On June 1 2007

Hi again friends. I'm getting back to action now. A lot of things to discuss and analyse. What will TRT do now? They will have a press conference in the afternoon. Is Abhisit's future really rosy? What are the strong and weak points of the historic Constitution Ruling? How is the verdict as compared with the 2001 acquittal of Thaksin Shinawatra?

Welcome to my blog again. Please leave comments, questions and your own analyses. I'm looking forward to your great participation like yesterday. 

1:25 pm: Is the verdict solid? Compared with the acquittal ruling the Constitution Court issed on Thaksin's assets concealment case in 2001, this one is from another world. Yesterday's verdict was consistent and eloquent, making it tough for anyone to question legal principles applied by the judges regarding the alleged election crime.

The weak point of yesterday's ruling is the punishment _ the judges' decision to apply a post-coup, military-enacted law against a crime committed last year. The absolute five-year ban is made possible by the post-coup law, raising a question whether criminal justice principles in which no law is supposed to be enacted against any particular group of people or with retroactive effects have been disregarded.

How did the Tribunal explain it? Basically, it said this is NOT criminal justice, and that non-criminal retroactive penalties are not uncommon. What the Tribunal said next was rather subtle, but let me try my best. The judges in effect said TRT violated existing laws (the political parties and election acts), with or without the post-coup legislation (order). The party, thus, was simply handed additional non-criminal punishment as a result of its "legitimate" crime, so to speak.

Sure there will be more debate on this. I welcome your opinions. 

1:50 pm: Mai Ru, great call. I very much agree, especially with the part that the verdict, which the junta wanted, will ironically take away good reasons for the junta's continued existence. No Thaksin. TRT executives are gone. Now what justifies the Council for National Security?

2 pm: TRT officials have told the media their immediate plans. First, they would campaign for relaxation of the CNS' legal control over political activities. An appeal is expected to be lodged with the interim government over this.

Secondly, those unaffected by the ban will seek registration of a new party, under the old Thai Rak Thai name. There have been legal questions raised over the same-name possibility, but no official legal ruling has been made.

Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva has also come out strong today to back the campaign to keep the TRT name. He said the remaining members of the party should be granted every right to remain politically competitive.

2:10 pm: There have been talks about TRT seeking the interim parliament's amnesty. Party officials haven't officially mentioned it, though.

The amnesty-seeking scenario is interesting, as it could lead to some kind of bargain between the party and the CNS. You may want to speculate that the TRT would offer support for the constitution draft in exchange for the CNS greenlight for amnesty. The party may also dangle a pledge to keep its mass supporters in line and keep the country from future trouble.

On the other hand, the CNS might use the amnesty possibility to make sure party officials behave themselves during this highly sensitive period.

2:20 pm: Sorry, guys. I have to be away for a couple of hours. Will get back to you as soon as possible. Please leave your comments and questions.  

4:10 pm: I'm back. It seems the momentum in the comment section today has swung against the Tribunal. Debate can be a Catch-22. If you ask me, we would not have been in this mess had the Constitution Court in 2001 had followed the 1997 Constitution's spirit.

We are at a strange juncture. Which one is more acceptable _ a really murky and self-contradicting Constitution Court verdict that ignored constitutional essence but issued when the country had democracy, or a seemingly better verdict which was delivered under a military regime?

More intriguingly both verdicts revolve around one man.

Thaksin was accused breaching the laws and the charter in both cases. He got away in 2001 but not this time. In 2001, it was "financial nominees" he was accused of hiding. He was set free. This time it was "political nominees" he was accused of creating in a bid to regain political power. He didn't get off the hook finally.

In my opinion, he broke the laws obviously in both cases. Having shares stacked in his servants' accounts and an offshore company he had set up and failing to disclose these assets were clearly a constitutional offence. Evidence in the election fraud case was damning, and although he could argue he wasn't aware of it, would you believe him?

The rule of law wasn't respected in the first case, but the Constitution Court made its decision under a democratic atmosphere. This time, the Constitution Tribunal at least tried to be seen as adhering to the rule of law, citing among other things the indisputable evidence of official election data being tampered and money transactions. But yes, it was a tribunal virtually set up by a military that overthrew an elected government.

So much irony and paradox, huh?

5 pm: What's next for TRT? The former MPs and keymen have vowed to stick together. That could be an emotional response to the verdict and political reality could intervene soon. Our political desk has concluded that emotional pledges to stay united is not as important as what Thaksin Shinawatra wants to do.

If a discouraged Thaksin pulls out the financial supply line, TRT won't be able to hold its current base. It has long been a party ready to break up but for Thaksin's strong popularity and financial warchest.

