Disqualified Red Shirt Leader Jatuporn Smells A Conspiracy

[Buchholz]

PM refuses to comment on Jatuporn's dismissal of his MP status by the EC /TANN

Standard Operating Procedure for this administration's alleged boss.

.

[webfact]

EC says it disqualified Jatuporn because he was in jail

The Election Commission decided to ask the Constitution Court to disqualify Pheu Thai MP Jatuporn Promphan because he has been detained in a prison, an EC commissioner explained Thursday.

EC commissioner Somchai Juengprasert said the EC decided to take the action not because Jatuporn has not cast his vote but because he was jailed.

Somchai said the five EC commissioners had consulted academics and all sides and believed that Jatuporn's detention caused him to be disqualified as a political party member as stated in the election organic law. So, the EC decided that he was not qualified as an MP.

Somchai said since the case was unprecedented, the EC had to disqualify Jatuporn and sent the case to the Constitution Court have its decision affirmed by court.

-- The Nation 2011-12-01

[muchogra]

Something seems fishy here. Look at the following quotes:

"EC commissioner Somchai Juengprasert said the EC decided to take the action not because Jatuporn has not cast his vote but because he was jailed."

"EC had to disqualify Jatuporn and sent the case to the Constitution Court have its decision affirmed by court."

If the court upholds the EC decision, wouldn't the court be accused of declaring someone guilty without a court trial? What's the EC Commissioner political inclination/affiliation?

[Tanaka]

He, as usual, handsomely forgets that he was out on bail before the elections.In a normal world as a normal person, being able to carry responsibilities and to plan and think ahead, he could have stayed out on bail by avoiding to breach the clear conditions set.

But it's the typical Jatuporn, crying out that everyone is soo unfair to him, only to him..

Who else does this remind you of? (I mean except little children)

Edited December 1, 2011 by Tanaka

[Siripon]

"Pheu Thai MP Kokaew Pikulthong said he viewed it as injustice those who "ordered the killings of 91 people" could remain in office."

PTP, MP's, red shorts and their TVF sycophants maintain the big lie - that 91 people were killed by the RTA on orders of the government. That total include members of the Thai military, and innocent bystanders killed by M-79 grenade and RPG attacks, weapons which a red-shirt has admitted to using.

If someone wishes to lay the blame for all 91 deaths, it certainly goes to the person who ordered, organised and funded the BKK insurrection, and he is no longer in office.

There a lot of up country people and a fair few urban ones who agree with Kokaew. How you see things depends pon where your sympoathies lie. Even though people may not agree with his sentiment to dismiss it or laugh it off is to miss a very critical political problem and one that there will be no meaningful reconcilliation without addressing. Reconcilliation is somthing that will not be achieved on the terms of the small minority that wont under any terms take Thaksin back (and they dont want him coming anywhere near a Thai jail cell). Thaksin is a far more powerful player than Abhisit or any other politician past or present in Thailand. That doesnt make himn right or wrong but central to resolving the current political divisions or establishing reconcilliation. Luckily most Thai people unlike many expats understand this and any resolution will be accepted by a huge majority if it is worked out and the extremists who wont accept it will be such a small minority they will be irrelevent. This is actually the fear of the ultra-nationalists wqho know they dont have numbers and that a huge number will go along with a deal as they just want it all over and understand it wont be over until a deal is reached or Thaksin wins which could take a long time.

Kokaeow also said that some of the independent checks and balances such as the EC need to be abolished as they are biased.

Red democracy- destroy all checks and balances,I remember when Thaksin controlled the EU with his own men, how he would love to return to those days, only the courts stood up to him, now apparently Thaksin is weary of trying to run the country though incompetent puppets and is itching to come back and take the helm himself.

A lot of Thai people understand Thaksin is central to reconciliation in that it is impossible with him. He has never compromised with anyone, his whole style is domination through financial resources and political clout via the working class who misguidely see him as a hero of the disadvantaged in society.

He has done nothing but feel sorry for himself the last 5 years, no repentance, no sense of any guilt for the violence and destruction he has caused.

A lot of the Thai middle class feel that way about him, they're sick of him, and a considerable number of people upcountry really couldn't care one way or another. For them, policies, prices, job opportunities are the important issues.

