Validity of Sunday polls still in question: Thai politics

[webfact]

SPECIAL REPORT
Validity of Sunday polls still in question
Opas Boonlom
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Although the election is over, many legal problems are pending and law experts have yet to reach a consensus on how to apply the law to either legitimise or to nullify the poll.

One legal camp, which wants to nullify the election, suggested that the ballot on Sunday was invalid because it could not be held across the country on the same day as required by Article 180 of the Constitution.

The Election Commission (EC) was unable to hold voting in 28 constituencies in eight provinces in the South as the constituencies had no candidates. It is still unclear if the EC has the authority to set a new election date for these 28 constituencies or if the government has the power to do this.

Also, voters could not cast their ballots in 69 constituencies, mostly in the South and Bangkok, due to disruptions by anti-government protests. The poll law authorises the EC to set a new voting day for those constituencies. There is no legal question on this, as traumas, such as natural disasters, can hit some locations at any time.

Yet, legal experts who want the poll nullified, say that as long as the election is not held on the same day across the nation, it is not valid.

Another theory supporting the invalidity of the election is that advance voting in some areas could not be arranged before the February 2 election day due to the protest. The EC announced that "early" voters who were unable to cast votes on January 26 can do so on February 23. However, some lawyers say that advance votes cast after the date of the national election are invalid.

The EC argued that advance voting had been arranged to facilitate voters who might not find it convenient to cast their ballots on the actual election day. Advance voting is arranged for those living outside their constituencies or overseas. Hence, for the sake of convenience, the law allows it to be held after the election date.

The other legal problem concerns the Democrat Party, which boycotted this election. According to the 2007 Political Party Law, any political party that fails to contest in an election twice in a row or within eight years - depending on which period is longer - can be dissolved. The Democrat Party boycotted the 2006 election and again this year's election, making it twice in a period less than eight years. It is still unclear if anybody will ask the Constitutional Court to dissolve Thailand's oldest party.


-- The Nation 2014-02-05

[JRSoul]

Twice in 8 years, but does the 2006 election count as it was considered invalid? Either PTP think that is the case, or they are rather slow off the mark (not that that is unusual).

Edited February 5, 2014 by JRSoul

[englishoak]

legal experts who want the poll nullified, say that as long as the election is not held on the same day across the nation, it is not valid.

So that would mean that all that ever has to be done is block one area from voting on the day and its invalid........... well ok then guess we wont be having any valid elections here again then because that will be a piece of cake even for a small party or protest group if they so chose.

As for dissolving the dems probably PTP figure they are better left as the failed and floundering party they clearly are, if i were the dems id say dissolve it regroup and start afresh with a policy or 10 and go from there instead of dragging all the baggage about now, include suthep as a huge extra weight.... but knowing the dems they will probably stick around and whine about the next election loss in court too.

Edited February 5, 2014 by englishoak

[Cricketnut]

Twice in 8 years, but does the 2006 election count as it was considered invalid? Either PTP think that is the case, or they are rather slow off the mark (not that that is unusual).

How would it be constructive to try and have the Dems dissolved? If I were in Yinglucks shoes I wouldn't even consider the move. It just goes in hand with further dismantling democracy. Do PTP really want to be seen doing this. Not good for PR that's for sure. Why kick a dog when it is down anyway. Regardless of our thoughts, the Ammart and the military will dictate what is to follow no matter our stance or ideological ramblings. ( forgot to mention that they control the courts too). Thailand hasn't a hope until the power is wrestled from the above and a real constitution put in place such as in Australia etc.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[focus27]

legal experts who want the poll nullified, say that as long as the election is not held on the same day across the nation, it is not valid.

So that would mean that all that ever has to be done is block one area from voting on the day and its invalid..... ...... well ok then guess we wont be having any valid elections here again then because that will be a piece of cake even for a small party or protest group if they so chose.

Exactly! The constitution needs some serious amendments, but on this point it is clear...almost.

