Panel Agrees To Get Rid Of Thai Party-Dissolution Penalty

[webfact]

Panel agrees to get rid of party-dissolution penalty
The Nation



BANGKOK: -- Members of the ad-hoc parliamentary committee vetting the constitutional amendment bill yesterday agreed to amend Article 237 of the charter to remove the penalty of political party dissolution.

However, they could not agree on whether to increase the penalty against any political party executive found to be involved in or abetting electoral fraud - an offence that could result in the disbanding of the political party involved.

Members of the panel, consisting of both MPs and senators, could not agree on the proposed amendment to Article 68 of the Constitution, which would prevent people from petitioning the Constitutional Court directly in the case of an attempt to overthrow a democratic administration.

The amendment would force members of the public to petition via the Attorney-General's Office.

Opposition MPs from the Democrat Party in the panel said the proposed amendment to Article 68 was tantamount to limiting the right of members of the public.

Democrat MP Thaworn Senneam, a former public prosecutor, said during the committee's meeting yesterday that public prosecutors - particularly some senior ones - have been close to politicians and enjoyed extra benefits offered by politicians in power, such as being appointed to executive boards of cash-rich state enterprises.

"There is a chance public prosecutors may side with the government, so the public should be allowed another channel to bring their case to court," he said.

Senator Direk Thuengfang, who chaired yesterday's meeting, said that the proposed amendment to Article 68 was aimed at providing a "way out" for the country.

The committee is scheduled to convene next on April 24, when experts on matters regarding Articles 68 and 237 will be invited to provide their input. These include certain drafters of the 1997 and 2007 constitutions, legal expert Bokhin Palakula, former Thammasat University rector Surapon Nitikraipoj, and leader of the 2006 coup General Sondhi Boonyaratglin.


-- The Nation 2013-04-11

[Pib]

Summary: reduce the penalties for political wrongdoing.

[ZhouZhou]

wasn't it yesterday or that day before that someone said that the thaksin party take the same steps like hitler in germany and a future step will be that they are making up excuses to ban other political parties to become a one party state?

well i guess that argument was wrong. They are doing the opposite.

it is a good step for democracy. remember the dark day when the election winner and coalition parties got banned. judicial coup it was called. and the party that could never win an election was able to install that Abhist as PM. brought a lot of chaos and instability to the country. no good for democracy if you don't accept the people choice.

[HAL9000]

Disbanding a party unfairly disenfranchises voters. As with all crime, punishment should be limited to those individuals found guilty.

[MikeOboe57]

As the party benefits form criminal acts of a member it should face the consequences - unless the member in question is kicked out immediateley and gets a lifetime ban.

It is easy and works nicely in democracies.

[15Peter20]

This is a great idea. Will hopefully block a lot of the time-wasting smearing going on against both parties and let government and opposition do their jobs more effectively.

[Buchholz]

Disbanding a party unfairly disenfranchises voters. As with all crime, punishment should be limited to those individuals found guilty.

Not disbanding a party fairly disenfranchises voters. The election law works against racketeering and co-conspirators, much like the RICO Act works.

If the offense is committed by the Party Executives, it's presumed they, unlike the rank and file MP's, are all in on it.

If the Party Executives are corrupt, it's considered best to scrap the party and start all over rather then leave it executive-less.

Rather than removing it, it needs to be strengthened if Thailand is really desirous of a change from the status quo. Currently, banishment from politics is tooth-less and thus ineffective.

.

[Buchholz]

As the party benefits form criminal acts of a member it should face the consequences - unless the member in question is kicked out immediately and gets a lifetime ban.

It is easy and works nicely in democracies.

.

It needs to be a Party Executive involved in the criminal activity such as electoral fraud, and not just a member, for the Party to be dissolved.

You're right about all members benefiting from the ill deeds of their Executives, however, the law is saying that if the Party is so bad that Party Executives, and not just some low-level MP, are tainted, it's justifiably not worth keeping the Party.

Even a lifetime ban is ineffective if violating it means nothing, as it does now.

..

Edited April 11, 2013 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

Summary: reduce the penalties for political wrongdoing.

