Thaksin Returns As Pm

[John K]

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

Or dressing them down by showing they can’t follow their own mandates. It all depends how you look at it. Penzman may be right on setting up some sort of trap. I think the answer would be found in how Thais would view this and not an expat. By sending it back makes the EC lose face.

[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.

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

From their website:

"The OAG is an independent agency, not under the control of any ministry."

It then goes on to say it, "reports directly to the Justice Minister."

anyway, given the option of doing nothing and sitting on it or simply going with the post-office styled, "return to sender" the OAG took the path of common sense and expediency. As for giving credibility to the EC, they may have indirectly done so by their actions, but I think that any amount of credibility that is created by this action is absolutely minimal.

In the eyes of most, the EC's credibility is that of a completely crushed egg shell... putting a couple of pieces of the shattered shell on top of each other prior to sweeping it up off the floor doesn't do much to restore the egg.

[Siripon]

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

The OAG is simply doing its job by demanding the EC gives a recommendation, nothing about giving them credibility, in fact they threatened to prosecute the EC if a recommendation is not sent by June 27. By the way I think Thaksin himself appointed The Attorney- General Pachara Yutithamdamrong.

[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...

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.

Why I think it's a trap.

I keep thinking that a third party or body is now involved, without public knowledge and, unbeknownst to them, the EC's every move is AND has been very closely and secretly scrutinized, including phone conversations, meetings etc . There may be a few pieces missing in the puzzle, the EC's instinctive partiality towards TRT is bound to surface again any hour now. Why else would the OAG simply send the whole thing back to the EC, who washed their hands of the sub-commitee's report in the first place, and create another deadlock situation?

We may see some interesting footage very soon, big faces and handcuffs.

[Siripon]

It's interesting how Thaksin's legal team is deserting him, first Bowornsak who couldn't stand the unehical legal moves Thaksin was forcing on him- page 4 in The Perspective section of The Bangkok Post has a good article translated from The Matichon as to the reasons.

Now it seems certain Wisanu will go on Tuesday; one of the 2 possible candidates to replace him is Purachai's old enemy at The Justice Ministry, Thaksin's brother-in-law, although admittedly he is the dark horse.

[sriracha john]

The Shinawatra Clan

just can't seem to stay away from corruption:

SSO building purchase plan halted

Complaints it wanted to spend too much

The Social Security Office (SSO)'s plan to buy Wattajak building has been halted following criticisms the office intends to make the purchase at an inflated price.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/18Jun2006_news09.php

[John K]

The Shinawatra Clan

just can't seem to stay away from corruption:

SSO building purchase plan halted

Complaints it wanted to spend too much

The Social Security Office (SSO)'s plan to buy Wattajak building has been halted following criticisms the office intends to make the purchase at an inflated price.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/18Jun2006_news09.php

It could be just last call....

[hammered]

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

Has anyone actually spotted that the OAG is doing exactly what it techinically must by the rules. Remember the courts have been asked to solve this and people have been asked to follow the rules, which is what the OAG is doing. Technically they can do nothing without an EC recommendation, so they technically have to send it back to get a recomendation. The status of the EC and/or who is in the EC is technically not part of the OAGs area of responsibilty so why would they get involved in it. The status if questioned can be legally sorted out at another time, and th eway this whole thing is moving this could easly become a question to the relevant court.

[ando]

Has anyone actually spotted that the OAG is doing exactly what it technically must by the rules. Remember the courts have been asked to solve this and people have been asked to follow the rules, which is what the OAG is doing. Technically they can do nothing without an EC recommendation, so they technically have to send it back to get a recommendation. The status of the EC and/or who is in the EC is technically not part of the OAGs area of responsibilty so why would they get involved in it. The status if questioned can be legally sorted out at another time, and th eway this whole thing is moving this could easly become a question to the relevant court.

But if the courts don't recognize the EC as a legitimate body of authority (as the OAG obviously does), and the OAG sends the recommendations of the EC to the courts for a decision, -- how then can the courts accept the evidence and recommendations forwarded by the EC (which the courts don't recognize as legitimate under law)?

Sorry if it all sound a bit confusing. I am not trying to confuse the issue here. All these points of law and who recognizes who is getting a bit confusing for me too!

Surely such a complex issue would only end up with an appeal against the final decision if it went against the defendant?

This whole thing is starting to get way above my head. I am not sure if it is a case of the politicians playing the legal system or the legal system (read --courts/OAG) playing politics. Or maybe they are are all just sticking strictly to the established rules that are simply not set up to deal with this kind of a problem?

