Karun disqualification 'routine'

“The meeting wasn’t anything specially aimed to decide on Karun’s case, but it went along with other issues and the decision was based on the panel’s opinion,” Praphan said.

The argument that the EC should have postponed the meeting until all its five members could cast their vote on Karun’s alleged election violations would mean not only that the resolution of Karun’s MP status would be delayed, but the other 10 issues would also have to be deferred. 

“A meeting with four members is not something new. If a vote turns out to be a tie, then the EC chairman will make the decision. I insist that the meeting to disqualify Karun met the quorum.” Claims that the EC had never given a red card to any MP before was also misguided. The EC used to hand out red cards, based on legislation and evidence, not the reputation of a person or his party. However, he declined to talk about the result, as it was up to the Supreme Court’s Election Cases Division to hand down a final verdict, he said.

Jatuporn Promphan, a red-shirt leader, said the EC’s decision was strange as one member, Somchai Juengprasert, was not in attendance. And when the vote turned out equal, chairman Apichart Sukhagganond decided to cast a vote twice, instead of making a ruling. “Even Karun, he felt weird about the EC’s decision. It’s odd that after rumours that I would run in the by-election, the Constitution Court suddenly filed the complaint to the Criminal Court to withdraw my bail,” Jatuporn said.