Thaksin Returns As Pm

[sriracha john]

Additonal OAG notes:

Criticizing the EC for adopting double standards, OAG spokesman Atthapol Yaisawang said the matter will be formally returned to the EC on Monday with a request for the agency to complete its review within seven days.

Although the EC had previously recommended the dissolution of three small parties for violating election laws – the Prachathippatai Kaona (Progressive Democracy), Pattana Chart Thai (Thai Nation Development), and Paendin Thai (Thai Nation) parties – it made no conclusive assessment on allegations against TRT, asking the OAG instead to submit the matter to the Constitutional Court for further deliberations and a final ruling.

The discrepancies in the two cases, Atthapol asserted, amounted to double standards.

The controversy involves allegations filed earlier by Democrat party secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban that TRT had bankrolled small parties to contest the April 2 election, which was subsequently nullified.

The allegations, if proven, could result in TRT being disbanded.

An EC sub-committee subsequently found that there were grounds to Suthep’s charges.

But instead of conducting a further probe for a conclusive assessment and a recommendation, the EC just forwarded the sub-committee’s report to the OAG, calling for the latter to forward the issue to the Constitutional Court.

An OAG statement issued yesterday asserted that the EC “must proceed to complete all the legal procedures and come up with an opinion as to whether the Thai Rak Thai party has violated [election laws]. Only then can it forward the matter, with all accompanying evidence, to the Attorney General for further action.”

- TD

[sriracha john]

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

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?

I think all it means is (as the title of the just previous news release indicates):

Attorney General throws TRT hot potato back to EC

The EC don't want to deal with it... and tossed it to the OAG... which appropriately tossed it right back... and stated that the EC was utilizing the "double standards" referred to in both news releases.

Edited June 17, 2006 by sriracha john

[John K]

Double standards in Thailand... who would have thought ....

[lukamar]

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.

Not so many now, the court threw out a few today..

[lukamar]

I think all it means is (as the title of the just previous news release indicates):

Attorney General throws TRT hot potato back to EC

.

John... the title of the article is "OAG to send report back to EC" not the one you just fabricated to press your point of view.

[tettyan]

John... the title of the article is "OAG to send report back to EC" not the one you just fabricated to press your point of view.

The key quote, which you might have missed, is this: The discrepancies in the two cases, Atthapol asserted, amounted to double standards.

In other words, if the EC wasn't applying double standards, they would submit a report on TRT to the OAG along the same lines that they did for the small parties, in which the EC requested their dissolution.

Now, hear the logic here - We've proven that someone's taken bribes already and punished them, but the EC seems to be much slower when it comes to going after the ones who offered the bribes. Any ideas as to why that may be the case?

[sriracha john]

I think all it means is (as the title of the just previous news release indicates):

Attorney General throws TRT hot potato back to EC

.

John... the title of the article is "OAG to send report back to EC" not the one you just fabricated to press your point of view.

*sigh*

Sorry if things were too difficult for you to follow...

I'll slow things down and just say the "just previous news release" in post #662 refers to post #661.... the news release that, coincidentally, doesn't have a title on it.

[chownah]

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

I think you have some good ideas here but I see one major flaw in your method of cleaning up the political process. Who is the "you" that is going to do all these things. All of the "you"'s who are in a position to do anything about it are in on the corruption....read Colpyats last post which so graphically describes how corruption is pervading ALL of Thai society. You are not going to find a body of politicians who are willing to be the "you" that will perform the things you suggest will solve the problem. Consider: H.M. The King had to tell the courts to solve this problem. Why did H.M. The King have to tell them?...because the courts are just part of the overall corruption in the system and they aren't going to do anything to rock the boat for themselves and their corrupt bedfellows. Consider: The EC sent the report on the TRT's vote buying activity to the courts without a recommendation as to what to do. Why? Because the EC is part of the overall corruption in the system an they aren't going to confront the largest and most powerful group of corrupt politicians in the country...so they sent it to the courts. The courts didn't decide to take action but instead referred it back to the EC. Why? Becauose the courts are part of the overall corruption and they're not wanting to confront the largest body of powerful and corrupt politicians in the country.

