Democrats say they are ready to defend Bangkok Governor Sukhumbhand

[webfact]

BANGKOK GOVERNOR
Democrats say they are ready to defend Sukhumbhand
TANATPONG KONGSAI,
PRAPHAN JINDALERTUDOMDEE,
KESINEE TAENGKHIAO
THE NATION

Pheu Thai pours scorn on opposition party's stance, saying it is irresponsible

BANGKOK: -- THE DEMOCRAT PARTY'S legal team is ready to come to the defence of Bangkok Governor MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra after the Election Commission decided to ask the Court of Appeals to order a re-election for the governor's post.

Meanwhile, Pheu Thai Party deputy spokesman Anusorn Iamsa-ard called on the Democrats to show responsibility.

The EC on Tuesday voted 3:2 for recommending a gubernatorial re-election after deciding that Sukhumbhand had won the poll on March 3 last year with the help of slanderous campaigns assisted by a fellow politician, which had given him an advantage over other candidates.

The EC decision would need to be endorsed under a Court of Appeals ruling before a new election can be held.

"Abhisit [Vejjajiva, Democrat leader] used to say that political responsibility is higher than legal responsibility. How would the Democrats be responsible for [defending Sukhumbhand in] this case? Will it field someone for the re-election, when national reform has not been finished yet? Or will it continue to boycott the election?" Anusorn said.

Democrat deputy leader Ongart Klampaiboon said the party was ready to defend Sukhumbhand in court, and was confident of his innocence. He did not say who would represent the party in the event of a re-election.

Meanwhile, Sukhumbhand went to work at Bangkok City Hall yesterday, but declined to give an interview.

A source from his team, however, said Sukhumbhand nearly decided to resign upon learning of the EC's decision, but changed his mind after being requested to reconsider his position by his team.

The source, who asked not to be named, said the Democrat Party was expected to file Sukhumbhand's name to run in any gubernatorial re-election, as he was not the person who had made the problematic speeches last year.

A source from the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration said Sukhumbhand had scheduled a meeting with his team and legal advisers for yesterday evening.

EC member Somchai Srisuthiyakorn said the commission had done its duty honestly. Three out of four speeches made by Suthep Thaugsuban - then a Democrat MP for Surat Thani - on the party's election campaign stages could be considered slanderous against a Pheu Thai Party candidate.

While the content of what Suthep said could not be proved, it might have affected voters, he said.

Under Article 239 of the Constitution, if the court agrees to consider ordering a re-election as suggested by the electoral watchdog, the incumbent official must be suspended from duty. Meanwhile, the court's ruling is considered final.

Although the EC on Tuesday said the Court of Appeals Region 1 would have to make the final decision, the court's president said it should actually be the Central Court of Appeals as the Court of Appeals Region 1 is in charge of cases in Bangkok's adjacent provinces.

The president of the Central Court of Appeals yesterday declined to comment on the matter.

Deputy national police chief Pol General Pongsapat Pongcharoen, who was Pheu Thai's candidate for Bangkok governor last year, said it would depend on the party whether to field him again.


-- The Nation 2014-03-13

[SOTIRIOS]

......just can't give anything up ........

[jayboy]

Can't avoid some cynicism here.Sukhumbhand is not popular with the Democrat leadership or rank and file.He was nearly ditched as mayoral candidate and even then allowed a mediocre PTP candidate to grab a large slice of the Bangkok electorate in the election.Thus no real regret by Dems at EC decision despite the crocodile tears.And the big bonus is that the EC (excuse me while I snigger) is presented to the world as somehow non partisan - thus anticipating the outrage when it joins the packed Constititional Court in removing or castrating a democratically elected government.I'm not one for conspiracy theories but still...hope I'm wrong.

[rickirs]

"How would the Democrats be responsible for [defending Sukhumbhand in] this case?" Because it is Suthep's Rule of Law that applies and not the Court's Rule of Law. For someone who strongly supports the Courts' rulings when they go against the PTP and labels PTP as "corrupt", he doesn't agree when ruling go against the Democrats. Suthep's own corruption is deeper and darker than anyone can know.

[catmac]

Strange how the name Suthep keeps coming up in these threads. This time, the EC itself has stated that Suthep was responsible for "Three out of four speeches made by Suthep Thaugsuban - then a Democrat MP for Surat Thani - on the party's election campaign stages could be considered slanderous against a Pheu Thai Party candidate". And this is the man named as the new Mesiah by his admirers

[rubl]

Interesting that the EC's ruling that there might be cause to think that possibly Democrat party members were involved in allegedly trying to smear the opponents, is seen as obviously the Democrat candidate was wrong and therefor the Democrat party shouldn't defend him.