Chalerm will have to tread carefully with his proposed lesiglation next year, for sure there will be a lot of opposition.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Siripon

[Buchholz]

Something seems fishy here. Look at the following quotes:

"EC commissioner Somchai Juengprasert said the EC decided to take the action not because Jatuporn has not cast his vote but because he was jailed."

"EC had to disqualify Jatuporn and sent the case to the Constitution Court have its decision affirmed by court."

If the court upholds the EC decision, wouldn't the court be accused of declaring someone guilty without a court trial? What's the EC Commissioner political inclination/affiliation?

The court could uphold the EC decision... but based upon his not voting in the election, which derives from the constitutional law.

The EC is saying it is disqualifying him based upon his being in jail, which derives from the election law.

I can find the applicable constitution article that says Jatuporn not voting disqualifies him for not voting, but I'm not able to find the applicable election law that says Jatuporn is disqualified by virtue of being in jail.

It would be good to know which article they are citing in election law to clarify the matter.

.

[snorkelador]

Something seems fishy here. Look at the following quotes:

"EC commissioner Somchai Juengprasert said the EC decided to take the action not because Jatuporn has not cast his vote but because he was jailed."

"EC had to disqualify Jatuporn and sent the case to the Constitution Court have its decision affirmed by court."

If the court upholds the EC decision, wouldn't the court be accused of declaring someone guilty without a court trial? What's the EC Commissioner political inclination/affiliation?

How would they declare him guilty and of what? If they affirmed the EC's decision, all they do is confirm that the disqualification was done following the rules.

[Buchholz]

"Pheu Thai MP Kokaew Pikulthong said he viewed it as injustice those who "ordered the killings of 91 people" could remain in office."

PTP, MP's, red shorts and their TVF sycophants maintain the big lie - that 91 people were killed by the RTA on orders of the government. That total include members of the Thai military, and innocent bystanders killed by M-79 grenade and RPG attacks, weapons which a red-shirt has admitted to using.

If someone wishes to lay the blame for all 91 deaths, it certainly goes to the person who ordered, organised and funded the BKK insurrection, and he is no longer in office.

There a lot of up country people and a fair few urban ones who agree with Kokaew. How you see things depends pon where your sympoathies lie. Even though people may not agree with his sentiment to dismiss it or laugh it off is to miss a very critical political problem and one that there will be no meaningful reconcilliation without addressing. Reconcilliation is somthing that will not be achieved on the terms of the small minority that wont under any terms take Thaksin back (and they dont want him coming anywhere near a Thai jail cell). Thaksin is a far more powerful player than Abhisit or any other politician past or present in Thailand. That doesnt make himn right or wrong but central to resolving the current political divisions or establishing reconcilliation. Luckily most Thai people unlike many expats understand this and any resolution will be accepted by a huge majority if it is worked out and the extremists who wont accept it will be such a small minority they will be irrelevent. This is actually the fear of the ultra-nationalists wqho know they dont have numbers and that a huge number will go along with a deal as they just want it all over and understand it wont be over until a deal is reached or Thaksin wins which could take a long time.

Kokaeow also said that some of the independent checks and balances such as the EC need to be abolished as they are biased.

Red democracy- destroy all checks and balances,I remember when Thaksin controlled the EU with his own men, how he would love to return to those days, only the courts stood up to him, now apparently Thaksin is weary of trying to run the country though incompetent puppets and is itching to come back and take the helm himself.

A lot of Thai people understand Thaksin is central to reconciliation in that it is impossible with him. He has never compromised with anyone, his whole style is domination through financial resources and political clout via the working class who misguidedly see him as a hero of the disadvantaged in society.

He has done nothing but feel sorry for himself the last 5 years, no repentance, no sense of any guilt for the violence and destruction he has caused.

A lot of the Thai middle class feel that way about him, they're sick of him, and a considerable number of people upcountry really couldn't care one way or another. For them, policies, prices, job opportunities are the important issues.

Chalerm will have to tread carefully with his proposed legislation next year, for sure there will be a lot of opposition.

Excellent... as always, Siripon.

The EC is crucial for maintaining some semblance of balance. Abolishing it would be tantamount to hunting's open season.

.

[phiphidon]

Excellent... as always, Siripon.

The EC is crucial for maintaining some semblance of balance. Abolishing it would be tantamount to hunting's open season.

.

Some semblance of balance, fine but this, from the Election Commission Chairman?

