Thaksin Returns As Pm

[Jai Dee]

Administrative court rejects suit against Supreme Court assembly

The Central Administrative Court Friday rejected suit filed by a deputy director of a division of the Office of the Election Commission against the assembly of Supreme Court judges over the judges' decision not to nominate candidates to fill vacant EC seats.

The administrative court ruled that it had no power over the assembly of the Supreme Court judges who invoked their constitutional authority.

The suit was filed by Pirapong Pairin, deputy director of the Policy and Planning Division of the EC Office. He claimed that the decision by the assembly to nominate EC candidates as requested by caretaker Senate Speaker Suchon Chaleekrua had affected him as he planned to apply as a candidate.

Source: The Nation - Breaking News - June 16, 2006 : Last updated 02:24 pm (Thai local time)

[sriracha john]

I'm against banning any political party for any reason. In my opinion people have the inalienable right to associate for the purposes of engaging in politics. Give anyone the right to ban a party and you give them the right to silence their opposition. Banning political assembly is in and of itself anti-democratic. The people's right to assemble and to discuss and to petition and to be part of the gov't etc. etc. etc. is what democracy is all about. If people break the laws they should be prosecuted but people should not be denied the right to associate for political reasons.

Chownah

I think you're mixing different issues with dissolution of a party for wrong-doing.

If "dissolution" means banning a party or in any way restricting people's rights to assemble, discuss, or be part of election decisions then I don't think I'm mixing anything up...I'm against it across the board for all parties.....I believe that all people have certain inalienable rights and that among these are the rights to assemble with whoever they want and to discuss the gov't and to organize to be promote ideas and people to be part of that government.

Chownah

The members of a dissolved political party can still:

1. assemble with whoever they want

2. discuss the government

3. organize to promote ideas

4. be a part of government

They just can't do it as MP representatives.

[hammered]

In the midst of all these debates on Thaksin is no worse than previous politicians/TRT are no worse than previous parties versus Thaksin is the worst ever/TRT are the most awful one simple thing seems to get mised. One day something will be done about all the corruption. Why shouldnt that day be today? The only alternative is to use the same arguement of "it is inherent in Thai society" or "they all have done/do it" to justify corruption for ever. Again, a simple question: why not do soemthing about it today?

[penzman]

This morning George posted info on the new airport city plan in the Bangkok Forum. This new plan from the PM will create a 500 + sq. km. province which will incorporate the new airport and surrounding areas. It will be supervised directly by either the PM or his deputy.

Think about it. A new province in Thailand with complete control by the PM over the new airport and surrounding Bangkok areas. Checks and balances? From where?

Airport city plan to be rushed to Cabinet

It is planned to eventually cover Bangkok's Lat Krabang and Prawet districts as well as Bang Phli district and Bang Sao Thong subdistrict in Samut Prakan.

The area would be equivalent to a province but supervised directly by the prime minister, or a

selected deputy.

A 10-member governing body is planned to administer it.

Old man river, no need to worry.

There will be checks and balance as the article clearly states that a ten-member governing body will administer the area.

In fact, in keeping with the articles title to "rush" it through, the governing body has already been appointed:

Airport City Governing Body

10 members

Potjaman Shinawatra - Chairperson

Bhanapot Damapong

Yingluck Shinawatra

Priawpan Damapong

Panthongtae Shinawatra

Pinthongtha Shinawatra

Chaisit Shinawatra

Paetongtarn Shinawatra

Yaowaret Shinawatra

Pawruthai Shinwatra

[thedude]

The difference between a "one-party" system versus a "coalition" have previously been addressed in this thread.

Wasn't the TRT built by amalgamating pre-existing parties and factions into a single party forming a coalition that has lasted to this day? Aren't all the major parties in Thailand based on this same principle of pulling in smaller parties and factions?

A coalition can easily amalgamate into a single party or it can remain a coalition bound together as a single unit, as in forming a government, but acting as a single party.

1:- An alliance of people, factions, parties, or nations.

2:- A combination into one body; a union.

One body = alliance of factions & parties = single party = coalition - all the same.

Thai Rak Thai Party (1 Party)

Democrat Party (1 Party)

Chart Thai Party (1 Party)

Thai Citizen Party (1 Party)

Chart Pattana Party (1 Party)

(list continus on for 28 more current political parties)

One-party system: Any 1 party from the above list with an iniquitous level of representatives in Parliament, eg. the last nullfied election had a Parliament that thus far was comprised of ALL TRT members, except for ONE MP from a different party.

