Last year before the election the junta-appointed NLA amended the Organic Act related to Political Parties and the Organic Act related to the Election of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives. The result is as the Bangkok Post reports (cache):

The Election Commission has no option but to recommend that two parties in the government coalition be disbanded for poll fraud, because the law is very specific, election commissioner Sumeth Upanisakorn said yesterday. Mr Sumeth pointed to the wording of Article 103 of the political parties law, which would be the basis for dissolving Chart Thai and Matchimathipataya, two main coalition partners, over vote buying by executive party members.

The executives are Chart Thai's deputy secretary-general Monthian Songpracha, a winning candidate in Chai Nat, and Matchimathipataya deputy leader Sunthorn Wilawan, a winner in Prachin Buri.

Article 103 states that if the leader of a political party, or an executive member, commits a legal offence, the law regards that action as equivalent to the political party in question having exercised its power of administration in breach of the law.

Mr Sumeth insisted the word ''regards'' does not leave room for interpretation.

''I've been taught that 'regards' in legal terms cannot be construed in any other way,'' he said. The letter of the law in this case must be followed strictly.

If certain acts were ''assumed'' by law, then the meaning was not as definitive, he said. But this was not the case with the law applicable to the two parties.

''The EC doesn't have a choice. We ask for public understanding. It's simply that the law has put a lock and chain around our neck,'' he said.

Any violation of Article 103 would prompt the Election Commission to recommend to the prosecution the dissolution of the political parties concerned. The case would then go to the Constitution Court.

Mr Sumeth said if the two parties were disbanded, the executive members who had nothing to do with the electoral fraud would be free to move to any other political party, under Article 98.

The issue has landed the EC in a quandary. Its own inquiry, headed by Boontan Dokthaisong, found that the other party executives had nothing to do with the vote buying.

The EC had decided to consult its advisory team on whether or not party dissolution could be pursued based on Article 103.

Election commissioner, Prapun Naigowit, said the EC needs to listen to the advisory team because the commission's ruling on the case will set a precedent for its deliberation of similar vote-buying complaints.

It was possible the advisers would be able to settle discrepancies in applying Article 103 when they meet today.

Actually it is Section 103, paragraph 2 of the Organic Act on the Election of Members of the House of Representatives and Senators 2007 (PDF in Englishor the original Thai as a PDF is here) and not the Political Parties Act which is another Act. Ok, Section 103, paragraph 2 provides:

Prior to the announcement of the result of election, if the Election Commission considers that, after an investigation and inquiry, there is evidence that any candidate acted in violation of this Organic Act, a Regulation or a Notification of the Election Commission, or the circumstances suggest that any candidate caused another person to commit such act, supported or connived at such act of another person, or knew of and did not abate such act, and if the Election Commission considers that such act is likely to cause the election to be dishonest and unfair, the Election Commission shall order the derogation of the rights of candidacy for every candidate who committed such an act for a period of one year effective as from the date of the Election Commission order.

If there appears convincing evidence that a leader or a member of the Executive Committee of political party connive at or neglect or has known of but does not abate or rectify, for the purpose of an honest and fair election, the act under paragraph one, the political party shall be deemed as committing an act to obtain powers to rule the country by means not in accordance with the modus operandi as provided in the Constitution. In such case, the Election Commission shall, under the Organic Act on Political Parties, file a motion with the Constitutional Court in order to dissolve the Unofficial Translation political party. In the case where the Constitutional Court orders the dissolution of the political party, the Constitution Court shall derogate the rights of candidacy of its leader and members of the Executive Committee of such political party for a period of five years effective as from the date of the order of dissolution (emphasis added).

BP: Yonyuth is a PPP executive so if the EC and the Constitutional Court finds that he committed or knew of an act, but did nothing and this means in the election was unfair* then his acts will be the acts of PPP and PPP will be dissolved. There is no need unlike the previous Act** to establish that the party leader or party knew. Simply the actions of one executive is enough and the party will be dissolved and all members of the executive banned.

In regards to Section 98 , this is in reference to Organic Act on Political Parties and Section 98 provides (PDF - Thai only - the below is my translation):

that if the Constitution Court dissolves a political party under Section 82 or section 94 and there is credible evidence that the party leader or a party executive had some involvement, knew, were aware but did nothing, or had knowledge of such an act and did nothing then the Constitutional Court shall derogate the rights of its leader and party executives of such political party for a period of five years effective as from the date of the order of dissolution

According to Matichon, it is in reference to Section 94(1) which provides that a political party may be dissolved (my own translation again) if such:

an act which shall overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State or shall gain the power in administration of the State by unconstitutional means

BP: This is of course a copy of Section 66(1) of the old Act (PDF - English)***. The unconstitutional means would be Section 237:

A candidate in an election who commits an act or causes or supports another person to act in violation of the organic law on election of members of the House of Representatives and acquisition of senators or regulations or notifications of the Election Commission which resulting in the election not to be honest and fair, his right to vote at an election shall be suspended under the organic law on election of members of the House of Representatives and acquisition of senators.

If it appears convincing evidence, through an act of the person under paragraph one, that the President or an executive board of director of a political party connives or neglects at such commission or such commission is known to him but he fails to deter or revise such commission for the maintenance of honest and fair election, it shall be deemed that such political party doing an act for the acquisition of the power to rule the country by means which is not in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution under section 68. In such case, if the Constitutional Court orders to dissolve such political party, the right to vote at an election of the President or the executive board of directors of a political party shall be suspended for the period of five years as from the date such order is made.

BP: This is of course very similar to Section 103 above. Section 94(1) and Section 98 are just another means in addition to Section 103 and they are only one means to dissolve a political party and not the exclusive means. The EC can use either Section 237 of the Constitution or Section 103 above. Basically, Chat Thai, Matichima, and PPP are screwed as long as the Election Commission is of the opinion that the acts caused the election to be dishonest or unfair (this is the only leeway). I see no way that section 98 allows for executives to join other parties. In the Thai language articles I have read, they don't mention Section 98 at all so I have no idea where the Post got that from.

There is mention of Section 95 of the Political Parties Act by Kom Chad Luek, The Manager, and Matichon, but this is basically giving discretion on whether the EC will submit the file to the Constitutional Court, but this is in relation to a breach of Section 94(1).

*Please don't confuse "unfairly" with fraud as in vote-buying. Some things in breach of the law include (some 40+ pages (PDF) of ways to breach the law):

campaigning for an election by organizing an entertainment or other fair;
...
Any person, who provides the vehicle to bring a voter to a polling place for an election or to take a voter back from a polling place without paying normal fares or wages in order to induce or control the voter to cast a vote for any candidate or political party (section 55 paragraph one)
...
There shall not be any notice or poster relating to an election whose dimension or number does not comply with the rules prescribed by the Election Commission (section 60 paragraph one).

**Compare this with Section 101/1 of the 1998 Act:

If an act under paragraph two and paragraph three is an act of or caused another person to act, supported or connived at by the leader of a political party, it shall be deemed that such political party was acting in a manner perilous to national security under the organic law on Political Parties

*** TRT was dissolved under Section 66(1) - see summary of Constitutional Court judgement (PDF - English).

Related Posts by Categories

Widget by Scrapur