Democrats are likely to implement NRC suggestions. Maybe not all of them but most.

Re. monk - last week he was in Thaksin's cabinet, last month he made a hundred of government official to sign a letter in support of Thaksin, last year he was orchestrated excutive decree much reviled in the South.

Today he is a monk.

His comment about westerners was addressed in someone's letter in BP. It's not against the rules to comment on that particular point.

It looks like Thaksin is due to file a few more lawsuits.

Phra Pavorasangkho and Thaiday as defendants per post #739

I rather think that some posters should be a tish more careful about 1) reading what was said and 2) about whom ((in this case The King)) and by whom 3) a monk ....

and avoid criticism that might be misconstrued.

1) what was said was clearly a insult against western family values

2) admiration for The King of Thailand does not need to be supported by racist insults against foreigners

3) a monk can be criticised, especially when he is clearly wrong, and behaves in a insulting manner

But for some posters it appears that for the sake of being Thailand they gladly swallow every patronising insult, and prefer to misconstruct everything in order to appear more Thai then the Thais themselves.

"what was said was clearly a insult against western family values"

I did not read the speaker's remark as such.

I read it as something that had lost a lot of its meaning in translation, and come over very awkwardly.

"Love" is such a portmanteau word, covering an enormous range, that translators should be very wary of using it, and particularly should avoid using it without a qualifying adjective.

I think what the speaker was meaning to refer to is the way that hierarchical societies model themselves on the family and keep the family as the basic social-security unit , whereas democracy 'weans' the child away to respecting, and obeying the dictates of its democratic ideals, so far as social organisation is concerned.

Looking back at British history, the shift from absolute monarchy ('pure hierarchy') to constitutional monarchy was a gradual one that was accompanied by the gradual building up of strong, enduring political parties. And it had rampant corruption when the economy was expanding fast, but the political parties were as yet weak.

I think that Thailand is coming through something similar, but far, far more rapidly.

And managing it as well as could be hoped for, given the difficulties.

But I hope Thailand doesn't go as far down the line as the UK went , with its heady idealism about the utopia of a Welfare State.

I rather think that some posters should be a tish more careful about 1) reading what was said and 2) about whom ((in this case The King)) and by whom 3) a monk ....

and avoid criticism that might be misconstrued.

1) what was said was clearly a insult against western family values

2) admiration for The King of Thailand does not need to be supported by racist insults against foreigners

3) a monk can be criticised, especially when he is clearly wrong, and behaves in a insulting manner

But for some posters it appears that for the sake of being Thailand they gladly swallow every patronising insult, and prefer to misconstruct everything in order to appear more Thai then the Thais themselves.

Lets not forget who the bad guy is in this thread. You know the person Johnny Cash wrote a song about... A boy named Sue.

I just thought the monk was making a statement about his beliefs on why westerners don't understand the realtionship between the people and H.M. The King....I thought it was kind of cute and naive...especially for someone who had been in the gov't. I guess I must be the naive one since evidently a twisted and ill intended comment seemed to me like a naive world view......oh well!!!!

Chownah

Gentlemen, gentlemen, for god's sake, get your act together, the person who is quoted has been a monk for less than a week!

He is Mr Bowornsak who has spent the last few years at Thaksin's beck and call, proposing edicts and laws that were controversial, both morally and ethically, to say the least. He finally resigned after disagreeing with Thaksin's proposal to open Parliament despite the lack of 500 MPs. It took him a long time.

Regarding Democrats and violence in the South, their record speaks for themselves, compare the number of killings and violence from 1992-1999 to 1999-2006.

I just thought the monk was making a statement about his beliefs on why westerners don't understand the realtionship between the people and H.M. The King....I thought it was kind of cute and naive...especially for someone who had been in the gov't. I guess I must be the naive one since evidently a twisted and ill intended comment seemed to me like a naive world view......oh well!!!!

Chownah

Sorry, but i get pissed off when i hear those stereotypes that we westerners don't know how to love and respect family, and i get even more pissed of when this is brought as an argument why we would not understand the relationship between the Thai population and their monarch.

I try to word this carefully, but we in the west, especially in Europe, have a more than a millenium longer experience than Thailand with the all possible systhems of monarchy, and we do understand rather well what having a monarch means, in all its facets...

Regarding Democrats and violence in the South, their record speaks for themselves, compare the number of killings and violence from 1992-1999 to 1999-2006.

Worldwide terrorism has increased incredibly since 2001 and so has a worldwide push against it. Although it's easy to put the blame entirely on the TRT, their policies and actions you have to take the situation worldwide into account and the increase of violence by terrorist groups to push their agenda. There is no way to know if the same situation would or would not have occurred under the Democrats, or anyone else, if they had formed the government post 2000 and there is no way it will end soon if they manage to form the next one. There has been a strong independence movement, on and off along with summary executions, since 1933 with no end in sight, no matter what the government in power.