"The EC decision would need to be endorsed by a Court of Appeals ruling before a re-election, which Sukhumbhand could contest, EC chairman Somchai Srisuthiyakorn said. He explained that Sukhumbhand had not been disqualified, or red-carded, because there wasn't sufficient evidence against him for violation of the 2002 local electoral law."

Edited March 13, 2014 by rubl

[PepperMe]

Meanwhile, Pheu Thai Party deputy spokesman Anusorn Iamsa-ard called on the Democrats to show responsibility.

In the same way your party are showing 'responsibility' over their 2.2 trillion baht scandal?

Oh wait..... They already declared their intention NOT to show any responsibility.

[Baerboxer]

Can't avoid some cynicism here.Sukhumbhand is not popular with the Democrat leadership or rank and file.He was nearly ditched as mayoral candidate and even then allowed a mediocre PTP candidate to grab a large slice of the Bangkok electorate in the election.Thus no real regret by Dems at EC decision despite the crocodile tears.And the big bonus is that the EC (excuse me while I snigger) is presented to the world as somehow non partisan - thus anticipating the outrage when it joins the packed Constititional Court in removing or castrating a democratically elected government.I'm not one for conspiracy theories but still...hope I'm wrong.

Interesting theories.

Do you have a view on how a democratically elected government that acts illegally, cheats and lies should be removed?

Are you suggesting that legal actions are the wrong way? In which case how do you propose to remove them?

[northernjohn]

"How would the Democrats be responsible for [defending Sukhumbhand in] this case?" Because it is Suthep's Rule of Law that applies and not the Court's Rule of Law. For someone who strongly supports the Courts' rulings when they go against the PTP and labels PTP as "corrupt", he doesn't agree when ruling go against the Democrats. Suthep's own corruption is deeper and darker than anyone can know.

Not sure what you are getting at here. For that matter I am wondering why the PTP is not trying to get the EC decision changed they have enough problems of their own.

It will be the court's rule of law that applies and every defendant has the right to have a defense council. The court of appeals is where the rule of law will be discovered.

At which point the Democrat party will accept it. Unlike the current government who sets them selves above the court decisions when it best suits their interests.

[northernjohn]

Strange how the name Suthep keeps coming up in these threads. This time, the EC itself has stated that Suthep was responsible for "Three out of four speeches made by Suthep Thaugsuban - then a Democrat MP for Surat Thani - on the party's election campaign stages could be considered slanderous against a Pheu Thai Party candidate". And this is the man named as the new Mesiah by his admirers

Even by his non admirers.

He is the only one who has been able to keep the spot light on the depth of the PTP corruption.

Your admiration is not needed he will continue to do the job in spite of your feeble attempt to detract the spot light from the corrupt Thaksinite's.

[jayboy]

Can't avoid some cynicism here.Sukhumbhand is not popular with the Democrat leadership or rank and file.He was nearly ditched as mayoral candidate and even then allowed a mediocre PTP candidate to grab a large slice of the Bangkok electorate in the election.Thus no real regret by Dems at EC decision despite the crocodile tears.And the big bonus is that the EC (excuse me while I snigger) is presented to the world as somehow non partisan - thus anticipating the outrage when it joins the packed Constititional Court in removing or castrating a democratically elected government.I'm not one for conspiracy theories but still...hope I'm wrong.

Interesting theories.

Do you have a view on how a democratically elected government that acts illegally, cheats and lies should be removed?

Are you suggesting that legal actions are the wrong way? In which case how do you propose to remove them?

When there are accusations of a government being involved in illegal acts obviously they should be investigated and if found guilty by non-politicised courts they should be punished.

Unfortunately all governments in every country tend to spin events.Some may call it cheating and lying, but the only real test is legal or illegal.Populist policies are not illegal.

But the real answer to your question is the blindingly obvious one.In every democracy there is the chance to "throw the bums out" in a general election where the people have their say.But this is the option that I'm suspecting you have problems with.

[northernjohn]

Interesting that the EC's ruling that there might be cause to think that possibly Democrat party members were involved in allegedly trying to smear the opponents, is seen as obviously the Democrat candidate was wrong and therefor the Democrat party shouldn't defend him.

"The EC decision would need to be endorsed by a Court of Appeals ruling before a re-election, which Sukhumbhand could contest, EC chairman Somchai Srisuthiyakorn said. He explained that Sukhumbhand had not been disqualified, or red-carded, because there wasn't sufficient evidence against him for violation of the 2002 local electoral law."

Out of my league on this one.

Are you saying that a Thaksin inspired law is possibly going to save a Democrat.

Thaksin must be kicking him self over that one.

[rubl]

Can't avoid some cynicism here.Sukhumbhand is not popular with the Democrat leadership or rank and file.He was nearly ditched as mayoral candidate and even then allowed a mediocre PTP candidate to grab a large slice of the Bangkok electorate in the election.Thus no real regret by Dems at EC decision despite the crocodile tears.And the big bonus is that the EC (excuse me while I snigger) is presented to the world as somehow non partisan - thus anticipating the outrage when it joins the packed Constititional Court in removing or castrating a democratically elected government.I'm not one for conspiracy theories but still...hope I'm wrong.

