Follow the logic and we end up back in 1932

I share Somsak Pola’s abhorrence of coups and have no problems with him wanting to undo everything resulting from that coup: the Asset Scrutiny Agency, Thaksin’s conviction, party dissolution, the ban of politicians, the 2007 Constitution, and the incumbent Constitution Court justices, who were appointed after the coup.

But the rule of law calls for non-discriminatory treatment for the same crime. You cannot, for example, let Robber A go free, but jail Robber B, just because Robber A stole from your worst enemy. So if we accept Somsak’s wanting to undo everything that came from the last coup, we should do likewise for all of our 18 coups, starting with that of 1932, which overthrew the reign of King Prajadhipok, and return to absolute monarchy – which few, if any, Thais are proposing. Thus, evidently, repugnant as it may be, perhaps some good can come from a non-democratic overthrow of an elected government.

I am not saying the 2006 coup was justified, but we cannot discriminate – and that is precisely what we’d be doing by unwinding the effects of only one revolt.

Instead of throwing out all that resulted from the 2006 coup, we should debate the reasons for that event, starting with Thaksin’s hidden assets. The Truth and Reconciliation Committee says that is a major reason behind the deep divisions in society today, where more judges said that he was guilty of knowingly evading taxes by having the wealthiest maids and security guards in world history than said he was innocent. And yet he didn’t serve a day in jail. 

Also, the Assets Scrutiny Committee’s efforts should be extended to all politicians, whether Democrat or Pheu Thai, starting with executive committee members. When we have all the facts in hand, then we can decide what to keep and what to junk.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok