THAILAND: Premier Shows Worrisome Political Stripes – Critics

By Marwaan Macan-Markar Reprint | | Print |

Marwaan Macan-Markar

BANGKOK, Aug 8 2001 (IPS) - A national debate over Thailand’s political future — the rule of law and the future of democracy here — is underway after the Aug. 3 acquittal of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra on corruption charges.

Some pro-democracy advocates have even been asking where Thaksin, elected earlier this year with one of the biggest mandates in Thailand’s recent history, will lead this South-east Asian country.

Will he lead the nation down the road of quasi- authoritarianism, as some call Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad’s brand of rule in Malaysia, or corruption and cronyism as former President Suharto did in Indonesia?

Equally troubling for political analysts here is not only the judgment by the Constitution Court — which has yet to release a written explanation of its verdict — but the comments Thaksin has since made in reaction to it.

Critics warn that the 8-7 vote for acquittal by the court, which found Thaksin not guilty of concealing assets worth 98.4 million U.S. dollars to evade taxes, could create a dangerous precedent in this country of 70 million people.

It sends a wrong message to the country’s power elite about the way in which laws to curb corruption in Thailand’s four-year-old constitution will be applied, they add.

This is so, argues Sunai Phasuk, a researcher at the Bangkok- based Asian Network for Free Elections, because of “some contradictions” in the rationale of the eight members of the court who ruled in favour of Thaksin.

“These members were swayed by political realities rather than the rule of law. By doing so, they have implied that the prime minister is untouchable,” he said in an interview.

Surapol Nitikraipot, dean of the law faculty at the Bangkok’s Thammasat University, told local media it was a “very strange ruling,” consequently raising questions about the credibility of the court.

For one, sceptics are asking how the same Constitutional Court previously ruled against nine politicians, to whom it served five- year bans from politics for concealing assets. The charges they faced were similar to those brought against Thaksin by the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC), the independent anti-graft watchdog.

Thaksin’s reaction following the verdict has not endeared him to activists here.

He has gone on the offensive by calling for a reduction in the powers of the two independent agencies he had to deal with in this case — the anti-corruption body and the Constitution Court.

“It’s strange that the leader who was voted by 11 million people had to bow to the ruling of the NCCC and the verdict of the Constitutional Court, two organisations composed only of appointed commissioners and judges, whom people did not have a chance to choose,” Thaksin argued.

“This is a crucial point we missed,” he said.

After the acquittal, Thaksin has also vented his ire at the media. Upset by reports that appeared in print after the case, he has threatened to reduce contacts with journalists.

A Thai-language newspaper, ‘Krungthep Thurakij’, this week received a warning letter from the Special Branch Police for publishing a report from a wire service about Thaksin’s case.

Sunai harbours fears about the direction Thai politics will head under the prime minister, judging from his handling of the corruption case against him.

“He is clearly upset and does not like to be held accountable. If not questioned, this will lead to him consolidating power, and not being checked by mechanisms we have in the constitution,” he explained.

Such a trend is what activists here have been trying to move away from, not least because Thailand’s constitution is designed to clamp down on corruption and strengthen the system of checks and balances in the country.

“We have to avoid ending up as another Malaysia or Indonesia,” Sunai said, referring to Mahathir’s tough attitude toward political dissent and Indonesia’s problems with corruption and nepotism.

What matters, according to law expert Vithit Muntarphorn, is to underscore the importance of institutions in the constitution that serve as checks and balances of power.

“We have these safeguards and we need to build support for them to be strengthened,” says Vithit, a professor of law at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University.

The prime minister has to respect these safeguards, rather than trying to “centralise” power, adds Vithit. “He was not voted to undermine democracy, transparency and the rule of law enshrined in the constitution, nor to create a one-party state.”

Thapchai Yong, a columnist in the English-language daily ‘The Nation’, calls Thaksin’s notion of democracy a “misguided” one.

“He seems to believe that the 11 million votes given to his Thai Rak Thai (Thais Love Thais) Party in the last general election represents a blank cheque that bestows on him the political mandate to rule without having to pay attention to the system of checks and balances,” Thapchai pointed out.

Thaksin’s comments about the court and the anti-corruption commission in recent ways are reasons for worry, adds Thapchai. They are early signs of “what an over-confident political leader is capable of doing.”

Thapchai said there are fears that the billionaire-turned- politician will become authoritarian “in trying to ward off any challenge to his political grip”.