Interesting theories.

Do you have a view on how a democratically elected government that acts illegally, cheats and lies should be removed?

Are you suggesting that legal actions are the wrong way? In which case how do you propose to remove them?

When there are accusations of a government being involved in illegal acts obviously they should be investigated and if found guilty by non-politicised courts they should be punished.

Unfortunately all governments in every country tend to spin events.Some may call it cheating and lying, but the only real test is legal or illegal.Populist policies are not illegal.

But the real answer to your question is the blindingly obvious one.In every democracy there is the chance to "throw the bums out" in a general election where the people have their say.But this is the option that I'm suspecting you have problems with.

The clue is in the "In every democracy". Here we're talking about Thailand where 'respect my vote' stops the moment the vote is counted.

[jayboy]

Can't avoid some cynicism here.Sukhumbhand is not popular with the Democrat leadership or rank and file.He was nearly ditched as mayoral candidate and even then allowed a mediocre PTP candidate to grab a large slice of the Bangkok electorate in the election.Thus no real regret by Dems at EC decision despite the crocodile tears.And the big bonus is that the EC (excuse me while I snigger) is presented to the world as somehow non partisan - thus anticipating the outrage when it joins the packed Constititional Court in removing or castrating a democratically elected government.I'm not one for conspiracy theories but still...hope I'm wrong.

Interesting theories.

Do you have a view on how a democratically elected government that acts illegally, cheats and lies should be removed?

Are you suggesting that legal actions are the wrong way? In which case how do you propose to remove them?

When there are accusations of a government being involved in illegal acts obviously they should be investigated and if found guilty by non-politicised courts they should be punished.

Unfortunately all governments in every country tend to spin events.Some may call it cheating and lying, but the only real test is legal or illegal.Populist policies are not illegal.

But the real answer to your question is the blindingly obvious one.In every democracy there is the chance to "throw the bums out" in a general election where the people have their say.But this is the option that I'm suspecting you have problems with.

The clue is in the "In every democracy". Here we're talking about Thailand where 'respect my vote' stops the moment the vote is counted.

The tyranny of the majority always needs to be addressed by the strengthening of genuine checks and balances, not just the packing of the courts with compliant judges and reliance on the brute force of miltary intervention.Equally it could be argued the tyranny of the minority is even worse even when dressed up as the Committee of Public Safety or whatever label the Suthep mobsters have in mind.

[ballpoint]

But he was elected by the majority of those who bothered to vote. He can do what he likes. This is a judicial coup!

[Scamper]

It is within the rights of Sukhumbhand to appeal this ruling. There is nothing untoward or outside the legal framework here. Pheu Thai's assertions are quite absurd, though, as this is the same party that is moving to impeach a member of the NACC and six judges of the Constitutional Court ! And as the UDD continues to harass the NACC in the most unseemly way. Pheu Thai would do well to cast a look at their own garden.

[Baerboxer]

Can't avoid some cynicism here.Sukhumbhand is not popular with the Democrat leadership or rank and file.He was nearly ditched as mayoral candidate and even then allowed a mediocre PTP candidate to grab a large slice of the Bangkok electorate in the election.Thus no real regret by Dems at EC decision despite the crocodile tears.And the big bonus is that the EC (excuse me while I snigger) is presented to the world as somehow non partisan - thus anticipating the outrage when it joins the packed Constititional Court in removing or castrating a democratically elected government.I'm not one for conspiracy theories but still...hope I'm wrong.

Interesting theories.

Do you have a view on how a democratically elected government that acts illegally, cheats and lies should be removed?

Are you suggesting that legal actions are the wrong way? In which case how do you propose to remove them?

When there are accusations of a government being involved in illegal acts obviously they should be investigated and if found guilty by non-politicised courts they should be punished.

Unfortunately all governments in every country tend to spin events.Some may call it cheating and lying, but the only real test is legal or illegal.Populist policies are not illegal.

But the real answer to your question is the blindingly obvious one.In every democracy there is the chance to "throw the bums out" in a general election where the people have their say.But this is the option that I'm suspecting you have problems with.

Saying the courts in Thailand are politically motivated is an easy get out for those committing fraud and corruption - on any side.

Spinning events and twisting words to suit is one thing. Outright corruption is something very different.

The problem is who to believe - PTP, who have the DSI and RTP in check, according to some, or the anti-government camp that according to some have the NGO, courts, EC and senior military on board.

Many governments around the world fail to complete the term for which they were elected, for a variety of reasons. I have no problem with a government resigning, which usually happens before impeachment and giving people the choice to give them a new mandate or replace them with an alternative.

