Thai opinion: Will tough anti-graft action work for or against us?

[webfact]

STOPPAGE TIME
Will tough anti-graft action work for or against us?
Tulsathit Taptim
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- No matter how you look at it, Article 111 of the draft Constitution is dynamite. Leaving aside Thaksin and Yingluck Shinawatra, it could be the most effective tool yet against the rampant political corruption that has plagued this country. The bad news is we can't really take the Shinawatra siblings out of the equation, and the proposed lifelong ban on politicians found guilty by the judiciary or Parliament of serious abuse of power could become a devastating bomb that detonates prematurely.

Simply put, Article 111 will either blow away crooked politicians or explode in the faces of its own architects (or masterminds, if you like). Fighting corruption is not easy. It's a lot harder still when the battle is perceived as a conspiracy designed to undermine democracy. Article 111 is intended to change Thailand, all people agree on that. What they can't form a consensus on is whether the change will be

for the better or the worse.

Article 111 has been finalised, meaning you would have to kill the entire charter draft to block it. The draft can be disposed of if it's rejected by the military-installed political reform assembly or by the Thai public in a subsequent referendum. The bomb has begun ticking, so to speak.

Critics who feel Article 111 is biased say it will definitely rule out a return to politics for Thaksin. As for Yingluck, who was recently impeached by the post-coup interim legislature, she will be banned for life, too, and most controversy will be focused on her. Argument in her favour will be louder and clearer than that backing her big brother.

Court verdicts against Thaksin came when Thailand was not under military rule. The seizure of his assets as well as the guilty verdict concerning the Ratchadaphisek land grab were effected under the normal checks and balances. In fact, the ruling that found Thaksin guilty of illegally helping his ex-wife buy the Ratchadaphisek land came when his political party was running the government.

Yingluck was impeached by a military-installed legislature. If she is politically banned for life because of that, debate will never end. One could, of course, ask whether a democratically elected Parliament would have impeached her for the controversial rice scheme, but that, essentially, is the argument at the crux of the Thai divide in the first place. In short, there will be no clear-cut winner in the debate. Thaksin's cases are primarily legal affairs, meaning legal principles form basis of arguments. The coup made Yingluck's impeachment more political than legal.

I like Article 111. Of course, charges of showing prejudice towards Thaksin and Yingluck will loom large, but how else can we deter or scare off future crooks? Thailand's chicken-and-egg problem has to end somehow, but that end is unlikely to come as long as "democracy" remains powerless to forge "clean" governance. A life-long ban might not be a magic pill, but it can serve as a strong deterrent. A climate of fear is necessary where combating corruption is concerned.

We will be hearing a lot of this word "injustice". Plenty of people will say that no justice can come out of "injustice" or "bias" or "double standards". But let's refresh our memory. Thailand's political crisis has been dragging on for so long that some may have forgotten there was a time when the Democrat Party's most powerful man, the late Sanan Kachornprasart, was banned from politics for five years for a Bt15 million debt that he couldn't clarify. A Bangkok governor from the Democrat Party quit after corruption charges tainted a project that he supervised.

Nowadays, the application or enforcement of the law might be debatable. However, if we are to conclude that injustice started it all, the first major victim of "biased" checks and balances must have been Sanan, not those on the other side of the political divide.

We need the chopping block back - and one that doesn't shy away from or blunt its blade for popular or powerful politicians. Democracy has to prove that it can handle its rotten apples by itself, otherwise "the others" will step up and, rightly or wrongly, put away elected officials suspected of graft. Without an effective anti-corruption mechanism, Thailand's democracy will never be strong or deep-rooted.

Countries that have successfully reined in public corruption have one thing in common. That is, the political will of those in power, who don't hesitate to punish their own people or demonstrate ultimate responsibility themselves by resigning from their own high positions.

In a true democracy, voters don't "rule" whether a politician is corrupt or not, because evidence or counter-evidence can be fabricated, blurred, distorted, amplified and politicised in the process. That's why we need the courts of law, and that's why the argument that a bunch of judges should never override public opinion does more harm than good to democracy's fundamental values.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Will-tough-anti-graft-action-work-for-or-against-u-30265434.html


-- The Nation 2015-07-29

[NongKhaiKid]

Will ant-graft legislation actually work or even be applied properly, evenly and fairly ?

Will it join LM and Defamation on the books as a handy piece of legislation to be used on special occasions ?

