Tearing up ballot papers in illegal elections is not wrong
The court has acquitted a Chulalongkorn lecturer who tore up his ballot papers in the 2006 elections. It says that the elections were illegal, so the ballot papers were not considered real ballot papers, and were worth little money.
On 29 Oct, the Phra Khanong Provincial Court gave its ruling in the case of Chulalongkorn University political science lecturer Chaiyan Chaiyaporn who was prosecuted for tearing up his ballot papers in the general election in April 2006.
Chaiyan tore up the two ballot papers for the election of constituency MP and party-list MP at a polling station in Bangkok on 2 April 2006. The public prosecutor said that his act was intentional, and was an offence under Section 108 of the 1998 Election Act which forbids the spoiling of ballot papers and Section 358 of the Criminal Code which forbids the destruction of state assets. The prosecutor asked the Court to punish the defendant and revoke his electoral rights for 5 years.
The defendant denied the charges and testified that then Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra did not dissolve the House as a result of a conflict between the government and the legislature, but to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of his family’s holdings of Shin Corp shares. So the dissolution was not in line with the principles of democracy, and Thaksin wanted to use the elections to ‘wash away his crimes’. The scheduling of the election date was also unlawful. The defendant tore up the ballot papers with the intention of opposing illegal elections, not to destroy the ballot papers per se.
In its ruling, the Court referred to the Constitutional Court ruling on the 2 April 2006 general elections. This said that the elections were not fair, not truly democratic, and were against the 1997 Constitution.
The Provincial Court ruled that the ballot papers which electoral officials gave to voters at the polling station were not considered ballot papers, but only replicas of ballot papers. Therefore, the defendant’s act did not constitute an offence under Section 108 of the Election Act.
And the fact that the defendant came to exercise his electoral rights and openly tore up only those ballot papers which were given to him, to show the public that the elections were not legitimate, without causing unrest or damage to anybody, was considered an act of exercising his right to oppose illegal elections through peaceful means. The ballot papers were an asset which the Election Commission used to commit wrongdoing in the elections and were worth little money compared to the damage which might be incurred under the rule of power acquired through unconstitutional means. The defendant, therefore, did not commit the offence of destroying assets as alleged, the Court ruled.
Print version
Send by email
Comments
Chaiyan tore up the two
I interpret number- as an instance of political free speech. I interpret number
- as an example of an unconsitutional law. I interpret number
- as an example of the overweening presumption of the state. Surely the ballot is the property of the voter once it is in the voter's possession. And I interpret number
- as an even worse example of the state run amuk - with a penalty wildly over the top for the non-crime it professes to be punishing.
The fact that the Thai people put up with such nonsense is very disheartening.
Why were the elections unfair? Because the Democrat Party refused to stand?
Why were the elections undemocratic? Because the Democrat Party refused to stand?
Why were the elections unconstitutional? Because the Democrat Party refused to stand?
Why then was not the Democrat Party disbanded in 2006?
The prvincial court had set a
The prvincial court had set a new standard by stating that " The ballot papers were an asset which the Election Commission used to commit wrongdoing in the elections and were worth little money compared to the damage which might be incurred under the rule of power acquired through unconstitutional means. "
That means sometimes laws can be broken for a greater good !
Definitely and strictly practiced in banana republic only.
No wonder why the constitution can be torn up for the same greater good.
Good citizens line up, be ready to tear up some more, for the greater good.
We both know why the high
We both know why the high court ruled the elections to be unconstitutional. It was the same reason why Democrats refused to contest it.
You're asking questions to which you already know the answer, purely to provide your own answers which are innuendo-based. That's a little bit deceptive. And wholly transparent. Prachatai might count themselves lucky you're not speaking for them after all.
By your logic, Aung San Suu Kyi refusing to contest the rigged elections in Myanmar places her squarely in the wrong?
BBC: Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi will not vote
Dear Justin J. StanG, The
Dear Justin J. StanG,
The Democrat Party did not contest the election in 2006 because they were destroyed in 2005 and knew the result would be similar. They decided to support PAD rather than the stand before the voters. Now that they have been put in place as a government by force of the military and its guns, and kept there, they are busily filling jails with political prisoners and stifling opposition in the hope that an election (when?) will leave nothing standing but the Democrat Party and its corrupt allies. If they lose yet again (when was the last time the DP won an election?) I have no doubt that its bosses will arrange yet another military coup/judicial coup or worse.