.

a valid summary

.

[whybother]

wasn't it yesterday or that day before that someone said that the thaksin party take the same steps like hitler in germany and a future step will be that they are making up excuses to ban other political parties to become a one party state?

well i guess that argument was wrong. They are doing the opposite.

it is a good step for democracy. remember the dark day when the election winner and coalition parties got banned. judicial coup it was called. and the party that could never win an election was able to install that Abhist as PM. brought a lot of chaos and instability to the country. no good for democracy if you don't accept the people choice.

The Democrats were able to form a coalition government because a faction of the disbanded party decided that they didn't want to back the new party.

By-elections were held to replace banned MPs, and then Abhisit was able to be elected PM by a majority of elected MPs.

The people that brought a lot of chaos and instability to the country were those that didn't understand how the PM is elected and governments formed. They all had elected representation, so they should have taken it up with their representatives if they didn't agree with who they, individually, were supporting.

[SOTIRIOS]

.......so the dam gates are open.......a true 'free for all'.........anything goes.....

(....if you had corruption and misconduct before, what to expect now.......)

[ZhouZhou]

wasn't it yesterday or that day before that someone said that the thaksin party take the same steps like hitler in germany and a future step will be that they are making up excuses to ban other political parties to become a one party state?

well i guess that argument was wrong. They are doing the opposite.

it is a good step for democracy. remember the dark day when the election winner and coalition parties got banned. judicial coup it was called. and the party that could never win an election was able to install that Abhist as PM. brought a lot of chaos and instability to the country. no good for democracy if you don't accept the people choice.

The Democrats were able to form a coalition government because a faction of the disbanded party decided that they didn't want to back the new party.

By-elections were held to replace banned MPs, and then Abhisit was able to be elected PM by a majority of elected MPs.

The people that brought a lot of chaos and instability to the country were those that didn't understand how the PM is elected and governments formed. They all had elected representation, so they should have taken it up with their representatives if they didn't agree with who they, individually, were supporting.

people voted for a party. that party got banned in a so called judicial coup.

too bad that the people didn't understand how legitimate PM Abhisit was. PM Abhisit should have also disbannded these people and elect a new batch of people who understand him and his idea of democracy better. but wait. that is not the way how democracy works.

anyway, we had new elections that showed Abhisit the place were he belongs.

[OzMick]

wasn't it yesterday or that day before that someone said that the thaksin party take the same steps like hitler in germany and a future step will be that they are making up excuses to ban other political parties to become a one party state?

well i guess that argument was wrong. They are doing the opposite.

it is a good step for democracy. remember the dark day when the election winner and coalition parties got banned. judicial coup it was called. and the party that could never win an election was able to install that Abhist as PM. brought a lot of chaos and instability to the country. no good for democracy if you don't accept the people choice.

The Democrats were able to form a coalition government because a faction of the disbanded party decided that they didn't want to back the new party.

By-elections were held to replace banned MPs, and then Abhisit was able to be elected PM by a majority of elected MPs.

The people that brought a lot of chaos and instability to the country were those that didn't understand how the PM is elected and governments formed. They all had elected representation, so they should have taken it up with their representatives if they didn't agree with who they, individually, were supporting.

people voted for a party. that party got banned in a so called judicial coup.

too bad that the people didn't understand how legitimate PM Abhisit was. PM Abhisit should have also disbannded these people and elect a new batch of people who understand him and his idea of democracy better. but wait. that is not the way how democracy works.

anyway, we had new elections that showed Abhisit the place were he belongs.

Are you a graduate of a red democracy school?

One party gets caught in electoral fraud, so the others should be punished equally?

So what do you think of the new PTP plan of a sham executive, so the real culprits can continue when they are caught again?

[ZhouZhou]

wasn't it yesterday or that day before that someone said that the thaksin party take the same steps like hitler in germany and a future step will be that they are making up excuses to ban other political parties to become a one party state?

well i guess that argument was wrong. They are doing the opposite.

it is a good step for democracy. remember the dark day when the election winner and coalition parties got banned. judicial coup it was called. and the party that could never win an election was able to install that Abhist as PM. brought a lot of chaos and instability to the country. no good for democracy if you don't accept the people choice.