Apichart: Jatuporn should have been disqualified - http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/08/04/national/Apichart-Jatuporn-should-have-been-disqualified-30161893.html

Hmm, Apichart, the same Apichart who was responsible for filing the dissolution charges against the Democrat Party but managed to do so, too late and in the wrong order, thus paving the way for the charges to be dropped. The same Apichart who, on December 17th 2010, was among the minority of EC members who said both cases should be dropped.

Now don't tell me he's politically neutral..................

[hellodolly]

"Pheu Thai MP Kokaew Pikulthong said he viewed it as injustice those who "ordered the killings of 91 people" could remain in office."

PTP, MP's, red shorts and their TVF sycophants maintain the big lie - that 91 people were killed by the RTA on orders of the government. That total include members of the Thai military, and innocent bystanders killed by M-79 grenade and RPG attacks, weapons which a red-shirt has admitted to using.

If someone wishes to lay the blame for all 91 deaths, it certainly goes to the person who ordered, organised and funded the BKK insurrection, and he is no longer in office.

There a lot of up country people and a fair few urban ones who agree with Kokaew. How you see things depends pon where your sympoathies lie. Even though people may not agree with his sentiment to dismiss it or laugh it off is to miss a very critical political problem and one that there will be no meaningful reconcilliation without addressing. Reconcilliation is somthing that will not be achieved on the terms of the small minority that wont under any terms take Thaksin back (and they dont want him coming anywhere near a Thai jail cell). Thaksin is a far more powerful player than Abhisit or any other politician past or present in Thailand. That doesnt make himn right or wrong but central to resolving the current political divisions or establishing reconcilliation. Luckily most Thai people unlike many expats understand this and any resolution will be accepted by a huge majority if it is worked out and the extremists who wont accept it will be such a small minority they will be irrelevent. This is actually the fear of the ultra-nationalists wqho know they dont have numbers and that a huge number will go along with a deal as they just want it all over and understand it wont be over until a deal is reached or Thaksin wins which could take a long time.

Sorry but I fail to see how bringing Thaksin back will bring about reconciliation. While the majority will accept it they will be doing it just to put an end to the bickering.

Remember the majority voted against the PT and of those that did vote for them some actually believed that the PT would do a good job. And some were just voting against Abhist. The truth of the matter is only a small minority think he will bring about reconciliation and most of them that think that way also think that they will get 300 baht a day working in the rice field.

To bring Thaksin back free and clear of all charges and a pardon will only deepen the rift. It will also send the message that as far as the PT is concerned corruption is OK and to hold some one accountable is politically motivated the rule of law does not apply to politicians who are corrupt.

An end to the bickering is what reconcilliation is about. The group that utterly hates Thaksin and doesnt want him anywhere near the country (and certainly not in a jail cell) are actully quite small albeit powerful and capable or rousing a bit of hatred in a bigger minority. Thaksin is popular though. Very popular and I seriously doubt anyone except Thaksin/PTP and the reds would want to run a real up or down vote on him coming back. That I see is the main problem for charter change. It will be the Thaksin back or not referendum and his opponents would go utterly insane over this. His very very real and enduring popularity is something that is hated.

Funny I thought reconciliation was the bringing together.

As for his popularity show me you talk it but there is no proof of it.

Yes he is popular with a small minority. But that is not what you are trying to get us to believe you are trying to get us to believe that he is popular with the majority of the population.

The only sure fire proof of his popularity is from the rice field workers who believe that he is going to get 300 baht a day for them.

You omitted the fact that the majority did not want the TP and of those that did you are insulting a lot of them who just believed that Yingluck could do a good job and you are pretending like no one voted for them because it was against the Democrats.

The only thing uyou were rite about was that was a quite small albeit powerful and capable or rousing a bit of hatred in a bigger minority. Who were trying to bring him back.

Edited December 1, 2011 by hellodolly

[muchogra]

Buchholoz, snorkelador:

Thanks for the replies.

The case has been clarified as reported in the other paper. The EC asked the House Speaker to seek ruling from the Constitution Court if he was disqualified as a party member under Section 106(4) of the constitution. Apparently, under the Political Party Act, a party member loses his/her membership when he/she is ordered detained in jail by the authority.

[Buchholz]

Excellent... as always, Siripon.

