OPINION

Rice verdict and the shortcomings of Thai democracy

By Tulsathit Taptim 
The Nation

 

Yingluck Shinawatra’s disappearance has clouded the serious matter of how election platforms should be conceived, how they should become state policies and how such policies should be implemented.

 

The national divide, cranked even wider by her flight from Thailand, has ensured that deeply polarised Thais will continue to be distracted from the only thing they can actually agree on.

 

That’s what politics does. It takes your attention away from issues that truly count, or elase blurs very simple questions. Yes, Yingluck’s trial was divisive and yes, her no-show on verdict day has probably made it more so. Opinions are also split over whether former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom and other defendants deserve punishments that are undeniably harsh. But if we take away politics, the sight of once powerful people now crammed into a prison van after being found guilty of corruption might give every Thai a completely different feeling.

 

One side may insist that Boonsong and Co were political victims. But to do so convincingly, it must to credibly refute the court’s ruling that the defendants were guilty of a corruption scheme centred on a rice buyer with dubious political connections. Evidence the court considered included the status of the buyer, payment methods and the conspicuous route of rice it bought and sold. How the suspects were put on trial may be controversial, but it’s up to them to dispute the evidence, because questioning the proceedings won’t get them anywhere.

 

Millions of tonnes of rice bought from farmers under the price-pledging scheme that was purportedly supposed to cushion low prices were sold to the buyer in question, who the court insisted did not represent the Chinese government. This charge is one that needs to be challenged by the suspects, who also have to answer the key questions of why the “Chinese government buyer” paid money through numerous Thai cashier cheques and why the rice bought was resold in Thailand instead of in China or other parts of the world.

 

Speaking on a televised political talk show, one legal expert rightly pointed out that the trials of Yingluck, Boonsong and the other defendants were not a campaign against the rice scheme. He said it was no the judges’ duty to decide whether an election platform was good or bad or whether a state policy should have been implemented or not. Instead, the trials focused on allegations of corruption in a government project.

 

 Not once in the verdict against Boonsong and Co did the judges discredit the rice scheme, the expert remarked. The ruling focused on the suspects’ role in the Yingluck government’s attempts to resell rice it bought from farmers. The trial traced the contracts approved by Boonsong’s committee, and the judges found serious irregularities. As for Yingluck’s case, whose verdict has been postponed because of her disappearance, the judges had to decide on whether or how much she was involved in the irregularities, and/or whether her claimed responses to corruption warnings were sufficient. She was not on trial for implementing a policy from her party’s election platform, the expert said.

 

Debate will be endless if one asks whether such trials should take place under military rule, or whether they were possible when the Yingluck government was in power. The debate will be significantly shorter if the question is whether state officials responsible for corruption in a government mega-project should be brought to justice.

 

Yingluck’s flight from justice (she might say “injustice”) may affect Thailand’s political course in the long run, but what really counts is that the country has a system in which influential suspects are tried and judged for what they do, not who they are. Without that kind of system, democracy is useless. In other words, any democracy without such a system is vulnerable if not totally fake.

 

Under the new Constitution, electoral platforms will be checked by the Election Commission. This is a new provision, so there could be drawbacks, but the proclaimed purpose is that politicians should not “over-advertise” at the expense of state budget or bureaucratic management. The Senate has also been given the responsibility of scrutinising state policies that emerge from election pledges.

 

Is that a good thing? Not in a strong democracy where checks and balances are robust, where elected politicians don’t seek to protect their corrupt peers, and where the goal is serving the public interest, not winning an advertising war. Unelected officials should not have the power to screen “what the people want” as well as “what the people need” as long as elected officials can do that job honestly. 

 

Political reconciliation may be impossible. But whether you are a red shirt or a yellow shirt or a whistle-mob member or strictly neutral, take away politics and you probably need the same thing. You need an election platform created for the country’s best interests and implemented transparently and honestly for the country’s best interests. This is something a lot more important than the question of where Yingluck will end up.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/opinion/30325260

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-08-30

 

3 hours ago, webfact said:

but what really counts is that the country has a system in which influential suspects are tried and judged for what they do, not who they are. Without that kind of system, democracy is useless. In other words, any democracy without such a system is vulnerable if not totally fake.

Absolutely superb article.

1 hour ago, halloween said:

Absolutely superb article.

My thoughts exactly, it will be interesting to see the verdict on Yingluks involvement, a bit of a klutz I think but in it up to the eyebrows I suspect. 

Good article.  If the legal system were not selectively applied, it would be a Great article!

Yeah right . . . .

 

3 hours ago, halloween said:

Absolutely superb article.

I agree with you.

This article reframes the facts and highlights the flaws of the Thai democracy

Quote

Yingluck’s flight from justice (she might say “injustice”) may affect Thailand’s political course in the long run, but what really counts is that the country has a system in which influential suspects are tried and judged for what they do, not who they are. Without that kind of system, democracy is useless. In other words, any democracy without such a system is vulnerable if not totally fake.

Without this kind of system, democracy is useless?

 

But what is the alternative?

A military led government which does exactly the same?

 

Influential people not being tried and judged will not change no matter the system, so I prefer a little bit of influence of the people deciding who will rule them over no influence at all.

12 minutes ago, than said:

I agree with you.

This article reframes the facts and highlights the flaws of the Thai democracy

The flaws of Thai democracy or the flaw of Thailand?

 

It has little to do with democracy, and more with the general corruption and power of influential people in Thailand no matter the political system.

5 minutes ago, Bob12345 said:

The flaws of Thai democracy or the flaw of Thailand?

 

It has little to do with democracy, and more with the general corruption and power of influential people in Thailand no matter the political system.

But when politicians are corruptor and corrupted themselves, this is not good for a democracy

great article, it actually states  why the sentences were given but I am sure we will see all the ptp/red /thaksin apologists trying to tear it apart. What the defendants did isnt in question at all, we all know they did the wrong thing but as we are not party to the full details we can only guess at the evidence that was presented, obviously the judges know exactly what they did and issued justice accordingly. The yl verdict will be the big one, I hope they actually dish out all the facts from both trials so everyone can see how they reached their decisions, the only thing thais are really afraid of is the truth so it will be very interesting to see what it is, hopefully it will stop a lot of the disunity in the country if people can see why  and how they reached the conclusions they have.

49 minutes ago, seajae said:

great article, it actually states  why the sentences were given but I am sure we will see all the ptp/red /thaksin apologists trying to tear it apart. What the defendants did isnt in question at all, we all know they did the wrong thing but as we are not party to the full details we can only guess at the evidence that was presented, obviously the judges know exactly what they did and issued justice accordingly. The yl verdict will be the big one, I hope they actually dish out all the facts from both trials so everyone can see how they reached their decisions, the only thing thais are really afraid of is the truth so it will be very interesting to see what it is, hopefully it will stop a lot of the disunity in the country if people can see why  and how they reached the conclusions they have.

 

Damn right! Thaksin apologists listen up as this is no joking matter. We must take this justice system seriously.

 

But when politicians are corruptor and corrupted themselves, this is not good for a democracy

Corrupt leaders are also not good for a military controlled state with one leader, nor for a communist system, or any other political system.

The problem is corruption and not the political ideology in the country the corruption takes place.

2 hours ago, seajae said:

country if people can see why  and how they reached the conclusions they have.

A valid and honorable hope;

Smacks though, of Western thinking,

The ' Thai way ' and thought processes differ....

Methinks the door will open even wider for the red shirt leaders to stir up their minions after the upcoming verdict

Quote

The debate will be significantly shorter if the question is whether state officials responsible for corruption in a government mega-project should be brought to justice.

Here's where many get bogged down.

 

Excellent article, as usual from this man.

7 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Here's where many get bogged down.

 

Excellent article, as usual from this man.

Don't worry, there will be plenty claiming there is no justice under a junta, claiming political motivation and any other lame excuse for prosecution of what was clearly a crime.