For some reason many posters have a difficult time in realizing that no one in politics now wants to do anything that will end corruption in Thailand in the future because that would put an end to their own aspirations to obtain a gov't position where they will be able to benefit from the corruption.....OH....please excuse me...I am wrong about this...there are actually three or four politicians who really are trying to end corruption and they are kept out front on short leashes to make some appearances to the people but the system assures that they will not succeed in their efforts.

Thai society was and is built on corruption....from the bottom to the top to the bottom. ColPyat's post #656 is really what people should be reading if they want to understand the problem and why this circus surrounding the TRT will not lead to improvement. I also agree with the method he outlines that will in the long run lead to true democracy in Thailand.

Edited June 17, 2006 by chownah

[lukamar]

The key quote, which you might have missed, is this: The discrepancies in the two cases, Atthapol asserted, amounted to double standards.

Any ideas as to why that may be the case?

No John.. The key quotes from the article I quoted are "demanding it (EC) 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". The report is the one YOU praised from the sub-committee, as the smoking gun so to speak, just a couple of weeks ago. The EC that you want removed just passed that same sub-committee report on and it appears that the sub-committee report is short of evidence, something that the EC has said all along, that further investigative work needed to be done before a recommendation could be made but bowed to pressure and forwarded the sub-committee report to the OAG.

As for ideas, it's quite simple, so pay attention. The OAG need legal grounds and without them the Constitutional court probably will not accept the case.

[tettyan]

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.

Great post!

The fundamental problem, I believe, is that The State in Thailand doesn't do it's job. It doesn't adeuqately fund the provision of basic services, such as education and public safety. Rather, it rewards those who do their job with as little reliance on central government resources as possible. Sounds nice in theory - like you're promoting "efficient" and "fiscally sound" administration. As long as you're demanding officials to procure their own funds in order to do their jobs, how do you expect people to recognize the boundry between "public" and "private" (blurring this boundry is what Thaksin is frequently accused of). When teachers are expected to pay for their own pencils and chalk off their 8000 baht/month salary, when police have to pay for their own uniform and gun, how do you expect anyone to understand the problem with "conflict of interest" or "diversion of public resources for private gain"? These problems arn't new to Thaksin, they've always been there. I should stop here, lest the discussion get too academic. For those who are interested in reading further, let me suggest reading Interaction in the Thai Bureacracy by David F Haas (Westview Press). The book was published back in 1979, but much of it still holds true today.

[slimdog]

Just for reference:

Section 147.

The Election Commission shall forthwith conduct an investigation and inquiry for finding facts in any of the following cases; (1) an objection by a voter, a candidate in an election or a political party a member of which stood for the election in any of the constituencies has been raised that the election in that constituency has proceeded inappropriately or unlawfully; (2) convincing evidence has appeared that any member of the House of Representatives, senator, member of a local assembly or local administrator, before being elected, had committed any dishonest act to enable him or her to be elected, or has dishonestly been elected as a result of an act committed by any person or political party in violation of the organic law on the election of members of the House of Representatives and senators, the organic law on political parties or the law on the election of members of local assemblies and local administrators; (3) convincing evidence has appeared that the voting in a referendum did not proceed lawfully or an objection has been raised by a voter that the voting in a referendum in any polling station proceeded inappropriately or unlawfully; Upon completion of actions under paragraph one, the Election Commission shall pass a decision forthwith.

[tettyan]

The key quote, which you might have missed, is this: The discrepancies in the two cases, Atthapol asserted, amounted to double standards.

Any ideas as to why that may be the case?

No John.. The key quotes from the article I quoted are "demanding it (EC) 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". The report is the one YOU praised from the sub-committee, as the smoking gun so to speak, just a couple of weeks ago.

You avoided answering my question, so I suggest you go back and do that first before you read on...