The constitution clearly allows the House to convene without 100% of the seats being filled - it says so plainly that 95% are required. This means that it allows the possibility that a general election is held on the same day throughout the kingdom but that, for whatever reasons, some seats cannot be filled. Such an election would still be valid. And such a scenario still requires the empty seats to be filled by an election at a future date. So the constitution does allow some seats at a general election to be contested after the rest of the country. So the Dems' legal experts are pissing in the wind here, I feel.

The great gaping hole in the constitution - erm... one of the great gaping holes - is that no mention is made of a House with less than 95% of seats filled. One has to look elsewhere within the constitution to piece together likely scenarios (such as sections 88, 89, 127, 128 and maybe more), one of which is that the National Assembly can still convene 30 days after a general election even without any MPs. Indeed, an extraordinary session could be called and authority given to install some interim government whose ministers are not MPs. I think this depends on whether the elite think it better to destroy a lame duck government or destroy the PTP first and then appear to be forced for the good of the people to install an unelected government. We shall see.

[geriatrickid]

Who are these legal experts?

Serious question. It would be nice to see how "expert" they are and their past relationship with the military dictatorship and its enablers.

What did the writer do? Visit Suthep's ragtag group of protestors or some Pattaya bar stool sitters and take a poll?

[spirit47]

Its not a question, this election failed in several points all standarts.

[tingtongteesood]

legal experts who want the poll nullified, say that as long as the election is not held on the same day across the nation, it is not valid.

So that would mean that all that ever has to be done is block one area from voting on the day and its invalid........... well ok then guess we wont be having any valid elections here again then because that will be a piece of cake even for a small party or protest group if they so chose.

As for dissolving the dems probably PTP figure they are better left as the failed and floundering party they clearly are, if i were the dems id say dissolve it regroup and start afresh with a policy or 10 and go from there instead of dragging all the baggage about now, include suthep as a huge extra weight.... but knowing the dems they will probably stick around and whine about the next election loss in court too.

The only 'failed and floundering party' I see here is the Please Taksin criminals who will soon be gone

[thesetat2013]

Im not sure the legal validity of the 2006 elections but you are stating here it was considered invalid. In which case means a valid election even though people thought to make it invalid. So unless the courts ruled 2006 elections were in fact invalid. Then the democratic party did violate the law 2 times in 8 years which gives the courts legal options to dissolve this party.

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[jayjay49]

Thai politics are SICK. Abhisit and Suthep are just rebels, who try to create Anarchy. Politicians main task is to talk, negotiate, compromise, find win-win solutions and have vision. It is NOT their task to obsctruct public order or the democratic process.

In his interview with the BBC the 'schoolboy' Abhisit was a shame for his country. Turning and tossing, searching for the right answers on simple querstions. This is no leader, but just a son of rich parents, born at the top of the Thai society, but lacking all quality. Thailand has dificult times ahead with 'leaders' like that!

[JRSoul]

Im not sure the legal validity of the 2006 elections but you are stating here it was considered invalid. In which case means a valid election even though people thought to make it invalid. So unless the courts ruled 2006 elections were in fact invalid. Then the democratic party did violate the law 2 times in 8 years which gives the courts legal options to dissolve this party.

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

"Due to the election result, King Bhumibol Adulyadej took the unprecedented step of calling the elections undemocratic, and soon later the election was declared invalid by the Constitutional Court." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2006

[saltandpepper]

Who are these legal experts?

Serious question. It would be nice to see how "expert" they are and their past relationship with the military dictatorship and its enablers.

What did the writer do? Visit Suthep's ragtag group of protestors or some Pattaya bar stool sitters and take a poll?

maybe they could have asked thaksin's opinion, in his position of actual head of state, but unfortunately, the coward is still in hiding abroad, dodging Thai justice.

Asking her sister would be useless anyway, as she has absolutely no clue.....and the fact that she is an accomplished business woman (muwahahahahahaha) does not change a thing.

So, yes, the writer had limited options there. unless he asks the fine "stratege" who have design the rice scheme, the tablet hoax, the credit card thing for farmers, and all those great achievements by the Pheu Thai finest!