[ColPyat]

This whole thing is starting to get way above my head. I am not sure if it is a case of the politicians playing the legal system or the legal system (read --courts/OAG) playing politics. Or maybe they are are all just sticking strictly to the established rules that are simply not set up to deal with this kind of a problem?

Or it's just a case of having to report something because there simply is nothing of substance to report on.

Don't worry, something is bound to be happening sooner or later, and we'll can back to debating real event's instead of just legalities that are way beyond anyone who is not a lawyer.

[sriracha john]

If in doubt.... deny, deny, deny...

Thaksin dismisses speculated resignation of some ministers as rumours

Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra Sunday dismissed as rumours speculations that certain Cabinet members would resign. When asked to comment on the speculations, Thaksin replied: "Do you know what rumours mean?

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...newsid=30006725

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

Pongsak denies he plans to resign

Caretaker Transport Minister Pongsak Ruktapongpisal Sunday denied that he was planning to resign.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...newsid=30006726

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

Sudarat denies Thamarak plans to resign

Thai Rak Thai Party deputy leader Sudarat Keyuraphan Friday dismissed speculation that her colleague Defense Minister Thamarak Isarangura was poised to resign his party membership in order to take the fall for alleged bankrolling of small parties in lieu of the ruling party.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...newsid=30006609

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

[Final part of post edited out. That was really funny SJ, but as it stood with the other, bona fide news sources, some readers could construe it as real news... /Meadish]

[chownah]

Seems like an attorney general could independently investigate and bring charges on any matter within its jurisdiction. In the US a big part of the attorney general is to do just that....I think.

A logical explanation as to why the OAG returned the EC document (assuming it was only optional to do so) could be that no one wants to be the one who precipitates action against the most powerful group of people in the country...and...since there is such intense focus on what is going on no one wants to be the one who ignores solid evidence either. The proverbial rock and a hard place.

Chownah

P.S. If someone has a description of the OAG's responsibilities I would be glad to be shown wrong on my assumption.

Chownah

[Plus]

Or it's just a case of having to report something because there simply is nothing of substance to report on.

If that was the case, i.e. there's no case at all, we'd have heard about it already - from the investigative panel, the EC itself, or OAG.

Chownah, I wonder if you read the quote from OAG spokesman on previous page: 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.

[chownah]

Or it's just a case of having to report something because there simply is nothing of substance to report on.

If that was the case, i.e. there's no case at all, we'd have heard about it already - from the investigative panel, the EC itself, or OAG.

Chownah, I wonder if you read the quote from OAG spokesman on previous page: 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.

I haven't read it...thanks for the heads up.

Chownah

I went out and read it. To me it seems filled with mights and maybes. It does not say that the OAG could not proceed...it just says that the case will be stronger with an EC recommendation. This might very well just be OAG's way of avoiding being the ones that precipitate the bring of charges against the most powerful group of people in the country (meaning the TRT). I'd still like to find out what the OAG duties and powers are. From reading what the OAG's excuse was it makes me think that in fact they do have a mandate to be able to proceed on a case on their own volition and on this case they decided not to proceed (and for the reason I just mentioned)...after all they did not say that they couldn't proceed...just that there was more risk involved.

Chownah

Edited June 18, 2006 by chownah

[sriracha john]

Seems like an attorney general could independently investigate and bring charges on any matter within its jurisdiction. In the US a big part of the attorney general is to do just that....I think.

P.S. If someone has a description of the OAG's responsibilities I would be glad to be shown wrong on my assumption.

Chownah

http://www.ago.go.th

a review of their website reveals, "We're not in Kansas anymore"...

Investigation

Basically, public prosecutors do not have investigative

power. Inquiry officers of the Police Agency assume the

principal role for investigation.

*edit*....

sheesh... just noticed their website name is A GO GO..... don't go there expecting any photos...

Edited June 18, 2006 by sriracha john

[sriracha john]

[Final part of post edited out. That was really funny SJ, but as it stood with the other, bona fide news sources, some readers could construe it as real news... /Meadish]

tsk..tsk... impugning the lofty name of the Pulitzer prize-winning news agency,

Bangkok Herald-Examiner...

but you're right, of course... as some readers seemingly have difficulty identifying reality

oh well... the true news stories often turn out to be far more wacky then anything I can concoct...

[Plus]

Chownah, why don't you take OAG's word as it is - if they proceed with the case without EC recommendation, it might not be accepted by the court. This is a rather important case to risk it being thrown out on technicalities.

If OAG, as you suggest, is afraid of offending TRT, then the easiest way is to actually proceed and wait for the court to dismiss the case. Then it will be effectively postponed forever. That's what EC has done, except that now it has June 27 deadline to resubmit the case or face dereliction of duty charges. Still they managed to stall it for about two weeks.

