THE BIG ISSUE: THE DEATH OF VOTE-BUYING
>> The government announced a brand new and unexpected Big Welfare Aid Programme (BWAP). Cynics, sceptics, anti-regime critics and even honest people wondered if the sudden decision to help the least-advantaged Thais just possibly has something to do with that other government programme — so tantalisingly unspecified — of an election that for the fourth year in a row has been pencilled in for, in the highly familiar phrase used by the general prime minister, “next year”.
If that wasn’t enough, the National Council for Peace and Order (junta) was then accused of interfering with the Election Commission, which was appointed by the junta. The accusers were roughly the same people as those agitated about the BWAP.
The first big jobs of the military-appointed EC were to register political parties and to redraw constituencies for lower-house seats. Corruption or illegal junta instructions to such redrawing by the EC could wind up helping one political party.
Especially under this new constitution written to exacting military specs, favourable constituency boundaries could easily result in stripping “safe” anti-regime seats and handing them to the military’s party.
Gerrymandering need only divide previous constituencies so that likely pro-regime voters are in the majority. The evidence that the EC did this is circumstantial and subjective, but it is real.
The proceedings of the redraw, called gerrymandering by some, had strange drama. They included a special Section 44-magnum order giving the EC more time after the first redraw was somehow unacceptable. (To whom? -ed)
And since the job was done in secret, and since the EC said it needed more time because its chairman Ittiporn Boonpracong had to go to the dentist ... well, suspicious minds, right?
Luckily, we know the EC is absolutely honest and straightforward, where “absolutely” is an absolute word because the junta-appointed Mr Ittiporn said so.
Mr Ittiporn assured us all that the new constituency boundaries were drawn sincerely and virtuously. He also undertook on behalf of the Election Commission to investigate the Election Commission to determine if the commission was honest in making new constituency boundaries, or whether, however unlikely, it was influenced by some mysterious outside power.
(Harsh fact: On Friday, the general prime minister directly violated EC independence — possibly for the first time, possibly not — by announcing that “Election Day is Feb 24, confirmed”. The legal right of such an announcement belongs to the EC.)
Also, the EC will investigate whether the green shirts should be judged guilty of vote-buying via the BWAP. Promises, promises.
If the EC comes through as it swears with its investigations, we can undoubtedly look forward to a burst in the dam and will quickly hear:
— t he completely i ndependent National Anti-Corruption Commission’s (NACC) insanely honest report on the Watchman’s million-dollar timepiece collection;
— the Royal Thai Police Foreign Affairs Division aka Interpol’s details on the arrest of Red Bull-linked “Ferrari killer” suspect Vorayuth Yoovidhya; and,
— national police chief Pol Gen Chakthip Chaijinda’s full revelations of how and who were involved in the flight of the felonious female former prime minister on that dark and stormy night in August 2017.
But that will only happen if Mr Ittiporn and his EC conclude their investigations.
The BWAP has two parts. They total 86.9 billion baht, but more than 14 million BWAP recipients have been singled out to each receive one crisp purple note, no strings attached, courtesy of all taxpayers. But they won’t be at all grateful for the gift.
Wait, what?
Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Kreangam, who is touted as the greatest legal mind in or around the government, stated either the most interesting or most weird assertion of the week. Or maybe both.
The 500-baht purple note to be given to 14.5 million low-income people next month won’t influence anything. A crisp banknote “doesn’t benefit any particular party”, he explained.
Up until Thursday, when he spoke, it was widely claimed, and almost as widely accepted, that cash handouts of even a couple or three red notes just before election time (a) aimed specifically to buy the vote of every recipient and (b) were always, unfailingly, successful.
The biggest group of believers of this: supporters of the coup, its junta, its government and its legal expert, Mr Wissanu.
So, a question. What happened during the 11 weeks since Sept 7 when the general prime minister told community leaders in Lop Buri that low-quality voters always cast their ballots in favour of “people who give you money” — and last week when the general prime minister said the 500-baht handout “is not politically motivated”.
Don’t get us wrong. This is good news. In case there is an election, the country can scoff at troublemakers and sore losers (but we repeat ourselves) who claim the other party bought their MP seats.
Gen (Ret) Prayut and the best legal mind of his military regime have agreed and declared vote-buying by petty cash is a myth.