My first observation was when some of the Baltic countries started to open up. The first thing that happened when the repressive government removed its big thumb, people started killing each other based on ethnic hatred.

Do you mean the Balkans?

yes sorry typo

OK its been about 48 hours or more since we heard any significant news about Thaksin. I can’t help but wonder about the battle inside him. He has now discovered in the past seven months at least 2 times the King endorses freedom of the press and freedom of expression. With the new volley of lawsuits he just filed that target just that... I wonder what he will do. At least to me if he continues with them it shows great disrespect. I know Thais that I talked to feel the same.

Has anyone taken a sample poll from Isaan in recent days? Has there been any change in the local opinion?

Sometimes I do have to wonder about the logic applied here in this forum.

If Thaksin is quiet some say its because he cornered and on the defensive.

If he makes a statement, particularly a strong one, people say its because he is cornered and on the defensive.

Its not as if we are trying to swing any voters here. After all, we are just a bunch of outsiders looking in. Its an interesting debate/discussion and I have learned a lot from it. But I wish some people could contain their internal animosity and bias a little and try to become a bit more objective. Opinions and perspectives are going to differ as they always do over political matters, but a lot of the stuff posted here is little more than pretty wildly slanted rhetoric.

"The Nation" as a source of inspiration and information is not exactly a balanced point of view.

Another thing that concerns me is the tendency of some individuals here to attack the personal credibility of posters who put up opposing viewpoints rather than debating the issue.

I'm not trying to be a moderator here as I am just a relative newcomer. And maybe the way it is, is just how some of the old hands like it.

Sometimes its difficult to nut through all the politically biased rhetoric and personal attacks in order to get to the facts.

Theres a lot of very interesting and informative stuff here but sometimes its buried under a lot of un-necessary BS. I think the subject matter at hand is topical and emotive enough to draw interest without having to spice it up with personal issues. Or perhaps some individuals just like to draw attention to themselves by being controversial?

Now you are asking people to be unbiased, Ando, after months o fblindly defending Thaksin and stuffing objectivity where the sun doesn't shine. That's pretty much the same as that new monk preaching ten virtues (in his latest article).

I wish someone put a leash on him. Unless he publicly owns up to years in Thaksin's service it's highly inappropriate of him to preach anything, especially to politicians.

BTW, the above is my personal opinion of your posting history, Ando. I wish it was more flattering to you, but sorry.

Can we go on with the topic without analizing posters behaviour - objective, biased, and all that. It immediately brings personal responses like the above - "who are you to tell me to be more objective, your own record is blah blah blah". Don't go there or the topic will get closed.

'John K.' asks, in post #762:

"Has anyone taken a sample poll from Isaan in recent days? Has there been any change in the local opinion?"

Have a heart, John. The rains have come and we are all busy transplanting rice seedlings.

All that nonsense down in Krung Thep doesn't concern us at the best of times, and especially not when we have aching backs.

Voting intentions? My neighbours will vote for the local respected man, and if Uncle Tom Cobley has got him to support the Cobley party, or he has gone over to Uncle Cob Tomley who has got him to support his Tomley party makes no difference to us.

We Westerners fall into the trap of bringing our notions about politics to Thailand with us. We should put them in a bin in the Arrival Hall at Don Muang Airport, because they don't apply here. (Or store them away for our grandchildren to have a look at, when they may have some relevance in a couple of generations time.)

In post #756, 'chownah' said:

"...the monk was making a statement about his beliefs on why westerners don't understand the realtionship between the people and H.M. The King....I thought it was kind of cute and naive..."

I would like to read the full translation of the speech.

The poor reporter was only given a few lines by the editor, and had to try to condense what was probably a long, carefully-constructed explanation into a few words, and to do it in a language of which he only has 'school-learning'.

It is also possible that the explanation was a bit 'over the head' of the reporter, so s/he didn't get a full grasp of the nuances, even in Thai. So it may be the reporter, rather than the monk, who is 'cute and naive'!!

It is very easy to read words here which are trying to express one thought as expressing quite a different one. I recently just about blew a fuse at something that a very respected professor, with the best command of English in his Faculty, put in an e-mail to me. But it turned out that he hadn't meant what the words would have meant, if written by a prof. in England. What we suspect to be 'conspiracy' may well turn out to be 'cock up' every time.

Now you are asking people to be unbiased, Ando, after months o fblindly defending Thaksin and stuffing objectivity where the sun doesn't shine. That's pretty much the same as that new monk preaching ten virtues (in his latest article).