Coalition system: Any 2 or more parties working together, as well as, depending on the issue, independently, as representatives of separate and distinct parties in Parliament, eg. in 1988, Chatichai Choonhavan (leader of the Chart Thai Party) formed a 5-party coalition within Parliament and became PM.

His Majesty The King's Remarks

One party system: described as "undemocratic"

Coalition system: described as "(not applicable, as it wasn't described)"

Not the same.

Thank you for your future cooperation.

SJ, you should not try to twist the words to suit your own agenda. What HM described as undemocratic was the election which was boycotted by the opposition parties. Please go back and read the transcripts carefully.

In fact, the transcripts went so far as to say that if the courts could not solve the problem, the judges should resign, and NOT the government.

[Hermano Lobo]

What on earth did Prince Andrew say to Thaksin?

After a reception Thaksin was saying good-bye to the visiting Royals. The Shiekh of Abu Dhabi

gave him smiles but some killing with the eyes. (leave my Muslim brothers alone!)

The up strides Prince Andrew, looks at Thaksin like the worm he is and says just a few words.

Thaksin bows, smiles like a snake and almost falls over.

Prince Andrew then completely ignores him, looks straight forward and puts on his Naval cap.

The accompanying Wrens follow suite. Andrew then strides to his car.

It was of he had just swatted an annoying fly !

I wonder what that was all about ?

Edited June 16, 2006 by Hermano Lobo

[tettyan]

If "dissolution" means banning a party or in any way restricting people's rights to assemble, discuss, or be part of election decisions then I don't think I'm mixing anything up...I'm against it across the board for all parties.....I believe that all people have certain inalienable rights and that among these are the rights to assemble with whoever they want and to discuss the gov't and to organize to be promote ideas and people to be part of that government.

Chownah

While I agree we should be extremely careful when it comes to even talking about the wholesale dissolution of a political party, I don't think you can say that a party has an absolute, "inalienable" right to exist. For instance, it is proven that the leaders of a party deliberately conspired to subvert the democratic system, then I believe that is grounds for dissolution. Thus, under this logic, West Germany banned the local Communist Party as well as various neo-Nazi groupings from time to time.

From what we all know now, I don't think dissolving TRT is such a good idea, no matter how much I despise them. But if it is proven that Thaksin had some knowledge of the scheme to bribe small parties (and did nothing to stop it), then we can fairly say that the party as a group acted to subvert constitutional democracy. A ban would be the fairest solution in that case.

Edited June 16, 2006 by tettyan

[ratcatcher]

What on earth did Prince Andrew say to Thaksin?

After a reception Thaksin was saying good-bye to the visiting Royals. The Shiekh of Abu Dhabi

gave him smiles but some killing with the eyes. (leave my Muslim brothers alone!)

The up strides Prince Andrew, looks at Thaksin like the worm he is and says just a few words.

Thaksin bows, smiles like a snake and almost falls over.

Prince Andrew then completely ignores him, looks straight forward and puts on his Naval cap.

The accompanying Wrens follow suite. Andrew then strides to his car.

It was of he had just swatted an annoying fly !

I wonder what that was all about ?

He probably told him that if he brings his billions he can come and run the U.K. when they get rid of Tony boy They need the money since they have already sold some of the land at Ploenchit. Then he would be in a position to buy Liverpool as well.

[John K]

Re; post #630

OK im going way out on a limb here but:

If the King asks you to do something and you don’t, that’s a bad thing to do in Thailand right?

[chownah]

I'm against banning any political party for any reason. In my opinion people have the inalienable right to associate for the purposes of engaging in politics. Give anyone the right to ban a party and you give them the right to silence their opposition. Banning political assembly is in and of itself anti-democratic. The people's right to assemble and to discuss and to petition and to be part of the gov't etc. etc. etc. is what democracy is all about. If people break the laws they should be prosecuted but people should not be denied the right to associate for political reasons.

Chownah

I think you're mixing different issues with dissolution of a party for wrong-doing.

If "dissolution" means banning a party or in any way restricting people's rights to assemble, discuss, or be part of election decisions then I don't think I'm mixing anything up...I'm against it across the board for all parties.....I believe that all people have certain inalienable rights and that among these are the rights to assemble with whoever they want and to discuss the gov't and to organize to be promote ideas and people to be part of that government.

