• 
• 

Published on November 20, 2007

The question of whether the 111 banned former members of the now-defunct Thai Rak Thai party can be involved in political parties' campaigns leading up to the December 23 election, and, if so, to what extent, has become a hot political issue that must be dealt with decisively by the Election Commission (EC). The EC, tasked with ensuring a free and fair election, must no longer defer its decision, but make it clear once and for all exactly what former Thai Rak Thai executives can do and what they are prohibited from doing in connection with the upcoming nationwide election.

A failure by the EC to act on this in a timely fashion would result in the Constitution Tribunal's ruling to disband the Thai Rak Thai after it was found to have engaged in electoral fraud and strip its members of their electoral rights compromised and rendered ineffective.

But before the EC makes its decision on this, it must ensure it has a firm grounding in the principles behind the harsh judgement handed down by the Constitution Tribunal against the former Thai Rak Thai executives. The punishment was based on the assumption that members of the defunct party's executive committee could not plead innocence, by claiming that they were unaware of what their party's leadership was up to in connection with electoral fraud.

The fraud in question concerned senior Thai Rak Thai Party leaders being caught hiring obscure political parties to compete in constituencies where a Thai Rak Thai candidate was running without competition. This was done in order to bypass the rule requiring that those Thai Rak Thai candidates garner at least 20 per cent of all votes cast in uncontested constituencies in the 2006 run-off elections.

Such acts were tantamount to Thai Rak Thai deceiving the public, violating electoral law, and undermining Thailand's democracy. The severity of the Constitution Tribunal's punishment was considered fitting for the crimes committed and that was why the party was dissolved and its executive committee banned from politics for five years.

In handing down the penalty, the Constitution Tribunal also wanted to make an example of Thai Rak Thai to serve as a deterrent to other would-be perpetrators of electoral fraud. In other words, Thai Rak Thai, founded by deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, was considered such a major threat to Thailand's democracy that it needed to be destroyed. By extension, members of the party's executive committee were considered a threat to democracy and their electoral rights had to be suspended for five years. Electoral rights cover the right to participate in elections and referendums both as voters and as candidates and the right to take part in the creation, running and financing of political parties - directly or by stealth.

What is so ambiguous about the punishment that makes it so difficult for some former members of the Thai Rak Thai executive committee to understand? It has been said that most people who commit crimes in this society tend not to be bothered by guilt. That's why naming and shaming are generally considered to be much more effective as a deterrent. But some of the Thai Rak Thai 111 who have been brazenly flouting the ban by actively engaging in the day-to-day running, as well as strategic planning, of various political parties - if not also serving as their key financiers - appear unperturbed by the social stigma that comes with the punishment.

The EC has been conspicuous by the lack of courage it has shown in failing to spell out clearly what the banned 111 can and cannot do. It has merely issued a mild-sounding warning on possible breaches of the ban by some former Thai Rak Thai executives.

The apparent reluctance by the EC to clarify this issue has been seen as a weakness by some of the banned members who have been actively involved in the election campaigns of political parties like the People Power Party and Puea Paendin Thai Party. They now have the temerity to go on the defensive and accuse the EC of being discriminatory against the parties with which they have associated themselves and of violating their constitutional rights to freedom of expression and political assembly.

The EC must now act to clarify and enforce the ban. If the controversial questions have to be settled by the Constitution Court, which took over from the Constitution Tribunal after the passage of the 2007 Constitution, then so be it.

The Nation