I'm not for dissolving TRT, but are you blind? The EC refused to attach any recommendation to the sub-committee report, even though it was supposed to attach its own report along with it when the case was forwarded to the OAG. That's exactly what the EC did in the case of the small parties, which were dissolved based on the findings by THE SAME sub-committee. But in the case of TRT, the EC has been applying DOUBLE STANDARDS by forwarding the sub-committee report WITHOUT attaching it's own report. This is a rather transparent case of the EC trying to PASS THE BUCK to the OAG. Whether or not the EC is doing this to protect TRT is not clear to me, I'm not in a position to judge. But what is clear is that the EC is SHIRKING it's responsibilities.

Here's another key quote:

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.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/17Jun2006_news02.php

The EC that you want removed just passed that same sub-committee report on and it appears that the sub-committee report is short of evidence, something that the EC has said all along, that further investigative work needed to be done before a recommendation could be made but bowed to pressure and forwarded the sub-committee report to the OAG.

Your statement is pure speculation. I'm sick of giving you quotations, but the OAG pretty clearly gave the EC's failure to follow proper PROCEDURES as their reason for refusing to accept the report, not, as you speculate, in consideration of the Nam sub-committee report itself. To paraphrase - the OAG rejected the procedures that the had EC followed, it did not reject the substance of the Nam subcommittee report.

Edited June 17, 2006 by tettyan

[lukamar]

Upon completion of actions under paragraph one, the Election Commission shall pass a decision forthwith.

And as I said.... "EC has said all along, that further investigative work needed to be done before a recommendation could be made"

[sriracha john]

Thai Deputy PM likely to resign

The legal specialist who helped steer the Thai government through crises may step down once visiting royals leave. Caretaker deputy prime minister Wissanu Kreangam yesterday (June 16) signalled that he intends to step down after the visiting foreign monarchs and royal dignitaries leave the country.

Rumours have been rife that Wissanu will follow in the footsteps of his relative Borwornsak Uwanno, who quit as Cabinet secretary-general early this month and became a monk.

Wissanu's exit would be much more significant than Borwornsak's. Although the 54-year-old former law professor at Chulalongkorn University has served six premiers, he redefined his role as a government saviour during the two Thaksin administrations.

Wissanu lent his mastery of logic, memory for detail, story-telling skill and legal expertise to help steer the government through times of crisis. These have included claims that caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra committed lese majeste by organising a religious ceremony at Wat Phra Kaew last year, the Anti-Money Laundering Office's investigation into the finances of government critics in 2002 and allegations of corruption surrounding Suvarnabhumi Airport's CTX bomb-detection system.

Wissanu was also the legal expert of choice for Thaksin to handle Constitutional challenges. His friendly, academic personality gave him the appearance of being above the political fray.

He has been Thaksin's first pick for official probe panels tasked with allaying the suspicions of the media and setting to rest public concerns about scandals that have rattled the government.

Asked if he had submitted his resignation yesterday, Wissanu said: "If you ask this question, I will have to say it is not true.''

When asked if he had decided to quit, Wisannu smiled and said half-heartedly: "Reporters just have to come and ask me every day.''

When questioned further, Wissanu said, "I will not answer. A thought is just a thought. I should not answer now. I still have several projects to carry out, but they are not long-term. I still have to see off foreign monarchs. The Crown Prince of Bhutan and the head of state of Qatar are still in the country.''

He said he knew it was wrong not to clearly say whether or not he would quit, but added that the public must realise he has duties and responsibilities to fulfil.

"For some reasons, it is not appropriate to say now. When the time is right, then I will say,'' he said.

Wissanu also said he did not want to speak about the matter publicly because it was a breach of political etiquette to do so as he had never discussed the matter with anyone.

"I have been very surprised that I have never talked about this matter but other people are talking about it. But it is not really to pressure me. I can guess where the source of the rumour came from,'' he said.

He said he had been receiving telephone calls from colleagues who pressed him to quit and some that called to stop him. Since rumours that he would step down began circulating, Thaksin had not asked him whether they were true but kept assigning him work as usual, Wissanu said.

He denied reports that he had been pressurised by senior figures to resign.

He said he made all decisions based upon his best interests, as well as the best interests of the government and the country. "If it is good for me but bad for the government and the country, then it is not good for the latter two. But if it is good for the government and the country but bad for me, then I am happy not to stay. I have to balance the benefits. Whether I stay or leave, the government will have to stay. It is a normal principle. The boat that carries too much weight has to release some of the burden,'' he said.