[ando]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the full investigation report has been handed to the OAG by the EC.

Now the OAG (which I assume would be acting as the Prosecutor), says it cant, or rather WONT take the case to court without the recommendation of the EC. Why does the OAG need the endorsement of the EC? Surely the OAG is competent enough to decide if there are grounds to prosecute or not on the basis of the investigation report, without the recommendation of the EC?

And now the OAG is threatening to prosecute the EC unless they make recommendations before June 27. How come the OAG can initiate proceedings against the EC without "recommendations" from anyone when they cant (or rather wont) start proceedings against TRT?

And why would the OAG think the case against TRT "may" get thrown out of court without recommendations from the EC. Either the OAG has the authority to proceed on the basis of the evidence furnished by the EC, or it does not.

It is obvious that there is sufficient evidence in the ECs report to warrant a court case, so why not just get on with job instead of stalling the proceedings. Someone has got to make a decision somewhere instead of just handing the responsibility for proceeding back and forth like a hot potato. And what if the EC doesn't comply with the OAG demands by June 27. Would the investigation report just sit in a drawer somehere while the OAG goes off on a tangent prosecuting the EC?

[lukamar]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the full investigation report has been handed to the OAG by the EC.

Now the OAG (which I assume would be acting as the Prosecutor), says it cant, or rather WONT take the case to court without the recommendation of the EC.

In the report in the BP(post #658) the EC said and I quote, "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." It's not that the report cannot be put forward but that it may not have sufficient evidence to be put forward any further "Mr Atthapol said that without legal grounds, the Constitution Court may not accept the case" and "the report would be returned to the EC on Monday and the poll agency had until June 27 to make a formal recommendation".

And now the OAG is threatening to prosecute the EC unless they make recommendations before June 27. How come the OAG can initiate proceedings against the EC without "recommendations" from anyone when they cant (or rather wont) start proceedings against TRT?

I'll make a guess, they either don't want to or they can't because, as the OAG put it, they need legal grounds which by their own words were not enough to prosecute.

And why would the OAG think the case against TRT "may" get thrown out of court without recommendations from the EC. Either the OAG has the authority to proceed on the basis of the evidence furnished by the EC, or it does not.

Again they want legal grounds from the EC, there may be lots of circumstantial but no solid evidence.

It is obvious that there is sufficient evidence in the ECs report to warrant a court case, so why not just get on with job instead of stalling the proceedings.

See above there may not be much solid evidence or legal grounds as the OAG has suggested.

[sriracha john]

Well, to end all the speculating whether there's enough evidence or not, there apparently is. The report is being sent back to the EC to simply follow protocol as the EC is the registrar for political parties.

ELECTION COMMISSION / COURT CASE BEGINS

Party-for-hire report to be sent back today

The heat is back on the Election Commission, with the Office of the Attorney-General set to return the commission's report today on alleged bankrolling of small parties by the Thai Rak Thai party. Spokesman Atthapol Yaisawang said yesterday the findings of a sub-panel headed by Nam Yimyaem were ''enough'' for the prosecution to forward the case to the Constitution Court for a ruling.

''The only thing missing is a recommendation from the EC chairman, in his capacity as the registrar of political parties,'' he said.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/19Jun2006_news08.php

[tettyan]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the full investigation report has been handed to the OAG by the EC.

Now the OAG (which I assume would be acting as the Prosecutor), says it cant, or rather WONT take the case to court without the recommendation of the EC.

In the report in the BP(post #658) the EC said and I quote, "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." It's not that the report cannot be put forward but that it may not have sufficient evidence to be put forward any further "Mr Atthapol said that without legal grounds, the Constitution Court may not accept the case" and "the report would be returned to the EC on Monday and the poll agency had until June 27 to make a formal recommendation".

And now the OAG is threatening to prosecute the EC unless they make recommendations before June 27. How come the OAG can initiate proceedings against the EC without "recommendations" from anyone when they cant (or rather wont) start proceedings against TRT?

I'll make a guess, they either don't want to or they can't because, as the OAG put it, they need legal grounds which by their own words were not enough to prosecute.

And why would the OAG think the case against TRT "may" get thrown out of court without recommendations from the EC. Either the OAG has the authority to proceed on the basis of the evidence furnished by the EC, or it does not.

Again they want legal grounds from the EC, there may be lots of circumstantial but no solid evidence.

It is obvious that there is sufficient evidence in the ECs report to warrant a court case, so why not just get on with job instead of stalling the proceedings.

