Veera Somkwamkid

Secretary-General

People's Network for Anti-Corruption

July 31, 2007

The reshaping of Thailand's polity by the conservatives after the Sept 19 coup is based on a fear of the election system and of an elected leadership which for the first time can "challenge" the key institutions in Thai society. Therefore, the priority is to get rid of the threat that potentially undermines "Democracy with the King as Head of State", and prevent it from happening again.

After the coup the powers-that-be have tried to discredit the institution of "Parliament", which has a mandate from the people (at least in theory) in accordance with the principle of Democracy. They demean the election system as "western", condemn politicians for corruption, vote-buying, conflict of interests, and lack of integrityⁱ, and try to dictate politics and take control of it through the bureaucracy. They are designing a political system where the leadership does not necessarily have to be elected. The Senate and independent bodies will be selected according to benchmarks of virtue and ethics set by "prestigious figures". These "good individuals" are fit to rule and do not need to be accountable to the people.

This article wants to deliberate on whether the "good individuals" whose integrity is above criticism and scrutiny are truly free from "conflict of interests", unlike the politicians, and what harm these people do to society in acquiring their power.

The dominating influence of the bureaucracy in post-coup politics has been addressed by many, and it can be summed up with what Ukrist Pathmanand calls "Prem 6"ⁱⁱ or the 6^th Prem administration, because several people in the junta and Surayud's government have connections with Gen Prem in one way or another.ⁱⁱⁱ Furthermore, there are three groups of people currently in control of politics including the Privy Council, the judiciary, and the military^iv; none of these groups need to link themselves to the people, but to the "royal prerogative" instead.

The privy councillors are royally appointed, while the judiciary always claims to judge on behalf of the King and the military profess themselves to be "the King's soldiers". This is the first time that the privy councillors and the judiciary have openly intervened in politics.^v And the judiciary is to assume an even more active role in the draft constitution. 3 out of 5 seats in the panels to select all independent bodies belong to the courts. They also will sit on another panel to select members of the Senate, with other panel members being heads of those independent bodies selected by them.^vi The draft 2007 constitution puts a lot of politics into the hand of the judiciary.

Some might argue that the judiciary is neutral, free from interests, etc., in accordance with the slogan of "righteousness and ethics". There is such belief because the courts are not subject to scrutiny and criticism. The judiciary is the only body that is not subject to public scrutiny;^vii (although individual judges can be scrutinized by the National Counter Corruption Committee and the Senate).

Therefore, the judicial process and the courts' adjudication are not subject to scrutiny or challenge, with the "contempt of court" law being a strong shield, despite the fact that the judiciary is no different from other organizations. On this, I would like to quote Paisit Panitkun:

"In fact, the judiciary is no different from parliament. There are judges vying to join study trips overseas. There are judges ruling in favour of rich people. Lobbying among judges is not uncommon. The courts just have the power to put people in jail, so we don't want to meddle."^viii

Intervention by the judiciary in politics is therefore unjustified as its power is not accountable to the people, the owner of the power. Once in the political sphere, a "politicized" judiciary must be subject to public accountability. On the contrary, the judiciary has intimidated sceptics by citing royal speeches.^ix

The privy councillors always have their minions coming out to protect them and suppress criticism by citing lèse majesté, despite the fact that privy councillors are not protected by Article 112 of the Criminal Code. Some even go so far as to claim that Gen. Prem is not subject to criticism as he exemplifies "integrity"^x, without any substantiation. As a matter of fact, privy councillors are board members of either public or private enterprises. One is curious to know how much these people receive.

As for the military, it is not necessary to point out that the expenses reimbursed for the coup d'état and the budgets of the army and the security services as well as the salaries of Council for National Security members are beyond public scrutiny. No questions can be asked about the fact that high ranking military officers have been appointed board members of state enterprises. (And it is no secret that the military will take up a good portion in Senate seats as in the past, although this time it has to share with the judiciary.) The junta-appointed Assets Scrutiny Committee has refused the obligation, despite its claim to disdain corruption and hold on to "moral goodness".

In view of these facts and on the understanding that politics is a struggle among interest groups, we are aware that these political institutions are in essence interest groups that have to serve their own interests, and the interests of those who grant them their powers.

Their linkage to the "royal prerogative" means that the bureaucracy and the military are the power base of the conservatives. It can be said that this is an open seizure of political institutions in a parliamentary democracy by "royal prerogative". In other words, this is a victory of the "Constitutional Monarchy" over Democracy in which the supreme power belongs to the people, as declared by the People's Party in 1932.

With the "royal prerogative" being beyond scrutiny, organizations based on it and on "moral integrity" are more dangerous than elected politicians, both in theory and in practice, as this goes against the principle of "power belonging to the people", and the principle of good governance through public accountability.

From now on, we should keep our eyes on whether the new politics under the banner of "transparency, righteousness, and ethics" can purge the decadence of elected politicians and rid Thai society of corruption. Eventually, time will tell and reveal the true colours of those "fake democrats". Numerous cases implicating people in the junta camp have yet to undergo any investigation: Gen Surayud's occupation of land that is part of a forest, the government's illegal and discriminatory help to ITV employees, Gen Sonthi's double marriage, the controversy over Gen Saprang and the 800 million baht TOT budget to purchase electronic bugging devices, and the scandal of the printing contract for 20 million copies of the draft constitution for distribution to voters.

None of these cases has received a proper degree of attention compared to what has been thrown at the cases of Thaksin and his family. So the justice-minded public feel that the conservatives are just shielding themselves behind "moral integrity", with no accountability at all. Before long, we all will see their "true colours".

i No one denies these allegations. But we can scrutinize and condemn these politicians openly and blatantly because they come from the elections, don't they? On the contrary, the people who claim they are cleaning this up are not open to criticism and scrutiny. To quote Somsak Jeamtheerasakun, "Up till now who knows how much Prem really has?"

ii Ukrist Pathmanand, "Prem 6", http://www.onopen.com/2006/editor-spaces/1363

iii See Supalak Kanchanakhundi, "Analysis of Sonthi Regime", Thanapol Ewsakun (editor), Sept 19 Coup, Bangkok: Fah Deaw Kan, 2007, pp 278-281.?

iv Somchai Preechasilpakun http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/page2.php?mod=mod_ptcms&ContentID=6011&SystemModuleKey=HilightNews&System_Session_Language=Thai and http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/page2.php?mod=mod_ptcms&ContentID=6645&SystemModuleKey=HilightNews&System_Session_Language=Thai

v The judiciary has intervened openly and consistently after the "green light" on April 25.

vi Chamnan Chanrueng http://sameskybooks.org/webboard/show.php?Category=sameskybooks&No=7289

vii Chamnan Chanrueng http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/page2.php?mod=mod_ptcms&ContentID=3586&SystemModuleKey=HilightNews&SystemLanguage=Thai

viii http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/page2.php?mod=mod_ptcms&ContentID=4320&SystemModuleKey=HilightNews&SystemLanguage=Thai

ix http://www.midnightuniv.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=7efabaf7c884a8971dd5561ffa9265fb&topic=1728.0

x Press statement by CNS spokesperson Col. Sansern Kaewkamnerd