A source close to Phra Borwornsak insisted Wissanu would resign, saying he had already applied to become a lecturer at a university. "Wissanu is expected to resign on June 20. The country's dignitaries praised Phra Borwornsak for his decision to step down,'' the source said.

Defections from the Thaksin government are unlikely to stop at Wissanu. A source close to caretaker Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai said he had planned to resign one month ago but decided to stay on to contest the United Nations secretary-general post. His chance of winning the post improved when other Asian candidates withdrew from the race.

- Asia News Network

[tettyan]

Upon completion of actions under paragraph one, the Election Commission shall pass a decision forthwith.

And as I said.... "EC has said all along, that further investigative work needed to be done before a recommendation could be made"

So you concede, then, that the 3 Election Commissioners have clearly failed to properly uphold rules and procedures? That they were negligent in CCing an internal report to the OAG without making a formal recommendation?

Edited June 17, 2006 by tettyan

[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?

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?

No Luk ...

It makes me think that like was stated before the EC didn't endorse the report that they sent up ..... it was a report from a subcommittee. If you were following this you'd have gotten that the EC must set the charges NOT send a report from a sub-committee.

Thus .. the OAG has sent it back to them to ask them to make the charges suggested by the sub-committee. <duh>

The EC has proven time and time again NOT to be impartial ... but I guess you don't care as long as they just dissolve the little parties involved in the case and leave Dr T alone. <<why was the report leaked if not just to keep the EC from furthering this subersion of Democracy!??>

[lukamar]

<<why was the report leaked if not just to keep the EC from furthering this subersion of Democracy!??>

Maybe the leaker was paid to leak the report, maybe they were a supporter or member of a differing political party or ideology, maybe they were looking for their 15 minutes of fame - only the person that leaked the report knows the reason why it was leaked.

[tettyan]

<<why was the report leaked if not just to keep the EC from furthering this subersion of Democracy!??>

Maybe the leaker was paid to leak the report, maybe they were a supporter or member of a differing political party or ideology, maybe they were looking for their 15 minutes of fame - only the person that leaked the report knows the reason why it was leaked.

More speculation...

You still have not answered my original question. Or any of my questions on this subject, for that matter.

[jdinasia]

Luk often skips over the meat of a post and focuses on the only thing he can reply to .....

like skipping over the fact that the EC is req'd to make the decisions THEN pass it to the OAG ... not to pass the buck

[John K]

One thing here that most everyone is overlooking is this is a paradox. Your discussions seem to evolve around the assumption the EC is at 100%.

1) The EC can’t vote because they can’t quorum. So any ruling could be challenged in court by Thaksin. So sending it to the OAG may be not the required method by law, but it may be accepted in this case because of necessity.

2) The courts see the remaining commissioners as (what every you want to call them) out of a job but forgot to go. The word swatters come to mind here.

3) The courts just cant reach down and pick something to rule on, it has to be sent up to them. So unless something changes about that, they must too follow the laws they enforce.

I think the only way out is the EC must accept the sub committees findings and proceed from there. The sub committee seems to be the only group not touched yet by this. So sending the findings up to the OAG may be correct. Lets see if they can be flexible enough to end the paradox.

Note; this is just my opinion as a possible way out. I don’t even feel like debating it, I just wanted to refocus the debate going on in this thread. It seems one of the key conditions was being overlooked and the discussion seems to be going a bit off reality of this situation, and more on the perfect situation.

So I put it to you, what would you recommend in this situation to end the paradox?

[jdinasia]

if the election date proposed by the EC has been accepted .. then there's precedent for this hroup ... granted it may take a 3-0 vote for asking for aticle 66 dissolution procedured to hsve a chance ... but in the long run it shouldn't matter Thaksin is finished ... if they overturned this group .. the next EC is even less likely to be pro Thaksin

[John K]

OK I did not know the date had been accepted by the courts. I did not read that. One other thought would be to ask the courts to rule on how to proceed and if the OAG should act like a surrogate EC in this case.

