Just give us the right oath

When he led his cabinet in taking the oath of allegiance during the swearing-in ceremony on July 16, Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha was supposed to recite the full text as stipulated in the charter. But he missed out the last sentence. Many still wonder why.

Instead of correcting and finishing his incomplete oath, the former junta leader has done the opposite. He has played down the significance of the matter and urged critics not to blow it out of proportion.

This issue should not be taken that lightly. All the fuss is not about the oath-taking’s ceremonial value, but more about it being legally binding.

The matter was first picked up by Future Forward Party secretary-general Piyabutr Saengkanokkul during the recent parliamentary debate on the government’s policy manifesto.

Since then, other opposition MPs and legal experts have joined forces, pointing out that this could render the cabinet illegitimate and unable to perform its duties.

For instance, if anyone brings the issue to the Constitutional Court for a ruling, the government’s work could be voided if the oath-taking is found incomplete and unconstitutional.

By omitting to recite the oath exactly as prescribed in Section 161 of the charter, the premier has also prompted speculation as to whether this constitutes a waiver of his cabinet’s duty to protect and abide by the constitution.

This matter is crucial because oath-taking has been a key constitutional requirement included in the current and previous charters. It is a task that has been carried out without errors by previous elected cabinets over the years.

For a country like Thailand that still lacks political stability and where the military has not ruled out another coup, Gen Prayut’s unfinished oath has prompted wild speculation.

Without his clarification, some have wondered whether this was an honest mistake on the premier’s part or whether it was done on purpose.

If it’s the latter, then the bigger question is: What was his motive behind it?

Some suspect that doing it on purpose can allow his cabinet to get away with any accusation of violating the oath whenever they do not want to abide by the constitution.

The omission is not a tiny error as occurred when former US president Barack Obama messed up one word in the oath of office he took during his first inauguration.

Here, Mr Obama retook the oath the following day. On the contrary, Gen Prayut missed out an important part but still considered the matter finished.

It is not just the premier who wants to move on. His deputy, Wissanu Krea-ngam, who is in charge of the government’s legal affairs, has obviously avoided discussing the issue with the media.

This is highly unusual given that Mr Wissanu himself once emphasised the significance of oath-taking in his book published in 2011.

He clearly states therein that a cabinet cannot miss out a single word from the transcript, otherwise the government could be challenged in the Constitutional Court over its legality.

For now, Gen Prayut must put all the questions, including all the wild speculation, to rest. He just needs to explain what happened.

That can reassure the Thai people that his government’s actions and decisions will be within the bounds of the constitution.