Edited July 28, 2015 by NongKhaiKid

[borisloosebrain]

Hahaha! It's in the DNA from the top to the bottom. Cest la vie

Edited July 28, 2015 by borisloosebrain

[Seastallion]

"The coup made Yingluck's impeachment more political than legal."

And that perception is the crux of it. And that it is only a perception.

Yingluck's impeachment was imperative, not for whoever was in government, but for the country as a whole. The buck has to stop somewhere. The axe has got to start dropping on necks sometime.

To appease the PT supporters, one could say...OK, we'll let her off, but the NEXT politician who shows corruption, we'll throw the book at.

And then the accusations of politically motivated legal action start all over again for the next corrupt politician and he in turn is let off, and so it goes on in perpetuity.

The buck has got to stop. Now is the time to stop it.

[Seastallion]

A good article, except for the last sentence;

" the argument that a bunch of judges should never override public opinion does more harm than good to democracy's fundamental values."

Of COURSE judges should override public opinion IF IT IS THE LAW. Judges should never be swayed by public opinion.....that is just mob rule otherwise.

Judges should apply the law. The law represents the people, and one emotional instance where the people don't like the outcome of applying the law should not sway the judges.

The law should apply even if it appears to bolster one political party over another.

[ezzra]

Every country around the world has some sort of graft, corruption and rort in it's midst and system,

but it mostly kept under wrap not to be practice in the open like in Thailand,

If Thailand can success in minimizing the scoop and the financial impacts corruptions has

on the Thai economy, people will slowly, reluctantly at first, come to realize that life and

business can be carried on normally,, but this is a long, long process and it will take the

the will and fortitude of the nation to achieve this....

[smedly]

I thought there was an announcement last week that they had abolished these changes .........confused

and personally I back this 100% along with lengthy jail terms and total asset seizure for those convicted, time to play hardball

[worgeordie]

I think its a given ,that some strict measures need to be put in

place to to stop the corrupt politicians and civil servants,just

think of all those projects that have cost Billions of Bhat,the

Fire engines,Water treatment plant,Police stations,the bomb

detectors,the blimp, thats just off the top of my head,and is

only the tip of the corruption iceberg.,nearly forgot the rice scam.

Prison sentences,life long bans,(if they had prison sentences

they would not be allowed to be MPs anyway),at the moment

they have no real fear of been caught with their hand in the till,

how many government officials have been to jail for corruption,?

The Thai people also need to change their attitude to corruption,

they need to realize the money wasted ,stolen is theirs,and could

be put to much better use,like helping the poor,improving the

education system,roads,rail,hospitals,not Submarines.

regards Worgeordie

[halloween]

No reconciliation there, because it runs counter to the red shirts basic philosophy (supported by a few rabid yanks) that they have the basic human right to elect a criminal if he offers the biggest bribe, even when it is only a worthless promise.

[MZurf]

"The coup made Yingluck's impeachment more political than legal."

And that perception is the crux of it. And that it is only a perception.

Yingluck's impeachment was imperative, not for whoever was in government, but for the country as a whole. The buck has to stop somewhere. The axe has got to start dropping on necks sometime.

To appease the PT supporters, one could say...OK, we'll let her off, but the NEXT politician who shows corruption, we'll throw the book at.

And then the accusations of politically motivated legal action start all over again for the next corrupt politician and he in turn is let off, and so it goes on in perpetuity.

The buck has got to stop. Now is the time to stop it.

Yes, by all means lock up the corrupt politicians. Corruption is choking the life out of Thailand. But it will always be half-assed and political unless the present leaders are clean (and we all know a careful look at their finances is not in the cards).

[MZurf]

No reconciliation there, because it runs counter to the red shirts basic philosophy (supported by a few rabid yanks) that they have the basic human right to elect a criminal if he offers the biggest bribe, even when it is only a worthless promise.

I thought we all agreed that Thaksin would have won - vote buying or no vote buying. I was obviously wrong

Try to get this in to your thick skull; Yes, they do have the basic human right to elect whomever the he!! they please - even if he or she makes worthless promises!!!

[Seastallion]

There is one way to do this, and that is to craft anti-corruption laws that really do deter politicians being corrupt, and then enshrine those laws in a royal decree. No political party in the future can change it.

Or write into the law that it can only be changed by public referendum and 75% consensus.

And to make a law that will deter any future corruption, written into it is a mandatory sentence of no less than 10 years prison with no chance of pardon.

The only way corruption can be beaten is to get very tough, no exceptions, no excuses, NOW.