[harrry]

The great gaping hole in the constitution - erm... one of the great gaping holes - is that no mention is made of a House with less than 95% of seats filled. One has to look elsewhere within the constitution to piece together likely scenarios (such as sections 88, 89, 127, 128 and maybe more), one of which is that the National Assembly can still convene 30 days after a general election even without any MPs. Indeed, an extraordinary session could be called and authority given to install some interim government whose ministers are not MPs. I think this depends on whether the elite think it better to destroy a lame duck government or destroy the PTP first and then appear to be forced for the good of the people to install an unelected government. We shall see.

So In 30 days it would be possible to convene The national assembly which would consist of the membes of the caretaker cabinet and the senate and appoint a committee. (New members have not been sworn in and taken their seats

). THis means that efectively the Senate could appoint a committee of non MPs as is wanted by Suteph.

[whybother]

Im not sure the legal validity of the 2006 elections but you are stating here it was considered invalid. In which case means a valid election even though people thought to make it invalid. So unless the courts ruled 2006 elections were in fact invalid. Then the democratic party did violate the law 2 times in 8 years which gives the courts legal options to dissolve this party.

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The 2006 elections were invalid mainly because the voting booths were placed in a way that allowed others to see how people voted.

[focus27]

The great gaping hole in the constitution - erm... one of the great gaping holes - is that no mention is made of a House with less than 95% of seats filled. One has to look elsewhere within the constitution to piece together likely scenarios (such as sections 88, 89, 127, 128 and maybe more), one of which is that the National Assembly can still convene 30 days after a general election even without any MPs. Indeed, an extraordinary session could be called and authority given to install some interim government whose ministers are not MPs. I think this depends on whether the elite think it better to destroy a lame duck government or destroy the PTP first and then appear to be forced for the good of the people to install an unelected government. We shall see.

So In 30 days it would be possible to convene The national assembly which would consist of the membes of the caretaker cabinet and the senate and appoint a committee. (New members have not been sworn in and taken their seats

). THis means that efectively the Senate could appoint a committee of non MPs as is wanted by Suteph.

I think so. If anybody can point to parts of the constitution that yield different outcomes then let us know.

However, given that the PTP are likely to get a majority in the house - irrespectively of what happens in all the other polls - the above scenario would be politically dangerous. Hence, the rush to either invalidate the whole election and/or dissolve the PTP; same ending but the perpetrators can pretend that it is the best outcome for the country.

The Constitution is riddled with holes, all of which can be papered over with Emergency Decrees - hence the future is hazy.

One thing I don't understand: with the senatorial election coming up in March, why didn't the government pick the same date for both general and senate elections? Would have saved money but, perhaps more importantly, would have made the Suthepistas think twice about blocking elections when their own people were up for office. That would have been smart.... erm... OK, now I see why it wasn't done.

Edited February 5, 2014 by focus27

[mightyatom]

The one thing this report does not touch upon and I would say was the most glaringly obvious reason to have these elections revoked is this.

The vote count was not supposed to be made public. But almost all the stats have been leaked and voting has not yet been completed. This means that the remaining ballots can be easily tainted.

As an example.

Nakhon Si Thammarat the leader is only winning by 10 votes, thanks to the leaked data. So the candidates knowing how many ballots left to be cast can set about vote buying to secure the victory. This is one example of many areas where this is a danger to a free and fair election.

Chalerm has already declared victory on behalf of the PTP which again is pretty much out of order, considering they are not officially over the line as many factors remain to be settled regarding legitimacy.

There are many reasons to now be able to back up a nullification and the fact that the remainder of the election is now seriously compromised even if they were allowed to proceed unobstructed is probably the most valid justification.

[Melyn]

legal experts who want the poll nullified, say that as long as the election is not held on the same day across the nation, it is not valid.

So that would mean that all that ever has to be done is block one area from voting on the day and its invalid..... ...... well ok then guess we wont be having any valid elections here again then because that will be a piece of cake even for a small party or protest group if they so chose.

