Red Shirt Leaders With Endorsed Mp Status Report To Parliament

[Lite Beer]

Red Shirt leaders with endorsed MP status report to parliament

BANGKOK, July 31 - Red Shirt leaders, endorsed by the Election Commission (EC) as new members of parliament (MP) for Pheu Thai Party, on Sunday reported to the Thai parliament for MP registration, while reaffirming the group has not pressured the poll agency to endorse the MP status for fellow leader Jatuporn Prompan.

The protest leader-turned-MPs who turned up at the parliament to register their MP status included Natthawut Saikua, Korkaew Pikulthong, Weng Tojirakarn, Wiphutalaeng Pattanaphumthai and Payab Pankate.

The core leaders of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) earlier announced that they would not register their MP status as they wanted to wait for the endorsement of Mr Jatuporn Prompan, now detained at Bangkok Remand Prison on terrorism charges.

Mr Natthawut, however, said the Red Shirt leaders have to register their MP status today, as a House meeting will be held on Monday and they have been waiting for Mr Jatuporn's endorsement until the last minute.

Mr Natthawut said he believes the EC would finally endorse Mr Jatuporn as a party-list MP, but the Pheu Thai party will wait through the 30-day timeframe as required by the law for the EC decision.

If the poll agency does not endorse Mr Jatuporn, we would assign a legal team to file a lawsuit against the EC, as it has no authority to suspend the detained leader, according to the new MP.

Following remarks of EC commissioner Sodsri Satayatham that undue Red Shirt pressure could lead to possible violence and that the army might intervene to supervise the situation, Mr Natthawut reasserted that the Red Shirt had no plans to pressure the election agency and if the EC has been threatened, it's not actions endorsed by the Red Shirt movement.

Regarding the future of the UDD after the election, Mr Natthawut said the civil movement would continue, but that the protest leaders would discuss ways to adjust their approach.

Following reports that the Red Shirts will propose key leader Col Apiwan Viriyachai as new House Speaker, Mr Natthawut said any MP has right to support anyone for the top job, but in the end it depends on the consideration of the Pheu Thai party executives to decide.

Meanwhile, prime minister-to-be Yingluck Shinawatra on Sunday pledged to name the House Speaker by Monday, expressing confidence that the person who is selected will not be opposed by UDD leaders or party members. (MCOT online news)

-- TNA 2011-07-31

[jonclark]

Sorry but can someone explain this statement

"If the poll agency does not endorse Mr Jatuporn, we would assign a legal team to file a lawsuit against the EC, as it has no authority to suspend the detained leader, according to the new MP."

If the agency has no authority why do all MPs need to be endorsed by the EC (presumably to make sure they fit all the appropriate criteria to actually be a qualified MP) prior to sitting in parliament? Is something lost in translation??

[Crushdepth]

Sorry but can someone explain this statement

"If the poll agency does not endorse Mr Jatuporn, we would assign a legal team to file a lawsuit against the EC, as it has no authority to suspend the detained leader, according to the new MP."

If the agency has no authority why do all MPs need to be endorsed by the EC (presumably to make sure they fit all the appropriate criteria to actually be a qualified MP) prior to sitting in parliament? Is something lost in translation??

Nuttawut said he "would not threaten the EC", but apparently this doesn't count

They are trying to bully the EC into passing the buck instead of exercising its authority (which they do have, the rules on eligibility are quite clear). If they succeed, the EC may endorse Jatuporn with a recommendation to the Speaker that the Constitution Court be asked to rule on his eligibility. Presumably the Speaker can choose not to accept this advice. And even if he does, the next step will simply be to start bullying the court.

Every time these people say 'rule of law' I want to vomit.

[OzMick]

"The core leaders of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) earlier announced that they would not register their MP status as they wanted to wait for the endorsement of Mr Jatuporn..............."

"Mr Natthawut, however, said the Red Shirt leaders have to register their MP status today........" Ah, UDD loyalty and solidarity. And honesty.

"........ Mr Natthawut reasserted that the Red Shirt had no plans to pressure the election agency and if the EC has been threatened, it's not actions endorsed by the Red Shirt movement." That would be k.Thida (charge your batteries, get ready to hit the streets) who's position is.......?

[Crushdepth]

No pressure (click). Do you feel lucky, punk?

[geriatrickid]

The UDD is allowed to legally contest an EC decision. What's the problem with using the legal framework to state their case?

