Validity of Sunday polls still in question: Thai politics

[Puccini]

...

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?

....

I have an amateurish interest in law and often when I see a statement with reference to a law I look up the law in question.

To discuss the finer points of translation from Thai to English you would have to go to the Thai language forum on Thaivisa:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/forum/43-thai-language/

I am not able to read Thai but I can confirm that in the second paragraph of Section 108 of the Thai text of the Constitution the text is the same, and by thai2english.com translated as "must specify", for what in the English translation reads "must be fixed" in one place and "must be" in another place.

[Puccini]

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!

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.

That's where Section 78 of the Organic Act on MP Election & Installation of Senators comes into play:

In the case where the polling at any polling station could not be made

because of the riot, flood, fire, force majeure or another case of necessity, if such event has

occurred prior to the election day, the Committee of polling station shall determine a new

polling place where the voters shall be able to cast a vote conveniently. If the new polling

place cannot be determined, the Committee of polling station shall announce the cancellation

of vote-casting in such station and shall forthwith report such incident to the Election

Commission.

In the case where an incident under paragraph one occurs on the election day, the

Committee of constituency or the Committee of polling station shall announce the

cancellation of the vote-casting in such station and report such incident to the Election

Commission urgently.

The Election Commission shall forthwith determine a new polling day of such polling

station or decide differently in accordance with the rules and procedure prescribed by the

Election Commission.

I figure that when candidates were unable to register because there access to the registration locale was blocked and when postmen were unable to deliver the voting material to a polling station, this fall under "another case of necessity"

Edited February 5, 2014 by Puccini

[whybother]

I think that the issue of "election must be held on one day" becomes an problem is if the EC continue the current polling on a different day.

I think by-elections need to be held in any electorate that didn't properly complete both advanced and normal polling on the specified days.

[Gweiloman]

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!

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.

That's where Section 78 of the Organic Act on MP Election & Installation of Senators comes into play:

In the case where the polling at any polling station could not be made

because of the riot, flood, fire, force majeure or another case of necessity, if such event has

occurred prior to the election day, the Committee of polling station shall determine a new

polling place where the voters shall be able to cast a vote conveniently. If the new polling

place cannot be determined, the Committee of polling station shall announce the cancellation

of vote-casting in such station and shall forthwith report such incident to the Election

Commission.

In the case where an incident under paragraph one occurs on the election day, the

Committee of constituency or the Committee of polling station shall announce the

cancellation of the vote-casting in such station and report such incident to the Election

Commission urgently.

The Election Commission shall forthwith determine a new polling day of such polling

station or decide differently in accordance with the rules and procedure prescribed by the

Election Commission.

I figure that when candidates were unable to register because there access to the registration locale was blocked and when postmen were unable to deliver the voting material to a polling station, this fall under "another case of necessity"

However, the failure to register candidates and the actual polling are two different issues, aren't they?

Are there any sections that relate specifically to the non-registration of candidates? It goes to reason that if no candidates can be registered, no polling can be done. Could this be grounds for annulment?

[casualbiker]

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!

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.

That's where Section 78 of the Organic Act on MP Election & Installation of Senators comes into play:

In the case where the polling at any polling station could not be made

because of the riot, flood, fire, force majeure or another case of necessity, if such event has

occurred prior to the election day, the Committee of polling station shall determine a new

polling place where the voters shall be able to cast a vote conveniently. If the new polling

place cannot be determined, the Committee of polling station shall announce the cancellation

of vote-casting in such station and shall forthwith report such incident to the Election

Commission.

In the case where an incident under paragraph one occurs on the election day, the

Committee of constituency or the Committee of polling station shall announce the

cancellation of the vote-casting in such station and report such incident to the Election

Commission urgently.

The Election Commission shall forthwith determine a new polling day of such polling

station or decide differently in accordance with the rules and procedure prescribed by the

Election Commission.

I figure that when candidates were unable to register because there access to the registration locale was blocked and when postmen were unable to deliver the voting material to a polling station, this fall under "another case of necessity"

However, the failure to register candidates and the actual polling are two different issues, aren't they?

Are there any sections that relate specifically to the non-registration of candidates? It goes to reason that if no candidates can be registered, no polling can be done. Could this be grounds for annulment?

And if no candidates means no polling then that means no election in that area.. all facts known BEFORE the election date.

So I would presume an Election re-schedule should have been sought! Which it was. But refused by Phua Thai!

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Puccini]

I think that the issue of "election must be held on one day" becomes an problem is if the EC continue the current polling on a different day.

I think by-elections need to be held in any electorate that didn't properly complete both advanced and normal polling on the specified days.

See this post above.

[Puccini]

However, the failure to register candidates and the actual polling are two different issues, aren't they?

Are there any sections that relate specifically to the non-registration of candidates? It goes to reason that if no candidates can be registered, no polling can be done. Could this be grounds for annulment?

Yes, the registration of candidates and the actual polling are two different things. The Election Commission must specify the date for application of candidates to "commence not later than twenty days as from the date the Royal Decree coming into force and the period of application shall not be less than five days" (Section 7 of the Organic Act on election of members of the house of representatives and installation of senators)

I have found nothing either in the Constitution or in the Organic Act specifically about the situation where no person at all applies for and is approved as candidate for the election, which is the reason why I assume that this situation is covered by paragraph two of Section 78 of the Organic Act, considering that the absence of candidates for a particular constituency would be a case where polling at a polling station could not be made because of "other necessities". From a news article linked in today's newsletter of Thaivisa I understand that the Election Commission announced that it would meet today to discuss whether the election on 2 February was valid and this question of the applicability of Section 78 of the Organic Act may well be one of the points being discussed. Checking my mail just now I see that the EC has not yet announced any decision.

//Edit: added one more link.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Puccini

[Gweiloman]

However, the failure to register candidates and the actual polling are two different issues, aren't they?

Are there any sections that relate specifically to the non-registration of candidates? It goes to reason that if no candidates can be registered, no polling can be done. Could this be grounds for annulment?

Yes, the registration of candidates and the actual polling are two different things. The Election Commission must specify the date for application of candidates to "commence not later than twenty days as from the date the Royal Decree coming into force and the period of application shall not be less than five days" (Section 7 of the Organic Act on election of members of the house of representatives and installation of senators)

I have found nothing either in the Constitution or in the Organic Act specifically about the situation where no person at all applies for and is approved as candidate for the election, which is the reason why I assume that this situation is covered by paragraph two of Section 78 of the Organic Act, considering that the absence of candidates for a particular constituency would be a case where polling at a polling station could not be made because of "other necessities". From a news article linked in today's newsletter of Thaivisa I understand that the Election Commission announced that it would meet today to discuss whether the election on 2 February was valid and this question of the applicability of Section 78 of the Organic Act may well be one of the points being discussed. Checking my mail just now I see that the EC has not yet announced any decision.

//Edit: added one more link.

This is going to get interesting, from a legal standpoint. If the EC / CC is not careful, a lot of "poor" precedents can be set which can be used to disrupt and annul future elections, if you know what I mean.

[Puccini]

An interesting additional note. From what I read in the news, the period for application for candidacy announced by the EC was five days, ie the minimum required by the Organic Act. When it was established that at many locales for this application the persons wishing to apply were blocked by demonstrators during the entire period, the EC decided not to extend the application period although it would have had the authority to do so under the Organic Act.

//Edit: added link.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Puccini