Jump to content
BANGKOK 26 June 2019 05:14
webfact

Thanathorn faces more legal hurdles

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

 

 

It is the EC's constitutional obligation, however, to enforce the law. It is the EC's duty to check and verify the backgrounds of election candidates and ensure that they are qualified PRIOR to the election. That assures valid election results. Many of proposed major party candidates were known last year that gave the EC plenty of time to correctly qualify or disqualify candidates.

 

 

Really good post and my apologies for editing it. 

 

Maybe you can help me on this - the OP states the candidate was disqualified by a court on 19th March. But also 'suggests' he contested the election on 24th March, which can only be done realistically if you are on the ballot paper. If he was on the ballot paper and contested the election, following disqualification by a court, the EC is massively at fault for providing ballot paper with a disqualified candidate on, against a court judgement surely?  Do you know if he actually contested the poll on 24th March. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, candide said:

There are basically two types of laws depending on the country concerned. The Anglo-saxon law define offenses broadly and then the law gets more precise with the use of the principle of precedents. The Roman law tends to define precisely the offenses and penalties in advance in the law, a d relies less on precedents.

None of it in the Thai law. Offenses are defined very broadly so that they can be interpreted in any convenient way, and there is no principle of precedent. There also has been some cases of laws having been applied retroactively.

Add to it that the judiciary and the semi-judiciary (agencies) belong to the same yellow-coloured network, whose components appoint each others.

Then you start to understand how it works here.

 

Not so. You are muddling attempted descriptions of Common Law and Codified law in an attempt to apply them to Thai law.  

 

Thai law does use precedents although it is not mandatory for judges to do so; it is at their discretion.

 

A great emphasis here, in applying laws, rules, decisions, is placed in individual discretion of the person making the decision. That, whilst theoretically giving that person the ability to make decisions based on all unique facts, also opens the way for misuse.

 

Any student of different law systems would also point out the very strange decisions that often come out of US courts, at federal, state and all levels! No system is perfect.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Not so. You are muddling attempted descriptions of Common Law and Codified law in an attempt to apply them to Thai law.  

 

Thai law does use precedents although it is not mandatory for judges to do so; it is at their discretion.

 

A great emphasis here, in applying laws, rules, decisions, is placed in individual discretion of the person making the decision. That, whilst theoretically giving that person the ability to make decisions based on all unique facts, also opens the way for misuse.

 

Any student of different law systems would also point out the very strange decisions that often come out of US courts, at federal, state and all levels! No system is perfect.

 

Really turn how the law is interpreted on its head when judges admitting to decisions were based more on political expediency than law. Confirming your comment that no system is perfect.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, holy cow cm said:

I think the law is applies to the goose (to cook it) and very selective to the gander in most situations. The laws can be contorted as deciphered a couple of ways to the liking of a certain outcome. So in this case who drew up and revamped the laws?

Indeed in the same way history is written by the victorious the laws in Thailand are written or deciphered by the victorious ie those in power.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever they do to get rid of him will make him and his party stronger.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanathorn, the Trump of Thailand, enemies trying to sue him out. Let's hope he is as resilient as the saviour of the white man has been.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nip said:

Indeed in the same way history is written by the victorious the laws in Thailand are written or deciphered by the victorious ie those in power.

Not like this bunch has 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, sweatalot said:

Whatever they do to get rid of him will make him and his party stronger.

Only if they are still breathing

Edited by geoffbezoz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jonclark said:

Really good post and my apologies for editing it. 

 

Maybe you can help me on this - the OP states the candidate was disqualified by a court on 19th March. But also 'suggests' he contested the election on 24th March, which can only be done realistically if you are on the ballot paper. If he was on the ballot paper and contested the election, following disqualification by a court, the EC is massively at fault for providing ballot paper with a disqualified candidate on, against a court judgement surely?  Do you know if he actually contested the poll on 24th March. 

 

The ballots for all candidates would have been distributed by the EC prior to the Early Election held on March 17th. More than 2.3 million Thais were expected to vote before the official March 24 poll date. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30365958

Presumably candidates on the early election ballots would also be the same candidates on the ballots for the General Election held on March 24th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Lacessit said:

It shows the level of desperation prevailing in the junta, Thanathorn is a real threat to them.

If the same level of rigorous scrutiny was applied to them, permit me to doubt there would be no glaring infractions.

If it is believed candidates should not have influence over the media  then what is the proper legal response to this?

'Television is by far the most popular medium in Thailand. Almost 80 percent of Thais are estimated to rely on television as their primary source of news. Major television stations are owned and controlled by the Royal Thai Army and Government.'

Wikipedia  - Freedom of the Press 2015

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2019 at 4:08 PM, webfact said:

Meanwhile, key figures in the ruling junta yesterday denied playing any part in the legal problems faced by the Future Forward leader, whose party came third in the national vote in terms of MP seats won unofficially.

Anyone that believes anything the junta has to say about the election, or the junta opponents in the election, are really gullible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...