• 
• 

Published on April 16, 2008

They could have put hundreds or thousands of journalists out of their jobs.

Their houses could have been seized by banks, and their cars by finance companies. Their children's future would have been far less certain.

No, this is not reopening old wounds. We are not about to debate whether the penchant for intimidating lawsuits was right or wrong, although I will come to why we should later. This article is only meant for one purpose: Thaksin's lawyer and Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama now wants to discuss Buddhism. Fine, let's talk.

He has said Article 237 of the Constitution, which seeks to punish a political party's entire leadership if an executive is guilty of electoral fraud, is against the principles of the religion. Noppadon cites a simple logic - it's injustice if someone commits a wrongdoing and make others pay for that sin.

Coming from a lawyer, Thaksin's lawyer to be more specific, it's inspiring. I imagine Noppadon throwing himself in the former prime minister's line of fire when the latter, in 2006, threatened to turn the Bangkok Post into financial ruins after one of its reporters wrote about alleged cracks on the Suvarnabhumi Airport's runways. And surely, this believer of every-man-pays-for-his-own-crime doctrine must have put up a fierce fight behind the scenes against similar legal plans.

Most of all, I imagine Noppadon was in tears when Thaksin, in 2005, warned that provinces that didn't elect Thai Rak Thai candidates would be moved down his administration's development priority list. All right, you may argue that voting for any non-TRT party shouldn't be a sin, but for those who heard that historic statement, Thaksin really made it sound like one.

If Noppadon did tell Thaksin: "Sir, there are a great number of pro-TRT voters in those provinces, and they shouldn't be made to pay for the others' sins. It's against Buddhism", we didn't hear it. Nonetheless, Noppadon deserved the benefit of the doubt here, and in fact, the Thaksin government did go after some direct sinners.

The Anti-Money Laundering Organisation singled out most vocal

government critics in its controversial investigation into journalists' bank accounts.

Here comes another cheap shot at old wounds, you may say, but Noppadon's preaching of Buddhism left me no choice. If he's taking the religion seriously, he must as well be aware that while every man should pay for his own karma, every karma will always come back to its man, too, no matter how long it takes.

He must realise that in Buddhist terms, the Supinya Klangnarong and Thai Post lawsuits are as fresh a sin as they can get.

Noppadon's definition of political sin is open for scrutiny.

To him, a party executive who committed electoral fraud is the sole sinner and there shouldn't be collective responsibility. In contrast, the logic behind Article 237 is that party executives who turned a blind eye to fraud or let it happen under their noses are also at fault, though not equally, and they must also pay.

Which logic is more Buddhist? Noppadon's encourages cowardice, irresponsibility and perhaps usage of scapegoats, whereas Article 237 stipulates that if you are the highest members of a political party, you not only have to be morally right, but also are obliged to keep watch on your peers. Article 237 says you don't need to "act" to sin, because inaction _ whether it's out of ignorance or the luxury of not having to do it yourself - is also a major guilt.

Noppadon insists that Article 237 can be politicised and abused. Again, what is the bigger sin - punishing the whole party for allowing an executive to be fraudulent, or that party ignoring or tolerating an act perceived as a root cause of national political problems? And if Article 237 is to be abused and exploited every time a party executive cheats in an election, it may be well worth the sacrifice.

These are the questions and issues that Noppadon may want to ponder if he seriously aspires to be an envoy of Buddhism. The religion in its real essence doesn't allow us to paper over our sins. It requires confronting our karma head-on and observing rules that are designed to guard against the evil.

If electoral fraud is the biggest evil because it's the main cause of a nation's crisis, what's a rule more effective than making the punishment most feared by not just the offender but also the knowing or ignorant collaborators?

Tulsathit Taptim

The Nation