Democrats Consider Seeking Pheu Thai Dissolution

[webfact]

Democrats consider seeking Pheu Thai dissolution

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The opposition Democrat Party is wondering whether to seek a court order for the dissolution of ruling Pheu Thai Party in connection with the disqualification of a party MP, who was found to have used false documents to contest last year's general elections.

Democrat MP Wirut Kalayasiri said yesterday that the party was collecting evidence to determine whether Pheu Thai had fielded this candidate despite being aware that he was not qualified.

"We will see if any Pheu Thai executives were involved in or abetted this fraud. If so, we will take action and petition for the party's dissolution," the opposition MP said.

Earlier this week, the Election Commission disqualified Pheu Thai MP for Nakhon Sawan, Dissathat Kamprakob, after he was found to have been a resident of the constituency for less than five years.

According to the Constitution, an election candidate needs to have his or her name on house registration documents for a consecutive period of no less than five years.

Wirut, a Democrat legal expert, said yesterday that initial examination found that Dissathat had used the ID card of his younger brother Dissathai, who was accused by the Democrats of having changed his first name into Dissathat - the same as his elder brother's.

Yesterday, Wirut said it appeared that Dissathat, the Pheu Thai candidate, had used falsified documents and filed a false report with officials, in addition to coercing a local official to certify his residency documents.

-- The Nation 2012-03-17

[OzMick]

Why move to dissolve PTP on such paltry grounds, which will only cause more claims of judicial activism. Surely the involvement of Thaksin would be stronger cause and more easily provable.

Looks like the bros might be facing facing fraud charges (conspiracy to defraud?)

[KKvampire]

Surely any "practices of the sort" are a requirement to be PTP candidate?

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

Edited March 17, 2012 by KKvampire

[yoshiwara]

The one clear reason for dissolving the PTP would be the evidence that it was being openly directed by an exiled wanted criminal. Even the PTP know that formally they cannot openly admit to this, so they go through endless contortions denying that they do. The fallout is that the PM, Yingluck is compromised by the necessary lying and whose credibility dissolves every time she is forced to deny what is patently true. No wonder that every time she is cornered she wants to run away.

[whybother]

It would be a pointless exercise to dissolve PT.

They'll just regenerate as a new proxy party for Thaksin.

[volk666]

The country has no appetite for dissolutions anymore so it's a non-starter, on the other hand it's also an admission that falsification of documents is perfectly alright and the main rule of the elections is that there are no rules, or rather that the rules are silly.

Maybe people of Nakhon Sawan don't care that they have elected a guy who doesn't live there, maybe they want it that way. Poor sod was forced to lie and cheat just to satisfy people's will. Or that other guy a couple of years ago who had to get himself a fake university degree to qualify for elections. People love him, whether he went to the university or just got himself a fake paper. These rules are silly, they are not designed for a country like Thailand and Democrats should realize that.

They are just holding the society to standards way higher than it deserves.

If, on the other hand, PTP agrees to play by the rules, then party should be held responsible for their executives involved in the electoral fraud (if the link is found in this case). Otherwise it's just a blank check to cheat as much as you can, it's only the minions you select to run who will suffer while the party wins the right to rule. They are never going to have clean elections with rules like that.

Edited March 17, 2012 by volk666

[phiphidon]

Why move to dissolve PTP on such paltry grounds, which will only cause more claims of judicial activism. Surely the involvement of Thaksin would be stronger cause and more easily provable.

Looks like the bros might be facing facing fraud charges (conspiracy to defraud?)

Why not try and win an expletive deleted election - might be a better way.

[phiphidon]

The country has no appetite for dissolutions anymore so it's a non-starter, on the other hand it's also an admission that falsification of documents is perfectly alright and the main rule of the elections is that there are no rules, or rather that the rules are silly.

Maybe people of Nakhon Sawan don't care that they have elected a guy who doesn't live there, maybe they want it that way. Poor sod was forced to lie and cheat just to satisfy people's will. Or that other guy a couple of years ago who had to get himself a fake university degree to qualify for elections. People love him, whether he went to the university or just got himself a fake paper. These rules are silly, they are not designed for a country like Thailand and Democrats should realize that.

They are just holding the society to standards way higher than it deserves.

If, on the other hand, PTP agrees to play by the rules, then party should be held responsible for their executives involved in the electoral fraud (if the link is found in this case). Otherwise it's just a blank check to cheat as much as you can, it's only the minions you select to run who will suffer while the party wins the right to rule. They are never going to have clean elections with rules like that.