The EC is crucial for maintaining some semblance of balance. Abolishing it would be tantamount to hunting's open season.

.

Some semblance of balance, fine but this, from the Election Commission Chairman?

Apichart: Jatuporn should have been disqualified - http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/08/04/national/Apichart-Jatuporn-should-have-been-disqualified-30161893.html

Seems a balanced viewpoint as Jatuporn wasn't eligible to become an MP because he hadn't voted.

He stated in August what the EC eventually decided and agreed upon in November.

.

[Buchholz]

Buchholoz, snorkelador:

Thanks for the replies.

The case has been clarified as reported in the other paper. The EC asked the House Speaker to seek ruling from the Constitution Court if he was disqualified as a party member under Section 106(4) of the constitution. Apparently, under the Political Party Act, a party member loses his/her membership when he/she is ordered detained in jail by the authority.

Much appreciated the information, but it sends one or a rather circular, but followable trail...

Section 106(4) of the Constitution simply states:

Membership of the House of Representatives terminates upon being disqualified under Section 101 of the Constitution

Section 101 of the Constitution lists various qualifications to be an MP. The applicable paragraph is Section 101(3) which requires an MP be a member of a political Party.

We then go to the Organic Act on Political Parties of 1998.

Section 22 of the Organic Act lists conditions in which membership in a political Party terminates. The applicable paragraph is Section 22(3) which lists anyone being disqualified by Section 21.

Section 21 of the Organic Act states:

A person who will be a member must be of Thai nationality by birth, not less than eighteen years of age and not under any of the prohibitions to disfranchisement under the Constitution.

Which leads back to the Constitution.

Section 100 of the Constitution lists prohibitions to disfranchisement (meaning someone who is not allowed to vote).

The applicable paragraph is Section 100(3) states that anyone under detention by court order. This is the situation that Jatuporn was in.

He was jailed in pre-trial confinement after his bail was revoked for violating the bail conditions.

Phew...

[bitewhentested]

Jeez, Jatuporn change the record please, "masterman" "invisible hand", "conspiracy", you're starting to sound like one of those whacked out LSD casualties that thinks Roswell is full of aliens, the moon landings never happened and the transformers are real.

If it wasn't for the Autobots you would be speaking Decepticon right now!

there is no way the us moon landing ever happened the americans spent 1 million dollars inventing a pen that would work in zero gravity the russians used a pencil

common sence sadly lacking reminds me of here really lol

[FOODLOVER]

Jeez, Jatuporn change the record please, "masterman" "invisible hand", "conspiracy", you're starting to sound like one of those whacked out LSD casualties that thinks Roswell is full of aliens, the moon landings never happened and the transformers are real.

If it wasn't for the Autobots you would be speaking Decepticon right now!

there is no way the us moon landing ever happened the americans spent 1 million dollars inventing a pen that would work in zero gravity the russians used a pencil

common sence sadly lacking reminds me of here really lol

"This tale with its message of simplicity and thrift--not to mention a failure of common sense in a bureaucracy--floats around theInternet, hopping from in-box to in-box, and even surfaced during a 2002 episode of theWest Wing. But, alas, it is just a myth".

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-or-fiction-nasa-spen

[JohnAllan]

Here we go. Paranoia again raises its head. Jatuporn, in any guise, is a bloody menace, particularly when he is rabble rousing whilst hiding behind his parliamentary immunity. But, if his failure to vote invalidated his standing for election as an MP, the time for the EC to have acted was then, not now . . .

[animatic]

Excellent... as always, Siripon.

The EC is crucial for maintaining some semblance of balance. Abolishing it would be tantamount to hunting's open season.

.

Some semblance of balance, fine but this, from the Election Commission Chairman?

Apichart: Jatuporn should have been disqualified - http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/08/04/national/Apichart-Jatuporn-should-have-been-disqualified-30161893.html

Hmm, Apichart, the same Apichart who was responsible for filing the dissolution charges against the Democrat Party but managed to do so, too late and in the wrong order, thus paving the way for the charges to be dropped. The same Apichart who, on December 17th 2010, was among the minority of EC members who said both cases should be dropped.

Now don't tell me he's politically neutral..................

Bear in mind this is the same Apichart who filed the questionable charges against the Dems because

'The EC Offices were invaded bt a Red Mob and they and theirs were threatened if the DID NOT file'.

