Repeal of AEC's work not the best path to reconciliation
Play
If reconciliation is to take root and thrive, then all sides should be extra careful not to make the common mistake of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
With the House committee on reconciliation close to issuing its report based on a study done by King Prajadhipok’s Institute, political commentators have started questioning whether certain fence-mending measures will compound rather than solve the conflict.
In one of its key findings, the institute, seen as a political think-tank, calls for a repeal of work done by the Assets Examination Committee.
The main argument against the AEC is it was seen as a poisonous tree in the judicial process because the 2006 junta activated it to intervene and try political opponents, including ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
The recommendation to repeal the AEC’s work makes sense if the issue in question is solely about undoing damage caused by the coup.
Dean of the Law School at the National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA), Banjerd Singkaneti, has sounded the alarm, warning about the consequences to the judiciary if a hasty decision is made on the now-defunct AEC.
Banjerd, also a former AEC member, said he worried that any repeal of AEC work could be a wrong signal on judicial decisions. His primary concern was a fatal blow to the judicial system in the process of appeasing anti-coup sentiment.
“If judicial decisions can be nullified by repealing cases done by the AEC, then this is a dangerous precedent because future convicts will override the judicial process by invoking the majority to whitewash their wrongdoing,” he said.
He said he was puzzled at the institute’s study, which opted to view the AEC as a hurdle to reconciliation but failed to address the culpability of Thaksin.
He said the AEC strictly relied on relevant laws in building graft cases against Thaksin, and dismissed speculation it was an extra-judicial process. Further, he said all judicial decisions ensured compliance with due process.
To be fair to the KPI, its study offered three options on cases involving Thaksin and accomplices should the AEC’s work be repealed. The options range from a complete cancellation of all AEC-initiated cases to a retry under the existing judicial process, as if the AEC had never handled the cases.
The anti-Thaksin camp has threatened to resume political rallies if the authorities decide to whitewash Thaksin. The option to retry Thaksin cases is easier said than done. Under the legal jargon ‘double jeopardy”, it is a cardinal sin to prosecute a person twice for the same offence.
Thaksin is undoubtedly the man at the centre of national turbulence since 2005.
But the current debate about reconciliation and a new charter has made no headway due to mutual suspicion by opposing sides on how the “endgame” for Thaksin will emerge.
Thaksin’s opponents are determined to see justice served on the man seen as their chief villain. But his supporters are equally bent on rescuing the same man from what they see as injustice.
The pro- and anti-Thaksin camps should openly debate the pros and cons of granting amnesty for Thaksin. Should the debate be inconclusive, a popular verdict, possibly via a referendum vote, might be needed.
If Thaksin’s personal issues can be taken out of the political conflict and decided under a separate venue, then the country will have a good chance of ending the political turbulence.
The resumption of political normalcy will have to address the twin issues – political system and power seizure. A lopsided approach to address one but not the other will never bring a sustainable solution.
