Accountability of all elite
Amid the cheers over the seizure of Thaksin’s assets, Somchai Preechasilpakul of
The seizure of assets of politicians in
The assets of former Prime Minister Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat were seized after his death in 1963 through Section 17 of the 1959 charter and those of Field Marshal Thanom Kittikachorn after 14 Oct 1973 through the same section of the 1972 charter.
The charters, one resulting from Sarit’s coup in 1957 and the other resulting from Thanom’s coup against his own government in 1971, were based on the principle of ‘might is right’.
Besides their illegitimate origins, these provisions were contradictory to the rule of law and the principles of democracy, in that the charters endorsed the Prime Minister’s actions as constitutional in the name of national security, public interest, etc.
The Prime Minister, under both charters, was allowed sweeping powers, without any accountability or liability whatsoever. It was an absolute constitutional power.
The National Peace Keeping Council, which seized power from an elected government in 1990, set up an Assets Examination Committee to seize the assets of politicians.
However, the committee’s legality was rejected by the courts at that time, aborting the attempt to seize politicians’ assets.
The process of seizing Thaksin’s assets was initiated and carried out under the power of the 2006 coup.
With the three examples, Somchai wonders why such accountability is not possible under normal procedures, despite the myriad number of public law experts in this country, who have successively been part of governments, either elected or coup-appointed.
Somchai raises the question whether the seizure of assets is worth the baulking of democracy. To be fair, a committee to scrutinize damage to Thai society due to coups should be set up, he suggests.
He asks for accountability across the board for all political elites who also abuse their power in their own interests.
Published on Krungthep Thurakij, 4 March, 2010.
Comments
The seizure of assets of
The seizure of assets of politicians in Thailand, particularly of those who were prime ministers, has been done through unusual legal means.
In Thailand it's not 'Rule of Law' but 'Law of Rule'
"Entrepreneurs", like blind sows, occasionally stumble upon an acorn.
The PPT has a column on
The PPT has a column on Korn's recent Bangkok Post on the court's seizure of Thaksin's assets.
Korn:
This seems an attempt by Korn to defuse the court's using another extralegal, Military-issue "law" to accomplish the coupster's aims :
There are people in Bangkok (in Oxford, too) who can accept that "logic"? It plays up the desperation of the putsch to address what is surely their most pressing need, to somehow legitimate the illegitimate :
Perhaps in order to draw attention from his bogus argument implicit above Korn makes an even more outrageous statement following : that the "Thai" tolerance for corruption inheres in the unmonied classes, the non-beneficiaries of corruption! that it is the corrupt beneficiary classes, Korn's among them, that are the ones ferreting out corruption!
This is a actually a necessary corollary to Korn's initial bogus "reasoning". The "justice that has prevailed" is incontestably the consequence of the Korn-PAD clique which fomented the coup. So if it is "justice", rather than the application of Military-issue "law", that is to be seen to have prevailed it is necessarily the corrupt, beneficiary classes which have "ferreted it out".
Fully agree, with the added
Fully agree, with the added observation that people like Korn, who are smart enough to understand they have no legitimacy and have engaged in treasonous acts, will always try to justify their positions, and the more incongruent their positions, the more convoluted the justification. BP carries an article today in which he suggests that Korn is stating that justice is somehow an ‘optional extra’ in the lives of poor people, rather than the essential building block of society that it is. Convoluted indeed is brother Korn’s self-justification. Frankly, he isn’t much of an intellect so he would probably be better off if he stuck to counting beans and left the psychology to people who understand it.
The Democrat government foisted upon Thailand is merely engaged in showing the true colors of its sponsors and supporters, and there is nothing they can do to prevent this. With each passing day, the facade of reasonableness and legitimacy crumbles, and sooner or later the troughers will be visible through the then-transparent walls.
But there is progress; the role in politics of Prem and others supposedly ‘above politics’ cannot now be camouflaged, the totalitarian nature of the elites is obvious for all to see, the treasonous nature of the armed forces is plain. In fact, the conflict has nothing to do with Thaksin, he was just the catalyst, the conflict is against these people, the ‘born to rule’ classes. Thailand has always been an authoritarian state, ruled in effect by one person, the only difference is that now, at least everyone knows it and change is no longer being requested, it is being demanded.
The first few to the wall will have the salutory effect of softening the resolve of the rest.
Mr Wrigley adds some
Mr Wrigley adds some perspective to the "justice" afforded Thaksin by noting the escape from similar justice the Chaovarat and Korn families may well have have effected.
Speaking of a Matichon Weekly story :
The hypocrisy and lack of
The hypocrisy and lack of fiareness is staggering. Of course the reason why Thakisn and Choonavan were tried and Democrats were not, was that the losers don't get to try the winners.
Churchill noted that the lesson of Nuremberg was "Make sure we win the next one as well."
This government and its military handelers are ensuring that will happen at all costs! And I fear how long it will be before democracy ever has a chance again here.
Greenmole