Thaksin deal redux and double standards

While we don’t know the exact details of the palace/establishment deal done with Thaksin Shinawatra to get him back and to keep him out of prison, it does seem that another deal is being negotiated, quite publicly, for Yingluck Shinawatra’s return.

The public voice in this is lawyer and Shinawatra favorite Pichit Chuenban. Pichet is well known as a bagman for Thaksin:

He was sentenced to six months in prison while leading the defence team for former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in June 2008. The Supreme Court held him and two legal representatives responsible for an apparent attempt to bribe the court.

Two million baht in cash was found wrapped in a paper bag in the court’s compound in early June 2008. Pichit claimed he thought it was a bag of snacks. He was seen handing the so-called “snack bag” to court clerks when Thaksin and his then-wife Potjaman Na Pombejra were due to appear in the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Office.

Pichit is now an “adviser” to the prime minister.

He says: “There is nothing complicated about the [return] process… It will depend on [Yingluck] on when she decides to come home.” He then made the extraordinary claim that the deals done and being done “is not considered a double standard as it is done in accordance with the law.” He says: “We have adhered to the principles of law enforcement and justice process…”.

Like so many who are trained and work in the legal system, Pichit is unable comprehend the meaning of double standard. This is because double standards are simply normalized. The rich, the powerful, and the influential get wondrous interpretations of the law while the poor, ordinary, and, significantly, political opponents of the establishment get something else.

In other words, “principles of law enforcement and justice process” are constructed on double standards.

Thammanat’s free pass

PPT remains bemused by the Bangkok Post’s coverage of the new cabinet.

We earlier posted on that newspaper’s questioning of the appointment of Puea Thai nominee Pichit Chuenban who is expected to serve as a Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office. He was dropped or stood aside or something. The Post also mentioned the dubious Pol Gen Permpoon Chidchob. Of course, there are several more dubious politicians in the new government.

Clipped from Khaosod

But the Post continues to give convicted criminal Thammanat Prompao a free pass. In its ABOUT POLITICS column the Post sees it as more important to continue its hatred of the Move Forward Party than to shine a light on real criminals. To do this it chose to highlight three legally and constitutionally murky or dubious cases of Future Forward MPs being tripped up. Rather than lauding an MP, he is taken to task fro protecting a woman being physically harassed in a public place.

That column mentions the convicted heroin trafficker in passing but not to question his “qualifications.”

In another story, the Post frets about the wrong persons being given cabinet posts because they lack qualifications or experience. But citing a little-known academic, when it comes to Thammanat, only this: “Capt Thamanat Prompow, who assumes the agriculture and cooperatives minister post …  is widely perceived as an influential figure…”. Is this meaning he’s influential in his party? Probably. But he is also a “dark influence.” But not a mention of his criminal past, his unexplained wealth, his lies, his harem, or his lack of qualifications (or his qualifications that are fake).

What is going on? Have orders been issued? Has the Post been legally threatened? Is it just the usual double standards? Is it spinelessness? Something else?

Attacking Bowornsak on petitioning the king

The Nation (9 August 2009: “Red shirts are ‘within rights’ to petition King”) has a really very interesting report that provides something of a historical perspective on petitions to the king and their political use.

It concerns statements by Borwornsak Uwanno opposing the petition by UDD-red shirts seeking a “royal pardon” for former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Speaking to religious and local leaders assembled at the parliament, Borwornsak claimed that the red shirt petition “had brought division to society and was destructive of Thai culture because the petitioners had an ulterior motive in citing a massive number of people behind the move. He told the leaders to help bring peace to society and not let a group of people cite the achievement of one person to [be] compared with His Majesty the King, who had worked hard for 63 years for his subjects.” He opined: “You are our only hope, because we cannot see hope in the government leaders…”.

The irony of a legal scholar who is Secretary-General of the supposedly democracy-promoting King Prajadhipok Institute, speaking in the parliament and denigrating politicians in such a way should not be ignored. But for a died-in-the-wool royalist, such a move must seem natural.

PPT has posted on Borwornsak previously, here, here, and here.

Bowornsak was also head of the King Prajadhipok Institute before he became cabinet secretary-general under Thaksin. Long one of Thailand’s “public intellectuals,” he readily switches jobs and political alliances, writing commentaries for the media, taking government positions and maintaining links to the academy. Following the 2006 coup, he was appointed by the military junta to the National Legislative Assembly. That appointment came under critical comment because he was a late defector from Thaksin’s government.

Commenting on Bowornsak’s repeated opposition to the UDD petition, Pichit Chuenban who is one of Thaksin’s lawyers, compared the Thaksin petition to a petition in 1988 to force then prime minister General Prem Tinsulanonda not to seek another term. Pichit claimed this petition was a precedent for the current petition. He also pointed out that the 1988 petition was signed by 99 academics, including Borwornsak, who politically opposed Prem and did so through a public petitioning of the king. How times have changed with former enemies are now sworn allies!

It included others who also oppose the Thaksin petition, including Chirmsak Pinthong and Thongthong Chandrangsu. PPT notes that one of the organizers of the anti-Prem petition was Chai-Anan Samudavanija (see here), now a PAD ideologue and leading critic of the Thaksin petition. All these royalists consider “political” petitions to be wrong.

As Pichit points out, “What Borwornsak did is called a political petition, is it not? What Thaksin’s supporters are filing is not a political petition, because they are suffering from economic and political distress and they have the right to seek Royal clemency to alleviate their plight. They are not just seeking a Royal pardon for Thaksin…”. Pichit also accused Borworksak of “citing laws and regulations that had been scrapped long ago in opposing the petition.”

In response, 1988 petitioner Chirmsak determined that his actions were different. The petition he signed was “aimed at persuading Prem to step down as an unelected prime minister and that no Royal pardon had been sought for anyone at that time.”

Meanwhile, responding Prime Minister Abhist Vejjajiva’s claim that the Thaksin petition was illegal, Peua Thai Party spokesman Prompong Nopparit pointed out that Abhisit had in his time petitioned the king for a royally appointed prime minister. This was back in 2006, when PAD called for the use of Article 7 of the then 1997 constitution to get rid of the Thaksin as prime minister.

PPT questions the very idea of being able to petition a king for anything in a democracy. However, under the current conditions, the arguments about the legality and appropriateness of the move, combined with the historical ironies and side-switching noted above, make for interesting political times. Using a royalist idea that is a part of the monarchy’s ideological position as a political ploy is a neat move, causing the royalists to become spitting mad.