The Democrats were able to form a coalition government because a faction of the disbanded party decided that they didn't want to back the new party.

By-elections were held to replace banned MPs, and then Abhisit was able to be elected PM by a majority of elected MPs.

The people that brought a lot of chaos and instability to the country were those that didn't understand how the PM is elected and governments formed. They all had elected representation, so they should have taken it up with their representatives if they didn't agree with who they, individually, were supporting.

people voted for a party. that party got banned in a so called judicial coup.

too bad that the people didn't understand how legitimate PM Abhisit was. PM Abhisit should have also disbannded these people and elect a new batch of people who understand him and his idea of democracy better. but wait. that is not the way how democracy works.

anyway, we had new elections that showed Abhisit the place were he belongs.

Are you a graduate of a red democracy school?

One party gets caught in electoral fraud, so the others should be punished equally?

So what do you think of the new PTP plan of a sham executive, so the real culprits can continue when they are caught again?

I think democracy means that the electorate decide in election by whom they will be governed.

And not that every party that wins an election gets banned so that the oldest party in Thailand who never wins an election can finally govern and prohibit any protest against them and declare live fire zones to shot at anyone in a group greater then 10. that has nothing to do with democracy.

without this party dissolution law , no dictator can come abuse it for own profit and create a one party state.

didn't you learn from history?

[Baerboxer]

wasn't it yesterday or that day before that someone said that the thaksin party take the same steps like hitler in germany and a future step will be that they are making up excuses to ban other political parties to become a one party state?

well i guess that argument was wrong. They are doing the opposite.

it is a good step for democracy. remember the dark day when the election winner and coalition parties got banned. judicial coup it was called. and the party that could never win an election was able to install that Abhist as PM. brought a lot of chaos and instability to the country. no good for democracy if you don't accept the people choice.

It was me - and not only the NSDAP in Germany, but also the Soviets and other so called 'socialists" and communist regimes follow certain patterns.

Weakening the powers of the constitution court, through threat, intimidation and coercion and depriving the people of a direct route of complaint to the guardians of the constitution and as such enforcers of good government behaviour is not a step in support of democracy. Creating the impression that high level government Ministers, the PM, FM etc., are above the law and not accountable to it is another example.

Remember politicians usually do things in a meandering way, which often obscures their true objective.

[OzMick]

people voted for a party. that party got banned in a so called judicial coup.

too bad that the people didn't understand how legitimate PM Abhisit was. PM Abhisit should have also disbannded these people and elect a new batch of people who understand him and his idea of democracy better. but wait. that is not the way how democracy works.

anyway, we had new elections that showed Abhisit the place were he belongs.

Are you a graduate of a red democracy school?

One party gets caught in electoral fraud, so the others should be punished equally?

So what do you think of the new PTP plan of a sham executive, so the real culprits can continue when they are caught again?

I think democracy means that the electorate decide in election by whom they will be governed.

And not that every party that wins an election gets banned so that the oldest party in Thailand who never wins an election can finally govern and prohibit any protest against them and declare live fire zones to shot at anyone in a group greater then 10. that has nothing to do with democracy.

without this party dissolution law , no dictator can come abuse it for own profit and create a one party state.

didn't you learn from history?

Funny, you seem to be advocating a system where those ignorant of the democratic process (those that don't understand) get to change governments at will, while those committing electoral fraud escape unpunished. My history tells me this is the road to ruin.

Are you "above" answering questions?

[ZhouZhou]

people voted for a party. that party got banned in a so called judicial coup.

too bad that the people didn't understand how legitimate PM Abhisit was. PM Abhisit should have also disbannded these people and elect a new batch of people who understand him and his idea of democracy better. but wait. that is not the way how democracy works.

anyway, we had new elections that showed Abhisit the place were he belongs.

Are you a graduate of a red democracy school?

One party gets caught in electoral fraud, so the others should be punished equally?

So what do you think of the new PTP plan of a sham executive, so the real culprits can continue when they are caught again?