[Emster23]

Will tough anti graft action work? Who knows.... uncharted territory for this place. Doesn't matter how good the tool is if you don't take it out of tool box and use it properly. And that's the rub, the disconnect between laws and fair enforcement.

[tuanku]

What makes it look politically motivated is the fact that it is retroactive and therefore seems to be aimed at particular individuals. There would be no such problem if the new Article were to apply to all with political power, elected or not, from the moment it was enacted. Future offenders would have been properly warned of the consequences. Whether there is the mechanism to detect, arrest, try and convict the corrupt is a whole other question.

[FangFerang]

If the history of the last twenty years, which keeps repeating itself for people who, say, actually wonder why there have been 18 identical coups making identical accusations and justifications since before 1970, if history is any indicator, it will work against Thais.

Whoever is in power uses charges of corruption and lese majesty to hamstring their opponents, who in turn, return the favors when in power.

Repeat, ad infinitum....insert yawn. Picking a side is like betting on the Special Olympics, and just as politically incorrect.

[Lupatria]

A good article, except for the last sentence;

" the argument that a bunch of judges should never override public opinion does more harm than good to democracy's fundamental values."

Of COURSE judges should override public opinion IF IT IS THE LAW. Judges should never be swayed by public opinion.....that is just mob rule otherwise.

Judges should apply the law. The law represents the people, and one emotional instance where the people don't like the outcome of applying the law should not sway the judges.

The law should apply even if it appears to bolster one political party over another.

Judges should apply the law.

And obey the law like the police, and the other guys in their white uniforms?

[jayboy]

A good article, except for the last sentence;

" the argument that a bunch of judges should never override public opinion does more harm than good to democracy's fundamental values."

Of COURSE judges should override public opinion IF IT IS THE LAW. Judges should never be swayed by public opinion.....that is just mob rule otherwise.

Judges should apply the law. The law represents the people, and one emotional instance where the people don't like the outcome of applying the law should not sway the judges.

The law should apply even if it appears to bolster one political party over another.

The alternatives you posit are wrong.Public opinion obviously should not take supremacy over the law.At the same time there is in every country a debate on where the responsibility of judges infringes on responsibilities of governments and elected legislatures.Both courts and politicians must at least partly reflect changes in their society.

In Thailand the courts have often been over influenced by political power and sadly sometimes subject to corruption.No serious person disputes this and one only has to remember Thaksin's antics,

A twist on this is that over the last decade the courts and related agencies have been given orders and launched into battle to fight populism and the dictatorship of the majority.I put this in the terms those who hate democracy normally use.Judicial activism in Thailand has been overwhelmingly partisan.

In summary your comments on the law in Thailand while suggesting an ideal don't reflect the reality which is sadly that In Thailand justice is not blind.It serves the masters.

Edited July 29, 2015 by jayboy

[klauskunkel]

Will tough anti-graft action work for or against us?

Time to take a poll. Make sure you pay the analysts to deliver your favorite answer.

[jerojero]

Will 111 apply to military leaders? Do pigs fly?

[Seastallion]

Will tough anti graft action work? Who knows.... uncharted territory for this place. Doesn't matter how good the tool is if you don't take it out of tool box and use it properly. And that's the rub, the disconnect between laws and fair enforcement.

In a nutshell.

Worth repeating again and again.

AND again.

And AGAIN.

[heybruce]

They say the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing people he didn't exist.

The greatest trick the junta ever pulled was convincing people that politicians are responsible for all corruption.

If the Article 111 of the OP is the same as section 111 of this draft http://www.student-weekly.com/pdf/200415-constitution-en.pdf then it does nothing about corruption in the military and civil service. These are the groups that actually run the country, and will continue to do so behind the scenes after elections are held, whenever that happens.

Fighting corruption requires transparency, financial disclosures and strict conflict of interests laws applied to all government employees in a position of responsibility, and a truly free press. Thailand isn't going to get these things from the junta.

[Seastallion]

A good article, except for the last sentence;

" the argument that a bunch of judges should never override public opinion does more harm than good to democracy's fundamental values."

Of COURSE judges should override public opinion IF IT IS THE LAW. Judges should never be swayed by public opinion.....that is just mob rule otherwise.

Judges should apply the law. The law represents the people, and one emotional instance where the people don't like the outcome of applying the law should not sway the judges.

The law should apply even if it appears to bolster one political party over another.

