• 
• 
• 

Superficially, the stage seems set for a David-and Goliath battle. With the planned censure debate to take place some time this month, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva appears head and shoulders above his opposition rivals, although he still wears the lingering label of someone who came to power controversially. And even with the Rohingya scandal, the worsening economic outlook and signs of trouble with his allies, Abhisit can be forgiven if he enters the no-confidence debate with his mind focused on anything else.

The main problem is the opposition's flag-bearer. Chalerm Yoobamrung, of all the people, has been tasked with chipping away at Abhisit's integrity. When the censure motion was submitted, many people couldn't help pondering this scenario: If the government loses the vote, Chalerm will be Thailand's next prime minister.

Whether it's a charm or curse of Thai politics, the irony of the upcoming censure debate should be a major case study. From the opposition's motion, Abhisit will face a tough grilling on the "legitimacy" of his office. Chalerm is expected to attack the prime minister's association with the People's Alliance for Democracy and the rumoured role of the military in the realignment of parliamentary forces, among other things.

Chalerm will have to execute that job before a Thai public who question his own integrity as much as, if not more than, Abhisit's. Of course, in an ideal democratic world, Abhisit probably should not have been in his current position, at least not yet, but where would Chalerm have been in the very same ideal democratic world?

To the opposition, Chalerm is both an asset and liability. He is a great speaker, who has shown time and time again how effective he can be at no-confidence showdowns, but he also has a serious reputation issue that could overshadow valuable information proffered against the Abhisit government. The opposition, obviously, has decided to bet on Chalerm the asset, hoping that his background will not dampen its grand scheme.

But by naming Chalerm as the leader of this political campaign, the opposition has unwittingly admitted that "nothing is perfect". That's the last impression you want to make if you want to attack someone for his "imperfect" rise to power. The Democrats, while they may dread Chalerm's investigative skills and oratory, may be thankful the opposition has opted for form over substance in the debate.

To further rain on the censure parade, it will not even be the opposition's "full team" in this crucial battle. The Pheu Thai Party will have to do it all alone without its smaller allies, whose size may be insignificant but whose decision to stay aloof speaks volumes about how they regard the no-confidence plan.

But the Democrats will underestimate David at their own risk. After all, this will be the first meaningful censure debate in a long time, barring one last year against the Samak administration that took place against a backdrop of political turbulence. When Chalerm utters his opening statement, it will signify Parliament's latest attempt to reassert its role as a key institution in Thai politics.

And our political history shows that no censure debate was ever easy for the government. The administrations of Chuan Leekpai, Banharn Silapa-Archa and Chavalit Yongchaiyudh testify to that. It was only in the Thaksin Shinawatra era that Parliament lost its power to counterbalance the executive branch, because alleged wrongdoings took place at the highest level and a controversial constitutional clause guarding the prime minister made sure he wasn't to be touched.

We could have been in a much different situation if the likes of the Ratchadapisek and Temasek scandals had managed to make their way into Parliament.

So, despite himself, we welcome David to his job of keeping the feet of those in power firmly on the ground. Parliamentary politics only works well when nobody feels too secure. The Democrats have been anything but arrogant or carried away, but if their opponents look somewhat weak, the ruling party must not misinterpret that as weakness in democratic checks and balances and try to exploit the situation.

Where Chalerm may have been looking to Thaksin about how the censure should proceed, the Democrats must look to the fugitive as an example of how bad things can be if some "minor" democratic values aside from numbers in Parliament do not get the respect they deserve.