Impeachment vote a hot potato

AS THE NATIONAL Legislative Assembly (NLA) edges closer to reaching its final decisions in the impeachment cases against allegedly malfeasant politicians, whatever it decides will undoubtedly cause great dissatisfaction among one group or another – resulting in a political time bomb for the government.

This coming Thursday and Friday will see the first hearing and opening statements in the biggest impeachment cases in Thai politics. 

Thursday’s proceedings will be in the cases against former Parliament president Somsak Kiatsuranon and his former deputy, Nikom Wairatpanich, while Friday’s will be in the case against ex-prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra in connection with the rice-pledging programme.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) earlier found Somsak and Nikom guilty of violating the 2007 Constitution for trying to push through an amendment that would change the make-up of the Senate, while Yingluck was accused by the agency of dereliction of duty over the pledging scheme.

The NLA will make a deciding vote on these matters shortly, which means the military-appointed assembly will have the final say on whether the three accused politicians are impeached.

On one hand, if the NLA impeaches Somsak and Nikom, their supporters, especially from the Pheu Thai Party, will undoubtedly not be pleased and it could lead to disputes later.

On the other hand, if the NLA votes not to impeach the two politicians, it could ignite the dissatisfaction of people who are not Somsak and Nikom supporters.

NLA member Wallop Tang-kananurak said he would scrutinise the cases against them carefully and without prejudice. 

When asked whether he was concerned that the results of the votes would cause renewed political chaos, he said he was not thinking that far ahead, but he urged everyone to respect and accept the results of the impeachment process.

“The ship is now moving, but in what direction no one knows; also, everyone should respect its destination,” said the NLA member.

Wallop said he had seen the investigative reports forwarded by the NACC and personally considered the politicians to be guilty based on the evidence, but the problem lay in the uncertainty of the NLA’s authority.

He has to scrutinise the matter further in the first hearing before making a final decision on how to vote, he added.

However, the leader of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), Weng Tojirakarn, said that if the NLA voted for the impeachment of Somsak and Nikom, it could not be carried out under the rule of law.

“Under the rule of law, if there is no law, there is also no guilt,” he insisted.

Weng said that even if Somsak and Nikom were found guilty under the 2007 Constitution, right now that charter was defunct.

If the NLA wants to prove its sincerity under legal justice in the case, it should drop the impeachment process, he argued.

The UDD leader said it was true that under the 2014 provisional constitution imposed by the junta, the NLA had been working as both the House of Representatives and the Senate, but the interim charter did not stipulate the NLA’s authority to impeach political wrongdoers.

“Every surgeon is under the law. However, under some circumstances there are paramedics who treat patients before the surgeon. 

“Under the law they are now acting as physicians, they can treat wounds and bandage the scars, but they cannot operate as surgeons do,” Weng explained metaphorically.

He added that if the NLA pursued the impeachment of the two politicians, it would be no different than a vigilante body. 

Nonetheless, Suriyasai Katasila, a former leading member of the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), has posted via his Facebook page that in the case of Yingluck, perhaps not impeaching her would mean granting her an amnesty in disguise. 

Suriyasai, who is director of the Thailand Reform Institute (TRI), posted that the impeachment case against the ex-prime minister could be seen as a political time bomb, and that it should be accepted that no matter how the votes pan out, the decision could create waves that affect politics directly.

If three-fifths of the NLA members, or 132 votes, are not in favour of the case against Yingluck, the assembly would not be able to impeach her, which would then leave the question of who would be responsible in connection with the rice-pledging scheme, he said on Facebook.

On the other hand, if the former PM were to be impeached, there would undoubtedly be another group of people claiming that an innocent person was being impeached under the NLA’s prejudices, and furthermore the cause of reconciliation would not be promoted, he added.

“This situation has no third exit and cannot be negotiable. If the state power cannot prove or separate rights and wrongs from each other, it would raise questions as to whether we can really trust the state power or not,” he posted.

Suriyasai also said that in regard to NLA members who are in the military and who say they intend not to impeach politicians, in order to promote reconciliation, it would mean they realise that the rice-pledging case has really damaged the country and that the lead defendant in the case must be held responsible for it, but in the interests of reconciliation, they would vote no.

“It could mean these people [military] want to eradicate the guilt for some wrongdoers,” he posted.

Despite all these ideas from interested parties and agencies, it can be seen that whichever way the impeachment cases against Somsak, Nikom and Yingluck turn out, 

the decisions could set standards for the government’s reconciliation plans, while the public’s attention will be captured in respect of how the government handles further disputes and pursues its reconciliation plans.