• 
• 

The Democrat Party's opponents were quick to point out that Apirak Kosayodhin's decision to quit as Bangkok governor was either a holier-than-thou demonstration intended to take advantage of a myriad of charges against its enemies, or simply his only option at present. Whatever motivated Apirak, his resignation is the kind of politics that all are supposed to play. And even if it was designed to make his rivals look bad, so be it.

It took a 90 unanimous indictment decision by the National Anti-Corruption Commission to prompt Apirak to leave office, a far cry from politics in countries like Japan or South Korea where politicians bid farewell on lesser pressure. But his gracious and solemn announcement of resignation was a welcome sight all the same. The glaring absence of the usual "It's a conspiracy against me" claim is also commendable.

It's too bad that Apirak's resignation is just an exception, not the norm in Thai politics. We have become too accustomed to a different pattern, which would have the Democrats lambaste the NACC and possibly try to control it if they had the power. Ours has become a politics of covering up and whitewashing, not of fostering checks and balances and accountability.

This Thai kind of politics has been prevailing over other social spheres. Students cheat in university elections, and smear opponents with charges that they do not mind commit¬ting later. Corporate executives do learn from "others' mistakes", but the learning is about how not to get caught with the same crimes. Today's children are not being taught ethics, but techniques of how to make bad things look good when they do it, and look worse when the others are to blame.

For decades, Thais have been talking about political reform. We have failed numerous times not because we have had bad constitutions, but because the constitutions were never applied equally when ourselves and "the others" were concerned. There is no need to say what triggered the current years-long political crisis. When rules are avoided when they involve us, and abused when the others are concerned, there will be no fundamental principles left to serve as a good social and political platform.

Thaksin Shinawatra is a prime example.

When the NACC indicted him for asset concealment in 2001, he portrayed the agency as a politically motivated mechanism. He made it sound like a conspiracy and tried to make everyone forget the fact that it was the very same NACC that had indicted then Democrat secretary-general Sanan Kachornprasart, who was eventually banned from politics for five years.

 As we can see, the very same rules are viewed differently, depending on whether they concern us or them. And good rules can easily degenerate into bad ones if they are applied to people who have enough tools, power or even popularity to twist things around. The principles on which the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Ratchadaphisek land case were based are in fact those derived from the much-praised 1997 constitution, but since they were applied against an "elected champion of the poor", the ruling was described by many as "political".

Apirak could have chosen the more popular path. After all, he also was an elected office holder who had just scored a convincing triumph through the ballot box. He could have hung on like Thaksin did in 2001 and hoped for the best. He could have pointed at many ministers over the past two years who refused to step down following charges laid on them by the NACC or Election Commission. Instead, he chose to prove himself first without allowing the allegations to smear the reputation of his office.

He may have been politically motivated. The resignation may have been the result of a mischievous Democrat brainstorming session where everyone agreed to make a devil out of their opponents by getting on the high horse. It doesn't matter. The bottom line is, by resigning, Apirak has made way for a transparent, unbiased legal process, and shown the public a clear distinction between the power of ballot boxes and the counterbalancing power of the justice system.

Thais have long been too confused between the two powers. Such confusion has created disastrous results. As for Apirak and the Democrats, a bigger test still will come when the Supreme Court delivers its final ruling on his case. It will be the same court that has condemned Thaksin Shinawatra and vice versa.