Thai editorial: Impeachment case just signals great dilemma

[webfact]

EDITORIAL
Impeachment case just signals great dilemma
The Nation

Somsak, Nikhom were elected, and the "jury" was not

BANGKOK: -- Should a military-installed Parliament tell an elected Parliament what to do? The decision by the National Legislative Assembly, set up after the coup in May, to start impeachment procedures against former Senate speaker Nikhom Wairatpanich and former Parliament president Somsak Kiatsuranon amounts to just that.

It reflects the harsh irony of Thai politics and demonstrates how tight is the corner that we have now reached. If having the NLA impeach the two men does not sound right, what about what the pair's actions and how they helped trigger the political turmoil leading up to the power seizure?

It's a brutal chicken-and-egg situation at best and vicious circle at worst. And it underlines the root cause of Thailand's political crisis. Elected politicians don't live up to ethical expectations and invariably open the door for military intervention, which usually can't live up to expectations, either. Somsak and Nikhom played controversial roles in events that provoked street protests leading to violence and, eventually, the coup. Their current troubles stem from the way they helped push for a drastic change to the Thai parliamentary structure, but their roles in other explosive episodes like the "amnesty" scheme are also worth mentioning.

Last year's parliamentary handling of the "blanket amnesty" bill was, on the one hand, portrayed as a democratic exercise. In other words, controversial as it was, if it was a policy advocated by an elected party, how could it be wrong? Democracy is about settling a dispute through voting, isn't it?

We all wish democracy was that simple. Well, not exactly. We all wish elected politicians knew the limits of democracy. The amnesty issue, on the other hand, had to do with a complex range of questions regarding the direction of Thai politics, not just the future of one man or one political clan. It concerned the question of how we treat corruption. The bill put democracy on the spot because it begged thorough social scrutiny no matter how solid the support it seemed to enjoy in Parliament.

Though it occurred little more than a year ago, the swift attempt, under the guidance of Somsak and Nikhom, to push controversial legislation through Parliament has probably faded from many people's memory. Were the pair observing their sacred parliamentary duty to be prudent and allow as much debate as possible when dealing with great controversies? The answer was pretty plain for those of us who watched Parliament in action on the days in question.

Whether the current attempts to impeach former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, Somsak and Nikhom are the "cause" or the "effect" of Thailand's problems is a divisive question. In other words, it's a blame game. One may argue that elected politicians "misbehaved" in order to rectify an "injustice" inflicted upon them by undemocratic powers. Or one may argue that the "injustice" was an unavoidable outcome of their bad behaviour in the first place. The "dots", however, are there to be traced.

It's easy to argue "for" democracy. But that doesn't mean democracy is supposed to be easy. In fact, democracy has to showcase the toughest set of rules. A system advocating free will must be equipped with effective checks and balances, ones which draw a line that isn't to be crossed. An "anything-goes" democracy will only weaken itself sooner rather than later.

Is it a good thing or a bad thing for the military-installed NLA to impeach Somsak and Nikhom? Here are more difficult questions: Were Somsak and Nikhom part of a strong democracy? If not, what should we do about it?

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Impeachment-case-just-signals-great-dilemma-30247694.html


-- The Nation 2014-11-14

[Robby nz]

So the choice is between :

A/ If you are elected you can do what you like and the law doesn't matter.

Or

B/ the law is paramount and applies to everyone even if they are elected.

The choice remains even though the country now has an unelected body that has to decide which it will be.

[zaphod reborn]

Easy solution. Just ban every former office holder, regardless of party affiliation, from political activity for the next 5 years. No reason for trials. We know they are all corrupt. Time to hit the reset button.

[ramrod711]

Easy solution. Just ban every former office holder, regardless of party affiliation, from political activity for the next 5 years. No reason for trials. We know they are all corrupt. Time to hit the reset button.

Somewhat surprisingly, to me at least, I agree with you. Make it 10 years, and no relatives allowed to run for office.

[soalbundy]

The Chinese solution would see a marked reduction in corruption and would significantly reduce the number of politicians.

[trainman34014]

Easy solution. Just ban every former office holder, regardless of party affiliation, from political activity for the next 5 years. No reason for trials. We know they are all corrupt. Time to hit the reset button.

Somewhat surprisingly, to me at least, I agree with you. Make it 10 years, and no relatives allowed to run for office.

Make it a life ban and start with a clean sheet. And while they are at it ban all family members associated with former office holders for life as well. If you're gonna do it.....do it right.

[fab4]

Though it occurred little more than a year ago, the swift attempt, under the guidance of Somsak and Nikhom, to push controversial legislation through Parliament has probably faded from many people's memory. Were the pair observing their sacred parliamentary duty to be prudent and allow as much debate as possible when dealing with great controversies? The answer was pretty plain for those of us who watched Parliament in action on the days in question.[/size]

Oh, I don't know, maybe they did?

The House of Representatives voted 310-0 early on Friday to pass a draft of the amnesty bill after 19 hours of heated debate during which lawmakers opposed to it walked out.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2013/11/thai-mps-pass-political-amnesty-bill-201311142120256401.html

and it's bit difficult to "observe their parliamentary duty" when being threatened by rampant opposition MP's



“an angry Democrat MP grabs the throat of a parliamentary police officer called in to restore order
on the opposition benches of the Democrat Party”

[donmuang37]

Fairly recent polls indicated that over 60% of Thai people believe the corruption is OK if it benefits them. Cheating on school exams in endemic in Thailand. I've either been cheated or there was an attempt to cheat me here on many occasions. Government officials have been reported for cheating citizens and for corruption. There are constant complaints about double standards in the justice system.

