of a mess and one that likely will end up in the constitutional court one way or another whatever the EC decide and no doubt whatever they decide the EC will be sued.

Of course there is also the issue of whether Jatuporn is guilty or not but that is nothing to do with this technical mess. It seems Thailand has had its fair share of technical messes in the political arena in recent years and sadly most of them have led to extremely heated accusations and much distrust.

I don't think that the reason he hasn't been endorsed is because he didn't vote.

It has something to do with his membership of the party.

[hammered]

Obviously most will answer no that, but in this case if it proves that Jatuporn cannot be seated as he couldnt/didnt vote or something, even though not guilty by final decision which is it seems the constitutional standard for removal of political rights, so it opens things to accusations of using bail refusal to remove the rights of political opponents. It is a bit of a mess and one that likely will end up in the constitutional court one way or another whatever the EC decide and no doubt whatever they decide the EC will be sued.

Of course there is also the issue of whether Jatuporn is guilty or not but that is nothing to do with this technical mess. It seems Thailand has had its fair share of technical messes in the political arena in recent years and sadly most of them have led to extremely heated accusations and much distrust.

I would see it your way IF Jatuporn was only one of 20 or so UDD in remand after violating bail terms. Since he was sitting alone in the cell and not alongside the others facing the same charges that were not found to be in breach of their bail conditions it appears to be what it is. Isolated and (imho) appropriate.

It becomes important or became important as soon as his candidacy was presented and accepted. That meant the EC accepted he could run in the election. Now what takes precedent? That he seemingly has been elected? The constitutional stipulation that rights can only be removed after final decision? Regulations that you must vote? And there is a potential seperation of powers issue too. It isnt clear but as it sets a standard for elected officials and is about a seperation of power issue it needs clarification. As whatever the EC decide will be challenged in court it seems that a constitutional court ruling would be needed to clear it all up. As far as I am concerned if the odious Jatuporn is guilty of whatever charged then punish him. However, this technical issue isnt about that.

[jdinasia]

It becomes important or became important as soon as his candidacy was presented and accepted. That meant the EC accepted he could run in the election. Now what takes precedent? That he seemingly has been elected? The constitutional stipulation that rights can only be removed after final decision? Regulations that you must vote? And there is a potential seperation of powers issue too. It isnt clear but as it sets a standard for elected officials and is about a seperation of power issue it needs clarification. As whatever the EC decide will be challenged in court it seems that a constitutional court ruling would be needed to clear it all up. As far as I am concerned if the odious Jatuporn is guilty of whatever charged then punish him. However, this technical issue isnt about that.

I agree it is important. I agree it is a matter for the CC to deal with. He was eligible to run and was eligible until he failed to vote. Then it becomes cloudy. If he is deemed not to be a member of the PTP due to failure to vote then the EC cannot ratify him. The EC didn't make the decision to deny him bail (he had it and shot his mouth off....) and the EC didn't deny him a temporary release (that would have been stupid for the courts to do, they in theory would have to release everyone temporarily that was in remand for every election ... unless you want "double standards."

There was no simple answer (as far as I can see) for the EC, on this one ... it really is an issue for the CC.

[hammered]

It becomes important or became important as soon as his candidacy was presented and accepted. That meant the EC accepted he could run in the election. Now what takes precedent? That he seemingly has been elected? The constitutional stipulation that rights can only be removed after final decision? Regulations that you must vote? And there is a potential seperation of powers issue too. It isnt clear but as it sets a standard for elected officials and is about a seperation of power issue it needs clarification. As whatever the EC decide will be challenged in court it seems that a constitutional court ruling would be needed to clear it all up. As far as I am concerned if the odious Jatuporn is guilty of whatever charged then punish him. However, this technical issue isnt about that.

I agree it is important. I agree it is a matter for the CC to deal with. He was eligible to run and was eligible until he failed to vote. Then it becomes cloudy. If he is deemed not to be a member of the PTP due to failure to vote then the EC cannot ratify him. The EC didn't make the decision to deny him bail (he had it and shot his mouth off....) and the EC didn't deny him a temporary release (that would have been stupid for the courts to do, they in theory would have to release everyone temporarily that was in remand for every election ... unless you want "double standards."

There was no simple answer (as far as I can see) for the EC, on this one ... it really is an issue for the CC.

Agreed on the CC JD. Somewhere along the line the rules probably need looking at too. The EC on this one face court action from either reds or multicoloureds depending on their decision. Be interesting if the constitutional court refused to accept a case as they have done with several political ones before. It is a bit of a distraction that it is Jatuporn too. If it were Somchai average PTP MP it probably wouldnt be so potentially explosive whatever the decision although still important. Jatuporn is like Thaksin/Abhisit now with those who hate and those who love.

[animatic]

It becomes important or became important as soon as his candidacy was presented and accepted. That meant the EC accepted he could run in the election. Now what takes precedent? That he seemingly has been elected? The constitutional stipulation that rights can only be removed after final decision? Regulations that you must vote? And there is a potential seperation of powers issue too. It isnt clear but as it sets a standard for elected officials and is about a seperation of power issue it needs clarification. As whatever the EC decide will be challenged in court it seems that a constitutional court ruling would be needed to clear it all up. As far as I am concerned if the odious Jatuporn is guilty of whatever charged then punish him. However, this technical issue isnt about that.

I agree it is important. I agree it is a matter for the CC to deal with. He was eligible to run and was eligible until he failed to vote. Then it becomes cloudy. If he is deemed not to be a member of the PTP due to failure to vote then the EC cannot ratify him. The EC didn't make the decision to deny him bail (he had it and shot his mouth off....) and the EC didn't deny him a temporary release (that would have been stupid for the courts to do, they in theory would have to release everyone temporarily that was in remand for every election ... unless you want "double standards."

There was no simple answer (as far as I can see) for the EC, on this one ... it really is an issue for the CC.

Agreed on the CC JD. Somewhere along the line the rules probably need looking at too. The EC on this one face court action from either reds or multicoloureds depending on their decision. Be interesting if the constitutional court refused to accept a case as they have done with several political ones before. It is a bit of a distraction that it is Jatuporn too. If it were Somchai average PTP MP it probably wouldnt be so potentially explosive whatever the decision although still important. Jatuporn is like Thaksin/Abhisit now with those who hate and those who love.

Yes to the CC direction. The rules are not clear enough and the CC is the only final arbiter.

[lungmi]

"As far as I am concerned if the odious Jatuporn is guilty of whatever charged then punish him."

It's right for the protection of a correct legal system. I agree.

The Norwegian legal system investigates for Anders, Next year there will be the process after investigation of

all facts. Then Anders will be a convicted.

But everyone knows about Jatuporn.

I don't compare Anders with Jatuporn, I speak about legal systems.

[nurofiend]

Brought to my attention in antoher thread.

Bobby Sands. http://en.wikipedia...._Sands#Election

What thread was that in?

Does it matter?

i was just interested in the subject but thanks all the same for being so friendly about it