See above there may not be much solid evidence or legal grounds as the OAG has suggested.

First, stop it with the red herrings and answer my questions! Second, you take the term "legal grounds" stated by the OAG deliberately out of context. They are not referencing the subtance of the sub-committee report, but the procedures followed by the EC and their failure to attach a formal recommendation. I will not bother to re-quote the constitution & OAG's statmens here for you - you should go back and re-read the last 3 pages of this thread yourself. In any case, for there to be "legal grounds" for a case, the EC must follow proper procedures first. Not doing doing so is considered negligence in the line of duty.

Finally, as someone else mentioned, the Nam report recommended that the commisssioners investigate further - especially with regards to the role of the PM in all this. It appears that the EC has failed to do this, but instead asked the OAG to do their job for them!

So can you really say that the EC has been completly faithful to it's duties and responsibilities? Answer this first please before you go on to muddle the issue further.

Edited June 19, 2006 by tettyan

[chownah]

Seems like an attorney general could independently investigate and bring charges on any matter within its jurisdiction. In the US a big part of the attorney general is to do just that....I think.

P.S. If someone has a description of the OAG's responsibilities I would be glad to be shown wrong on my assumption.

Chownah

http://www.ago.go.th

a review of their website reveals, "We're not in Kansas anymore"...

Investigation

Basically, public prosecutors do not have investigative

power. Inquiry officers of the Police Agency assume the

principal role for investigation.

*edit*....

sheesh... just noticed their website name is A GO GO..... don't go there expecting any photos...

Sriracha john,

Sorry that I wasn't clear in my post. I did not mean that the attorney general's own staff would do the investigation...after all they are all office lawyers and investigation is not what they studied in school nor what they have pursued in their career path. What I meant was that perhaps they can authorize an investigation on thier own if they feel that it is necessary. It is not clear to me from your excerpt if this is correct...or not...so I'm going to go look at the link...Thanks for that!

Chownah

P.S. I went out and looked at the link. I looked around and found your reference which by the way is found directly at this link:

http://www.ago.go.th/eng/p1.pdf

If anyone wants to read about the OAG this is a great write up and I highly recommend it.

As to the issue at hand I found this clip on page 20 of the article:

"Where the public prosecutors consider that further investigation

is necessary for a decision to be made as to whether or not to issue

a prosecution order or to drop the case, the public prosecutors

have the power to direct the inquiry official to carry out further

investigation."

This seems to indicate that the OAG (I believe that the public prosecutors mentioned above are officers of the OAG) can indeed initiate further investigation if they think it is wise. I'm not sure if this is an issue concerning the return of the EC documents because more information on this matter has come out in the posts since I broached this issue and it now seems that the documents were returned more on a technicality of how they were drafted i.e. there was no official recommendation statement made by whoever.

Thanks for pointing me to that document on the OAG...its a good one.

Chownah

Edited June 19, 2006 by chownah

[chownah]

Chownah, why don't you take OAG's word as it is - if they proceed with the case without EC recommendation, it might not be accepted by the court. This is a rather important case to risk it being thrown out on technicalities.

If OAG, as you suggest, is afraid of offending TRT, then the easiest way is to actually proceed and wait for the court to dismiss the case. Then it will be effectively postponed forever. That's what EC has done, except that now it has June 27 deadline to resubmit the case or face dereliction of duty charges. Still they managed to stall it for about two weeks.

Plus,

You are probably correct about the OAG's reasoning for returning the EC document.

As to why I don't take what the OAG says at face value: I never take any statement made by any politician and especially any Thai politician at face value. I also extend this to include people who used to be politicians and people whose intentions are to become politicians and anyone whose business depends on the good grace of any politician past, present, or future.... I also extend this to Thai civil service workers in general....4 years ago the head of the irrigation department in my area said in 1 or 2 year they were going to rebuild the irrigation canal. After three years I asked again and he said in one year more they were going to do it.....one year has passed and one of his underlings told me just last month that it would be in a year or two because they have no money now. Some people you should never take any statement from any Thai person at face value...especially if you are a westerner....perhaps this is taking things a bit too far...maybe not.

Chownah

P.S. I also extend this to include Toxin specifically and independently from his membership in any of the categories I've listed above....

Chownah

Edited June 19, 2006 by chownah

[lukamar]

First, stop it and answer my questions!

First of all.... I'm not here to answer your baiting questions if you want someone to kick, go kick your dog or your wife. I'll respond how and when I like and if my views do not mesh with yours so be it, that's life. I ignore you because, simply put... You are rude!!!!