So ban all the current politicians, but you better ban all government employees too.

Now where are you going to find good, honest people to fill the tens of thousands of open positions? From the pool of over 60% who consider corruption acceptable?

In my opinion, until basic morality changes in Thailand, nothing will improve. Bad politicians will simply be replaced by other people who are just as bad. Double standards will continue to favor whoever is currently in power.

[soalbundy]

It's a jungle out there, they get what they deserve.

[Nickymaster]

Though it occurred little more than a year ago, the swift attempt, under the guidance of Somsak and Nikhom, to push controversial legislation through Parliament has probably faded from many people's memory. Were the pair observing their sacred parliamentary duty to be prudent and allow as much debate as possible when dealing with great controversies? The answer was pretty plain for those of us who watched Parliament in action on the days in question.[/size]

Oh, I don't know, maybe they did?

The House of Representatives voted 310-0 early on Friday to pass a draft of the amnesty bill after 19 hours of heated debate during which lawmakers opposed to it walked out.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2013/11/thai-mps-pass-political-amnesty-bill-201311142120256401.html

and it's bit difficult to "observe their parliamentary duty" when being threatened by rampant opposition MP's

“an angry Democrat MP grabs the throat of a parliamentary police officer called in to restore order

on the opposition benches of the Democrat Party”

Parliamentary duty.

PT (house speaker Somsak) employs riot police at government house to scare/intimidate Dem MP's in order to have a "smooth" vote. Dems aren't allowed to debate (ask questions) about whatever PT is doing. Because PT has a majority and therefor can do whatever it wants. Red democracy in action. Riot police at government house and Red thugs intimidating judges and other people that are an "obstacle". Thanks for reminding us. Luckily those days are over.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Nickymaster

[Tatsujin]

The Chinese solution would see a marked reduction in corruption and would significantly reduce the number of politicians.

And no financial drain on the country too as they bill the victim's families for the bullet(s) ...

[bangrak]

There is no 'dilemma', there is just a clear 'alternative', as very well told by 'Robby nz' in #2 here above.

And about the NLA, the alternative is also clear, whether the NLA declares itself unfit to handle impeachment cases but a Thai higher Court is found able to take up the cases (otherwise Justice will not be served, at all), or, the NLA takes up all the impeachment procedures: Yingluck, Somsak and Nikhom, and all the PTP MP's and 'affiliated' Senators who participated to the infamous vote. But, then the NLA really goes for it, to the bottom of it, delivering harsh punishments to all the ones found to be involved.

What I am most afraid will happen, is the NLA taking up the YS and S + N cases, treat these as hot rocks falling in their hand and 'evacuate' the cases asap, in a mockery of a ruling, leaving the three unscathed, and all the bunch of their minions out of reach.

All the time we hear and read about 'democarcy' here, 'democracy' there, well, now is the right time to show to the Thais how the three pilars of Democracy are supposed to work, even with, indeed so, undemocratilly nominated elements, where Justice, Legislative and Executive, in the right order of importance in a Democracy, each take up their own responsibility towards the citizens, working together, with one another I mean, not one for another, or one against another.

Of course it cannot be shown at the time being that the Executive is ...executing what has been decided by the Legislative, as it should limit itself to, in a Democracy, as here it has been the Executive, itself installed by an 'exterior power', the Military, which has appointed the Legislative, instead of the other way around. But in the impeachment cases it is too clear the Military leaders are via the Executive, they are also, telling (ordering?) the Legislative, which it, they, have put in place, what to do, how to handle, the impeachment procedures. And that is IMO dead wrong. Hiding behind a, most totally fake and empty, concept of 'Reconciliation', to push forward a ruling with as much backbone as a melting marshmallow, not to ruffle any of the feathers of one 'group' in 'society', made of the Shins, their PTP/UDD and their(!) violent 'red' stormtroopers, would be one big leap backwards for the country, protecting just the ones you told would be harshly punished for their exactions and crimes!

For the, vast, majority of the Thais who communicated with me about the country's situation, May 22nd and the powers installed following were good for Thailand, in a first, short, period, after say four months it became better, recently less bad. So no wonder polls will, still, easily show positive results, but one can fairly assume the new 'Ministry of Good News', like I call it, is already stretching it, quite a bit? IMO, the 'popularity', meaning in its whole positive to the 'powers in place', has dropped like a stone, in a curve even French President Hollande didn't 'achieve'.

As for the Judicial power, let me just add: it should been let do what it is there for: deliver Justice, but made to deliver the same Justice to all, poor and rich, unknown or influential, whichever 'group' or clan they belong to and cleansed of every biased, 'coloured' elements, meaning, IMO, in the higher Courts, done away with the ones belonging to the elite(s)(or thinking so...), eliminating 'yellow' and 'blue' sympathisants, but as for the lower Courts, especially the Criminal Courts, and the Courts of Appeal, and in the OAG, meticulously pass a very fine de-lousing comb through all of the furr, and eliminate, every, all of the nasty parasites which were insidiously installed during PPP, TRT, PTP times to 'serve the cause' later!

Well, now, what? Well, here is an, the, opportunity to mark the spirits of all the Thais in a positive way: show honesty and principles, be fair but be square, otherwise you will, very obviously to all, (former by then) friends and (all time) foes, that you recant on the positive resolutions you (by then: pretended to) have made to defend the Kingdom of Thailand and justify your seizing of power. You would have lost the plot, and put the country in dire straits worse than there were before May 22nd! Now is the time, and it is late already...