I think democracy means that the electorate decide in election by whom they will be governed.

And not that every party that wins an election gets banned so that the oldest party in Thailand who never wins an election can finally govern and prohibit any protest against them and declare live fire zones to shot at anyone in a group greater then 10. that has nothing to do with democracy.

without this party dissolution law , no dictator can come abuse it for own profit and create a one party state.

didn't you learn from history?

Funny, you seem to be advocating a system where those ignorant of the democratic process (those that don't understand) get to change governments at will, while those committing electoral fraud escape unpunished. My history tells me this is the road to ruin.

Are you "above" answering questions?

In a democracy, if the people think a government or the ruling party does wrong this government or ruling party will be voted out of office in the next election. as it happens with the democrat lead government with Abhisit on top.

party dissolution seems to be an undemocratic tool to get rid of competition.

[whybother]

I think democracy means that the electorate decide in election by whom they will be governed.

And not that every party that wins an election gets banned so that the oldest party in Thailand who never wins an election can finally govern and prohibit any protest against them and declare live fire zones to shot at anyone in a group greater then 10. that has nothing to do with democracy.

without this party dissolution law , no dictator can come abuse it for own profit and create a one party state.

didn't you learn from history?

In a parliamentary democracy the electorate decide in an election who will represent them. In 2008, after the PPP was banned, PTP were formed, and everyone was represented by the people they elected, either in the 2007 election or by-elections, and a majority of these representatives decided to back Abhisit as PM.

Just because a party is disbanded doesn't mean all the MPs in that party are banned (unless they're all executives of course), so most of the elected MPs continue to represent their electorate as before, they just need to form a new party.

Edited April 11, 2013 by whybother

[rixalex]

In a democracy, if the people think a government or the ruling party does wrong this government or ruling party will be voted out of office in the next election. as it happens with the democrat lead government with Abhisit on top.

party dissolution seems to be an undemocratic tool to get rid of competition.

In a democracy, a proper one that is, matters of law, matters of guilt and innocence, are decided upon in courts of law, by people studied in such matters and people privy to all the facts and evidence. In a democracy, matters of law, matters of guilt and innocence, are not decided upon at the ballot box. That is not what it is there for.

[khunken]

In a democracy, if the people think a government or the ruling party does wrong this government or ruling party will be voted out of office in the next election. as it happens with the democrat lead government with Abhisit on top.

party dissolution seems to be an undemocratic tool to get rid of competition.

Once again, you don't have a clue about the meaning & pillars of democracy. Your continuing mantra is 'elections, elections & then 'we' can do what we like'.

Ignoring for now the vote buying that is rampant in Thai general elections, there are such things a 'checks & balances' in normal democracies. Ever heard of them?

As far as disbanding a political party is concerned, IMO if any executive of that party is found to be involved in fraudulent or corrupt practices, the party should be disbanded & the executives banned for a period. If a non-executive member of a party is found guilty of similar wrongdoing, that person should be banned but not the whole party.

The attack on section 68 is another matter altogether. The Democrat spokesperson is absolutely right about the need to go though the Public Prosecution Service - being wrong. We have seen all too clearly how appointed heads can be controlled by their current political masters. Example: Tarit.

[OzMick]

Are you a graduate of a red democracy school?

One party gets caught in electoral fraud, so the others should be punished equally?

So what do you think of the new PTP plan of a sham executive, so the real culprits can continue when they are caught again?

I think democracy means that the electorate decide in election by whom they will be governed.

And not that every party that wins an election gets banned so that the oldest party in Thailand who never wins an election can finally govern and prohibit any protest against them and declare live fire zones to shot at anyone in a group greater then 10. that has nothing to do with democracy.

without this party dissolution law , no dictator can come abuse it for own profit and create a one party state.

didn't you learn from history?

Funny, you seem to be advocating a system where those ignorant of the democratic process (those that don't understand) get to change governments at will, while those committing electoral fraud escape unpunished. My history tells me this is the road to ruin.

Are you "above" answering questions?

