First let me be clear: I think the use of the court system, and having a judiciary that is as powerful as the other branches of government is a good thing. I applaud the courts, the Election Commission and other government officials in Thailand that are applying the rule of law to govern the behavior of politicians here in Thailand.
It’s one way to send a message that corruption and favoritism are at an end.
And yet, the frequency of the court cases is disquieting.
Today’s newspaper has a brief article about the new Prime Minister — a former judge himself — being charged in the Election Commission with a violation. It is alleged that he owns 100,000 shares in CS Loxinfo, a Thai telecommunications company, worth about 368,000 baht.
According to the Bangkok Post, this alleged violation could see him lose his position.
According to [Senator Ruangkrai Leekijwattana], Mr Somchai held 100,000 shares worth 368,000 baht in the firm, which operates under a concession granted by CAT Telecom.
Mr Somchai made a brief public statement to the press. He said he would adhere to the legal and judicial process. “I have no worries at all,” he told reporters.
That process could now bring him down.
Sen Ruangkrai, who filed the charges that caused the downfall of ex-premier Samak Sundaravej for hosting a TV cooking show while prime minister, said that Mr Somchai’s alleged share holdings violate a number of constitutional articles.
Several of them bar government office holders from owning shares of companies doing business with state enterprises. One, Article 48, also bans owning any shares in any telecoms company at all.
….
The legal case filed by Sen Ruangkrai could be drawn out for several months, but the steps are clear. The Election Commission will consider the charges, and if it feels they are warranted, it will forward them to the Constitution Court, which can order a brief trial and then pass a verdict.
….
Mr Somchai can legally hold his post through the process and told the media on Monday he intends to do so. As an ex-judge, he pledged to act in a legal way.
The restrictions on shareholdings are similar to restrictions that politicians in other countries face. If the Prime Minister is not careful enough and aware enough of the rules and his own situation then perhaps he deserves what may be coming to him, but the troubling thing in Thai politics at the moment is the way that governments can be brought down over relatively minor matters.
The previous Prime Minister, Samak, was removed from office because he hosted two cooking shows on TV (something he has done for years) after becoming prime minister, and received a 5,000 baht honorarium.
A technical violation of the law? Sure.
Should it have been enough to collapse a government? Not in my opinion… no.
The rule of law is important, and it’s important to have a strong judiciary. But it’s also important to have stability in government.
When people violate the law, it’s important that they be punished, but the punishments here in Thailand don’t always seem to fit the crime at the moment. I am often reminded of the images of using a cannon to kill a fly, or a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito.
Of course, this may be an understandable situation in a country where political corruption has traditionally been treated with a wink and a nod; with no real punishment being meted out to the powerful. Perhaps the only realistic reaction to that is to swing the pendulum too far the other way. But it seems that the current system of law is not balancing the need to enforce the rule of law with the need for stable government.
One example is the issue of electoral fraud.
Quite rightly, a politician found guilty of vote buying can be removed from office.
But if that person is a party leader, then the entire party can be disbanded for the misdeeds of the individual. Obviously this can have devastating impact on the system of government, when an entire administration can collapse because of the illegal actions of one individual.
had some interesting things to say on this topic this week, though he was driven to express them by a different news story. I think the material that appears on his website has some relevance here.
:
Some say the new cases show that the courts are no longer afraid to challenge influential politicians. Others, particularly Thaksin’s supporters, say those charged are being unduly punished for crimes that are widespread here.
Many say the courts’ frequent and enthusiastic interventions have reduced the incentive for politicians to work out their differences.
The International Crisis Group, a Belgium-based research organization, recently said the constitution drafted by the military government that removed Thaksin gave the courts “too much power to thwart and undermine an elected government for relatively minor failings.”
“A balance needs to be struck between necessary checks on executive power and giving the government enough authority to avoid total paralysis,” the group said.
But opponents of the current government want the role of the courts to be expanded. The People’s Alliance for Democracy, whose members say representative democracy has failed in Thailand, this weekend called for an expansion of the court’s powers.
They want the law changed so that any member of the public can bring corruption charges against officeholders, and they want the statute of limitations lifted for corruption charges.
BP: The government and MPs faces court case after court case. Many border on the ridiculous. There seem no clear rules which everyone knows and understands. The rules change all the time. One of the latest is that Democrat gubernational candidate Apirak may have to pay 158 million baht if he is found guilty of “electoral fraud” as The Nation :
The EC is also investigating if Apirak committed an electoral offence by putting pictures of BMA officials in his election campaign posters without consent. If the pictures were from the BMA’s Office of Public Relations, Apirak could face legal action for using state assets in his election campaign.
These two offences, if confirmed, would result in a yellow card for Apirak if he wins the poll. Apirak may have to pay Bt158 million to the state for re-holding the election, a source said.
BP: Aren’t all these rules excessive? I have on some electoral rules before and an offence by a party executive could result in the whole party being disbanded and all party executives banned for 5 years. Not all “electoral fraud” is vote buying:
*Please don’t confuse “unfairly” with fraud as in vote-buying. Some things in breach of the law include (some 40+ pages () of ways to breach the law):
campaigning for an election by organizing an entertainment or other fair;
…
Any person, who provides the vehicle to bring a voter to a polling place for an election or to take a voter back from a polling place without paying normal fares or wages in order to induce or control the voter to cast a vote for any candidate or political party (section 55 paragraph one)
…
There shall not be any notice or poster relating to an election whose dimension or number does not comply with the rules prescribed by the Election Commission (section 60 paragraph one).BP: One needs a team of laywers just to try to understand all the rules. Remember all the rules are new and they change frequently – see (PDF) a regulation issued one day and then (PDF) issued the same day to correct it.
If you want to remove money from politics, how can you charge some 158 million baht to hold the election again?
1 response so far ↓
// Thursday, 2 October 2008 at 10:34 pm |
An interesting blog from a Thai guy who gives the background to a lot of recent Thai politics. It’s filled with his personal opinions, and not brilliant writing, but someone fairly unfamiliar with the Thai political landscape could probably follow the flow of the piece.