Yesterday, blogged on the reasons for the Court dismissing the case against the Democrats that they had a misused 29 million baht ($959,459) political subsidy because the EC failed to file the case within the 15 day deadline.

AP:

“This case has ended, and our party has the duty to continue solving the country’s problems,” Abhisit, who is also party leader, told reporters. He acknowledged that the ruling might not be universally welcomed, but should be abided.

Reuters:

“The verdict is somewhat expected. Some people will be unhappy but there are many other factors when considering whether the red shirts could come out soon in a forceful manner,” said independent political analyst Sukhum Nuansakul.

AFP:

Some observers, including author and former Thai diplomat Pavin Chachavalpongpun, questioned whether Abhisit’s backers in the military and Bangkok-based elite would have allowed the Democrats to be toppled.

The ruling “will strengthen the belief among the opposition that the elite and the Democrat party would do anything to maintain their power interests, even at the expense of the reputation and credibility of the court,” Pavin said.

“It deepens the rift in Thai society. It reinforces the belief among the opposition that double standards really exist,” he told AFP.

Bloomberg:

“Thailand’s political risk is reduced big time with today’s ruling,” said Andy Pornprinya, senior vice president for regional institutional sales at UOB Kay Hian Securities (Thailand) Pcl in Bangkok. “This will further strengthen business and consumer sentiment because they are now more confident about the government’s policy continuation.”
…
“There will be pressure from the Red Shirts about judicial double standards,” said Somjai Phagaphasvivat, a lecturer at Bangkok’s Thammasat University. “The tension won’t be as high as earlier this year because the government has the upper hand working in unity with the military to handle any protests.”

The Economist:

However, the final verdict did not decide the merits of these competing claims. Instead the court decided that the EC had not filed the charge within 15 days of its decision to prosecute, thereby invalidating the entire process. The second charge, of an illegal corporate donation, is still pending. It is not subject to the 15-day rule, but is thought to be weaker as there is less of a paper trail. The party has denied receiving any donation from TPI Polene, a petrochemical company.

BP: On the second case, The Economist is right relating to the Democrats failing to report a donation of 258 million baht ($8.4 million) from petrochemical conglomerate TPI (see posts on this here, here, and here). The Democrats simply deny there was a donation whereas for the case about misusing the 29 million baht donation many of the main facts of the case were not in dispute (i.e. Democrats did receive the money and did use that money to do xyx and filed a report about it) and it was on interpretation of the law. Nevertheless, the second case is more about airing dirty laundry and is easier conceptually to grasp than the misusing of the 29 million baht donation (the Democrats did a good job of framing that case of being simply about using incorrectly sized posters/billboards when the EC case was not about that). BP also doesn’t see how the 15-day rule applies for the alledged legal donation as that rule applies to cases regarding state subsidies.

Now, on the EC well will leave that for a later post….