• 
• 

Published on March 13, 2008

He wanted to sound as if he was on the offensive. The fact is that the premier was in fact confessing that he was on the defensive.

And he wasn't just grumbling. The concern is real. The new constitution does provide an easier way for the common people to remove Cabinet members from their posts when the other normal checks and balances fail to keep high-ranking officials honest and responsible.

Public Health Minister Chaiya Sasomsap is the first Cabinet member to be put to the test under Article 164 of the new constitution. The article provides for "not fewer than 20,000 eligible voters" to sign a joint petition submitted to the Senate president to vote, according to Article 274, to remove a public office-holder, as specified in Article 270, from his or her position.

Under Article 270, the country's top office holders (from the prime minister to Cabinet members to the Supreme Court president) may be sacked by the Senate if they are found to have:

l Acquired unusual wealth through illegal and corrupt means, or

l Abused their official powers, or

l Deliberately exercised their powers in violation of the constitution or laws, or

l Seriously violated ethical standards related to Cabinet members or government officials.

How does the Senate exercise this new checks-and-balances power? Article 274 makes it clear that a three-fifths majority of the 150-member Senate, casting secret ballots, can kick out a guilty politician or bureaucrat.

Any complaint jointly signed by no fewer than 20,000 eligible voters, of course, would have to be accompanied by "point-by-point and specific, as well as verifiable, accusations" against the targeted public office holder.

The detailed principles, procedures and conditions related to such an unprecedented move are contained in an organic law related to corruption prevention and suppression.

In other words, whether or not you like the overall content or whether you approve of the origin of this latest constitution, the way is wide open for the first time for the electorate to punish corrupt and abusive elements in the establishment - a mechanism that had not been provided in all the previous constitutions.

Minister Chaiya is being tested for his decision to transfer a number of senior officials - some of whom are well-respected and dedicated young doctors known for their devotion to the rural poor - as soon as he assumed office. That hurried move is seen by his critics as a blatant attempt to breach another new element in the constitution: politicians can't unduly interfere with the work of bureaucrats "to serve their own or their political parties' interests".

Article 266 provides a "firewall" against good, honest officials being manipulated, threatened or abused by MPs and Senators - a practice that has always been one of the dark spots in Thailand's political power game.

The fact that Minister Chaiya has threatened to punish any official at the Public Health Ministry who may join the protestors against his tentative move to review the CL policy makes him vulnerable to a frontal attack from the angry young doctors. And they will be aided by a number of aggressive non-government organisations, for his violation of a major new article in the current constitution.

This particular "protective clause" for government officials makes it abundantly clear that it will be unconstitutional for any MP or Senator to attempt, either directly or otherwise, to influence the appointment, dismissal, transfer, promotion or demotion of a bureaucrat or any other non-political appointee.

The all-embracing wording, naturally, offers room for all sorts of diverse interpretations. But these new elements in the constitution will certainly make politicians think twice before resorting to the old, traditional practice of treating bureaucrats as their lackeys and underlings.

Premier Samak wasn't, therefore, just taking pot-shots at the charter that had been drawn up after the September, 2006 coup. You could really detect his nervousness about the possibility of being dragged into the Senate for a new kind of impeachment that has never been an issue before.

Isn't it a great paradox that a veteran politician, whose standard claim is the "overwhelming mandate" of the people, now takes issue with a constitutional clause that gives the people an easier means to recall errant Cabinet members?

yoon@nationgroup.com

The Nation