Comments on: Accepting the result?

By: Somsak Jeamteerasakul

Somsak Jeamteerasakul — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:51:04 +0000

It’s simply a description of the Election Commission Act itself. But of course, you could say that it also has ‘orgainic relationship to the Constitution’ since the Constitution prescribs that such Act be enacted to set up the Electiona Commission.

By: Grasshopper

Grasshopper — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:24:57 +0000

From the “Organic Act on the Election Commission”

Section 85/8. Prior to the announcement of the result of an election, if there appears to be convincing evidence that a political party, any official or member of a political party acted in violation of this Organic Act or caused another person to commit such act, supported or connived at such act by another person for the benefit of a political party, and if the Election Commission considers that such act is likely to cause the election to be dishonest and unfair, the Election Commission shall have the power to announce that the ballot papers with votes in favour of such political party are invalid and not be counted as votes only for the area where such act occurred.

Khun Somsak, what is this “organic act” in reference to here? Does it imply an organic relationship to the consitution? Or is it a description of the act itself?

Thankyou for your time,

Colum

By: Grasshopper

Grasshopper — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:07:08 +0000

Ah I see. I did interpret organic to mean: ‘whatever grows from the law.’ But wouldn’t ‘organic’ also mean that the law can be pruned? Otherwise there could be weeds (Thaksinites, Republicans) that might overpower the plant that is meant to be growing?

Surely the leaders of the coup would have been suspended from voting if this section did not allow for organic intervention?!

Maybe it has been lost in translation for me.

By: Somsak Jeamteerasakul

Somsak Jeamteerasakul — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:36:20 +0000

No. no. Khun Grasshopper just mis-understood a bit. “organic” (act) here is meant to be transalation of the Thai word “kot mai prakob ratthathammanun” (”organic” to the Constitution”, i.e. law ACCOMPANYING the Constitution, such as Elections Law, Constitutional Court Act, Political Party Act, and so on.)

By: Grasshopper

Grasshopper — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:07:29 +0000

From Constitution 07: Section 237. Any candidate in an election, who has committed, created or supported any person to commit any act in violation of the Organic(???!) Act on Election of Members of the House of Representatives and the Taking of Office of Senators or orders and announcements of the Election Commission, causing the election not to be proceeded in an honest and fair manner, shall be deprived of his or her voting rights in accordance with the Organic Act on Election of Members of the House of Representatives and the Taking of Office of Senators.

The king must be a fantastic gardener.

By: James Haughton

James Haughton — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 02:39:01 +0000

Has the king ever been interpreted as taking one side of an election so explicitly before?

By: jonfernquest

jonfernquest — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:57:38 +0000

“Don’t vote for those who have divided the country.”

That describes Samak perfectly.
Divide and obliterate every time the mouth is open.

Samak the flame thrower, perfect tool for postelection
democratic reconciliation.

Also made it personal with Prem.
No one’s completely certain whether Samak called Prem:

1. White hair closet gay, or…
2. White haired man in the closet

(Source: Bangkok Pundit)

By: bangkokpundit

bangkokpundit — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:01:38 +0000

Michael: Isn’t Channel 5 just spinning from Prem? If he didn’t want to deal with specific outcomes, he could just repeat the “we must accept the rules” mantra without getting into specifics. The “Prem didn’t want to make a specific comment” spin from Channel 5 is an extremely favourable interpretation of what Prem said. It must have taken them a while to find someone to come up with that interpretation!

btw, I am not saying you accept the Channel 5 interpretation of events and my comment is in response to your comment not necessarily directed at you.

By: Srithanonchai

Srithanonchai — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 04:57:34 +0000

“The king’s advice must be kept firmly in mind and put it into practice.”

This is another important part for interpreting the meaning of his statements. As soon as the King had made his three statements concerning unity and national security, Thai Rath used this “advice”, in its Sunday page-three analysis, to urge voters not to vote for PPP and Samak. This was thinly vailed in the phrase, “Don’t vote for those who have divided the country.” Shortly afterwards, Siam Rath ran the headline, “Adopting the King’s advice in forming the government.”

By: Michael Connors

Michael Connors — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 04:44:43 +0000

I heard the interview on TV last night. The interpretation put on it then was that it was unusual for Prem to give doorstep interviews and to make concrete statements about politics, and so he was not going to make a statement about specific outcomes (that is he deals with generalities), thus “I would not go so far as that “; i.e. make a specific comment). Until I heard that explanation (channel 5), I would have also understand Prem to mean that he would not go so far as to accept a People’s Power Party led government.

Now given Prem’s involvement in the events of 2006 it would not be hard to go for an interpretation that has him opposing the formation of a People’s Power government, but I doubt he would make such a statement in public.