I wish someone put a leash on him. Unless he publicly owns up to years in Thaksin's service it's highly inappropriate of him to preach anything, especially to politicians.

BTW, the above is my personal opinion of your posting history, Ando. I wish it was more flattering to you, but sorry.

Can we go on with the topic without analizing posters behaviour - objective, biased, and all that. It immediately brings personal responses like the above - "who are you to tell me to be more objective, your own record is blah blah blah". Don't go there or the topic will get closed.

Excuse me for appearing naive here. But Plus, you launch into a fairly denigrating personal attack based on nothing more substantial than as you say, and quote, --- "bla bla bla".

Then you infer I should not criticize personal attacks, eg: --"don't go there or the topic will get closed". Why on earth should the topic be closed for criticizing the dubious debating tactic of personal attacks? I haven't intentionally tried to attack anyone personally here and I have tried to put the perspective of my Thai family in the North in an unbiased way. The Northerners dont have much of a say in the Bangkok based papers and I think its only fair that some people should speak out here in this debate rather than just quoting and taking as gospel all that is printed in The Nation.

You have no more right to attempt to silence me here than I have to attempt to silence your opinions. But let it be said that I do not agree that personal attacks and put downs are a legitimate way of debating/discussing this issue here. Digression into matters of personal credibility only distracts from the issue at hand and really doesn't have much place in the core discussion here.

Thaksin is the subject of debate here. Attacking anyone who says anything good about what he has done or how the majority of Thai people in the north feel about him will not enhance the quality of the discussion.

OAG passes the buck back to EC

The three embattled election commissioners met for several hours yesterday afternoon but failed to arrive at a consensus on how to handle allegations of electoral fraud against the Thai Rak Thai party that could see the party disbanded.

Speaking briefly with reporters, EC chairman Wasana Permlarp, pictured, said the commission will search for more evidence before deciding whether TRT is guilty and if it should be dissolved.

“The EC will be able to point out in black and white whether guilt could be pinned on TRT and whether the party will be dissolved,” he said without elaborating.

The Office of the Attorney-General (OAG), which had been asked by the EC to deliberate on the matter, threw the case back to the EC on Monday and criticized the EC chairman for not doing his job.

...and it would seem from the previous 2 paragraphs, the OAG was wholly justified in doing so... as the EC in that paragraph previous is NOW clearly indicating it recognizes its responsibility and obligation to submit a complete report with their recommendations to the OAG and therefore is admitting NOW that it was negligent in forwarding the in-completed report in the first place.

TRT is facing possible dissolution if found guilty of hiring small parties to stand against it in the April 2 general election. Doing so would have eliminated the need to win 20 percent of the available votes as required for an unopposed candidate to be elected.

The OAG announced yesterday that the EC must be able to do its job before the OAG can proceed to make a formal recommendation on what should be done with TRT.

OAG spokesman Attathapol Yaisawang confirmed yesterday that the case had been returned to the EC.

Attathapol stated that the OAG had demanded that Wasana, as registrar of political parties, make a recommendation on the case and resubmit it to the OAG by next Tuesday.

“The OAG has sent all the evidence regarding the election fraud case against TRT to Wasana as registrar, and we have stated clearly where and how the TRT party has done wrong according to Article 66 of the Political Parties Act,” Attathapol said.

- TD

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

This admission of self-guilt by the EC is an encouraging new trend for them.

If Thaksin does end up going down on this charge I certainly hope its AFTER this political mess has blown over and has been well and truly settled.

There is potential for the outcome of this case to cause a lot of animosity towards westerners in Thailand if a Thaksin is removed from the political scene subsequent to charges brought by a farang.

He had police raid and arrest innocent people with children in school here, just for pure greed.

The plaintiff has waited 21 years, This was the "true" beginning of UBC. The Plaintiff is one of the best people you are ever likely to meet.

Such outcome probably wouldn't affect farangs in city areas, but could set back community relations for upcountry westerners.

Let the truth be told....If any person of any nation doesn't see how wrong this was, they'll

never have justice or freedom.

Although the court system has improved markedly from just 10 years ago, this is the type of lawsuit that will drag on and on and on. Don't expect this one to be adjudged anytime soon.

I agree with that possibility. But if you read the article and who stood with the American and where,

and that Toxin has ammassed so many enemies- and the crimminal court ISN'T waiting on the outcome of the civil dispute is a good sign.

If Thaksin does end up going down on this charge I certainly hope its AFTER this political mess has blown over and has been well and truly settled.