[chownah]

Perhaps the EC should ask for a ruling as to if they formulate a recommendation about the charges agains TRT would these recommendations be legal or not. Is the fact that the courts sent back a document and asked for a recommendation a certification of the legitimacy of this three member EC? And if this does legitimize the EC doesn't this mean that the EC members were/are correct in not buckling under to pressure to resign because they are infact legitimate in their actions and have every right and indeed an obligation to continue to serve? I think its very funny that the courts are asking the EC members to resign and at the same time asking them to continue working (i.e. make a recommendation about a particular case).

Chownah

Edited June 17, 2006 by chownah

[penzman]

Could it be that the OAG has indeed already reached some sort of decision or come to a final conclusion and that the EC is now unaware it just walked into a trap where it's surviving members will take the bait and be partial once more? You can easily guess the consequences if this is what 's happening...

[John K]

So does this apply or sound right?:

If the remaining EC commissioners truly believe they should not step down, then they should have sent the legal grounds to the OAG if they felt a full quorum was necessary to rule.

If the remaining commissioners truly believe they are on borrowed time, then they would do everything possible to delay hoping Thaksin can fix it before it’s too late for them. So playing the paradox looks to be the best delay tool they have now. Sending what they did to the OAG suggests this.

At any rate it looks like a catch 22 for the EC.

One thing is for sure with all the people stepping down in the Thai government, it is beginning to look like the dental records of an ice hockey player in the government quarter of the city.

Penzman, explain your trap theory more it sound interesing.

[sriracha john]

Perhaps the EC should ask for a ruling as to if they formulate a recommendation about the charges agains TRT would these recommendations be legal or not. Is the fact that the courts sent back a document and asked for a recommendation a certification of the legitimacy of this three member EC? And if this does legitimize the EC doesn't this mean that the EC members were/are correct in not buckling under to pressure to resign because they are infact legitimate in their actions and have every right and indeed an obligation to continue to serve? I think its very funny that the courts are asking the EC members to resign and at the same time asking them to continue working (i.e. make a recommendation about a particular case).

Chownah

I believe it's OAG (Attorney General) that is sending the documents back to the EC and asking for recommendations, not the Courts doing that.

I don't believe the Courts are sending any mixed messages themselves... they've told the EC to quit and I don't believe they've asked them to do anything that would legitimize the EC's status.

Edited June 17, 2006 by sriracha john

[Plus]

Has this been posted earlier? It clearly answers the questions about why OAG sent the report back - it's not the lack of evidence at all.

OAG spokesman Atthaphol Yaisawang said the majority of senior prosecutors had concluded that the report by an EC panel which found that Thai Rak Thai had engaged in electoral fraud and violated Article 66 of the Political Parties Act was incomplete because it came without a recommendation by the three remaining election commissioners. The case may end up being thrown out by the Constitution Court if the report was submitted to the court by the OAG without a recommendation from the EC, Atthaphol said.

"It could be the end of the case," he said, adding that the OAG did not have a mandate to consult the court on the matter.

As a result, it is too risky to submit the report to the court and possibly jeopardise a case that affects the "national interest", he said.

"It's slow but sure," he said of the decision to return the report to the EC, adding that someone would eventually have to take responsibility for the delay.

And this, from a leaked subcommitee report, shows that the investigative panel did not lay out exact charges, it just recommended that legal proceedings should be started:

The violations have also undermined the national security and constituted a number of offences as per the Criminal Code and the election law, it added....

The panel recommended for the legal proceedings against Thaksin on grounds that he be held accountable for his party's involvement in the campaign violations.

It appears that formulating exact charges was not Nam's panel duty.

I don't know if the lack of quorum rule applies to daily EC's work - formulating the charges and sending reports to OAG.

[John K]

So what you are implying is the EC may be deliberately trying to screw it up. That would fit into what may be expected. However it is just a technical error and I think they can be fixed without trashing the case. If they do screw up I think they will face (more) criminal charges.

There is just getting to be too much to read and keep track of in this thread. I may have to hire a secretary just to keep track of this thread. So this post is kinda maybe sort of more or less accurate.