So he filed.

'Miraculously' there were mistakes. Possibly because he wished there to be to spite those threatening him, or simply because they screwed up, under too much pressure.

[animatic]

Buchholoz, snorkelador:

Thanks for the replies.

The case has been clarified as reported in the other paper. The EC asked the House Speaker to seek ruling from the Constitution Court if he was disqualified as a party member under Section 106(4) of the constitution. Apparently, under the Political Party Act, a party member loses his/her membership when he/she is ordered detained in jail by the authority.

Much appreciated the information, but it sends one or a rather circular, but followable trail...

Section 106(4) of the Constitution simply states:

Membership of the House of Representatives terminates upon being disqualified under Section 101 of the Constitution

Section 101 of the Constitution lists various qualifications to be an MP. The applicable paragraph is Section 101(3) which requires an MP be a member of a political Party.

We then go to the Organic Act on Political Parties of 1998.

Section 22 of the Organic Act lists conditions in which membership in a political Party terminates. The applicable paragraph is Section 22(3) which lists anyone being disqualified by Section 21.

Section 21 of the Organic Act states:

A person who will be a member must be of Thai nationality by birth, not less than eighteen years of age and not under any of the prohibitions to disfranchisement under the Constitution.

Which leads back to the Constitution.

Section 100 of the Constitution lists prohibitions to disfranchisement (meaning someone who is not allowed to vote).

The applicable paragraph is Section 100(3) states that anyone under detention by court order. This is the situation that Jatuporn was in.

He was jailed in pre-trial confinement after his bail was revoked for violating the bail conditions.

Phew...

That does sum it up in black and white.

I actual don't see why the Constitution Court must rule, other than to give the EC some cover, for doing it's job, and share the blame if the Reds hit the streets in future.

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

Constitution Section 106(4) simply states:

"Membership of the House of Representatives

terminates upon being disqualified under Section 101 of the Constitution"

Constitution Section 101(3)

requires an MP be a member of a political Party.

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

Organic Act on Political Parties of 1998. Section 21

a member must be of Thai nationality by birth, not less than eighteen years of age and not under any of the prohibitions to disfranchisement under the Constitution.

Section 22(3) which lists anyone being disqualified by Section 21.

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

Constitution Section 100(3) : prohibitions to disfranchisement ;

anyone under detention by court order.

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

Jatuporn was jailed in pre-trial confinement after

his bail was revoked for violating the bail conditions.

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

He has hung himself on his own petard, lead himself to the political gallows all on his own... The conspiracy is emanating from his own mouth.

Edited December 3, 2011 by animatic

[JAG]

Cynical I know, but I suspect that this is quite simply explained. Juttaporn, through his big mouth and idiot behaviour, has left himself vulnerable. He is the first of the prominent PT politicians to be picked off. He is the first because he is the easiest target.I've little doubt that more will follow. Hold in there Abhisit, they're only keeping your seat warm! :

[phiphidon]

Excellent... as always, Siripon.

The EC is crucial for maintaining some semblance of balance. Abolishing it would be tantamount to hunting's open season.

.

Some semblance of balance, fine but this, from the Election Commission Chairman?

Apichart: Jatuporn should have been disqualified - http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/08/04/national/Apichart-Jatuporn-should-have-been-disqualified-30161893.html

Hmm, Apichart, the same Apichart who was responsible for filing the dissolution charges against the Democrat Party but managed to do so, too late and in the wrong order, thus paving the way for the charges to be dropped. The same Apichart who, on December 17th 2010, was among the minority of EC members who said both cases should be dropped.

Now don't tell me he's politically neutral..................

Bear in mind this is the same Apichart who filed the questionable charges against the Dems because

'The EC Offices were invaded bt a Red Mob and they and theirs were threatened if the DID NOT file'.

So he filed.

'Miraculously' there were mistakes. Possibly because he wished there to be to spite those threatening him, or simply because they screwed up, under too much pressure.

The mistake he made was filing the case later than the 15 days allowed. The EC decided by a majority to file the charges against the democrats on the 17th December by a majority. The files were eventually filed by Apichart on April 26th 2010 after their meeting on the 21st April. Is there any wonder why the Red Shirts were angry and wanted the charges filed? However the court ruled that the 15 days for filing counted from the Dec 17th meeting not the April meeting and dismissed the case. Apichart as leader of the EC should have known when the case should have been filed. And this is just for the first case the 29 million Baht poster one. The second 258 Million case shouldn't have been subject to the 15 day rule but the Court ruled it was. End of Story.

