• 
• 

Published on November 28, 2007

After half a decade of a bitter and largely clueless quest for political values, Thailand has not quite changed, and the crisis has not bottomed out yet.

Monday's announcement by the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) that Thaksin Shinawatra faces serious conflict-of-interest charges is deja vu. In addition, the man once again stands to be vindicated, politically at least, by results at the ballot box. Moreover, how the legal process ends again depends very much on who wins power on election day.

The only difference is, in 2001 it was all about Thaksin. The debate was on whether our political rules were so rigid that they would deny Thailand a capable leader for silly things he had done that everybody else also did. Back then it was a matter of giving past and "honest" mistakes the benefit of the doubt. A lot of us think "Yes, a key article in a much-cherished constitution was violated, but for a landslide victory's sake, let's be flexible and move on".

This time the stakes are bigger. The question is no longer about hidden shares that changed hands and values surreptitiously before he had full political control. Acquitted controversially by the Constitution Court and absolved by the public, Thaksin gave the collective Thai conscience a bigger test. What if I continued to hide some of those shares and use all the nominees' accounts in a grand tax-evasion scheme? What if I, in fresh violation of the charter, maintained my control of a mega-business that received concessions from the government? What about enacting a law that would almost immediately save that company tens of billions of baht in payment to the state?

A hidden theme in this election is again about whether what Thaksin did was acceptable. He further complicated the soul-searching process by having won over the majority of Thailand's poor. In 2001 he was an untested leader with both great potential and major flaws. This time, through his nominee Samak Sundaravej, Thais are asked to weigh a strong grass-roots appeal against alleged corruption that probably only the elite class can fathom.

Democracy and corruption have a strange relationship in Thailand, supporting and undermining each other all the time. After 2001, ballot box results overpowered everything else, setting off corruption like a runaway train, although making rural lives arguably better. When checks and balances gave way to abuse of power, street protests erupted. Ironically, the generals stepped in, taking advantage of democracy's desperate struggle to restore one of its core principles.

The men in uniform have not fared well, but the "See? They are also corrupt" argument is no different from the disastrous conclusion in 2001 that what Thaksin had done with his shares was normal because most business people did likewise. Such argument blurs the crucial truth that Thailand's political standards need to be raised to guard against opportunistic, undemocratic forces that always wait in the wings.

The coup was a dangerous solution, but what did it teach us? We have at least learned that any democracy that can't handle Ample Rich, Win Mark and the Temasek deal is doomed. Without democracy that treats corruption as it is, regardless of who is behind it, we are destined to be stuck forever in politics of opportunism and vengeance.

And here we are, looking not at what Thaksin did when he was powerless, but what he defiantly did after he escaped the Constitution Court trial. We know he not only kept his ambitious election promises, but also his hold of Win Mark, even after his acquittal, and that he is now being accused of serving as clandestine owner of Shin Corp while in power, during which its stock values increased roughly by Bt50 billion.

The timing of the AEC's announcement of new charges had political motives written all over it, but it presents Thailand with a new acid test all the same. The country reluctantly condoned Thaksin in 2001 - and look at the price we have had to pay. The stakes are higher this time because Samak the nominee is saying that what happened after 2001 were not honest mistakes, but truly legitimate.

By proclaiming in front of millions of TV viewers that it was all right for a prime minister's wife to bid for state-auctioned land, Samak is seeking to rewrite political values. Or he may have simply recited existing ones that are prevalent but which we are too shy to accept. Thai democracy is being asked to recognise, for its own health, not just hidden shares, but the way they were used as well the consequences.

And all we can do is continue to hold our breath.

 Tulsathit Taptim

The Nation