However, that relies on having a democracy with a robust electoral system, a sound judicial system and the rule of law. Sadly Thailand is far from this criteria as has been demonstrated. How many democratic countries would put up with the farcical situation of the Thaksin and Suthep show? Really, how many?

One thing is for sure. The situation will not improve whilst one family dominates the government for it's own benefit; or should it return to the previous scenario where a few families share that role. Until there are more fundamental complex changes Thailand will stay in the same vicious circle.

[rubl]

When there are accusations of a government being involved in illegal acts obviously they should be investigated and if found guilty by non-politicised courts they should be punished.

Unfortunately all governments in every country tend to spin events.Some may call it cheating and lying, but the only real test is legal or illegal.Populist policies are not illegal.

But the real answer to your question is the blindingly obvious one.In every democracy there is the chance to "throw the bums out" in a general election where the people have their say.But this is the option that I'm suspecting you have problems with.

The clue is in the "In every democracy". Here we're talking about Thailand where 'respect my vote' stops the moment the vote is counted.

The tyranny of the majority always needs to be addressed by the strengthening of genuine checks and balances, not just the packing of the courts with compliant judges and reliance on the brute force of miltary intervention.Equally it could be argued the tyranny of the minority is even worse even when dressed up as the Committee of Public Safety or whatever label the Suthep mobsters have in mind.

Your "Committee of Public Safety or whatever label" shows your bias, my dear boy.

[jayboy]

When there are accusations of a government being involved in illegal acts obviously they should be investigated and if found guilty by non-politicised courts they should be punished.

Unfortunately all governments in every country tend to spin events.Some may call it cheating and lying, but the only real test is legal or illegal.Populist policies are not illegal.

But the real answer to your question is the blindingly obvious one.In every democracy there is the chance to "throw the bums out" in a general election where the people have their say.But this is the option that I'm suspecting you have problems with.

The clue is in the "In every democracy". Here we're talking about Thailand where 'respect my vote' stops the moment the vote is counted.

The tyranny of the majority always needs to be addressed by the strengthening of genuine checks and balances, not just the packing of the courts with compliant judges and reliance on the brute force of miltary intervention.Equally it could be argued the tyranny of the minority is even worse even when dressed up as the Committee of Public Safety or whatever label the Suthep mobsters have in mind.

Your "Committee of Public Safety or whatever label" shows your bias, my dear boy.

What an odd comment.Whenever someone expresses a point of view that is by your definition "bias". As to Suthep's proposed caretaker government by a small self appointed "good" people, that has attracted broad criticism across party lines.If you are a fan just say so rather than accusing others of "bias".

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[rubl]

The tyranny of the majority always needs to be addressed by the strengthening of genuine checks and balances, not just the packing of the courts with compliant judges and reliance on the brute force of miltary intervention.Equally it could be argued the tyranny of the minority is even worse even when dressed up as the Committee of Public Safety or whatever label the Suthep mobsters have in mind.

Your "Committee of Public Safety or whatever label" shows your bias, my dear boy.

What an odd comment.Whenever someone expresses a point of view that is by your definition "bias". As to Suthep's proposed caretaker government by a small self appointed "good" people, that has attracted broad criticism across party lines.If you are a fan just say so rather than accusing others of "bias".

Maybe clean your glasses if you cannot see or fail to recognise that a description like "Committee of Public Safety" shows bias. Furthermore I didn't say anything on Suthep, PDRC or the reform forums. You bring them up and link liking them (that is liking what you write about them) with being a fan. You imply but do not even state that the 'fan' would be regarding the 'caretaker government of 'self-appointed' good people' which brings us again to your decription as you want to see them and seem to want others to see them.

Of course I'm assuming I'm having a discussion with someone who has studied at one of the great universities in England. Maybe I shouldn't assume it would imply logic, open-mindedness and so.

Edited March 14, 2014 by rubl

[Kan Win]

Amazing Thailand and Bangkok.

Win

[h90]

Can't avoid some cynicism here.Sukhumbhand is not popular with the Democrat leadership or rank and file.He was nearly ditched as mayoral candidate and even then allowed a mediocre PTP candidate to grab a large slice of the Bangkok electorate in the election.Thus no real regret by Dems at EC decision despite the crocodile tears.And the big bonus is that the EC (excuse me while I snigger) is presented to the world as somehow non partisan - thus anticipating the outrage when it joins the packed Constititional Court in removing or castrating a democratically elected government.I'm not one for conspiracy theories but still...hope I'm wrong.

First of all Sukhumbhand got more votes than any former Governor of Bangkok, by a very large margin. So he isn't that unpopular.

But yes the Democrat leadership doesn't like him much, because he pretty much does what he wants to do and don't care much what Abhisit speaks.

When did the EC castrating a democratically elected government? The current government is a caretaker government with many troubles at court.