Now maybe people will realise why the democrats are so against any amendment to the constitution. If they can't get elected by normal means they have to rely on rules like this.

[OzMick]

Why move to dissolve PTP on such paltry grounds, which will only cause more claims of judicial activism. Surely the involvement of Thaksin would be stronger cause and more easily provable.

Looks like the bros might be facing facing fraud charges (conspiracy to defraud?)

Why not try and win an expletive deleted election - might be a better way.

With open slather on electoral fraud, vote-buying and -rigging? Why have rules, the ends justifies the means, or at least makes it acceptable in the eyes of red sycophants?

I stated that I don't think this is grounds for dissolution, but if PTP can't select their candidates any better than this crook they deserve to lose the seat. And a by-election might be an interesting indicator of their supposed unassailable grip on the electorate and the popularity of their seemingly unobtainable populist policies. Certainly it would be scrutinised so closely that vote-buying would be much riskier.

[volk666]

If they can't get elected by normal means they have to rely on rules like this.

My point was that these "normal means" look abhorrent to many.

Personally, I think it's quite normal to demand that a person representing a constituency has some ties to it and is not being parachuted from somewhere just for the elections, hence five year residence requirement.

Now this guy has two id cards, falsified his residency papers, had his brother change his name to match his own, and it's all somehow Democrat's fault for crying foul. Okay.

[OzMick]

The country has no appetite for dissolutions anymore so it's a non-starter, on the other hand it's also an admission that falsification of documents is perfectly alright and the main rule of the elections is that there are no rules, or rather that the rules are silly.

Maybe people of Nakhon Sawan don't care that they have elected a guy who doesn't live there, maybe they want it that way. Poor sod was forced to lie and cheat just to satisfy people's will. Or that other guy a couple of years ago who had to get himself a fake university degree to qualify for elections. People love him, whether he went to the university or just got himself a fake paper. These rules are silly, they are not designed for a country like Thailand and Democrats should realize that.

They are just holding the society to standards way higher than it deserves.

If, on the other hand, PTP agrees to play by the rules, then party should be held responsible for their executives involved in the electoral fraud (if the link is found in this case). Otherwise it's just a blank check to cheat as much as you can, it's only the minions you select to run who will suffer while the party wins the right to rule. They are never going to have clean elections with rules like that.

Now maybe people will realise why the democrats are so against any amendment to the constitution. If they can't get elected by normal means they have to rely on rules like this.

55555 Read it again and try to comprehend what he was saying <deleted>.

[yoshiwara]

Why don's all the democarts just go and hang themselves and die.....what have they themselves done to improve the country when they were in power.......are they so stain free of corruption themselves......they have lost the support of the majority...The democrats only cater for the needs of the greedy hi-sos and rich thai chinese companies. I rather have a one party government , even if they are corrupted but at least endorsed by the majority.

"The democrats only cater for the needs of the greedy hi-sos and rich thai chinese companies."

I didn't realise the Democrats only catered for the PTP politicians and red shirt leaders and their companies.

One of the fascinating aspects of the 2010 riots was the disconnect between the propaganda being pumped out by the reds for the benefit of the Western press and the rubbish being pushed out to their own supporters. They are usually careful with this, but occasionally the mask slips and the nastiness (the supporter stuff) slips out. One of these is the anti-Chinese nationalist/racist attacks which plays well in the fields. It is indicative of a level of support in a constituency ostensibly coloured red but actually shading brown. Loved by the declasse and petty-bourgeois all over. The weird thing is that when it is pointed out that Thaksin is from Chinese stock, they go strangely quiet, disappear and then reappear with the same nonsense a few months later having another go. The hi-so attack (while steering well clear of the north-eastern landowners) was nicely mixed up by Thaksin with an attack on gays when he famously attacked Abhisit for being guided by a coterie of homosexual hi-sos. The problem with the PTP or rather Thaksin is that there is continuous form for breaking the law both covertly and overtly. The parliamentary party has always been expendable to him. Winning an election is just one part of his project. Total state power is his objective. And so the risks of having the party banned are an integral part of what he does.

[volk666]

...

I stated that I don't think this is grounds for dissolution, but if PTP can't select their candidates any better than this crook they deserve to lose the seat. And a by-election might be an interesting indicator of their supposed unassailable grip on the electorate and the popularity of their seemingly unobtainable populist policies. Certainly it would be scrutinised so closely that vote-buying would be much riskier.

