• 
• 

The Samak government never runs out of ideas to fire up political tension. The last move by the ruling People Power party regarding the person whom many consider to be its de-facto leader, Thaksin Shinawatra, is directed at rules governing the Supreme Court's Criminal Tribunal for Political Office Holders. Certainly it will give more ammunition to the protesters in central Bangkok and keep the Thai public on edge. And again, it's all for just one man.

The Supreme Court's Criminal Tribunal for Political Office Holders currently has the power to hand down the ultimate ruling, which cannot be appealed unless new evidence capable of turning a case upside-down is presented within 30 days. A new legislative draft would change this by giving the decision on whether or not a ruling can be appealed to a committee of five persons selected by a Supreme Court caucus. The grounds for appeal would remain the same, meaning the defendant must present new evidence that is strong enough to alter the case.

According to news reports, People Power's representatives on the House committee vetting this bill were not satisfied. One committee member, Boonjong Wongtrairat, a People Power MP representing Nakhon Ratchasima, was quoted as saying that there should have been a more "effective" way to launch an appeal. It remains to be seen how much People Power input can make its way into the draft, which was proposed by the Supreme Court, but the ruling party's attitude was enough to raise concern.

The Supreme Court's Criminal Tribunal for Political Office Holders and relevant laws represent one of Thailand's best systems of checks and balances. The foundations of this mechanism were laid down by the much-praised 1997 "People's Constitution". The first high-profile casualty was former health minister Rakkiat Sukthana, who was convicted in connection with a scandal involving selling medical supplies to state hospitals.

For all the criticism concerning the "military-initiated" probe into Thaksin Shinawatra's corruption cases, the ones heard before the Supreme Court's Criminal Tribunal for Political Office Holders are guaranteed a tried and trusted system. The rulings have been detailed and transparent, and the non-appeal rule has been a long-respected regulation, not something introduced recently to persecute anyone.

On the other hand, People Power's representatives on the ad-hoc House committee working on the Supreme Court's bill seem to want to change the non-appeal rule to benefit a particular group of people. This will again distort the country's justice system, which has been swayed left and right by the political crisis. The non-appeal rule would put unnecessary pressure on the court because the pro-Thaksin camp obviously wants to delay the case until the new law takes effect, whereas the anti-Thaksin movement will certainly want the court to hand down its judgement before that.

Tension on the streets, already high because of the Samak government's renewed resolve to change the Constitution to whitewash Thaksin-era political crimes and virtually outlaw political rallies, could boil over. If something bad happens because of opposition to the Constitution amendments and efforts to get Thaksin off the hook, this government will only have itself to blame.

Critics are saying that Thaksin and Co are being subjected to "selective" justice. In other words, they are being discriminated against by those with judicial power. This argument, however, has a big hole in it, because basically the critics are admitting that Thaksin and his associates have committed crimes that others have got away with.

It's the argument that plays a big part in our vicious political cycle. People in power have escaped justice not because there was not sufficient evidence against them but because they made their crimes seem "normal". This attitude has brought the whole country to its current precarious state, and if the ongoing legal process regarding "selective crimes" that have put the nation in this spot are deemed discriminatory, then so be it.

At least the whole process is taking place in a relatively transparent environment in which everyone can see the evidence and defence arguments and conscientiously judge whether a ruling is right or wrong. Following the coup in 2006, Thaksin and Co could have had a much more difficult time. They should be thankful that a "dictatorship" has given them a chance to present their side of the argument in the courts. Their best shot is to deny the crimes, not try to point out that evidence was acquired through illegitimate means, because the latter strategy is surely the last resort of a desperate criminal.