In a democracy, if the people think a government or the ruling party does wrong this government or ruling party will be voted out of office in the next election. as it happens with the democrat lead government with Abhisit on top.

party dissolution seems to be an undemocratic tool to get rid of competition.

But party dissolution was NOT a tool to get rid of opposition, it was a punishment levied by the courts. Other political parties had no input to that decision, though that is what red democracy schools would have the populace believe.

[hellodolly]

Disbanding a party unfairly disenfranchises voters. As with all crime, punishment should be limited to those individuals found guilty.

Completely agree with you. One mans actions should in no way ever legally take away the voters rights to vote for the best man as they see it.

Might as well pass a law that if your cousin robs a bank you are guilty also.

I am a strong supporter of the Dems in most cases but this time they are dead wrong.

[hellodolly]

wasn't it yesterday or that day before that someone said that the thaksin party take the same steps like hitler in germany and a future step will be that they are making up excuses to ban other political parties to become a one party state?

well i guess that argument was wrong. They are doing the opposite.

it is a good step for democracy. remember the dark day when the election winner and coalition parties got banned. judicial coup it was called. and the party that could never win an election was able to install that Abhist as PM. brought a lot of chaos and instability to the country. no good for democracy if you don't accept the people choice.

The Democrats were able to form a coalition government because a faction of the disbanded party decided that they didn't want to back the new party.

By-elections were held to replace banned MPs, and then Abhisit was able to be elected PM by a majority of elected MPs.

The people that brought a lot of chaos and instability to the country were those that didn't understand how the PM is elected and governments formed. They all had elected representation, so they should have taken it up with their representatives if they didn't agree with who they, individually, were supporting.

people voted for a party. that party got banned in a so called judicial coup.

too bad that the people didn't understand how legitimate PM Abhisit was. PM Abhisit should have also disbannded these people and elect a new batch of people who understand him and his idea of democracy better. but wait. that is not the way how democracy works.

anyway, we had new elections that showed Abhisit the place were he belongs.

As usual talking to hear himself talk. the last elections showed us that the majority of the people did not want Thaksin and as all the subsequent elections have shown us his backing is getting smaller and smaller. He has not won an election since every election it has been decided by a majority of anti Thaksin people even in the heart of red shirt land.

If he keeps on fumbling the only backing he will have is from red shirt school grads. Even the ones who fell out for lack of understanding are wise to him.

Are you people planing a school reunion?

[Buchholz]

Disbanding a party unfairly disenfranchises voters. As with all crime, punishment should be limited to those individuals found guilty.

Completely agree with you. One mans actions should in no way ever legally take away the voters rights to vote for the best man as they see it.

Might as well pass a law that if your cousin robs a bank you are guilty also.

I am a strong supporter of the Dems in most cases but this time they are dead wrong.

.

Party dissolution doesn't "legally take away the voters rights to vote for the best man as they see it."

It dissolves the Party and bans the Party Executive. It doesn't ban the non-Party Executive MP's.

The Party is dissolved because the Party Executives collude and conspire.

If your cousin robs a bank and you participate in it, you are guilty also.

.

[Locationthailand]

wasn't it yesterday or that day before that someone said that the thaksin party take the same steps like hitler in germany and a future step will be that they are making up excuses to ban other political parties to become a one party state?

well i guess that argument was wrong. They are doing the opposite.

it is a good step for democracy. remember the dark day when the election winner and coalition parties got banned. judicial coup it was called. and the party that could never win an election was able to install that Abhist as PM. brought a lot of chaos and instability to the country. no good for democracy if you don't accept the people choice.

The Democrats were able to form a coalition government because a faction of the disbanded party decided that they didn't want to back the new party.

By-elections were held to replace banned MPs, and then Abhisit was able to be elected PM by a majority of elected MPs.

The people that brought a lot of chaos and instability to the country were those that didn't understand how the PM is elected and governments formed. They all had elected representation, so they should have taken it up with their representatives if they didn't agree with who they, individually, were supporting.

Yes - well said.