The allegation is not that just PTP selected candidate was a crook, the allegation is that PTP at least tacitly supported the cheating. Now the politicians argue that the party shouldn't be punished for such support and want to change that article in the Constitution.

They say that dissolving parties nonsense has gone for long enough to be scrapped. On the other hand if this kind of punishment doesn't seem to deter them then dissolving parties is probably not enough, or they just have to legitimize the cheating, that way the laws will not be broken anymore.

[AleG]

The country has no appetite for dissolutions anymore so it's a non-starter, on the other hand it's also an admission that falsification of documents is perfectly alright and the main rule of the elections is that there are no rules, or rather that the rules are silly.

Maybe people of Nakhon Sawan don't care that they have elected a guy who doesn't live there, maybe they want it that way. Poor sod was forced to lie and cheat just to satisfy people's will. Or that other guy a couple of years ago who had to get himself a fake university degree to qualify for elections. People love him, whether he went to the university or just got himself a fake paper. These rules are silly, they are not designed for a country like Thailand and Democrats should realize that.

They are just holding the society to standards way higher than it deserves.

If, on the other hand, PTP agrees to play by the rules, then party should be held responsible for their executives involved in the electoral fraud (if the link is found in this case). Otherwise it's just a blank check to cheat as much as you can, it's only the minions you select to run who will suffer while the party wins the right to rule. They are never going to have clean elections with rules like that.

Now maybe people will realise why the democrats are so against any amendment to the constitution. If they can't get elected by normal means they have to rely on rules like this.

Don't you apply the same to the systematic election fraud methods from all iterations of Thaksin's party?

[Buchholz]

The country has no appetite for dissolutions anymore so it's a non-starter, on the other hand it's also an admission that falsification of documents is perfectly alright and the main rule of the elections is that there are no rules, or rather that the rules are silly.

Maybe people of Nakhon Sawan don't care that they have elected a guy who doesn't live there, maybe they want it that way. Poor sod was forced to lie and cheat just to satisfy people's will. Or that other guy a couple of years ago who had to get himself a fake university degree to qualify for elections. People love him, whether he went to the university or just got himself a fake paper. These rules are silly, they are not designed for a country like Thailand and Democrats should realize that.

They are just holding the society to standards way higher than it deserves.

If, on the other hand, PTP agrees to play by the rules, then party should be held responsible for their executives involved in the electoral fraud (if the link is found in this case). Otherwise it's just a blank check to cheat as much as you can, it's only the minions you select to run who will suffer while the party wins the right to rule. They are never going to have clean elections with rules like that.

Now maybe people will realise why the democrats are so against any amendment to the constitution. If they can't get elected by normal means they have to rely on rules like this.

Don't you apply the same to the systematic election fraud methods from all iterations of Thaksin's party?

That's always been the kicker with the dissolution... The TRT/PPP committed blatant electoral fraud even where there was no need to. Even in districts where they were already assured victory in the elections, they committed the frauds that resulted in the banishment.

If they weren't so bent on being dishonest just for dishonesty sake, the 3 Stooges-like parties wouldn't have been tossed.

In the case of the PPP, they demonstrated their "slow learner" status by repeating the electoral fraud that got the TRT banned.

.

.

[phiphidon]

The country has no appetite for dissolutions anymore so it's a non-starter, on the other hand it's also an admission that falsification of documents is perfectly alright and the main rule of the elections is that there are no rules, or rather that the rules are silly.

Maybe people of Nakhon Sawan don't care that they have elected a guy who doesn't live there, maybe they want it that way. Poor sod was forced to lie and cheat just to satisfy people's will. Or that other guy a couple of years ago who had to get himself a fake university degree to qualify for elections. People love him, whether he went to the university or just got himself a fake paper. These rules are silly, they are not designed for a country like Thailand and Democrats should realize that.

They are just holding the society to standards way higher than it deserves.

If, on the other hand, PTP agrees to play by the rules, then party should be held responsible for their executives involved in the electoral fraud (if the link is found in this case). Otherwise it's just a blank check to cheat as much as you can, it's only the minions you select to run who will suffer while the party wins the right to rule. They are never going to have clean elections with rules like that.

Now maybe people will realise why the democrats are so against any amendment to the constitution. If they can't get elected by normal means they have to rely on rules like this.