Will Thaksin be discouraged then? If he's not now, the next big blow could test his resolve. If the present corruption probes led to seizure of parts of his assets and more legal action, he could easily decide it was it.

5:15 pm: I don't quite agree, Ian. The 14 million voters have been punished? They have just lost leaders convicted of breaking the laws.

What can we describe the suicide of that Japanese minister accused of a relatively mini corruption offence? Did he punish his own voters? What if ministers resign because of corruption scandals? Would that be unfair to people who elected them?

If Thai voters have been punished, I'm really doubtful who the punishers are.

5:35 pm: Can TRT play the sympathy card? That will be their best chance. It seems Chaturon Chaisaeng realises this as well, if he meant it when he called supporters to be calm and avoid creating trouble.

The thing is, if an election could be held in the next two months, a groundswell of sympathy could elevate remaining TRT candidates to Parliament. But the longer it takes, the more unpredictable public mood will become.

And if you look at the party's achievements in the previous polls, it seemed the popularity of TRT already peaked, with or without sympathy.

5:50 pm: "Are these crimes really so venal?" It depends on where you come from, Beware. I was surprised when the Japnese minister committed suicide, too. And when the last World Bank chief had to quit because an alleged lover got a salary raise, it sounded like we are living on different planets.

I know democracy requires some nastiness and dirtyness to fend for itself. I tackled this issue, sarcastically or seriously, a few times in my articles. The question is, how far will you allow them (crooked politicians) to go? This will depend on each individual's worldview and ideology now. How far will you allow them to go before they hit the slippery slope and invite opportunistic generals to use corruption as a pretext and suspend democracy?

6:15 pm: Is Chavalit Yongchaiyudh's return imminent? He has been mentioned as a leading candidate to lead a new TRT, and whispering may become a rumbling soon.

We have got not much information yet, really. But my take is, no offence to Chavalit, champange corks will be flying at the Democrat headquarters if there's some truth in it.

7:30 pm: Just finished a news meeting. The great divide continues... sigh  sigh. Our managing editor Thanong Khanthong raised an interesting point. He said that regardless of the motive of the court verdict, its positive effects will be raised standards of political governance in Thailand. The ruling has set some good legal precedents which will be exploited by rival politicians to great extent in the future. Vote buying will be more difficult. Corruption will be more difficult, hopefully.

But have we been there before? When Democrat Sanan Kachornprasart was banned from politics in 2000 simply because he reported a false Bt10 million debt, we had the same optimism.

But with rival politicians intensely watching one another, with the legal precedents set on Wednesday so glaring, we have new hope.

8 pm: Some more on TRT future. Apart from Gen Chavalit, former Shin Corp head Boonklee Plangsiri and former ICT minister Surapong Suebwonglee have emerged as potential candidates to take the new party's helm.

Yet again, everyone is waiting for clearer signs from Thaksin. If he decides to continue politically it will still be him who will choose the next leader.

By the way, quite a quiet day, isn't it. Too quiet for comfort, perhaps.

8:25 pm: Mike, exactly. With the checks and balances remaining quite weak, it's risky for Thailand to have just one dominant party. We have learned that to our greatest dismay.

I also agree with Pomjuk. As much as I personally am satisfied with legal aspects of yesterday's verdict (the way the judges applied existing laws against offences, not the controversial application of post-coup law to increase punishment for those found guilty), it's just disturbing that it took street protests, coup and all our political suffering for the Tribunal to come to such a ruling.

I wish Thailand had the sort of political standard that was uncompromising regardless of who the offenders are. We wouldn't have been here today, really.

9:25 pm: Genesha, I was just referring to suspicion _ from several others _ that the ruling did not stem primarily from desire to preserve the rule of law, but by desire to get to Thaksin. Some people are saying that had it not been Thaksin committing those crimes, it would not have come to the point where a political party has been wiped out. For the record, I don't agree with this observation.

By the way, where have all the other guys gone??? Have they been to temples or something?

11 pm: As for those asking for a link to the names of executives facing ban, here it is..http://www.nationmultimedia.com/specials/final/

Please note that seven or eight persons in that list won't  be affected because they left the party before the fraud took place.

It seems like everyone is in a winding down mode today. Thanks the likes of Ian, Genesha and Jantanee for keeping the comment section alive. Set up a date. You guys can be best pals. ;-)

I will be winding down myself. Will spring back to action as soon as I get something to share with you all. Wish you a nice day/evening and bye for now.

***One important note here. Something I said earlier (which I have deleted) was not accurate. The Democrats, in their defence arguement to the Tribunal, DID NOT question the legitimacy of the post-coup law that retroactively increases the penalties of electoral fraud. Sorry for the mistake krab.