[rubl]

Just a week ago a Pheu Thai MP say that regarding section 68 the only change would be to bring it in line again with 1997 section 63. Now the first three paragraphs of those section are identical, including the dissolution of parties remark. The 2007 section has one paragraph added, the ban for five years. The sections relate to the Constitution Court.

Now if we look at 2007 section 237 that's about the Election Commission which in the 2007 constitution has broader and clearer powers than in the 1997 version (which start with section 136). In a way 237 logically follows the powers and duties described in 236 and explicitly deals with "commits an act or causes or supports another person to act in violation of the organic law ...". That explicitness is missing in 1997 and in my opinion can only be seen as a clarification of a unclear point in the 1997 version.

So, it would seem that some powers are to be taken away from the Election Commission which might result in less input towards the Constitution Court which may cause it to drop cases as input is missing or lacking.

[wolf5370]

Disbanding a party is a white wash anyway - a new party is just started under another name with the same people or their puppets where banning has also occurred (TRT is alive and well in its whatever-the-count-is-now incarnation).

Five year bans are a waste of time - wrong doers should be banned for life if found guilty. People that are found to have lied on their applications/histories/asset forms or are in breach of entitlement to hold their seat, should be dismissed (such as people found to have disbarring criminal records - or subsequently found guilty or a crime/etc that qualifies are disbarring). Election fraud/voting fraud/fixing/forged reports etc that caused a decision to be made (or government to be formed) should result in that decision being overturned (as well as the individuals punished) - even if that causes another general election. Crimes against the state by elected officials - such as fraud and corruption - should result in longer term jail terms and mandatory life time disbarment from politics.

Acting in breach of a ban - including from behind the scenes - should carry contempt sentences - with jail terms an increasing scale for repeat offenders.

Also, people in the house should be free of fear of slander legislation - it is silly that it is thrown about so often, and people are found guilty of slander even when what they said is proved true. If accusation is found to be false, then make it a point in principle that said accuser has to stand an give apology to the accuse and the house - end of. If they do not, then they simply are held in contempt of the house and barred form sitting (or being paid) until they do comply. Make them asct like bloody adults instead of kindergarten kids.

[ZhouZhou]

Just a week ago a Pheu Thai MP say that regarding section 68 the only change would be to bring it in line again with 1997 section 63. Now the first three paragraphs of those section are identical, including the dissolution of parties remark. The 2007 section has one paragraph added, the ban for five years. The sections relate to the Constitution Court.

Now if we look at 2007 section 237 that's about the Election Commission which in the 2007 constitution has broader and clearer powers than in the 1997 version (which start with section 136). In a way 237 logically follows the powers and duties described in 236 and explicitly deals with "commits an act or causes or supports another person to act in violation of the organic law ...". That explicitness is missing in 1997 and in my opinion can only be seen as a clarification of a unclear point in the 1997 version.

So, it would seem that some powers are to be taken away from the Election Commission which might result in less input towards the Constitution Court which may cause it to drop cases as input is missing or lacking.

finer details may lay in the original text and not in your translation.

and you know what these lawyers can do with some fine details in wording.

[rubl]

Just a week ago a Pheu Thai MP say that regarding section 68 the only change would be to bring it in line again with 1997 section 63. Now the first three paragraphs of those section are identical, including the dissolution of parties remark. The 2007 section has one paragraph added, the ban for five years. The sections relate to the Constitution Court.

Now if we look at 2007 section 237 that's about the Election Commission which in the 2007 constitution has broader and clearer powers than in the 1997 version (which start with section 136). In a way 237 logically follows the powers and duties described in 236 and explicitly deals with "commits an act or causes or supports another person to act in violation of the organic law ...". That explicitness is missing in 1997 and in my opinion can only be seen as a clarification of a unclear point in the 1997 version.

So, it would seem that some powers are to be taken away from the Election Commission which might result in less input towards the Constitution Court which may cause it to drop cases as input is missing or lacking.

finer details may lay in the original text and not in your translation.

and you know what these lawyers can do with some fine details in wording.

Finer details will need to be visible to justify the changes proposed.

BTW, not my translation, but provided by the Asian Legal Information Institute:

- 1997 http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/1997/

- 2007 http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/2007/