A statement of the use of legal options is not bullying nor is it a threat. It is a reaffirmation of the process that is in place, The spokesman did not say his group would take to the street. He said they would look to the courts for relief. The statement "Mr Natthawut reasserted that the Red Shirt had no plans to pressure the election agency and if the EC has been threatened, it's not actions endorsed by the Red Shirt movement" is just that; a statement accepting the process.

The nature of the news report is to distort events into as negative an incident as possible. If the decision is that Jatuporn should not be seated, then that is the decision and should be accepted until another judicial body overturns the decision. In the interim, the person denied the position is allowed to legally contest the decision. That's all this is about. This is just the Nation fanning the fires of discord. I don't think the PTP leadership is going to shed any tears should Mr. Jatuporn not be seated.

[TAWP]

Dear apologist GK, so do tell what this means:

If the poll agency does not endorse Mr Jatuporn, we would assign a legal team to file a lawsuit against the EC, as it has no authority to suspend the detained leader, according to the new MP.

Doesn't seem to fit inside the normal framework of candidates being approved/disapproved and ECs decision appealed.

[geriatrickid]

Dear apologist GK, so do tell what this means:

If the poll agency does not endorse Mr Jatuporn, we would assign a legal team to file a lawsuit against the EC, as it has no authority to suspend the detained leader, according to the new MP.

Doesn't seem to fit inside the normal framework of candidates being approved/disapproved and ECs decision appealed.

What part of that statement do you not understand? It is a statement of the group's position. They believe Mr. Jatuporn should be seated and do not believe the EC has the authority to make the decision. It doesn't mean they are right or wrong. It is their opinion and they are allowed to have an opinion.

What do you find objectionable about a group that does not agree with a situation retaining legal counsel? Are you of the view that concerned groups are not allowed to retain legal counsel and to bring their cases before a judicial body? If their case has no merit, it will get tossed by the implicated court. There is an underlying legal issue specific to this case that has yet to be resolved. You are objecting to people using the civil court system to resolve a disagreement. What alternative are you suggesting, as you obviously are of the view that people cannot ask the courts for relief.

There is nothing to get upset about here. They are just stating their intent to use legal measures to resolve a disagreement. Sorry if the exercise of peoples' legal rights upsets you. Why is someone an apologist for understanding that people have legal rights and that the most appropriate place to resolve a serious disagreement of this kind is in court? Let them bring their case and state their position in law. Are you afraid of the legal process?

[TAWP]

Dear apologist GK, so do tell what this means:

If the poll agency does not endorse Mr Jatuporn, we would assign a legal team to file a lawsuit against the EC, as it has no authority to suspend the detained leader, according to the new MP.

Doesn't seem to fit inside the normal framework of candidates being approved/disapproved and ECs decision appealed.

What part of that statement do you not understand? It is a statement of the group's position. They believe Mr. Jatuporn should be seated and do not believe the EC has the authority to make the decision. It doesn't mean they are right or wrong. It is their opinion and they are allowed to have an opinion.

What do you find objectionable about a group that does not agree with a situation retaining legal counsel? Are you of the view that concerned groups are not allowed to retain legal counsel and to bring their cases before a judicial body? If their case has no merit, it will get tossed by the implicated court. There is an underlying legal issue specific to this case that has yet to be resolved. You are objecting to people using the civil court system to resolve a disagreement. What alternative are you suggesting, as you obviously are of the view that people cannot ask the courts for relief.

There is nothing to get upset about here. They are just stating their intent to use legal measures to resolve a disagreement. Sorry if the exercise of peoples' legal rights upsets you. Why is someone an apologist for understanding that people have legal rights and that the most appropriate place to resolve a serious disagreement of this kind is in court? Let them bring their case and state their position in law. Are you afraid of the legal process?

You are funny. If Red Shirts or Thaksin promises to sue someone, then it is their legal right and not a threat.

If someone else asks the EC to investigate an MP-to-be of misconduct than they are sore losers that are abusing the ability to fail complaints.

And you state 'It doesn't mean they are right or wrong' -- actually, in many legal cases, it clearly is a case of someone being right or wrong in how they approach the process. Or what venues they use. To protest a decision. What exactly would suing the EC gain the Red Shirts? Doesn't that merely mean that they seek financial retribution for an unfavorable decisions? Will it re-instate Jutaporns ability to be MP, if the EC would rule to deny it?