Now that they have been put
That's a lie. And you know it's a lie, which places you something lower than a shill? They were able to form a coalition government through a democratic vote, which was enabled by democratic judicial review. Judicial action processed through the Constitutional Court. You know the one. The high court the PTP is currently so fervently attempting to destroy or damage. PTP's conspiring to attack the high court is tantamount to attacking the democratic process. But then again, we're quite used to Thaksin's idea of 'democracy'.
You ask when elections will be held? The PM has said 100% next year. He offered to hold them in November 2010 but the violent Red Shirts wanted to fight on. You seem to have forgotten that fact?
The Democrat's corrupt junior coalition partners were a direct creation of Thaksin's TRT. And you know that. And you also know what electorates they 'represent'.
Democracy doesn't equal "vote-buying". I know you all wish it did, but it simply doesn't. A coup which restores power to the public is more democratic than a criminal who buys up MPs at B80 million per seat to purchase his 'democratic mandate'.
You really are a
You really are a propagandist. I trust they pay you well.
We both know why the high
We both know why the high court ruled the elections to be unconstitutional.
Would the two of you share your knowledge with me then?
I was guessing at the court's reasons for declaring the elections unconstitutional. I cited what seemed to be the singular difference between 'ordinary' elections and the one in 2006 as what I assumed to be the reason the court declared the elections illegal. If the two of you can tell me what the 'real' reason was then I won't have to propose possibilities.
I don't think the government has the right to disband political parties at all, but this government does think it has that right so, assuming that the Democrat Party was the proximate cause of the elections' unconstitutionality, it seemed consistent, if consistently mistaken in my view, for the government to disband the Democrat Party for disrupting the election.
I think that Aung San Suu Kyi made a tactical error in refusing to contest the rigged election in Burma, but that's easy for me to say. I'm not there. In any event, she left i up to the NLD to decide whether to contest or not, or did she not?
Aung San Suu Kyi is to the
Aung San Suu Kyi is to the NLD what Thaksin is to the PTP - albeit creating polar opposite emotions of inspiration v nausea. One is an heroic patriot. The other will gladly sacrifice his country's interests for his own.
To your confused question which led to your ludicrous 'speculated' assumptions, I suggest you review the Wiki summary of the Constitutional Court Verdict which outlines the justifications for their declaring the 2006 elections to be unconstitutional and their banning of the corrupt politicians involved. Basically, as everyone except the Red Shirt Propaganda Machine was / is / will always be aware, Thaksin was a corrupt sonofa...and he was buying anything and everything he could, including the PCT and PandinTP MPs. Evidence was presented to prove the facts.
Both the PCT and PandinTP then indulged in some good old-fashioned electoral fraud, in tandem with corrupt EC officials. Why? To get around the 90-day rule proscribed by the 1997 Constitution to prohibit people like Thaksin buying up MPs in midnight auctions.
The government did not dissolve the TRT, the PCT or the PandinTP. What a ridiculous statement. There was no government, after the democratic process of judicial review had banned those proven to have been guilty of electoral fraud and MP-selling to Thaksin, and voided the corrupt elections on the grounds they were unconstitutional.
It had nothing to do with the Democrats. The Democrats cannot control the Constitutional Court. If they could, they wouldn't be facing charges from their - gosh! oh my! - scandal involving the use of smaller billboards (the scoundrels!).
It's worth noting that the EC only progressed with those charges after very public threats were made by PTP MP Jutaporn. Their names, addresses, where their children slept at night were broadcast, along with the nauseating threat that the Red Shirts could not guarantee their safety unless they reversed their decision that the Democrats having done nothing untoward.
How very democratic.
Aung San Suu Kyi is to the
It is with great joy that I read of the patriot's release (hopefully permanent) yesterday.
A joy that I imagine might be matched only by Thaksin submitting himself to the Courts to serve his sentence.