The alternatives you posit are wrong.Public opinion obviously should not take supremacy over the law.At the same time there is in every country a debate on where the responsibility of judges infringes on responsibilities of governments and elected legislatures.Both courts and politicians must at least partly reflect changes in their society.

In Thailand the courts have often been over influenced by political power and sadly sometimes subject to corruption.No serious person disputes this and one only has to remember Thaksin's antics,

A twist on this is that over the last decade the courts and related agencies have been given orders and launched into battle to fight populism and the dictatorship of the majority.I put this in the terms those who hate democracy normally use.Judicial activism in Thailand has been overwhelmingly partisan.

In summary your comments on the law in Thailand while suggesting an ideal don't reflect the reality which is sadly that In Thailand justice is not blind.It serves the masters.

You make some good points....in fact all your points are valid.

But... laws, once in place, are to be followed religiously by the judiciary. If it turns out a law is flawed...it needs to be changed by the elected legislators, not on a whim by a judge (or pressure from an influential person or group).

The underlying problem for Thailand is the corruption. BS laws are passed to bypass this and that, by whatever ruling party.

Thus, corruption must be tackled once and for all.

Keeping in mind that "democracy" is a strange concept for a large number of the citizens....they may understand the surface idea, but do not consider the deeper consequences. Mai pen rai and face hinder the power of the citizenry, and so altruistic leaders need to put in place measures that can deal with those two hindrances, for the sake of the spirit of democracy.....ie, control the politicians, on behalf of the people.

[Srikcir]

"The coup made Yingluck's impeachment more political than legal."

And that perception is the crux of it. And that it is only a perception.

Yingluck's impeachment was imperative, not for whoever was in government, but for the country as a whole. The buck has to stop somewhere. The axe has got to start dropping on necks sometime.

To appease the PT supporters, one could say...OK, we'll let her off, but the NEXT politician who shows corruption, we'll throw the book at.

And then the accusations of politically motivated legal action start all over again for the next corrupt politician and he in turn is let off, and so it goes on in perpetuity.

The buck has got to stop. Now is the time to stop it.

When will the military be subjected to independent corruption investigation and prosecution by an elected government?

So long as part of Thai society is immune from scrutiny, constitutional reform is meaningless except to those that hold Thai sovereignty hostage.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Srikcir

[smutcakes]

The article will not make a blind bit off different to what currently happens. When the investigative agencies are questionable, the courts even more so, and the people in power even more so again, there is no way it is going to make a blind bit of difference.

The two sides will continue to war with each other, and the various 'independent' agencies and investigation teams will continue to be tools of the various groups.

[chrisinth]

The problem with laws, amendment to laws, addition of laws (& articles) to a legal system is that they must be used across the spectrum of society, without exception.

Once the first exception is made, the system has failed.

If the government is serious about article 111 then it needs to follow it to the letter.

No exceptions..............................

[ramrod711]

Without an effective anti-corruption mechanism, Thailand's democracy will never be strong or deep-rooted.

Countries that have successfully reined in public corruption have one thing in common. That is, the political will of those in power, who don't hesitate to punish their own people or demonstrate ultimate responsibility themselves by resigning from their own high positions.

Politicians resigning has become practically extinct. Remember when a rumour or a newspaper article would prompt a politician to offer a resignation? The PM or President would decide to accept the resignation and usually if there was no substance to the charge, reinstatement was likely. Not anymore, no honour among thieves. I think 111 could be great for the country, but, it must apply to all parties and the judiciary must be seen to be neutral and fair to all parties. I think the best way to avoid red shirt protests would be to ban all the politicians, from all the parties, from the past. Hard to scream prejudice when they're all gone.

[smutcakes]

Without an effective anti-corruption mechanism, Thailand's democracy will never be strong or deep-rooted.

Countries that have successfully reined in public corruption have one thing in common. That is, the political will of those in power, who don't hesitate to punish their own people or demonstrate ultimate responsibility themselves by resigning from their own high positions.

Politicians resigning has become practically extinct. Remember when a rumour or a newspaper article would prompt a politician to offer a resignation? The PM or President would decide to accept the resignation and usually if there was no substance to the charge, reinstatement was likely. Not anymore, no honour among thieves. I think 111 could be great for the country, but, it must apply to all parties and the judiciary must be seen to be neutral and fair to all parties. I think the best way to avoid red shirt protests would be to ban all the politicians, from all the parties, from the past. Hard to scream prejudice when they're all gone.

Including those very powerful ones in the current Govt who were previously in power in 'democratic' Govt?

Good luck with that!