Jatuporn smells a conspiracy

Jatuporn Promphan made the expected threat yesterday that depriving him of his membership in the House of Representatives would only create new political problems. That may sound like a bluff, but the truth is, the embattled Pheu Thai MP remains a very hot potato.
The Constitution Court will have to tackle the sensitive issue after the Election Commission on Tuesday voted 4-1 to disqualify him as an MP on the ground that he did not vote in the July 3 general election. If this had been election time, the EC’s vote would have been final. Now there’s no escaping Jatuporn as far as the court is concerned.
The EC’s ruling is expected to rest briefly with the House before it is forwarded to the Constitution Court. The Pheu Thai-controlled chamber could try to buy time for him, but since the case is about legal interpretation, there is not much time to buy. Even Jatuporn himself asked the House Speaker to move quickly in sending the EC ruling to the court.
“I believe the EC ruling happened under suspicious circumstances,” he said. “Some people see my working as an MP as a big obstacle. All I can say is that I can be a bigger obstacle not being an MP.”
Jatuporn, who failed to cast his vote on July 3 because of his remand detention, insisted that his disqualification was unfair because he wanted to vote.
Before the general election, Jatuporn had had his bail revoked because of his controversial political comments. His election bid prompted EC member Sodsri Satayathum to warn about his qualification issue and he had, therefore, attached her opinion in the application to seek temporary release. The application was rejected.
He said he suspected his opponents had conspired to remove him from office. He called on the EC and the Office of the House Speaker to expedite the judicial review so that he could present his defence in the high court.
Sodsri was the minority voice in the EC’s 4-1 vote on Tuesday, arguing that Jatuporn had expressed his intent to exercise his voting right in the July 3 election. The majority commissioners insisted the law was clear about MPs having to be free of incarceration on election day.
The Constitution Court will have to weigh between Jatuporn’s clear-cut absence on election day and the fact that he did try to get temporary release so he could vote.
Jatuporn said his opponents might not stop at just seeing his political destruction, hinting at a broader campaign to undermine the red-shirt movement and dissolve the Pheu Thai Party.
“I believe the masterminds of such a campaign would soon be unmasked,” he said.
Even though his opponents might fear the damage he could inflict as an MP, he could cause greater problems working outside Parliament, he warned.
He said opponents might have opted for other ways to oust the Yingluck Shinawatra government after the recent censure debate failed to make a dent.
He said he would continue to spearhead the campaign for justice regardless of his job status.
Despite what might happen to him, he said he and the red shirts would continue to act as the shield for the Yingluck government and the vanguard for democracy.
Pheu Thai MP Kokaew Pikulthong said he viewed it as injustice that Jatuporn was disqualified while a man “who dodged the military conscription and ordered the killings of 91 people” could remain in office. He was making a veiled attack on Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva.
Red-shirt leader Thida Thawornseth said her movement would campaign to repeal the Constitution and other legislation enacted after the 2006 coup.
Jatuporn’s lawyer Winyat Chartmontri said he was not surprised with the disqualification order.
He said his client could carry on doing his job pending the completion of the judicial review.
Deputy House Speaker Charoen Chankomol said he expected the EC to forward its ruling on Jatuporn within 30 days. The Office of the House Speaker would check on the ruling before petitioning for the judicial review, he said.