Chownah

The members of a dissolved political party can still:

1. assemble with whoever they want

2. discuss the government

3. organize to promote ideas

4. be a part of government

They just can't do it as MP representatives.

Dissolving a political party infringes on people's inalienable right to organize to promote ideas to be incorporated into law and to be part of a government.....in my opinion....I guess your opinion is different from mine.

Chownah

[Old Man River]

Re; post #630

OK im going way out on a limb here but:

If the King asks you to do something and you don’t, that’s a bad thing to do in Thailand right?

John, as a general response to your question, I asked a similar question (relating to something else) to some Phu Yai's. Their response was that if HM The King tells you directly, then you must obey. It is a black and white issue. However, if HM The King tells someone else, it could be in a different context and then it is up to you. While this isn't how I would have looked at it, since their answer defended an action of a particular political party I know they don't support, I figured this is how the issue is viewed in Thailand.

[chownah]

I'm against banning any political party for any reason. In my opinion people have the inalienable right to associate for the purposes of engaging in politics. Give anyone the right to ban a party and you give them the right to silence their opposition. Banning political assembly is in and of itself anti-democratic. The people's right to assemble and to discuss and to petition and to be part of the gov't etc. etc. etc. is what democracy is all about. If people break the laws they should be prosecuted but people should not be denied the right to associate for political reasons.

Chownah

I think you're mixing different issues with dissolution of a party for wrong-doing.

If "dissolution" means banning a party or in any way restricting people's rights to assemble, discuss, or be part of election decisions then I don't think I'm mixing anything up...I'm against it across the board for all parties.....I believe that all people have certain inalienable rights and that among these are the rights to assemble with whoever they want and to discuss the gov't and to organize to be promote ideas and people to be part of that government.

Chownah

The members of a dissolved political party can still:

1. assemble with whoever they want

2. discuss the government

3. organize to promote ideas

4. be a part of government

They just can't do it as MP representatives.

Dissolving a political party infringes on people's inalienable right to organize to promote ideas to be incorporated into law and to be part of a government.....in my opinion....I guess your opinion is different from mine.

Chownah

Just to explain a bit....I believe that anyone who is a natural born citizen of the appropriate age can run for the Presidency of the USA and hold office if elected unless they are a convicted felon. I also believe that you can not be barred from running for the office and holding that office if elected(or any other office as far as I know) because of your affiliation or membership with any group unless the group advocates violent overthrow of the US gov't. I know that Thialand is not the US.....I'm just trying to show where my ideas on this issue come from.

Chownah

Edited June 16, 2006 by chownah

[Old Man River]

I seem to recall Thaksin wanting a one party system in the last general elections. The reason was something about the not wanting the annoyance. It stands to reason he does not want a democracy.

On the airport as a separate province, interesting point about the government in that it will be Thaksin’s own private government. I wonder what others will think when they discover not only is Thaksin destroying all the laws for his own personal gain, he is carving up the country too.

On the airport economic zone, reading the information reported by The Nation and having time to think of it, I have decided for me it would be a good thing. I know many of the people posting on TV don't live in Thailand and of those who do, many don't live in Bangkok and of those who do, the vast majority don't live in the area that will be affected by this. I do. Once this is all put in place it will be like living in Singapore, which I don't mind. There won't be any drug problem, the crime rate will drop significantly and property values will rise. I will no longer have to put up with the inefficiencies of the BMA and no longer have to live with changing policies as the National government changes. It won't matter to me if the TRT gets dissolved or who wins the next election or any other national election. Actually, there is comfort in stablilty. Many of my friends will argue vehemently against this, but then they don't live in this zone and won't benefit.

[slimdog]

Chownah

Your feelings regarding the right of people to organise a political party are similar to what is written in the Thai Constitution.

Section 47.

A person shall enjoy the liberty to unite and form a political party for the purpose of making political will of the people and carrying out political activities in fulfilment of such will through the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State as provided in this Constitution. The internal organisation, management and regulations of a political party shall be consistent with fundamental principles of the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State.

In regards to a party being dissolved; this can only happen at the request of the election Commission, the head of which is also the political- party registrar and has to be agreed upon by the constitutional court, and if appealed by the Supreme court.

