Draft charter faces rejection if Shinawatras banned: Pheu Thai member

The latest attempt to block the Shinawatra siblings from ever returning to politics could result in the draft charter failing to pass the planned referendum, as Pheu Thai supporters would not be happy to see their favourite politicians wiped out, a Pheu Thai politician said yesterday. 

The Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) last week agreed to add a provision to Article 111 that stipulates qualifications required for candidates to contest for a seat in the House of Representatives or Senate. The new provision bans politicians who were impeached for any of four infringements from politics for life, prohibiting them from holding any political positions. 

The four offences in question are being unusually wealthy, performing duties dishonestly, malfeasance in the bureaucracy, and misconduct in the justice system. 

Former prime ministers Thaksin and Yingluck Shinawatra could fall into this category, as the brother had been found to be unusually rich, while the sister had been impeached by the military-appointed National Legislative Assembly this year for negligence of duty over the rice-pledging scheme, a source from the CDC said. 

Former Pheu Thai MP Worachai Hema voiced his frustration over this provision, saying “they” were obviously trying to get rid of politicians from the Pheu Thai camp. 

“It is very clear that those who come under this category are from the Pheu Thai side. Obviously, this is a move to block former PM Yingluck and some former Pheu Thai MPs who are facing impeachment,” he said. 

“This charter is not legitimate. It is not the people’s voice. The drafters, as everybody knows, have not been elected to do this, so I strongly object. 

“We’ll see if it [the draft charter] will pass the referendum. There are many Pheu Thai supporters out there and they might vote it down because it is unfairly discriminating against Yingluck and many other MPs,” he said. 

The former MP also said this provision could be a move by the powers-that-be to stay on, as such an unfair charter would not pass the referendum.

However, CDC member Jade Donavanik said the lifetime ban was an appropriate punishment. 

“A lifetime ban is not too extreme and this is done in many other countries. If politicians are found to be corrupt, they are not allowed to join politics ever again. Many European countries do this. In the US, Australia, New Zealand, Japan etc, corrupt politicians are banned for life,” he said. 

Tankhun Jitissara, a former Democrat MP for Don Muang, said the Shinawatra camp and other corrupt politicians deserved being banned.

“I think a harsh punishment should be imposed on everybody who is guilty of corruption, and their assets should also be seized,” he said. However, he admitted that a lifetime ban was a bit extreme and that a 10-year prohibition should suffice, adding that there should also be other mechanisms in place to help prevent graft. 

“A 10-year ban is more than enough. But what’s more important is that the offenders should be made to pay for what they have done. For instance, they should seize their assets, because banning alone is too little and does not make up for the damage caused,” Tankhun said. 

“The worst thing about corruption is the patronage system. They should try and find a way to get rid of this. It would be more sustainable when it comes to dealing with corruption.”