[hammered]

Then of course if we want to get away from the legal technicalities the report going back for a formal recommendation puts the EC in an even more difficult situation. They could recommend prosecution of TRT - something which they seem to have tried to avoid to date, and something which would split them from their last remaining supporters. They could recommend not prosecuting TRT, which would create a furore considering their own panel recommends prosecution. They could do nothing and be charged by the OAG in a matter of days. Or they could do what many people want and resign leaving the report to the next EC to deal with. Interesting times.

[tettyan]

First, stop it and answer my questions!

First of all.... I'm not here to answer your baiting questions if you want someone to kick, go kick your dog or your wife. I'll respond how and when I like and if my views do not mesh with yours so be it, that's life. I ignore you because, simply put... You are rude!!!!

Yet again, you ignore the substance of a post and try to change the subject.

You can't have it both ways. Either the EC screwed up, or it didn't. The OAG's reaction to its submission of the report indicates that it did. If it did mess up, then who else other than the EC should be responsible?

I appreciate the diversity of views here, but maybe the debate would be more interesting if people thought for themselves more, rather than steadfastly defending one side while refusing to concede that just maybe, no side is completely faultless.

Edited June 19, 2006 by tettyan

[tettyan]

I rest my case...

Party-for-hire report to be sent back today

Bangkok Post - June 19, 2006

The heat is back on the Election Commission, with the Office of the Attorney-General set to return the commission's report today on alleged bankrolling of small parties by the Thai Rak Thai party. Spokesman Atthapol Yaisawang said yesterday the findings of a sub-panel headed by Nam Yimyaem were ''enough'' for the prosecution to forward the case to the Constitution Court for a ruling.

''The only thing missing is a recommendation from the EC chairman, in his capacity as the registrar of political parties,'' he said.

Mr Atthapol said the OAG will make clear what it wants. The inquiry's report was expected to be resubmitted in a week.

The EC has insisted it did nothing wrong in forwarding the report without a covering recommendation. The report found Thai Rak Thai had hired small parties to contest the poll to improve its own odds of winning seats, which it said breached election law.

Meanwhile, EC chairman Wasana Permlarp and fellow commissioners Parinya Nakchudtree and Veerachai Naewboonnian will appear in the Criminal Court today to testify in a case brought against them by Democrat deputy secretary-general Thavorn Senniem.

He accused the trio and former commissioner Pol Gen Charupat Ruangsuwan of abuse of authority for allowing constituency-hopping by failed candidates.

The commissioners are also expected at a court hearing in a negligence of duty case lodged by Democrat secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban.

If the court denies them bail and the three commissioners are detained, new questions are likely to arise about whether the commissioners can stay in their jobs.

The government should pass a royal decree allowing a body other than the Election Commission to run the election, says New Alternative party leader Chalerm Yubamrung.

Pol Capt Chalerm said the government should issue a royal decree to suspend articles in the constitution concerning the authority of the EC, and appoint an acceptable and neutral body to hold the next election instead. That would ease political tensions, he believes.

The decree could also allow the prime minister to select a new body from non-MPs.

Pol Capt Chalerm said charter amendments are usually complicated and take a long time to push through. When the country is faced with a constitutional crisis and needs a quick solution, such amendments will not help, he said.

A royal decree could establish a temporary body to clear the political hurdle.

[John K]

I have not heard any words of denial from the TRT in recent days. It lends to thinking there is some major scheming underway. And oh yes delay delay delay.....

[Jai Dee]

A Chart Thai Party deputy leder asks the EC to sacrifice for the country by stepping down

Chart Thai Party deputy leader Somsak Prissana-nanthakul (สมศักดิ์ ปริศนานันทกุล) calls on the Election Commission (EC) to make a great sacrifice for the nation by resigning.

Mr. Somsak said the three poll commissioners should rush to conclude their election investigations and leave to make way for the appointment of five news EC members.

He said the commissioners failed to win public trust and so should no longer stay in office.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 19 June 2006

[Jai Dee]

Chalerm Yubamrung calls for a royal decree exempting enforcement of certain constitutional rules

Veteran politician Chalerm Yubamrung (เฉลิม อยู่บำรุง) suggests the issue of a royal decree exempting the use of certain articles in the constitution that may be obstacles to efforts to solve political problems.

Pol. Capt. Chalerm, founder of the New Alternative Party, said King Rama VII used to issue a royal decree closing the House of Representatives, disbanding the cabinet and appointing the new cabinet to look after the country while the election was yet to be held and the legitimate government was not yet set up.

He said his party gave importance to ending the southern violence through peaceful means, adding he himself may contest the party list system.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 19 June 2006