EDITORIAL
Leave reconciliation out of impeachment decision
The Nation

Lawmakers must adhere to the rule of law when they vote tomorrow

BANGKOK: -- The National Legislative Assembly is scheduled to vote tomorrow on whether to impeach three politicians accused of wrongdoing by the National Anti-Corruption Commission. A decision to impeach would mean the politicians in question would be banned from holding political office for five years.

There has been talk that a decision to impeach the trio - former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, former Parliament president and House speaker Somsak Kiartsuranon, and his ex-deputy and former Senate speaker Nikom Wairatpanij - could undermine ongoing efforts towards national reconciliation. Proponents of this idea, including red-shirt leaders close to Yingluck's Pheu Thai Party, have warned that efforts to bridge the political divide would be put at risk if the NLA decides to impeach the politicians.

Supporters of the accused have also warned NLA members of possible legal action if they vote for impeachment. This warning might have swayed some NLA members, although others have insisted that their decision will not be affected.

The NACC's Wicha Mahakhun has urged NLA members to consider reconciliation and the rule of law separately. "To reconcile, you also have to take the rule of law into account," he said. For Wicha, impeachment of politicians for wrongdoing would boost reconciliation rather than derailing it. Premier Prayut Chan-o-cha has commented that it is not right to reconcile with those who have committed serious offences.

A line of defence for the accused politicians is that the constitution that they are accused of violating has not existed since the coup in May last year, so the law they are accused of having broken is actually non-existent. This is a lame excuse. Leaders and lawmakers should not regard the law as a "minimum standard". They need to comply with a higher standard of good governance and public service.

While Somsak and Nikom appeared before the NLA impeachment hearing last week, Yingluck opted not to show up. Four former ministers from her government were present at the meeting, but they were not allowed to answer questions on her behalf. In fact, many of the 35 questions were directly intended for Yingluck as the former head of government. It is unlikely that any of her ex-ministers or lawyers would be able to completely represent her views on certain issues. One pertinent question, for example, is "What do you think is more important - your political party's policy platform or meeting your responsibility in running the country?"

The NLA session for closing statements by the accuser, the NACC, and the accused politicians is scheduled for today.

We hope that members of the NLA will make their decisions fairly and honestly after having listened to all the statements and answers from both sides. They should also vote without fear for their future or concern about possible legal action by the accused politicians or their supporters.

The rule of law should not be taken hostage in a bid to guarantee reconciliation. Do we need to spare lawbreakers and wrongdoers in order to achieve a political ceasefire? Impeachment and reconciliation should be considered separately.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Leave-reconciliation-out-of-impeachment-decision-30252428.html


-- The Nation 2015-01-22

Obviously it is mostly the reds who talk about reconciliaton in this matter.

What they mean is not to indict and punish criminals and to give them another chance to further rob and betray the countrie and fill their bank accounts

I doubt heavily that they want "reconciliation" for the good of the country.

When they talk about further divide of the country if things don't happen to their liking they remind me on Chalerm

who "warned"

of violence by the reds always before it happened - this way transferring his orders

Shouldn't Prayuth at least be issuing a declaration that there will be NO legal action taken against ANY of the NLA regarding this vote?