There is potential for the outcome of this case to cause a lot of animosity towards westerners in Thailand if a Thaksin is removed from the political scene subsequent to charges brought by a farang.

He had police raid and arrest innocent people with children in school here, just for pure greed.

The plaintiff has waited 21 years, This was the "true" beginning of UBC. The Plaintiff is one of the best people you are ever likely to meet.

Such outcome probably wouldn't affect farangs in city areas, but could set back community relations for upcountry westerners.

Let the truth be told....If any person of any nation doesn't see how wrong this was, they'll

never have justice or freedom.

Although the court system has improved markedly from just 10 years ago, this is the type of lawsuit that will drag on and on and on. Don't expect this one to be adjudged anytime soon.

I agree with that possibility. But if you read the article and who stood with the American and where,

and that Toxin has ammassed so many enemies- and the crimminal court ISN'T waiting on the outcome of the civil dispute is a good sign.

The PM is far, far too smart to be caught in a criminal case he can't win, some how, some way. While I would imagine he did make the statement several years ago that "this is Thailand", we need to remember, this is Thailand. At some point a compromise will be arranged.

Impeachment action against EC weakens

The Constitutional Court will decide tomorrow whether to impeach the three remaining election commissioners based on allegations that they have violated their constitutional legitimacy.

However, one of the judges yesterday admitted that it was likely one of the two allegations against the Election Commission (EC) will be dropped.

Legal action that may lead to the ouster of Wasana Permlarp (chairman), Prinya Nakchudtree and Virachai Naewboonnien, the three remaining and defiant commissioners, was set in motion yesterday when the Constitutional Court announced that the petition filed by 35 caretaker senators had been accepted for consideration.

“The Constitutional Court will decide on Thursday on the legitimacy of the EC and whether they have violated their constitutional qualification based on Articles 137 and 139,” announced Paiboon Warahapaithoon, the court’s secretary-general.

On June 1, the group of outgoing senators had petitioned the court to consider deposing the three EC members for allegedly favoring the Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party of caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, in violation of constitutional stipulations that require the EC to be fair and impartial.

It was the first formal attempt to remove the commissioners from office after public opinion turned vehemently against them following the nullification of the April 2 general election by the Constitutional Court last month.

The judges’ decision regarding launching the impeachment process against the EC will be based on their interpretation of Articles 266 and 142, which define the role of independent organizations such as the EC, and on the technicality of the senators’ petition.

The senators’ action against the EC is based on Article 142 of the Constitution, which empowers more than 20 senators, or caretaker senators when a new Senate has not been convened, to act on behalf of an equivalent number of MPs when the House of Representatives is not in session, and lodge complaints against the EC or challenge its status with the Constitutional Court through the Lower House speaker, whose role is currently being performed by the caretaker Senate speaker.

Paiboon also said that the judges had arrived at some conclusions during yesterday’s meeting but wanted to delay the announcement to be able to produce individual explanations to accompany their verdict as it was a “very important” matter.

However, yesterday’s meeting provided a glimpse of the favorable decision that may await the EC.

A top judge acknowledged after the meeting that most of his colleagues were inclined to drop accusations against the EC based on Article 266.

“From what I’ve heard during the discussion of the judges, the accusation based on Article 266 may not be valid,” said Pan Chantarapan, the presiding judge at the meeting.

“For the other accusations based on Article 142, it will depend on what the panel of judges decides on Thursday.”

Ubon Ratchathani senator Nirand Phitakwatchara, who spearheaded the effort to oust the election commissioners through the court, is confident that the remaining commissioners have violated constitutional stipulations following the annulment of the April 2 election and various acts that favored TRT over political rivals.

“The EC lost all its credibility after the chiefs of the Supreme, Constitutional and Administrative courts met and agreed that the commissioners were not impartial in organizing the April 2 election,” said Nirand. “That is why we want them to vacate their office: to prevent them from causing more damage to future elections.”

Source: ThaiDay - 21 June 2006

Well, Ando, you called for objectivity like no one has been objective so far, that's why I ask you not to go there - it will get ugly. Let's leave it at that.

Martin, you are right, we should have left Western preconceptions at the airport, but, and there's a bit BUT - it's not farangs who started all this PAD business. It might not matter to your and your folks up there in Isan, but it's a big deal down here in Bangkok, and not only for farangs. We talk about what we see - we don't discuss "what if Thailand had a ...." dreams.

In today's Nation there's an excellent article in reply to Economist's new article:

Questions that 'The Economist' has to answer

I guess The Economist and I can bore each other to death now. After calling Thaksin Shinawatra's downfall, or semi-downfall if you will, a "blow to democracy", the magazine has adamantly repeated its stand in yet another eye-popping editorial. Again, Thailand's political turmoil was blamed on "just a few thousand" undemocratic protesters.