In the case where a Political party is dissolved this will only effect the members of the Executive commitee unless it can be proved that other party members have equally been guilty of breaking either the constitution,the Party political act or the organic law on the election of representatives. In each case the EC would have to show that each individual was guilty of such an act.

For elected representatives the constitution allows the representatives a period of 60 days to become members of another political party from the date the party was dissolved by the constitutional court, provided of course they have not be disfranchised.

What this means is that if someone is elected by the people, they stay elected both at national or local level provided they find another party within that time.

[chownah]

Slimdog,

Thanks for the explanation of how dissolution works in Thailand. My view is that this process is undemocratic and should be changed. I believe that it enables one party or small group of people to harrass their opposition and should not be allowed.

Thanks again for the information you posted.

Chownah

[John K]

Re; post #630

OK im going way out on a limb here but:

If the King asks you to do something and you don’t, that’s a bad thing to do in Thailand right?

John, as a general response to your question, I asked a similar question (relating to something else) to some Phu Yai's. Their response was that if HM The King tells you directly, then you must obey. It is a black and white issue. However, if HM The King tells someone else, it could be in a different context and then it is up to you. While this isn't how I would have looked at it, since their answer defended an action of a particular political party I know they don't support, I figured this is how the issue is viewed in Thailand.

I understand what you are saying. Often it is the vagueness that is up to ones own interpretation. However in this case I doubt that level of vagueness was present in December. Even Thaksin withdrew his suits the day after. I and along with the majority feel it was very obvious to whom the comments were directed at. I talked to a few Thais tonight and they thought it would be a good idea for Thaksin if he did not come back from his trip.

Edited June 16, 2006 by john Krukowski

[slimdog]

Chownah

Whilst it may appear that the process can be manipulated, the penalties for doing so are very severe. The organic law for the election of the house of representatives and senate shows some of the penalties that can be imposed.

Section 101/1.

Any person who make false allegations that a candidate or a person has violated this organic law shall be liable to imprisonment for a term exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding forty thousand Baht and the court shall order the disfranchisement for a period of five years.

Any person who make false allegations under paragraph one which seek to result in the disfranchisement of the right to vote of a candidate or the withholding of the announcement of election results shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of five to ten years and to a fine of one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand Baht and the court shall order the disfranchisement for a period of ten years.

Any person who make false allegations under paragraph one to the Election Commission shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of seven to ten years and to a fine of fourteen hundred thousand to two hundred thousand Baht and the court shall order the disfranchisement for a period of twenty years.

In case false allegations under paragraph two and three have committed, facilitated or acknowledged by any leader of a political party, such political party shall be deemed as endangering national security and violating the Organic Law of Political Party.

[jdinasia]

This sort of corruption is unfortunately inherent to Thailand, it's not just Thaksin/TRT.

The times for making excuses for corruption are over ... start with what is happening now and root it out ... and keep doing it at every level .. and as much from the top down as possible. Make the penalties for corruption so severe that it just isn't worth it any more!

I would really like to know from the members, if evidence came out that the Democrats were found guilty of the TRT allegations (below) - Would you also call for their dissolution.

Since this allegation came out in the media a few months back they seemed to just go silent, now with it resurfacing I can't help but wonder if the Democrats are trying to rid us of the TRT in the courts and with such gusto with the hope that these accusations will also dissolve if the TRT is dissolved.

Suthep testifies to EC panel over TRT claims

MONGKOL BANGPRAPA -BP-

Democrat party secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban yesterday testified to the Election Commission's investigative panel to counter Thai Rak Thai's allegations that the Democrats had hired small parties to incriminate it. He also presented evidence alleging Thai Rak Thai bankrolled small parties to contest the April 2 election.

The evidence included CDs and paper records featuring money transfers and witnesses' accounts.

Mr Suthep said the panel's questions primarily focused on the issue of the Democrats' alleged attempts to interrupt the candidacy registration process in Songkhla province.

In his testimony, Mr Suthep dismissed Thai Rak Thai's allegations that the Democrats had paid three candidates of a small party known as the Progressive Democratic party to expose election fraud involving Thai Rak Thai.

Earlier, the Democrats had offered to provide legal and financial assistance to the three candidates who faced legal action by the EC after they confessed to being hired to run in the April 2 polls in Trang.

The Progressive Democratic party was later dissolved for forging poll registration documents.

Mr Suthep was also asked by the panel to explain what the Democrats meant when they talked about the ''Thaksin regime''.