55555 Read it again and try to comprehend what he was saying <deleted>.

"or that the rules are silly". So here we have an individual who looks like he's committed some kind of fraud to contest the election. Fair, enough, if true, ban him, hold another election for the post and contest that. But there is a rule (brought in by the junta appointed EC in the 2007 constitution) that if it can be "proved" by the EC that there is a chance that someone on the Party Executive who knew about it, then the whole partiy is banned. So what is the first thing the democrats do? Scramble around looking for links to the executive;

"We will see if any Pheu Thai executives were involved in or abetted this fraud. If so, we will take action and petition for the party's dissolution," the opposition MP said.

Why can they not use their energy looking at why they lose elections?

[AleG]

...

Why can they not use their energy looking at why they lose elections?

Have you considered the possibility that they lose elections in part because if this sort of antics by Team Thaksin?

Please explain why opposition parties shouldn't go after electoral irregularities with the full weight of the law. Extra points in explaining why not doing so would be better for democracy.

[OzMick]

Why can they not use their energy looking at why they lose elections?

In words of one syllable or less:

there are rules

obey them

you don't lose your party if you obey the rules

if the threat of losing your party is not enough, maybe you should go to jail if you break the rules

both sides should, and have the right to, make sure both sides obey the rules

[rubl]

...

"or that the rules are silly". So here we have an individual who looks like he's committed some kind of fraud to contest the election. Fair, enough, if true, ban him, hold another election for the post and contest that. But there is a rule (brought in by the junta appointed EC in the 2007 constitution) that if it can be "proved" by the EC that there is a chance that someone on the Party Executive who knew about it, then the whole partiy is banned. So what is the first thing the democrats do? Scramble around looking for links to the executive;

...

The dissolution of TRT was ruled under the 1997 constitution.

1. The final verdict was broadcasted live on national television on May 30, 2007 by the Constitutional Tribunal appointed by the Council for National Security.

2. CONSTITUTION OF THE KINGDOM OF THAILAND,

B.E. 2550 (2007)

Enacted on the 24th Day of August B.E. 2550;

Being the 62 Year of the Present Reign.

The 1997 constitution has

"

Section 328

In addition to the provisions of this Constitution, the organic law on political parties shall at least contain the following matters as its substance:

1) the formation of a political party, which shall be carried out by at least not less than fifteen persons, and the entry of the formation of a political party in the Register of Political Parties;

2) the dissolution of a political party; provided that failure of a political party to send candidates to stand for election or to have a member who has been elected in an election shall not be invoked as a ground for the dissolution;

3) the conduct of activities of a political party and the preparation of report on the operation of a political party;

4) the support to be given by the State in the formation and the development of branches of a political party;

5) financial support or other benefits to be given by the State to a political party, the limitation of expenditure of a political party in an election, and the control of the donation to a political party;

6) the examination of a financial status of a political party including the examination and the disclosure of income sources and expenditure of a political party;

7) the preparation of an account indicating revenues and expenses of a political party and an account indicating assets and liabilities of a political party, which must disclose its income sources and annual expenditure in every calendar year, for submission to the Election Commission for examination and publication."

http://www.asianlii....nst/1997/1.html

The 2007 constitution has:

"Section 68. No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person.

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes a decision compelling the political party to cease to commit the act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order the dissolution of such political party.

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes the dissolution order under paragraph three, the right to vote of the President and the executive board of directors of the dissolved political party at the time the act under paragraph one has been committed shall be suspended for the period of five years as from the date the Constitutional Court makes such order.

Section 69. A person shall have the right to resist peacefully an act committed for the acquisition of the power to rule the country by a means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution."

http://www.asianlii....nst/2007/1.html

Edited March 17, 2012 by rubl

[473geo]

Democrats are making a point, excuse for failure, empty threat.............

Let us await the result of their consideration.........

My money is on the guy being removed.......

Can Thaksin take his place when his ban from politics expires and then claim immunity?

Edited March 17, 2012 by 473geo

[473geo]

Congratulations to the Thaksin chasing Democrat legal team on their sterling efforts.........at last they 'got their man'.......well a man at least

[Buchholz]

My money is on the guy being removed.......

Pretty safe bet ....

Pheu Thai Party MP disqualified

The Election Commission has disqualified Pheu Thai MP Distad Khumprakob on the grounds for failing to live at least five years in his Nakhon Sawan constituency.

Under the elections law, an electoral candidate must maintain a minimum of five-year residence in a given constituency before qualifying for the race.

EC member Sodsri Satayathum said on Wednesday that Distad, a first-time MP, had his domicile for less than three years before the July 3 elections.