Again, the ruin of checks and balances was not acknowledged. And as usual, if The Economist ever suspected there might be some truth in the charges by the "mobs" in regard to massive graft, it never showed.

All we've heard is it's the protesters' fault: "Thais are paying a heavy price for the opposition's dismissal of April's election result." "[Thailand] has taken a big step backwards." "Once you start allowing demonstrators who number in thousands to throw out politicians who have been elected by millions, the fabric of any democracy is bound to fray, let alone one that has existed for only 14 years and still lies under the shadow of crown and gun."

With all due respect, corruption - the important word that has gone missing in recent Economist editorials - started it all. The Economist has the right to call the demonstrators democracy's worst enemy, but we beg to differ. To the Thais who took to the streets and in the process endured international condemnation for being "undemocratic", the real enemy of democracy is the abuse of faith and power for personal gain.

When a popularly elected leader thinks he can do anything and place himself above the law, using the votes he got as a political shield, then the fabric of any democracy is bound to fray, let alone one that has struggled against such corrupt powers that be for so long. Democracy gives us the right to rise against corruption. It gives us the right to boycott any election we fear could reinforce the evil in our political system. And our Constitution, the fundamental part of our democracy, gives us the right to protest and resist peacefully as long as we want.

Our Constitution prohibits conflicts of interest and is very specific about that. It aims at strengthening checks and balances and promoting the role of citizenship. It encourages free speech. It seeks to empower a previously feeble system as well as the Thai public to fight that formidable enemy: corruption.

Who has been our Constitution's biggest enemy all along? Before branding the demonstrators a destructive mob and portraying Thaksin as a victim, perhaps The Economist should have addressed that question. Once a Constitution is breached and its enshrined spirit ignored, the fabric of any democracy is bound to fray.

When Thaksin and his wife were found to have stashed Bt10 billion worth of shares in his servants' accounts, this Constitution was screaming, "STOP HIM!" But whereas The Economist at that time sounded a major warning over his "insuperable conflicts of interest" and his "alarmingly undemocratic instincts", Thais forgave him, because - just as The Economist of today would have been pleased about - he had won a landslide election victory. Thais tolerated his contempt for human rights and other democratic principles and massive graft scandals for the same reason: he had been endorsed by so many of the electorate.

After sounding the alarm in 2001, The Economist changed its tone last year. "We owe Thaksin Shinawatra an apology," it said in an editorial just as he was cruising to another landslide poll win. It praised his populist policies and gave him a lot of credit for the resurgent economy.

But the magazine ended it with a noble punch-line: "Successful democracies require checks and balances, and the biggest worries about Mr Thaksin all relate to the absence of them." What happened to that ideology? With all the people who mattered in Thailand - outside the government, of course - lamenting the destruction of checks and balances over here, what happened to The Economist?

What if Tony Blair owned England's largest telecom firm? What if he hid some shares in his servants' stock accounts and a mysterious offshore firm for no good reason? What if those shares enabled him to evade taxes or exposed him to charges of stock manipulation? What if other British had to pay taxes for similar share transfers, but he didn't? What if parliament couldn't censure him? Questions like this go on and on where Thaksin is concerned, but the ultimate question to The Economist is: "Would you tolerate it?"

If the answer to those questions from such advanced democracy advocates like The Economist is "Yes", then sorry. To democratically ill-educated Thais - you all but call us so - the answer is a painful but uncompromising "No!"

Tulsathit Taptim

'Plus', in post #772, said:

"Martin........ It might not matter to your and your folks up there in Isan, but it's a big deal down here in Bangkok."

I think it does matter, but it will take some time for my neighbours to feel that what happens in Parliament matters very much to them.

I see Thai societal-organisation as being, as yet, quite disjointed.

There is so little overlap between the interests of the progressive middle-classes in Bangkok and the essentially-static peasantry (and the people in its serving organisations) in the rural areas.

The roots of it are embedded deep in the history of Siam and Thailand and so there is no quick solution to be had.

But things are moving in the right direction.

The military seem to be adopting the stance of the military in more long-standing democracies, that they stand aside from politics.

And, even up here, there is a belief that 'corruption' (i.e. big business, or officials, taking an unfair advantage of their position) shouldn't happen.

Quite a few interesting stories:

PAD to hold assembly on Saturday

The People's Alliance for Democracy will hold an assembly of PAD leading members from 76 provinces on Saturday to map out strategy to fight against the Thaksin regime.

PAD spokesman Suriyasai Katasila said about 1,500 leading members of PAD provincial branches were expected to attend the meeting.