Exactly! The constitution needs some serious amendments, but on this point it is clear...almost.

The constitution clearly allows the House to convene without 100% of the seats being filled - it says so plainly that 95% are required. This means that it allows the possibility that a general election is held on the same day throughout the kingdom but that, for whatever reasons, some seats cannot be filled. Such an election would still be valid. And such a scenario still requires the empty seats to be filled by an election at a future date. So the constitution does allow some seats at a general election to be contested after the rest of the country. So the Dems' legal experts are pissing in the wind here, I feel.

The great gaping hole in the constitution - erm... one of the great gaping holes - is that no mention is made of a House with less than 95% of seats filled. One has to look elsewhere within the constitution to piece together likely scenarios (such as sections 88, 89, 127, 128 and maybe more), one of which is that the National Assembly can still convene 30 days after a general election even without any MPs. Indeed, an extraordinary session could be called and authority given to install some interim government whose ministers are not MPs. I think this depends on whether the elite think it better to destroy a lame duck government or destroy the PTP first and then appear to be forced for the good of the people to install an unelected government. We shall see.

Great post.

However I have a question.

Do the party list candidates form part of that 95%?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[focus27]

legal experts who want the poll nullified, say that as long as the election is not held on the same day across the nation, it is not valid.

So that would mean that all that ever has to be done is block one area from voting on the day and its invalid..... ...... well ok then guess we wont be having any valid elections here again then because that will be a piece of cake even for a small party or protest group if they so chose.

Exactly! The constitution needs some serious amendments, but on this point it is clear...almost.

The constitution clearly allows the House to convene without 100% of the seats being filled - it says so plainly that 95% are required. This means that it allows the possibility that a general election is held on the same day throughout the kingdom but that, for whatever reasons, some seats cannot be filled. Such an election would still be valid. And such a scenario still requires the empty seats to be filled by an election at a future date. So the constitution does allow some seats at a general election to be contested after the rest of the country. So the Dems' legal experts are pissing in the wind here, I feel.

The great gaping hole in the constitution - erm... one of the great gaping holes - is that no mention is made of a House with less than 95% of seats filled. One has to look elsewhere within the constitution to piece together likely scenarios (such as sections 88, 89, 127, 128 and maybe more), one of which is that the National Assembly can still convene 30 days after a general election even without any MPs. Indeed, an extraordinary session could be called and authority given to install some interim government whose ministers are not MPs. I think this depends on whether the elite think it better to destroy a lame duck government or destroy the PTP first and then appear to be forced for the good of the people to install an unelected government. We shall see.

Great post.

However I have a question.

Do the party list candidates form part of that 95%?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Yes.

And the EC has already stated that it will not publish even a tentative list of such winners until all the polls are completed. The consequences are obvious.

I personally would do some number-crunching on those party list results and calculate a worst-case scenario for PTP - I suspect they would still clear a majority in the House. Mathematically, not having all the data is not the same as having no data

[winstonc]

Who are these legal experts?

Serious question. It would be nice to see how "expert" they are and their past relationship with the military dictatorship and its enablers.

What did the writer do? Visit Suthep's ragtag group of protestors or some Pattaya bar stool sitters and take a poll?

who are these legal experts..obvious they are all to be found on this forum...

[whybother]

I think so. If anybody can point to parts of the constitution that yield different outcomes then let us know.

However, given that the PTP are likely to get a majority in the house - irrespectively of what happens in all the other polls - the above scenario would be politically dangerous. Hence, the rush to either invalidate the whole election and/or dissolve the PTP; same ending but the perpetrators can pretend that it is the best outcome for the country.

The Constitution is riddled with holes, all of which can be papered over with Emergency Decrees - hence the future is hazy.

One thing I don't understand: with the senatorial election coming up in March, why didn't the government pick the same date for both general and senate elections? Would have saved money but, perhaps more importantly, would have made the Suthepistas think twice about blocking elections when their own people were up for office. That would have been smart.... erm... OK, now I see why it wasn't done.

