Bangkok Post: 21/10/08
No silver bullet not even with today's verdict
Today is yet another landmark day in the long saga of landmarks in recent Thai politics. This is a Big One, though; the reading, after postponement by a month, of the Supreme Court verdict on the Ratchadaphisek land case with former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra as the accused. A guilty verdict would mean jail for Thaksin with no appeal.
Paradoxically, a not-guilty verdict may make it harder for Thaksin to convince the UK authorities that he cannot get a fair trial in Thailand. Either way, this is certainly not the end of the saga and quite possibly could be the new beginning of a more dangerous phase.
I feel like a heavyweight boxer who has gone 15 rounds and been told by the referee that it's still not over, and we've got to keep fighting.
I can almost hear readers murmur ``Yeah, you got that right,'' given how the situation has been so frustrating for everyone. Last Friday afternoon we had another anti-climactic press conference by our Prime Minister, after which I heard cries of ``When is it going to be over?'' from all directions. There were questions raised of the positioning of many institutions this past week but the most controversial was that of the military and their coup-style posturing on the Sorayuth Suthanachinda's news show on Channel 3.
What was that all about? Casual observers would conclude, and they may be right, that this was an overt attempt to exert pressure on the government to do the right thing after the excessive use of force to clear the path to parliament on Oct 7. Those more cynical observed that this was but a charade on the part of Army Commander-in-Chief General Anupong Paojinda, to clear himself of the accusations that he is pro-Thaksin or, at least, pro-himself over the interests of the country. The fact that Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat deflected such pressure the very next day fed this view.
Granted, I think as cool as he appears to be, Gen Anupong must be somewhat rattled by the social pressure on him to ``do something''. I was at the cremation ceremony for the young girl who was killed on the afternoon of the police crackdown on protesters. Gen Anupong was also there and, sitting in his limousine, he was roundly abused the whole way out of the temple grounds by the funeral-goers who thronged the street. He was never given this treatment even as a coup leader, and it couldn't have been fun.
Now that everyone appears to have laid their cards on the table, it is even less clear as to how the situation will be resolved.
Two things are certain though; the first is the need to ensure that justice is served and the second is that we must not be tempted to stray from the democratic path towards the resolution we all seek.
Even with a verdict today, the first can still not be assumed. I had published in local newspapers yesterday an Open Letter addressed to the Office of the Attorney-General, the Department of Special Investigation and the Securities Exchange Commission complaining about what I see as blatant attempts to protect the Shinawatras in the OAG's decision not to file charges in the SC Asset case. I plan to take the matter to the National Counter Corruption Commission as I, and many others, are seriously concerned about the reliability of the OAG.
It is a fact, for example, that the OAG has refused to file charges in at least four cases made by the now defunct Assets Scrutiny Committee against Thaksin or his government, only for the ASC to file charges themselves and, in every instance having the courts agreeing to accept the case.
The commitment to the democratic process is equally hard. Nevertheless, we Democrats retain our belief that the best way to protect democracy is to seek solutions within it. Given the current situation, this implies that the best way out of the current impasse is for parliament to be dissolved.
This, though, does not appear to be the best solution for us, since the alternative of a resignation by the Prime Minister followed by a shift of allegiances on the part of the smaller parties would allow us to form a government relatively painlessly.
However, it is our view that this outcome would not provide the same level of legitimacy and the substantial number of People Power party supporters would be left understandably resentful.
A fresh mandate through a general election would help clear the air even if we ended up with another PPP-led government.
In short, we do not believe that there is a short-cut out of current problems and are prepared to fight another one, two, three or more elections if necessary in order to win deserved democratic victory. We believe this is the best way for Thailand to fight its way out of the current political misery. There is no silver bullet.
And what of our chances? Undoubtedly we would be an underdog if elections were to be held today. The government has already prepared the ground so that it would tilt in their favour. Recently provincial governors countrywide were replaced by those the government felt were pro-PPP. Access to funding remains a huge disadvantage for us, and, of course, the government retains the ultimate advantage of being incumbents with a freshly approved record high national budget with which to pork-barrel their way to popularity.
Having said that, win or lose, it is likely to be close. Most people are unaware of the fact that in the party votes, out of a total of about 30 million votes cast in the last general election, we lost to the PPP by a mere 100,000 or so votes.
This represented a huge swing from 2005, when I first ran for office, when the spread was a full 12 million votes. Of course, the problem was that in the first-past-the-post system of constituency voting, we were trumped roundly, with the PPP winning roughly 70 more constituencies than us, and mostly in the Northeast and the North.
I remember giving an interview with this newspaper some time after the 2005 poll and responding to the question posed at the time, as to how many votes we felt we would need to be in a position to form a government. My answer was 12 million _ we had at that time just won 7 million votes. Coincidentally, that was precisely the number of votes we attained in December 2007, but it proved insufficient. In truth, we would only need to win one or two million more votes this time around in order to pip the PPP to the finish line.
This means the need to win another 30 seats in total, most of which would have to be constituency seats. This is certainly within the realm of the possible and we have already completed our assessment as to where these winnable seats might be. This is where the focus should be, not in the wait-to-see if the army would roll out the tanks, or whether the PAD would be successful in re-inventing democracy.
In the meantime, there remains common ground with the PAD and a growing number of the general population and that is the lack of legitimacy of the Somchai government, given the brutal handling of the protesters two weeks ago. Our methodology is less satisfying than that of the PAD, or potentially than that of the army, because it is framed by the constraints of the rules of parliament.
Parliament should indeed be more dynamic than it is today, and it is the abuse of the majority voice that has led to the marginalisation of its role. This is why street politics is necessary as an adjunct, for without active public scrutiny, we are doomed.
So, working within the framework, we recently filed a petition with the National Counter Corruption Commission to declare the recent policy reading by the government in parliament to be unconstitutional. We contend that a vote was called for (in our absence) to approve the motion to allow the reading to occur, and that insufficient votes were cast.
The subsequent re-vote called by Speaker Chai Chidchob was a breach of parliamentary regulation and hence the reading itself was unconstitutional. If our petition is upheld, then this government would become invalidated.
One must not underestimate the seemingly dull parliamentary routes such as the above that remain open to us. Most people discounted our chances of getting a result when I was tasked by the party to file a complaint with the parliamentary Ombudsman against the government process of selecting directors for the Bank of Thailand.
The Ombudsman provided their formal ruling last week and demanded that the whole process be annulled and re-commenced, this time legally. Victory, indeed. It may not bring down governments, but it is another significant straw on the proverbial camel's back. It is indeed the rightful duty of an Opposition party and though ``un-sexy'' as it is, I believe this is the path we must remain committed to.
Korn Chatikavanij