He said the meeting would focus on how to plan strategies to try to remove the Thaksin regime.

The Nation

Regarding the next general election:

New legal worries on poll

Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is concerned about the possibility of the Constitution Court nullifying the next general election, repeating its verdict on the April 2 poll, a source close to the Cabinet said yesterday.

The source said the decree for the new election, slated for October 15 but still awaiting royal approval, was discussed at yesterday's Cabinet meeting.

Thaksin asked the secretary-general of the State Council's Office (SCO) if it was possible that losing candidates could appeal to the Constitution Court to annul the poll, claiming its timing breached a legal deadline.

The Constitution states that a new poll must be held within 60 days of the House being dissolved. Thaksin dissolved the House on February 24.

An SCO official said he believed such an appeal could occur, but that the government could defend itself, arguing that it had merely followed the Constitution Court's ruling, the source said.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/06/21...cs_30006965.php

For anyone interested they are referring to:

Section 116.

The King has the prerogative to dissolve the House of Representatives for a new election of members of the House. The dissolution of the House of Representatives shall be made in the form of a Royal Decree in which the day for a new general election must be fixed within sixty days and such election day must be the same throughout the Kingdom.

Hopefully someone will talk to the constitutional court prior to the issuing of a "new" royal decree, and get the matter clarified

On the subject of the EC:

No more witnesses in TRT probe: EC

Election Commissioner Prinya Nakchudtree yesterday said the EC would not summon more witnesses in new probes about whether to dissolve the Thai Rak Thai Party.

The EC has not questioned outgoing Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra over charges that the party hired small parties to run in the inconclusive April 2 election, as suggested by the panel headed by Nam Yimyaem.

Prinya said it was too late for the EC to question more witnesses, unless the Office of Attorney-General decided not to seek a Constitutional Court ruling, then a joint committee could be set up to further investigate the case.

Asked why the EC had not questioned Thaksin about the matter, Prinya said the EC had instructed Nam's panel to do so, and he did not know why it had not. According to Article 19 of Election Commission Act, the EC must question the leader of any party that it seeks to disband. The EC followed the law by questioning the party leaders when it sought to disband the Thai Ground Party and the Pattana Chart Thai Party. It also summoned Democrat Party Abhisit Vejjajiva for questioning on accusations that it had hired small parties to slander the ruling party and had attempted to bring down government.

Sources said because Thaksin had not been questioned, the argument to disband Thai Rak Thai was weak. This could likely cause the Office of Attorney-General (OAG) or Constitution Court to reject hearing the case.

Without Thaksin being questioned, the case lacked the evidence linking the move to hire small parties to run in the April 2 election to the party's leader.

OAG spokesman Attapol Yaisawang yesterday said he was confident the Election Commission (EC) would re-submit the investigation file and suggested charges and penalties against Thai Rak Thai party by next Tuesday.

Attapol said after the OAG returned the investigation to the EC, the EC public relations director Police Colonel Prasert Suthison had said he would comply with the OAG's suggestion.

"It is a good sign that the political party registrar will give his full cooperation. We hope the EC will also help by returning the investigation file and clarifying the grounds for dissolving Thai Rak Thai by next Tuesday,'' he said.

The EC had not specified any legal grounds for dissolving the Thai Rak Thai Party, but did ask why two small parties, Thai Ground and Pattana Chart Thai, should have been disbanded.

The OAG would have to strictly follow Sections 66 and 67 of the Political Party Act to determine whether the party had violated the law and whether a motion to dissolve it should be moved so the matter can be referred to the Constitution Court.

Meanwhile, Prasob Bussarakham, a Thai Rak Thai legal expert, said the party's legal team was confident the party would not be dissolved, because individual party members - and not the party itself - had committed the crime.

He said the charges against Thai Rak Thai were not clear and were different from the charges against the two small parties that the EC said there are grounds to disband.

"The leaders of the two parties were accused of being involved in the wrongdoing from the start,'' he said.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/06/21...cs_30006964.php

also:

'Election court needed to oversee poll body'

With the three remaining Election Commissioners stubbornly refusing to quit despite a ruling they illegally managed the April 2 election, a deputy Democrat leader called yesterday for the setting up of an election court to monitor the Election Commission.

Alongkorn Pollabutr, in a seminar at Thammasat University, said a new round of charter reforms should give priority to tackling the controversial issue of how the political system can prevent "money politics", which political parties exploit to expand their influence over every social sector.

"Candidates are required by law to run their campaigns under political parties," he said. "This has forced them to live under the yoke of the party, which could be under only one person who controls the whole party."

As the Election Commission (EC), because of its mismanagement of the April elections, had become a symbolic failure of the charter, so an election court should be founded to check on the EC.