He said the Democrats did nothing wrong by not fielding any candidates in the last poll and by persuading voters to mark abstention votes since ballot papers already contained an abstention box.

Mr Suthep added that the investigative panel had asked for more evidence, including the tape recording of his March 12 interview involving the three candidates who had sought legal advice from the Democrats.

Meanwhile, Democrat deputy secretary-general Thavorn Senniem demanded that the details of the selection of the EC's investigative panel be revealed.

Mr Thavorn claimed that the EC was discriminating against the Democrats as the Thai Rak Thai leader had yet to testify to the panel over bankrolling allegations.

Sure I'd feel the same way! I am no more Pro Democrat than I am Pro TRT ...

Just think that at the moment they are the ONLY viable group

[John K]

Prem urges to follow HM the King's advices

Privy Council Chairman General Prem Tinsulanonda urged all sides on Friday to apply the lessons of His Majesty the King's speeches, especially on the selfsufficiency economy, to solve the country's poverty.

Prem gave a speech at a seminar hosted by the Foundation for International Human Resource Development on the creation of a learning society according to His Majesty the King's initiatives and his selfsufficiency philosophy.

His Majesty had been talking about the "New Theory" for more than 20 years but people at the time gave little interest, as they were keen on becoming a newly industrialised country, he said.

Now people had turned to and become confident in this theory, which had never been outofdate and would remain applicable in the future, he said.

"Even United Nations SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan, who conferred the Human Development Lifetime Achievement Award on His Majesty on May 26, said at the Foreign Affairs Ministry that if human development meant to prioritise people, nothing was greater than development according to His Majesty's guideline," he added.

As the country's greatest problem was poverty, using the selfsufficiency economy theory would help solve it, said Prem.

"His Majesty's policies and speeches are answers to all problems including economic, social and even political issues, thus I want us to hold on them because they are all pure, holy and useful to all Thais," he added.

Chai Pattana Foundation's SecretaryGeneral Dr Sumeth Tantivejjakul said in his speech that now was the time for Thailand to stand alone and not follow others after its past attempts to become the Fifth Tiger of Asia (after Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan), despite the country's lack of preparedness and industrial expertise.

"Now it's time for us to bring His Majesty's words, as a guiding light, into action. Don't fear falling off the global train. We must be brave to walk our own path. Why would we want to cling to that train if we know it would lead to disaster? The selfsufficiency economy is the path we should decide to take. We should be brave and learn from past lessons," Sumeth said.

The Nation

[jdinasia]

Slimdog,

Thanks for the explanation of how dissolution works in Thailand. My view is that this process is undemocratic and should be changed. I believe that it enables one party or small group of people to harrass their opposition and should not be allowed.

Thanks again for the information you posted.

Chownah

I almost agree with your point .....

But basically ... back at home ... the charges that it takes to dissolve a party are = to a Felony ... commit a felony in the USA and guess what .. you lose the rights you describe above ..

You lose the vote .. the right to bear arms ... and for a certain amount of time (on probation/parole) the right to free assembly

But if you really feel this way about those rules ... you should be protesting Thaksin's actions in the South ... as they impinge upon those rights (with the exception of voting)

directly to the question ... if you subvert democracy and have your party dissolved here .... big deal ... you can still support another party ... if you personally aren't banned from politics and lose your franchise you can even JOIN another party

[hammered]

Slimdog,

Thanks for the explanation of how dissolution works in Thailand. My view is that this process is undemocratic and should be changed. I believe that it enables one party or small group of people to harrass their opposition and should not be allowed.

Thanks again for the information you posted.

Chownah

I almost agree with your point .....

But basically ... back at home ... the charges that it takes to dissolve a party are = to a Felony ... commit a felony in the USA and guess what .. you lose the rights you describe above ..

You lose the vote .. the right to bear arms ... and for a certain amount of time (on probation/parole) the right to free assembly

But if you really feel this way about those rules ... you should be protesting Thaksin's actions in the South ... as they impinge upon those rights (with the exception of voting)

directly to the question ... if you subvert democracy and have your party dissolved here .... big deal ... you can still support another party ... if you personally aren't banned from politics and lose your franchise you can even JOIN another party

and some of the parties have been in existance leess than 10 years, so they could be claimed to be only vehicles for individaul or groups. Give em a few more years and we'll see if they ar real;)

[penzman]

Office of the Attorney-General decides to send Thai Rak Thai case back to EC

A special committee of the Office of the Attorney-General (OAG) resolved Friday to send back the report of election fraud against the Thai Rak Thai Party back to the Election Commission.

