• 
• 

Published on October 12, 2007

The censure debate on Wednesday against Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont led by Prasong Soonsiri and members of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) failed to produce a knockout blow because of a lack of damning evidence. But what they did do was put a dent in Surayud's reputation as a man of principle, and damage his personal integrity. Prasong and former members of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) apparently hoped to shame Surayud into resigning as prime minister in order to effect a change of government just a few months before the general election scheduled for December.

They did not succeed in doing so, mainly because Surayud seems determined to stay on to see through the crucial task of ensuring a free and fair election.

Another reason they fell far short of achieving their objective of driving Surayud out of office was because the evidence they produced did not convince anyone that the prime minister, a former supreme commander, was the kind of person who had actively pursued selfish interest.

Prasong has been driving at Surayud's ethical shortcomings, targeting the questionable acquisition by the PM and his wife of a plot of land that is said to be located inside a national forest reserve at Khao Yai Thieng in the northeastern province of Nakhon Ratchasima.

In the few months since Prasong and his friends dug up the dirt on Surayud, the prime minister has  not bothered to clarify how he came to own the land, which cannot be lawfully owned by anyone. Anyone found living and utilising land in a national forest reserve is deemed a trespasser who, if convicted, faces a jail sentence.

PM's Office Minister Thirapat Serirangsan, who made a clarification on behalf of the prime minister in the NLA on Wednesday, said Surayud acquired the 20 rai of land on a permanent, non-transferable lease basis. This was done through a series of transfers of land utilisation rights by the original claimants who lived and worked on the land before the area was designated a forest reserve.

Thirapat told the NLA that a June 30, 1998 Cabinet resolution provided amnesty to holders of land-rights documents, including Surayud and his wife, who were granted land rights by the original claimants and allowed to possess the land.

The minister also said that Surayud had no intention of trespassing on the reserve, which is public property, and that he was prepared to relinquish his claim on the land if it was found that the process that led to his ownership did not meet the criteria set by the said Cabinet resolution.

But that does not mean Surayud should be let off the hook easily. He can still be faulted for poor judgement because, at the time of his taking possession of the land, he was the supreme commander. And the land-rights document was transferred to him by one of his subordinates, an army colonel who had earlier been granted the land rights by an original claimant.

The question to ask is whether the colonel did this as a personal favour to Surayud without seeking anything in return, or whether the then-supreme commander had returned the favour in some way, such as an offer of cash payment or promotion.

Neither Thirapat nor Surayud have shed light on this question. The Thai public is not exactly outraged by Prasong's expose, partly because what Surayud and his wife did is so widely practised by the rich and powerful that it is hardly considered scandalous.

But people should care whether what the interim prime minister did in the past was legal or not. That's why the ongoing police investigation into Surayud's Khao Yai Thieng property should be allowed to proceed in a straightforward and transparent manner.

To show his good faith, the prime minister should give clear instructions to police investigators that they have a free hand to get to the bottom of the matter, make public their findings and take appropriate action required by law, if it comes to that.

No one, not even the prime minister, is above the law. The supremacy of the rule of law is the single most important pillar of democracy.

The Nation