"The public has totally lost trust in the commissioners," he said.

Thammasat law lecturer Boonsri Meewong-ukote described the ruling Thai Rak Thai Party as a model of a non-democratic party.

"The severest problem for Thai politics is that democracy does not exist in political parties - it is only one person or a small group of people who own them," he said.

If the parties were democratic, they could select qualified candidates to become prime minister, he said.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/06/21...cs_30006941.php

And, even up here, there is a belief that 'corruption' (i.e. big business, or officials, taking an unfair advantage of their position) shouldn't happen.

My upcountry Thai family hold much the same views. They dont like corruption and believe it shouldn't happen but tolerate it because they know it is so entrenched in Thai society.

This current crisis is good in a way because it supports the belief of nearly all Thai people that corruption should be reined in. But corruption is so endemic in Thai society that this current chapter is not going to be the end of it all by any means.

However, if a government elected by a minority of people in the city gets into power by default through court action, that will not address the problem of endemic corruption or represent the true principles of democracy. The master- servant relationship mentality between poor Thai and rich Thai, uneducated upcountry Thai and educated city Thai, needs to be addressed in order for the democratic process to work effectively. It is as much a cultural change as a political change, but somewhere down the line the political leaders will realize that the old hierarchal system of political power over the poor by the rich is starting to be replaced by true democracy where the poor actually have a say in how things are done.

The Democrats political strategy seems to be to isolate the majority of voters (who are mainly poor uneducated upcountry Thais), while concentrating on the more wealthy educated elite in the cities. Such political strategy doesn't really fit well with the principals of democracy but rather goes more along the lines of the old hierarchal principal of rule by the rich over the poor. The Democrats high moral ground of opposing corruption, though honorable and supported by most Thais everywhere, is of little value politically unless they combine it with the broader principles of democracy which give the majority of voters a better deal.

Conversely, the TRT has been able to capture the rural vote simply by giving them a better deal. While the Democrats focused on the minority city vote, the TRT went out and captured the majority vote in the country and got into power via the democratic process.

Thaksin may be corrupt, and he may have abused his position for personal gain. He may have used his position to surround himself with cronies. But he was only allowed to get into this position because he was smart enough to recognize that in a democracy you need the majority of votes. And those votes lie in rural Thailand. The Democrats have failed to get into power simply because they didn't bother to offer some hope to the rural people who might have put them into power.

All these court cases re corruption wont count for much when its all over if the winner doesn't pay attention to the principles of democracy and recognize that the rural people actually have a say in how the government should act in a true democracy.

Thai people are smart enough to know that corruption is inherent in their society. They know that power and corruption go hand in hand. It doesn't make much difference to them which party is in power re corruption.

If and when the Democrats get into power we shall see how their high moral values benefit the majority of voters in Thailand.

Top court 'split' over bid to disqualify EC

Constitution Court judges are split over whether the court should accept a petition filed by a group of 35 senators seeking to disqualify the three remaining election commissioners, a source said yesterday.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/06/21...cs_30006940.php

One thing that has not been mentioned either in this forum or in the press are the implications of removing the remaining commissioners or having them resign from office. One of the most important is the fact that the remaining commissioners have already served approx 6 years in office, and the constitution states:

Section 140.

Election Commissioners shall hold office for a term of seven years as from the date of their appointment by the King and shall serve for only one term. The Election Commissioners who vacate office upon the expiration of the term shall remain in office to continue to perform their duties until the newly appointed Election Commissioners take office.

so the remaining commissioners only have about 1 year to go. Why this is important is under section 143.

In the case where the Election Commissioners have vacated office in toto, actions under section 138 shall be taken within forty five days as from the date of the vacation. In the case where Election Commissioners vacate office for any reason other than the expiration of term, section 138 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the selection and election of Election Commissioners to fill the vacancies. In this case, persons, in the twice number of the outgoing persons, who are suitable to be Election Commissioners shall be nominated to the Presidents of the Senate for election by a resolution of the Senate; provided that this procedure shall be completed within forty five days as from the date of the vacation, and the elected persons shall serve only for the remainder of the term of the replaced Commissioners.

So should the commissioners resign or be forced out of office either by the constitutional court or for being found guilty by the criminal court procedings (Section 137 of the constitution), the courts would have to find 10 people who are not only willing to do the job, but are also prepared to do it only for a very brief period of time. One of the qualifications needed for the job of election commissioner is to be eligable under Section 106 of the constitution:

Section 106. A person under any of the following prohibitions on the election day is disfranchised: (1) being of unsound mind or of mental infirmity; (2) being a Buddhist priest, novice, monk or clergy; (3) being detained by a warrant of the Court or by a lawful order; (4) being under suspension of the right to vote .