The parliamentary election has to be held 45-60 days after dissolution. The senate elections are held every 6 years. Different timelines, so they're not held together.

Interestingly, in Australia, when they hold lower house elections, they hold senate elections at the same time, but the senators don't actually take their senate seats until the middle of the year. Senators were elected last November, but don't take their seats until July.

Once Thailand get into a steady process of elections (like in 50 years), they might be able to organise to run them at the same time.

[whybother]

legal experts who want the poll nullified, say that as long as the election is not held on the same day across the nation, it is not valid.

So that would mean that all that ever has to be done is block one area from voting on the day and its invalid..... ...... well ok then guess we wont be having any valid elections here again then because that will be a piece of cake even for a small party or protest group if they so chose.

Exactly! The constitution needs some serious amendments, but on this point it is clear...almost.

The constitution clearly allows the House to convene without 100% of the seats being filled - it says so plainly that 95% are required. This means that it allows the possibility that a general election is held on the same day throughout the kingdom but that, for whatever reasons, some seats cannot be filled. Such an election would still be valid. And such a scenario still requires the empty seats to be filled by an election at a future date. So the constitution does allow some seats at a general election to be contested after the rest of the country. So the Dems' legal experts are pissing in the wind here, I feel.

The great gaping hole in the constitution - erm... one of the great gaping holes - is that no mention is made of a House with less than 95% of seats filled. One has to look elsewhere within the constitution to piece together likely scenarios (such as sections 88, 89, 127, 128 and maybe more), one of which is that the National Assembly can still convene 30 days after a general election even without any MPs. Indeed, an extraordinary session could be called and authority given to install some interim government whose ministers are not MPs. I think this depends on whether the elite think it better to destroy a lame duck government or destroy the PTP first and then appear to be forced for the good of the people to install an unelected government. We shall see.

Great post.

However I have a question.

Do the party list candidates form part of that 95%?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Yes. 95% of the 500 seats (375 constituency and 125 party list) have to be filled.

[Gweiloman]

Twice in 8 years, but does the 2006 election count as it was considered invalid? Either PTP think that is the case, or they are rather slow off the mark (not that that is unusual).

Shame that a good and valid question is concluded with a snide and childish comment.

[rickirs]

Twice in 8 years, but does the 2006 election count as it was considered invalid? Either PTP think that is the case, or they are rather slow off the mark (not that that is unusual).

How would it be constructive to try and have the Dems dissolved? If I were in Yinglucks shoes I wouldn't even consider the move. It just goes in hand with further dismantling democracy. Do PTP really want to be seen doing this. Not good for PR that's for sure. Why kick a dog when it is down anyway. Regardless of our thoughts, the Ammart and the military will dictate what is to follow no matter our stance or ideological ramblings. ( forgot to mention that they control the courts too). Thailand hasn't a hope until the power is wrestled from the above and a real constitution put in place such as in Australia etc.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Even America did not dissolve the nazi and communist parties who advocated a rejection of democracy - albeit they had to be voted in to make such attempt. PTP does not have to try to dissolve the Democrats. If the Constituion holds true, the Dems have already nuetered itself politically from the democratic landscape. Better to concentrate to reorganize the rice program, capital projects, and strengthen the baht.

[Gweiloman]

legal experts who want the poll nullified, say that as long as the election is not held on the same day across the nation, it is not valid.

So that would mean that all that ever has to be done is block one area from voting on the day and its invalid........... well ok then guess we wont be having any valid elections here again then because that will be a piece of cake even for a small party or protest group if they so chose.

As for dissolving the dems probably PTP figure they are better left as the failed and floundering party they clearly are, if i were the dems id say dissolve it regroup and start afresh with a policy or 10 and go from there instead of dragging all the baggage about now, include suthep as a huge extra weight.... but knowing the dems they will probably stick around and whine about the next election loss in court too.

Absolutely!