Red Shirt invading offices had no effect on what was already a cock up by Apichart. Note also at the same time the infamous Judges meeting with the Democrats was also going on at this time. Some coincidence.

[animatic]

He also knew the cases were a politically motivated waste of time.

Edited December 3, 2011 by animatic

[JAG]

He also knew the cases were a politically motivated waste of time.

Which of course is absolutely not the case with Jatuporn.

[Siam Simon]

He also knew the cases were a politically motivated waste of time.

They certainly weren't a waste of time (as evidenced by the majority ruling to file them), and Apichart was clearly politically motivated. Try a different spin.

[Buchholz]

Buchholoz, snorkelador:

Thanks for the replies.

The case has been clarified as reported in the other paper. The EC asked the House Speaker to seek ruling from the Constitution Court if he was disqualified as a party member under Section 106(4) of the constitution. Apparently, under the Political Party Act, a party member loses his/her membership when he/she is ordered detained in jail by the authority.

Much appreciated the information, but it sends one or a rather circular, but followable trail...

Section 106(4) of the Constitution simply states:

Membership of the House of Representatives terminates upon being disqualified under Section 101 of the Constitution

Section 101 of the Constitution lists various qualifications to be an MP. The applicable paragraph is Section 101(3) which requires an MP be a member of a political Party.

We then go to the Organic Act on Political Parties of 1998.

Section 22 of the Organic Act lists conditions in which membership in a political Party terminates. The applicable paragraph is Section 22(3) which lists anyone being disqualified by Section 21.

Section 21 of the Organic Act states:

A person who will be a member must be of Thai nationality by birth, not less than eighteen years of age and not under any of the prohibitions to disfranchisement under the Constitution.

Which leads back to the Constitution.

Section 100 of the Constitution lists prohibitions to disfranchisement (meaning someone who is not allowed to vote).

The applicable paragraph is Section 100(3) states that anyone under detention by court order. This is the situation that Jatuporn was in.

He was jailed in pre-trial confinement after his bail was revoked for violating the bail conditions.

Phew...

That does sum it up in black and white.

I actual don't see why the Constitution Court must rule, other than to give the EC some cover, for doing it's job, and share the blame if the Reds hit the streets in future.

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

Constitution Section 106(4) simply states:

"Membership of the House of Representatives

terminates upon being disqualified under Section 101 of the Constitution"

Constitution Section 101(3)

requires an MP be a member of a political Party.

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

Organic Act on Political Parties of 1998. Section 21

a member must be of Thai nationality by birth, not less than eighteen years of age and not under any of the prohibitions to disfranchisement under the Constitution.

Section 22(3) which lists anyone being disqualified by Section 21.

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

Constitution Section 100(3) : prohibitions to disfranchisement ;

anyone under detention by court order.

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

Jatuporn was jailed in pre-trial confinement after

his bail was revoked for violating the bail conditions.

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

He has hung himself on his own petard, lead himself to the political gallows all on his own... The conspiracy is emanating from his own mouth.

Returning to the topic of the thread...

Indeed, the situation of his being disqualified is directly emanating from his own actions.

.

[pastitche]

Buchholoz, snorkelador:

Thanks for the replies.

The case has been clarified as reported in the other paper. The EC asked the House Speaker to seek ruling from the Constitution Court if he was disqualified as a party member under Section 106(4) of the constitution. Apparently, under the Political Party Act, a party member loses his/her membership when he/she is ordered detained in jail by the authority.

Much appreciated the information, but it sends one or a rather circular, but followable trail...

Section 106(4) of the Constitution simply states:

Membership of the House of Representatives terminates upon being disqualified under Section 101 of the Constitution

Section 101 of the Constitution lists various qualifications to be an MP. The applicable paragraph is Section 101(3) which requires an MP be a member of a political Party.

We then go to the Organic Act on Political Parties of 1998.

Section 22 of the Organic Act lists conditions in which membership in a political Party terminates. The applicable paragraph is Section 22(3) which lists anyone being disqualified by Section 21.