Based on the EC ruling, his name appeared on two house registrations, one in Bangkok and another in Nakhon Sawan.

He also had two identification cards.

[473geo]

Sometimes my vision astounds even me.......even if he was kicked out 3 days ago......

Then this is a dead end.............

Democrats sabre rattling............or............The Nation trying to fill on a slow news day

[rubl]

Democrats are making a point, excuse for failure, empty threat.............

Let us await the result of their consideration.........

My money is on the guy being removed.......

Can Thaksin take his place when his ban from politics expires and then claim immunity?

K. Thaksin's original ban may expire May 2012, but his being a convicted criminal means he may not stand for elections, neither may he accept or even be offered a position in government. The law can be tough.

[metisdead]

Just a reminder that posts using derogatory nicknames or intentional misspelling of people’s names will be deleted. If you don’t want your post to be deleted, spell people’s names correctly.

[phiphidon]

...

"or that the rules are silly". So here we have an individual who looks like he's committed some kind of fraud to contest the election. Fair, enough, if true, ban him, hold another election for the post and contest that. But there is a rule (brought in by the junta appointed EC in the 2007 constitution) that if it can be "proved" by the EC that there is a chance that someone on the Party Executive who knew about it, then the whole partiy is banned. So what is the first thing the democrats do? Scramble around looking for links to the executive;

...

The dissolution of TRT was ruled under the 1997 constitution.

1. The final verdict was broadcasted live on national television on May 30, 2007 by the Constitutional Tribunal appointed by the Council for National Security.

2. CONSTITUTION OF THE KINGDOM OF THAILAND,

B.E. 2550 (2007)

Enacted on the 24th Day of August B.E. 2550;

Being the 62 Year of the Present Reign.

The 1997 constitution has

"

Section 328

In addition to the provisions of this Constitution, the organic law on political parties shall at least contain the following matters as its substance:

1) the formation of a political party, which shall be carried out by at least not less than fifteen persons, and the entry of the formation of a political party in the Register of Political Parties;

2) the dissolution of a political party; provided that failure of a political party to send candidates to stand for election or to have a member who has been elected in an election shall not be invoked as a ground for the dissolution;

3) the conduct of activities of a political party and the preparation of report on the operation of a political party;

4) the support to be given by the State in the formation and the development of branches of a political party;

5) financial support or other benefits to be given by the State to a political party, the limitation of expenditure of a political party in an election, and the control of the donation to a political party;

6) the examination of a financial status of a political party including the examination and the disclosure of income sources and expenditure of a political party;

7) the preparation of an account indicating revenues and expenses of a political party and an account indicating assets and liabilities of a political party, which must disclose its income sources and annual expenditure in every calendar year, for submission to the Election Commission for examination and publication."

http://www.asianlii....nst/1997/1.html

The 2007 constitution has:

"Section 68. No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person.

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes a decision compelling the political party to cease to commit the act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order the dissolution of such political party.

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes the dissolution order under paragraph three, the right to vote of the President and the executive board of directors of the dissolved political party at the time the act under paragraph one has been committed shall be suspended for the period of five years as from the date the Constitutional Court makes such order.

Section 69. A person shall have the right to resist peacefully an act committed for the acquisition of the power to rule the country by a means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution."

http://www.asianlii....nst/2007/1.html

Thats because the Junta introduced a new law and then applied it retrospectively!

Asia correspondent explains it so much better than I could in their "guide" "How to defeat the TRT"

Step 1: Stage a coup and rescind the Constitution.

Step 2: Introduce a new law, which applies restrospectively, by issuing an Announcement.

The Nation reports:

In Announcement No 27, another legally binding order that could also have a great impact, the CDR amended the Political Parties Act to provide for punishment of executives of any political party dissolved for violating the law.

With the order, political party executives will be stripped of their electoral rights for five years if a court orders their party to be dissolved. This will effectively keeps the party’s leaders out of politics for at least two four-year terms of the House of Representatives.

Originally, the law banned executives of a dissolved political party from forming a new party or becoming executives in a new party, but they were free to contest a new election.

Note: That old “law” was the 1997 Constitution.

Well actually, No

Prior to the coup, section 328 of the 1997 Constitution required the organic law (ie an Act of Parliament) to provide for dissolution of a political party, but it was the Organic Act On Political Parties, B.E. 2541 (1998) which actually provides the specifics for the dissolution of a political party and punishment. Section 69 provides:

In the case where a political party has been dissolved upon inconformity with section 35 or section 62 or committing any act under section 66, a person who used to be a member of the Executive Committee of the dissolved political party shall not, within the period of five years as form the date of the dissolution, apply for the formation of a new political party, be a member of an Executive Committee of political party nor be a promotor of a new political party under section 8.