[John K]

I only added this because it’s related to some of the posts in this thread. It would seem the valiant effort to improve the Thai education system at least for the moment has caved because too many students were getting zeros.

I guess down shifting is easy, but skipping gears to get up to speed is more difficult.

Entrance exam rejig plan ditched

Weighing for admission next year will stay

By Sirikul Bunnag

The Council of University Rectors has decided to scrap a plan to increase the weighing of the student grade point average (GPA) and cumulative grade point average (GPAX) scores in the university entrance exam next year to 40%, citing the difficulty in getting schools to conform to the same grading standard.

The CUR also rejected caretaker Education Minister Chaturon Chaisaeng's proposal for public universities to review enrolment of students through direct admission.

Pratya Vesarach, who chairs the council, said the meeting of rectors from 24 state-run universities decided not to raise the GPA and GPAX weighing in university admission criteria for next year's entrance exam to 40%.

The GPA and GPAX weighing for next year's university admission would remain at 30% while the remaining 70% of the weighing would come from the results of the students' scores from the O-Net (Ordinary National Education Test) and A-Net (Advanced National Education Test) exams.

The progressive increase in the GPA and GPAX weighing was pushed by former education minister Adisai Bodharamik, who wanted students to be more attentive in class.

The former education minister had raised the GPA weighing to 40% next year and to 50% in 2008.

"The CUR decided to scrap the plan to increase the weighing of GPA and GPAX because there are no measures in place regarding the grading standards adopted by each school and also a system was lacking in keeping schools from giving away grades to favour their own students.

"We decided to use the results of students' scores for the O-Net and A-Net tests as the main admission criteria as the entrance exams are approaching with little time to prepare for any sudden change," Mr Pratya said after the CUR's meeting in Mahidol University's Salaya campus in Nakhon Pathom yesterday.

He insisted the admission system should not be modified as any change would create chaos.

On errors in the results of the O-Net and A-Net scores this year, the CUR chairman assured the mistakes would not recur.

He said a committee has been set up to prevent the recurrence of this year's errors in the two exams' scores.

The panel, chaired by Mahidol University rector Pornchai Matangkhasombat, would work out a suitable admission system for use after next year's university entrance exams and is expected to come up with guidelines on the new system within six months, said Mr Pratya.

The O-Net and A-Net exams, introduced for the first time this year, have got off to a problematic start with many errors in students' exam scores. Many high school students taking the tests cried foul when they saw their exam papers under the O-Net and A-Net marked with zeroes.

This prompted the National Institute of Educational Testing Service (NIETS), which is responsible for the exams, to cancel the scores in April and ordered the re-checking of exam papers.

Mr Pratya also said the council found it necessary for public universities to directly enrol students as it would give opportunities for the universities to accept capable students in each field as they see fit. The direct admission does not require the GPA of students.

In addition, the direct admission would expand educational opportunities for students from needy families to get seats in public universities. The council resolved to give all state universities a free hand to set a suitable number of students enrolled through direct admission and through the national exam.

Mr Chaturon had earlier discouraged public universities from enrolling students through direct admission. He claimed this would make students lose confidence in the central admission system.

[chownah]

Perhaps the EC should ask for a ruling as to if they formulate a recommendation about the charges agains TRT would these recommendations be legal or not. Is the fact that the courts sent back a document and asked for a recommendation a certification of the legitimacy of this three member EC? And if this does legitimize the EC doesn't this mean that the EC members were/are correct in not buckling under to pressure to resign because they are infact legitimate in their actions and have every right and indeed an obligation to continue to serve? I think its very funny that the courts are asking the EC members to resign and at the same time asking them to continue working (i.e. make a recommendation about a particular case).

Chownah

I believe it's OAG (Attorney General) that is sending the documents back to the EC and asking for recommendations, not the Courts doing that.

I don't believe the Courts are sending any mixed messages themselves... they've told the EC to quit and I don't believe they've asked them to do anything that would legitimize the EC's status.

My mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. So it is the OAG that is boosting the EC's credibility by asking them to act then? If a gov't agency asks the EC to do something then to me it seems that this is giving credibility to the EC as it is presently formulated.

Chownah