Section 21 of the Organic Act states:

A person who will be a member must be of Thai nationality by birth, not less than eighteen years of age and not under any of the prohibitions to disfranchisement under the Constitution.

Which leads back to the Constitution.

Section 100 of the Constitution lists prohibitions to disfranchisement (meaning someone who is not allowed to vote).

The applicable paragraph is Section 100(3) states that anyone under detention by court order. This is the situation that Jatuporn was in.

He was jailed in pre-trial confinement after his bail was revoked for violating the bail conditions.

Phew...

All that effort and I believe that you may still have got it wrong; Section 100(3) refers to prohibition from voting so that applies.

Section 101 lists prohibitions from candidature - the appropriate sub-sections 101(3) and 101(4) say:-

101 (3) "being disfranchised under section 100(1), (2) or (4) Section 100(3) is not included

101(4) "having been sentenced by a judgement to imprisonment and being detained by a warrant of the Court"

So that appears to say that he had no right to vote but was entitled to be a candidate and therefore can retain his status as MP.

The appropriate Sub-sections in Section 106 refer to disqualification or prohibition under Section 101 so appear irrelevant also.

[Buchholz]

Buchholoz, snorkelador:

Thanks for the replies.

The case has been clarified as reported in the other paper. The EC asked the House Speaker to seek ruling from the Constitution Court if he was disqualified as a party member under Section 106(4) of the constitution. Apparently, under the Political Party Act, a party member loses his/her membership when he/she is ordered detained in jail by the authority.

Much appreciated the information, but it sends one or a rather circular, but followable trail...

Section 106(4) of the Constitution simply states:

Membership of the House of Representatives terminates upon being disqualified under Section 101 of the Constitution

Section 101 of the Constitution lists various qualifications to be an MP. The applicable paragraph is Section 101(3) which requires an MP be a member of a political Party.

We then go to the Organic Act on Political Parties of 1998.

Section 22 of the Organic Act lists conditions in which membership in a political Party terminates. The applicable paragraph is Section 22(3) which lists anyone being disqualified by Section 21.

Section 21 of the Organic Act states:

A person who will be a member must be of Thai nationality by birth, not less than eighteen years of age and not under any of the prohibitions to disfranchisement under the Constitution.

Which leads back to the Constitution.

Section 100 of the Constitution lists prohibitions to disfranchisement (meaning someone who is not allowed to vote).

The applicable paragraph is Section 100(3) states that anyone under detention by court order. This is the situation that Jatuporn was in.

He was jailed in pre-trial confinement after his bail was revoked for violating the bail conditions.

Phew...

All that effort and I believe that you may still have got it wrong; Section 100(3) refers to prohibition from voting so that applies.

Section 101 lists prohibitions from candidature - the appropriate sub-sections 101(3) and 101(4) say:-

101 (3) "being disfranchised under section 100(1), (2) or (4) Section 100(3) is not included

101(4) "having been sentenced by a judgement to imprisonment and being detained by a warrant of the Court"

You are quoting from Section 102 of the constitution, not 101.

So that appears to say that he had no right to vote but was entitled to be a candidate and therefore can retain his status as MP.

The appropriate Sub-sections in Section 106 refer to disqualification or prohibition under Section 101 so appear irrelevant also.

Jatuporn loses his MP status on either of two counts.

He didn't vote by virtue of being under detention. By not voting, he was ineligible to run for office.

He also lost his Party membership, making him ineligible to become an MP.

.

[goldankauf]

i realy wonder how they ever can aprove him since it was clear since years that this guy is the wrong person to hold a PM status

[metisdead]

An insult and baiting session has been removed.

[animatic]

i realy wonder how they ever can aprove him since it was clear since years that this guy is the wrong person to hold a PM status

That criteria would make it hard to fill the parliament at all!

Edited December 4, 2011 by animatic

[pastitche]

In response to post #56

Bucholz you are of course correct that I quoted the wrong Section but that does not invalidate the point that the Constitution debarred Jutaporn from voting but did not debar him from being a candidate.

What has screwed him is in fact the Organic Act on Political Parties which removes his membership of a political party when he is in pre-trial custody and therefore unable to vote, a piece of legislation that I find rather strange but it is of course the law.

If it had been another more palatable politician arrested and detained for a different type of offence (drunk driving for instance), the same law would have applied and that makes me wonder why it was enacted in the first place