COMMENT: So yes the law has changed as The Nation said, it is an amendment with retrospective effect.

Step 3: Appoint the judges who will decide the case under the retrospective law. (Well we know that the Junta did that).

http://asiancorrespondent.com/20033/how-to-defeat-thai-rak-thai/

Edited March 17, 2012 by phiphidon

[hyperdimension]

K. Thaksin's original ban may expire May 2012, but his being a convicted criminal means he may not stand for elections, neither may he accept or even be offered a position in government.

He already has a position in this government as an advisor (and blessing giver), although he is not on the official government payroll.

[tlansford]

Democrats are making a point, excuse for failure, empty threat.............

Let us await the result of their consideration.........

My money is on the guy being removed.......

Can Thaksin take his place when his ban from politics expires and then claim immunity?

"Can Thaksin take his place when his ban from politics expires and then claim immunity?"

Now that is a sense of humor !

[newjobs61]

Get rid of the lot of these crap heads

and start all over again and get a real ruling party in this place

FORGET ABOUT TAKSIN LIVE AND LEARN

[rubl]

.. cut some quotes, post got very long. Original still has all ..

Thats because the Junta introduced a new law and then applied it retrospectively!

Asia correspondent explains it so much better than I could in their "guide" "How to defeat the TRT"

Panikabutara Coorey, Pornsakol --- "The evolution of the rule of law in Thailand: The Thai constitutions" [2008] UNSWLRS 45

Last Updated: 12 December 2008

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLRS/2008/45.html

"

10. Arguable interpretation of the retrospective principle in the area of electoral law

When considering the doctrine in the context of criminal law, it cannot be denied that the formal legality of the rule of law which requires law to be prospective has theoretically and practically gained a strong momentum. The above examples clearly indicate that the Court is ready to strike out any unpredictable law. However, when the doctrine is applied in the context of electoral law, the interpretation of such doctrine may not render a clear result as it does in the criminal case. It is concerned that the formal legality on the prospective law may not be appropriately interpreted in the case where the Thai Rak Thai Party of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was ordered to be dissolved and the members were revoked the political rights by the Constitutional Tribunal.<a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLRS/2008/45.html#fn68" name="fnB68">[68]

The decision for the dissolution of the Party was relied on the Declaration of the Council for Democratic Reform (No.27) (“the Declaration”) which was the applicable law before the 2006 interim constitution was promulgated.[69] Harsh criticism of the decision is inevitable since the Tribunal based its decision on the Declaration which was approved by the coup. The primary concern of such criticism is whether the Declaration could render the retrospective effect on the corrupted political activities which had been committed before the military coup has taken control of the country.

According to section 3 of the Declaration, the executive member of the disbanded political party is prohibited from engaging in any electoral activity for 5 years.[70] By dissolving the Thai Rak Thai Party, the Tribunal therefore revoked the electoral rights of the Party’s executive members. The Party was banned on the ground that two senior members had hired small political parties to artificially run in the general election on 2 April 2006 in order for Thai Rak Thai Party to win the election.[71] However, the hiring was committed before the Declaration became effective and if the Declaration was applicable to the case, is this the example of the violation of the rule of law?

In answering “no” to the question, six out of nine judges of the Constitutional Tribunal agree that the revocation of the electoral rights is not a criminal penalty. It was only a legal measure derived from the effect of law which entitles the dissolution of a political party engaging in prohibited acts under the Organic Act on Political Parties (1998).[72] By deeming that such revocation is not a penalty, the retroactive effect can take place without interfering the rule of law. It is further affirmed by the majority of the judges that the rule of law as against the retroactive legislation could be tainted only when the retroactive legislation renders the criminal punishment to the respondent.

The opponent of the decision argue that even though the revocation of the electoral rights is a criminal penalty, the fact that such revocation renders a retroactive effect has proved that the law is not prospective.[73] Whether the decision is sensible in the eye of the rule of law scholars depends on how the principle of retroactive law can be interpreted. Even though the decision leaves some room for controversy especially for those who lost their political rights, it is admitted that the existence of the retrospective law principle in the Thai constitutions is secured at a satisfactory level. This is particularly true for those laws which contain the criminal penalty because the Court of Justice has never failed to overthrow such retroactive legislations.[74]

"