After all the criticism the present commissioners have gone through, who in their right mind would want the job......

Edited June 21, 200620 yr by slimdog

Two Thai Rak Thai MPs convicted of contempt of court

The Central Administrative Court Wednesday convicted two Thai Rak Thai Party MPs of contempt of court for strongly criticising the court over the trial of April 2 election case.

The court ruled that Sophon Phetsawang and Buasorn Prachamorn were apparently trying to intimidate the court regarding the trial of the case.

Continued here:

http://nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/r...newsid=30006987

A lot of good stuff on page 52. I am starting to have some faith in the Thai courts. One minor item that is missing, Jail time, how much, and when. There must be a minimum / maximum for the crimes that they are charged with. Does anyone have that information?

And, even up here, there is a belief that 'corruption' (i.e. big business, or officials, taking an unfair advantage of their position) shouldn't happen.

My upcountry Thai family hold much the same views. They dont like corruption and believe it shouldn't happen but tolerate it because they know it is so entrenched in Thai society.

This current crisis is good in a way because it supports the belief of nearly all Thai people that corruption should be reined in. But corruption is so endemic in Thai society that this current chapter is not going to be the end of it all by any means.

However, if a government elected by a minority of people in the city gets into power by default through court action, that will not address the problem of endemic corruption or represent the true principles of democracy. The master- servant relationship mentality between poor Thai and rich Thai, uneducated upcountry Thai and educated city Thai, needs to be addressed in order for the democratic process to work effectively. It is as much a cultural change as a political change, but somewhere down the line the political leaders will realize that the old hierarchal system of political power over the poor by the rich is starting to be replaced by true democracy where the poor actually have a say in how things are done.

The Democrats political strategy seems to be to isolate the majority of voters (who are mainly poor uneducated upcountry Thais), while concentrating on the more wealthy educated elite in the cities. Such political strategy doesn't really fit well with the principals of democracy but rather goes more along the lines of the old hierarchal principal of rule by the rich over the poor. The Democrats high moral ground of opposing corruption, though honorable and supported by most Thais everywhere, is of little value politically unless they combine it with the broader principles of democracy which give the majority of voters a better deal.

Conversely, the TRT has been able to capture the rural vote simply by giving them a better deal. While the Democrats focused on the minority city vote, the TRT went out and captured the majority vote in the country and got into power via the democratic process.

Thaksin may be corrupt, and he may have abused his position for personal gain. He may have used his position to surround himself with cronies. But he was only allowed to get into this position because he was smart enough to recognize that in a democracy you need the majority of votes. And those votes lie in rural Thailand. The Democrats have failed to get into power simply because they didn't bother to offer some hope to the rural people who might have put them into power.

All these court cases re corruption wont count for much when its all over if the winner doesn't pay attention to the principles of democracy and recognize that the rural people actually have a say in how the government should act in a true democracy.

Thai people are smart enough to know that corruption is inherent in their society. They know that power and corruption go hand in hand. It doesn't make much difference to them which party is in power re corruption.

If and when the Democrats get into power we shall see how their high moral values benefit the majority of voters in Thailand.

Thaksin is the greatest dictator around, what is this nonsense of a change of power from the rich to the poor!! In TRT, Thaksin, one of the richest men in Thailand brooks no dissent, the poor's only use is to vote for him when he calls a snap election, and they choose him because of populist policies, ie vote buying in disguise. Look at the TRT cabinet, composed of the richest families in Thailand, do you really think they're handing over power to the poor?!

And who has any hand in any decision apart from Thaksin and his wife?

The Democrats are far more democratic, decisions are reached by discussion, debate.

And what's this about Democrats focusing on the city vote, nearly all their former MPs are from upcountry, from southern provinces, how many Democrat MPs in the election in 2004 came from Bangkok?

Thaksin isn't only smart, he is also anti -democratic, a true authoritarian, TV and the written media have been constantly intimidated by him.

Why do you think he dissolved Parliament when his government had been in power only one year and had a majority of 375 to 125?

Because he couldn't stand checks and balances, the true test of a democratic and decent politician.

the TRT has been able to capture the rural vote simply by giving them a better deal.

Yes, it's buyers market - whoever offers the better deal gets a vote. Don't call it a democracy, though - just plain old vote buying.

Martin, I don't think you can get a full translation of that monk's article and I don't think it's poor reporter's fault at all.

It was one of the installments in five article series written specifically for Bangkok Post by Bowornsak, most probably before he entered monkhood. Most probably in English, too - he's a well educated man.