The courts will have to very careful about setting precedents here. Not being a legal expert, would it make a difference if the courts were to annul the elections due to the large number (about 10%) of polling stations that could not open as opposed to just a few or the number of constituencies affected? Because that would set a benchmark for some political parties as to how much disruption they need to cause.

[MunterHunter]

Who are these legal experts?

Serious question. It would be nice to see how "expert" they are and their past relationship with the military dictatorship and its enablers.

What did the writer do? Visit Suthep's ragtag group of protestors or some Pattaya bar stool sitters and take a poll?

They will definately more qualified than you...

[Puccini]

One legal camp, which wants to nullify the election, suggested that the ballot on Sunday was invalid because it could not be held across the country on the same day as required by Article 180 of the Constitution.

This legal camp is wrong, ie is readingSection 180 of the Constitution incorrectly. The English translation is not very exact but looking at the Thai original text one can clearly see that a date must be specified for election on the same day in the whole country, not that the election must be held at all polling stations on the same date. This is why Section 78 of the Organic Act requires that a new election date must be set for polling stations where voting was not possible on the date specified in the Royal Decree.

[Gweiloman]

One legal camp, which wants to nullify the election, suggested that the ballot on Sunday was invalid because it could not be held across the country on the same day as required by Article 180 of the Constitution.

This legal camp is wrong, ie is readingSection 180 of the Constitution incorrectly. The English translation is not very exact but looking at the Thai original text one can clearly see that a date must be specified for election on the same day in the whole country, not that the election must be held at all polling stations on the same date. This is why Section 78 of the Organic Act requires that a new election date must be set for polling stations where voting was not possible on the date specified in the Royal Decree.

Very interesting.....

Puccini, for the record, would you care to state your credentials? I have read some of your previous posts and it's very refreshing to have a poster commenting objectively on the Law and not wearing any tinted glasses of any colour.

Many nuances are lost in translation from Thai to English. Are you certain about what you have stated ie must be specified as opposed to must be held?

[casualbiker]

One legal camp, which wants to nullify the election, suggested that the ballot on Sunday was invalid because it could not be held across the country on the same day as required by Article 180 of the Constitution.

This legal camp is wrong, ie is readingSection 180 of the Constitution incorrectly. The English translation is not very exact but looking at the Thai original text one can clearly see that a date must be specified for election on the same day in the whole country, not that the election must be held at all polling stations on the same date. This is why Section 78 of the Organic Act requires that a new election date must be set for polling stations where voting was not possible on the date specified in the Royal Decree.

Puccini's reading seems to be correct. In which case the legal experts would be correct (I think) due to the fact that there were no candidates in some areas therefore no election could have been specified in those same area's .. your thoughts!

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Gweiloman]

One legal camp, which wants to nullify the election, suggested that the ballot on Sunday was invalid because it could not be held across the country on the same day as required by Article 180 of the Constitution.

This legal camp is wrong, ie is readingSection 180 of the Constitution incorrectly. The English translation is not very exact but looking at the Thai original text one can clearly see that a date must be specified for election on the same day in the whole country, not that the election must be held at all polling stations on the same date. This is why Section 78 of the Organic Act requires that a new election date must be set for polling stations where voting was not possible on the date specified in the Royal Decree.

Puccini's reading seems to be correct. In which case the legal experts would be correct (I think) due to the fact that there were no candidates in some areas therefore no election could have been specified in those same area's .. your thoughts!

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I beg to differ. At the time of the specification of the date, no one was to know that there wouldn't be any candidates for certain constituencies. Chronologically speaking, a date must be specified first before candidates can be registered.

So i don't think that your argument is valid here.

[Puccini]

The chronological sequence of events was like this:

1. Royal Decree dated 9 December 2013 is issued, published in Goverment Gazette of the same date, setting 2 February 2014 as the date for the election:
   http://www2.ofm.mof.go.th/index.php/2011-06-18-07-24-33/2011-06-18-09-33-56/2011-06-18-09-44-16/doc_download/1102--2556-9--2556.html
   
2. Election Commission announces the period for candidate registration
   
3. Elections are held on 2 February 2014