OAG spokesman Attapol Yaisawang, also secretary to the fact-finding committee, said the committee resolved to ask the EC to make a formal declaration of charges that the Thai Rak Thai violated Article 66 of the Political Party Act.

Attapol said the case would be sent back to the EC on Monday.

Thai Rak Thai and the two small parties were accused of conspiring to run in the inconclusive April 2 election.

The EC's Thai Rak Thai report said nothing about what penalty the party deserved if it were found guilty of undermining the election process.

The Nation

[jdinasia]

did I read that right?? The OAG sent it back telling the EC to go ahead and formally charge TRT?

Hmmmmm ....

Has an EC charge ever NOT resulted in the dissolution of a party?

[lukamar]

did I read that right?? The OAG sent it back telling the EC to go ahead and formally charge TRT?

Hmmmmm ....

Has an EC charge ever NOT resulted in the dissolution of a party?

If I remember correctly the OAG said initially when they received the report that the EC should have made a recommendation and not left it up to the OAG who thought it was an easy way out for the EC and not their responsibility. I think this is what they were alluding to. Now after watching a lot of World Cup the OAG has kicked it back to the EC and we will have to wait again to see what they come up with. Too easy to speculate on something like this without knowing the details.

[jdinasia]

OAG spokesman Attapol Yaisawang, also secretary to the fact-finding committee, said the committee resolved to ask the EC to make a formal declaration of charges that the Thai Rak Thai violated Article 66 of the Political Party Act.

Not asked them to decide ... but to make formal charges!

[ColPyat]

The times for making excuses for corruption are over ... start with what is happening now and root it out ... and keep doing it at every level .. and as much from the top down as possible. Make the penalties for corruption so severe that it just isn't worth it any more!

This sounds very nice in theory.

But i wonder how this could possibly implemented here in Thailand, where corruption is embedded at every level of society.

Lets just start with law enforcement. To get a place at the police school, you gotta pay under the table, several ten thousand baht, if your don't have connections. To get promotions, you have to have either the right connections, or you buy your connections by giving your superior officers a share of your bribes. That goes up to the stages of the bidding for police chief of a entire province. That goes for between 500 000 to 1 million US$ (not baht!!!). Above that, i don't know.

Basically, rule of the thumb is - every police station has about 10 % officers who are clean, another 30 to 40 % who are acceptably dirty, and the rest is beyond salvation.

And, at least in the lower levels, one can hardly hold it against them, given the lousy salaries they get for such a dangerous job, and that they have to carry the costs of uniform, weapon, radio, etc themselves. Most cops out of school are before starting their job already heavily in debt.

So, even if those anti corruption laws are gonna come through, you will already run into the first problem in the enforcement stage.

Who is then making the laws, and implement them? Politicians. Most of them are corrupt as well, and will hardly implement laws that derives them from their major souce of profit. How do those politicians then get the contracts for their, or their family's companies, the reason they entered politics in the first place? They may rave against Thaksin's corruption (the ones who are presently in the opposition), but would they actually cut themselves off? I doubt that.

Next comes the social system with an extremely complex network of patron - client relationships, connecting Thai society from top to bottom, where almost everywhere connections supercede qualification, where seniors cannot be openly criticised by junors. Where people of power and influence can make the seemingly impossible possible.

It's sounds all nice and PC to demand getting rid of "corruption", but as long as there are no major changes in the whole social set up of Thailand, which will take a long time, any attempts to get rid of corruption will be just a pipe dream.

Start practical implementation of changes where there actually is some hope of success. The basic changes would be in the education system, work towards equal opportunities for the poor, scholarships, a long overdue landreform, and then maybe in a generation or so you will see slight improvements in the social set up, and therefore in the corruption issue.

Anything faster than this timeframe is only wishful thinking, and wasted efforts.

Edited June 16, 2006 by ColPyat

[John K]

did I read that right?? The OAG sent it back telling the EC to go ahead and formally charge TRT?

Hmmmmm ....

Has an EC charge ever NOT resulted in the dissolution of a party?

