• 
• 

Published on October 10, 2007

One of the uglier aspects of Thai politics is the use by interest groups of patronage or blackmailing instead of persuasion based on rational discussion to advance their causes and influence public policy. The public dispute between the government of Surayud Chulanont and Prasong Soonsiri, the most powerful man in the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), is a good example of such underhand tactics. On the surface, the dispute appears to be all about ethical standards that politicians, including Surayud and members of his Cabinet, should meet. This is a totally legitimate topic for rigorous public debate and it should be encouraged.

Prasong has been attacking Surayud for alleged lack of legitimacy in leading the government, citing what he described as ethical shortcomings in connection with the questionable acquisition and ownership by the PM of a plot of land that is said to be part of a national forest reserve at Khao Yai Thieng in the northeastern province of Nakhon Ratchasima. Several months after it became a public issue, the prime minister has still failed to explain exactly how he came to own the land. Although the circumstances surrounding Surayud's ownership are unclear, it is known that many senior government officials, including top military officers, have obtained land that private citizens are not supposed to own.

The NLA is scheduled to hold a censure debate against Surayud and his Cabinet today. Prasong, chairman of the NLA's ethics committee, has vowed to expose offences allegedly committed by Surayud and his ministers. The prime minister has expressed confidence that he can defend himself against the allegation made by Prasong that he trespassed on the national forest reserve. The PM plans to attend the debate, which is the way it should be.

On closer inspection, the attack on the prime minister is the latest move in a well-organised campaign to undermine the government's legitimacy to rule. The campaign is believed to be engineered by Prasong and some disaffected senior military officers and members of the People's Alliance for Democracy. The PAD, of which Prasong was a key member, played an instrumental role in the anti-Thaksin campaign, galvanising the politically powerful middle class to rise against the previous government. Members of the PAD appear to resent the fact that they have not been sufficiently rewarded for their role in the mass protests against the corruption-prone Thaksin government that led to the eventual overthrow of Thaksin by the military. They fully expected coup-maker Sonthi Boonyaratglin and Surayud to reward them by appointing them to positions in the Cabinet or the NLA, but were sorely disappointed when that did not happen.

Prasong and his group have already succeeded in forcing five members of the Surayud Cabinet to resign, accusing them of exceeding the maximum private equity holding of five per cent, as stipulated by the 2000 anti-graft law. It can be argued that the law in question is not applicable to the five because the 1997 constitution, which required compliance to the graft law, was no longer in force. Moreover, the recently promulgated Constitution has a provisional clause that suspends the application of the graft law to Cabinet members of the interim Surayud government. The resignation of the five represented a blow to the administration. But Surayud's decision not to stop them leaving showed that his government takes its duty seriously in upholding the letter and spirit of the law on good governance.

At the censure debate today, the prime minister is expected to live up to his own stated high standards in political ethics and personal integrity by explaining to the public how he obtained the plot of land in question. Never mind the fact that his political opponents within the NLA are motivated by revenge.

It is important to note that Prasong and his accomplices have been doing some right things for the wrong reasons, like requiring Surayud and members of his Cabinet to meet high standards of governance. But some of what they have done - particularly downright dishonest tactics such as the use of political blackmailing - has done a great disservice to the country. Prasong and his friends may claim moral superiority for their actions, and they may be doing so for selfish reasons. But they should realise that people are smart enough to know that honest people don't do dirty politics.

The Nation