Bhumjaithai Party hopes to survive party dissolution. “Saewang” points out that the ruling in the Saksayam case is not a reason to dissolve the party, repeating the Supreme Court’s ruling that “working for the government must get paid”. As for the “collusion” issue, it must be a separate case. It is expected that the result will be known within 1 month. He laments that just being a Buriram person has been cursed for free for 1 year. He revealed that he ordered to stop the case to dissolve the “PPRP” after it could not be proven that the “Tuhao donation” was illegal money.
Mr. Saeng Boonmee, Secretary-General of the Election Commission, talked about the progress of the consideration of the petition to dissolve the Bhumjaithai Party due to receiving donations from Buri Charoen Construction Limited Partnership, in which Mr. Saksayam Chidchob holds shares. He said that this issue has caused him to be criticized for nothing for more than a year, simply because he is from Buriram. Until someone filed a lawsuit wi
th the Criminal Court for Corruption Cases, asking why the Election Commission had an order to file a petition with the Constitutional Court to dissolve the Move Forward Party, but did not file a petition to dissolve the Bhumjaithai Party. Therefore, he would like to clarify that because the fact-finding committee of the political party registrar went to investigate and he had ordered an extension of the working period because while the committee wanted to have the facts final, when in fact they wanted the decision to be completed within 1-2 months, they extended the time until other people felt that it was because the Secretary-General of the Election Commission was from Buriram. He did not understand how this was related, causing him to become a defendant in society, even though he had never been involved.
In fact, if we ask about the actual law, such as the case of the Move Forward Party, there is a ruling from the Constitutional Court as a guideline, which is binding on the EC, so it must use its power t
o submit to the Constitutional Court for a ruling. But the case of the Bhumjaithai Party is a petition to decide whether it is wrong or not. The ruling of the Constitutional Court in the case of Mr. Saksayam is not a violation of the dissolution of a political party at all. It is not a cause for the dissolution of a political party. But we are trying to find out whether what he is petitioning for is a cause that can be linked to the dissolution of a political party or not. Because what Mr. Saksayam did wrong according to the ruling of the Constitutional Court is not a cause for the dissolution of a political party. I have never asked or interfered with the work of the fact-finding committee. It is a matter of whose power it is. But today, I heard that he has proposed the matter, so I will be relieved that it will finally be over. Whatever the result is, we will have to wait and see what is proposed. Sometimes society understands that when the Constitutional Court makes a ruling, the party must be dissolved as
well. But people’s feelings have gone as far as saying that the characteristics are the same, but the case of one political party can be done quickly, while the case of another political party can be done slowly. But in reality, we have to look at the law, look at the petition.
Mr. Saeng continued that after the fact-finding committee submitted the matter, he would forward the matter to the advisory committee of the registrar of political parties, chaired by Mr. Somkid Lertpaitoon, to give his opinion first before submitting it to the registrar for consideration and opinion on whether the party must be dissolved if it is against the law. If the registrar finds it is not against the law, it is over. However, if it is found to be against the law, it will be submitted to the EC. It is expected that it will be finished by October.
The EC secretary-general added that the Bhumjaithai Party’s case is similar to the complaint filed against the Palang Pracharath Party in the case of receiving illegal donations from
Mr. Tuhao. The proof is that the money he donated was gray money, coming from illegal businesses such as opening a gambling den or drug dealing. To see whether the money was legal or not, if the responsible agency said that the money was illegal and seized, it would be clear that it was the source of illegal money. However, for money that was illegal under other laws, such as the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) or the Office of the Narcotics Control Board (ONCB), the EC has no authority to make a decision. It must be a person with authority under that law to make a decision first. If the illegal money was donated, that would cause the party to be dissolved. However, if it was money that was illegal under the political party law, such as the loan that caused the dissolution of the Future Forward Party, the EC has the authority to make a decision on its own.
‘In the case of Mr. Tuhao’s donation, no agency has decided where the money came from. When it is in accordance with other laws, no agency has decided
, and we do not have the authority to decide according to other laws. The EC must end the case. When it comes to the money of the Bhumjaithai Party, which a company donated, that money is government money that the company won the bid for. The Supreme Court once ruled in a case where a company colluded in bidding and the person in power did not give him money for the work. The court said that it must be separated properly. He worked and must receive money for the work. Bidding collusion is not related. That means the money for the work is legal money because he worked and must receive money. As for the auction head, that must be prosecuted in another case. It is not related to these matters. If you think about it carefully, it will immediately become closer to the money that the political party receives from the company that works for the government. That is the money for the work that he received from bidding for the government. There is a proper accounting system. That is why the money can enter the company.
If it is collusion money, it cannot enter the company. We do not know where the money will go. Therefore, if the law is complicated, people will think that if there is bid collusion, the party must be dissolved. But whether there is real collusion or not, no one knows at this time. Or how has anyone decided? But in the end, he will probably propose it for the registrar to consider,” said Mr. Saeng, adding that he has now moved his registration to Bangkok.
When asked about the case of the complaint to dissolve the Palang Pracharath Party due to the money of Mr. Tuhao, does this mean that the registrar has decided to end the matter? Mr. Sa-wang said that it has already ended because the money is money according to other laws, and no one has judged that it is illegal money, so we cannot use it as a reason to dissolve the party. It is like we have proven and listened to him to be true to this extent. We do not have any agency to prove and confirm that the money that Mr. Tuhao donated came from an illegal source.
Source: Thai News Agency