ABOUT Politics
Suspicions arise over why Suthep’s brother, Thani, is slow to register new party NLA insists it has not contravened the charter over its organic bill stance Nitirat leader denies being mastermind behind Future Forward
New entity doomed to fail?
When Thani Thaugsuban, a younger brother of street protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban, announced last month he would establish a new party, many thought he would be among the first to show up at the Office of the Election Commission.
Now with about a week to go before the application period to register new political parties is closed, the new political outfit, widely expected to be named the Muan Maha Prachachon for Reform Party, has not taken shape yet.
Needless to say the planned party will be a reincarnation of the defunct People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC). Political observers are starting to get suspicious about what could possibly be holding Mr Thani back.
Critics tend to believe the group is having a hard time deciding whether to proceed after weighing the pros and cons of setting up a political party to contest upcoming polls.
The ultimate question is how far the new political entity can go when it relies largely on the same support base as the Democrat Party. The move can be counter-productive.
Several key PDRC figures have already scurried back to the Democrats, which will force the new group to recruit new candidates to stand in the elections. However, they are unlikely to stand a chance against veteran politicians.
There is also an issue of financial support — who will be generous enough to back a political underdog”.
Several PDRC supporters have reportedly turned against the group and urged it to drop the plan to establish a new party.
However, according to some political observers, the odds may improve if Mr Suthep, who was the face of the PDRC, decides to carry the torch. But Mr Suthep has promised to turn his back on politics for good.
During the PDRC’s rallies to oust the Pheu Thai Party-led administration, he declared he would never run in an election again, take up any political position or become an executive of any party after leaving the Democrats to form the PDRC in late 2013.
But in a recent interview, Mr Suthep was seen as adopting a new tone.
He was quoted as saying that if the “people” clearly announce their intention to form a new party and make it a real party of the people, he would join the movement and support it using his experience of more than 40 years in politics.
This coincides with some media reports that the veteran politician is making preparations for an across-the-country walk that will kick off as soon as the regime lifts a ban on political activities.
The march is set to start from Bangkok to the North and to the Northeast. The southern region, the Democrats’ traditional stronghold,
is saved for last. Mr Suthep has had a taste of a walkathon before when he led hundreds of demonstrators along the streets of Bangkok demanding the resignation of former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra and calling for “reforms before elections”.
His message this time round, based on the reports, is for the people to join forces with him to help turn over a new political leaf and materialise national reforms.
It remains to be seen if he will vouch for Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha as the reform saviour. He has reiterated he personally supports Gen Prayut to continue serving as prime minister.
“Personally, I still trust Gen Prayut in the job and hope he will be able to resolve the country’s problems for the betterment of the people,” he was quoted as saying.
Catch 22 for next election
It now looks as though the organic bill on the election of MPs is firmly on course to enactment, counter to the expectations of some political experts.
But behind what now appears to be smooth sailing for the bill potentially lies a ticking political time bomb that could go off at any moment, delaying the next poll beyond its February 2019 deadline, some analysts argue.
Sceptics have interpreted the National Legislative Assembly’s (NLA) insistence not to submit the organic bill to the charter court for a validity check as a “trap”. For sceptics, it is clear that some issues in the bill were not thoroughly thought out and should have been forwarded to the Constitutional Court, which is the highest authority in constitutional legality, for the sake of clarification.
For at least two contentious issues to be approved by the NLA so easily, when lingering constitutional questions have yet to be resolved, has raised more than a few eyebrows, sceptics say.
The two points of interest are: the loss of rights of individuals who fail to vote at a general election being appointed to public office; and disabled voters being allowed to bring someone to a polling station to help them cast their ballots.
NLA president Pornpetch Witchitcholchai has staunchly defended the NLA’s decisions on those points, saying they did not contravene the charter.
Regarding the loss of rights to take public office, he said the issue only affects a small number of people and it is within reason to impose such a restriction.
As for disabled voters, the NLA president said they deserved to have someone help them at polling booths. That will enable them to physically fulfil their right to vote, Mr Pornpetch said, adding that only the assistant would be aware of who the disabled voter they accompany votes for.
The NLA is confident the two points in the MPs’ bill are free of constitutional glitches, which is why it decided by a majority vote not to send the bill to be interpreted by the Constitutional Court.
Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Kreangam said some people were entertaining a possible conspiracy theory to explain why the MPs’ bill, at least for now, would not end up before the Constitutional Court, as they feel it should.
The theory is being embraced by both supporters and opponents of the vetting. Either way, political pressure will likely be piled onto the National Council for Peace and Order.
If the check goes ahead, it could add weeks if not months to the bill’s endorsement process, which could push back the next election beyond February. If the check is not performed and the bill is enacted with potential flaws, there are bound to be people seeking the checks at a later date. In that case, the post-enactment petition for the check would involve a long procedure as the petition would need to go through the ombudsman before reaching the Constitutional Court.
But critics have accused the NLA of deliberately leaving the bill free of the Constitutional Court’s blessing, which would leave a post-enactment petition for scrutiny up their sleeves, potentially leading to the election being postponed further.
A post-enactment petition, critics say, would deliver a greater chance of the poll being delayed.
Political sources have warned Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha could be held complicit in delaying the poll if he does not carefully exercise his options on the bill audit issue. But seeking a validity check should be the responsibility of the NLA, sources said.
Mr Wissanu denies putting the bill before the Constitutional Court would push back the poll, while Mr Pornpetch maintains the NLA did not drop the hot potato into the prime minister’s lap.
Worachet speaks his mind
Worachet Pakeerut, leader of the Nitirat group of progressive law scholars and a law professor at Thammasat University, recently stepped into the limelight to speak his mind on politics.
He denied he was behind the move to set up the Anakhot Mai, or Future Forward Party, of which Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, the 39-year-old executive vice-president of the Thai Summit Group, is founder.
The co-founder is 38-year-old Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, another law lecturer at Thammasat and a noted member of the Nitirat group. Mr Piyabutr is also Mr Worachet’s former student.
Mr Woratchet came out to oppose the notion of someone being appointed outsider prime minister after the election.
Referring to reports some political groups, as well as a majority of respondents in a new poll, would support Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha to return as premier after the poll expected by February of next year, he warned that the country should have learned its lesson after the bloodshed of Black May in 1992.
That incident came after Gen Suchinda Kraprayoon, the then-army chief and a key coup leader, was chosen by parliament to become the country’s 19th prime minister in 1992.
Mr Worachet also finds himself embroiled in a legal wrangle with the regime after he was indicted by military prosecutors on Aug 4, 2014 for defying two National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) summons orders.
If found guilty, he would face a jail term of up to four years and a fine of up to 80,000 baht.
He argued the regime’s orders are not in compliance with the law and the constitution, and has mulled taking the case to the Constitutional Court.
Mr Worachet said the reason he did not report to the coup-makers was because he was abroad when the NCPO issued a summons on May 24, 2014.
After receiving the summons, he informed the regime he would report in upon his return from abroad. But no sooner did he do so than the NCPO issued another summons on June 9, 2014.
Mr Worachet told the Bangkok Post that testifying before the military court for the past three years has been an emotional burden.
He was released on bail of 20,000 baht with orders not to leave the country without permission from the court.
Mr Worachet also mentioned anti-coup campaigner Sombat Boonngamanong, who was also accused of defying the regime’s summons orders.
Prosecutors indicted Mr Sombat on July 10, 2014 for failing to report as summoned by the NCPO on May 23, 2014, one day after then-army chief Gen Prayut staged the coup.
When he did not show up, the coup-makers issued another summons the following day but he failed to show up again.
Mr Worachet praised the Criminal Court’s decision to only fine Mr Sombat 500 baht for failing to comply with orders issued by the authorities.
The court reasoned that he failed to report in before the NCPO issued an announcement specifying punishment for those who defy a summons. The penalty is a jail term of up to two years and a fine of up to 40,000 baht.
In light of this, the punishment cannot be applied retrospectively to Mr Sombat, the court ruled.
So the court slapped him on the wrist for “failing to comply with orders issued by the authorities”, which is a misdemeanor under the Criminal Code.
Mr Sombat appealed. On June 30, 2016, the Appeal Court sentenced him to two months in jail and fined him 3,000 baht. The sentence was suspended for one year.
The Supreme Court upheld that ruling on Aug 9 of last year.