If I remember correctly the OAG said initially when they received the report that the EC should have made a recommendation and not left it up to the OAG who thought it was an easy way out for the EC and not their responsibility. I think this is what they were alluding to. Now after watching a lot of World Cup the OAG has kicked it back to the EC and we will have to wait again to see what they come up with. Too easy to speculate on something like this without knowing the details.

Or it could be they want to watch the world cup too.

I think just about now the 3 remaining commissioners are thinking they should have bailed out when they had a chance.

Now I am sure Thaksin is on the phone at this very moment to the EC coming up with some impotent charge “like it was just practice for reality tv..... ya that’s it just rehearsal for reality tv.”

[jdinasia]

you start at the Top ... with the educated already ... and show the people at the bottom that being rich won't keep you in office or out of jail ....

You atrt at the middle ... you bust people as they come up into notice .....

AND you start at the bottom ... you train people ...

But why would anyone in school today believe a word of it if you don't show them it can be different ,it must be different, it IS different!

all the rest is just rationalization to let the biggest abuser of all time stick around

[lukamar]

did I read that right?? The OAG sent it back telling the EC to go ahead and formally charge TRT?

Hmmmmm ....

Has an EC charge ever NOT resulted in the dissolution of a party?

If I remember correctly the OAG said initially when they received the report that the EC should have made a recommendation and not left it up to the OAG who thought it was an easy way out for the EC and not their responsibility. I think this is what they were alluding to. Now after watching a lot of World Cup the OAG has kicked it back to the EC and we will have to wait again to see what they come up with. Too easy to speculate on something like this without knowing the details.

Or it could be they want to watch the world cup too.

OAG to send report back to EC

POST REPORTERS

The Office of the Attorney-General (OAG) will send an election fraud report on the Thai Rak Thai party back to the Election Commission (EC), demanding it give legal grounds for the report's recommendation that the ruling party be dissolved. OAG spokesman Atthapol Yaisawang said yesterday that the report would be returned to the EC on Monday and the poll agency had until June 27 to make a formal recommendation or face criminal charges related to negligence of duty.

The EC's investigation sub-committee, headed by Nam Yimyaem, found the Thai Rak Thai party violated article 66 of the Political Party Act by hiring little-known parties to contest the April 2 election, and recommended action be taken against party leader Thaksin Shinawatra.

The EC, however, passed the documents on to the OAG without proposing any action on the report's findings.

It hoped the OAG would consider the case and forward it to the Constitution Court for a ruling.

''The OAG isn't anybody's postman,'' said the OAG spokesman.

Mr Atthapol said that without legal grounds, the Constitution Court may not accept the case, which would result in the ruling party being dissolved if found guilty by the court.

The OAG could wrap up the case and refer it to the Constitution Court in a week if the EC followed the time-frame, he said.

The decision to send the report back was made by a sub-committee chaired by Chaikasem Nitisiri.

The EC was accused of applying double standards as it had recommended the dissolution of two small parties but left the decision on the Thai Rak Thai case to the OAG.

The poll agency remained adamant yesterday that it was not obliged to make a recommendation in the report on the Thai Rak Thai party.

Commissioner Veerachai Naewboonnian said a joint committee of the EC and the OAG would be appointed to find a solution.

He insisted the poll agency had done nothing wrong when it passed the Nam report to the OAG without giving legal grounds or proposing action.

The EC followed article 67 of the Political Party Act, which required it to forward the findings along with evidence and documents to the OAG, said Mr Veerachai.

''The legislation doesn't say anything about giving the legal grounds. The other two parties were found guilty under different circumstances,'' he said.

The commissioner denied the EC was trying to buy time for Thai Rak Thai.

''The EC didn't take part in drafting the legislation. How could they say it is a game or a time-buying tactic? We're abiding by legal procedures,'' he said.

Former charter drafter Khanin Boonsuwan said the Democrat party could take the EC to court for negligence of duty for failing to make a recommendation on the poll fraud case.

The EC could be dragging its feet until the royal decree calling for a new general election takes effect, he said.Prinya Tevanaruemitrkul, a law lecturer at Thammasat University, denounced the EC's move as ''ugly'', saying it was applying double standards

============

Now don't these statements made by the OAG "give legal grounds for the report's recommendation that the ruling party be dissolved" and "without legal grounds, the Constitution Court may not accept the case" lead you to think that possibly there were not valid and conclusive legal grounds in the first place?

[John K]

It leads me to believe it is back in the hands of people who have a s***load of their own problems with the court.