Someone may have lit fuse on amnesty time-bomb

The government is improvising and taking big risks, and so are its opponents. A House dissolution is looming as a last but increasingly likely option. If the Constitution Court balks at the Bt2 trillion borrowing plan, it will almost definitely happen. If proposed constitutional amendments are rejected by the court, or if street protests grow into an uprising, it can also happen. If the ruling party is the free-fall hero, House dissolution will be the parachute.

Pheu Thai can be either the parachute-seeking hero or the suicidal schemer, depending on who you are. Reported changes to the amnesty bill have belied what the party and Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra have been saying all along – that the current legal and constitutional campaign to “restore justice” in Thailand has nothing to do with Thaksin Shinawatra. And if the amnesty bill goes back to Parliament with added clauses that could whitewash him and return his money, then it could be the whole of Thailand that needs a parachute.

The bill, vetted by an ad hoc House committee, could absolve Thaksin of criminal conviction in the wake of the 2006 coup and return seized assets of Bt46 billion to his family. It had been expected that such audacious pro-Thaksin manoeuvrings would occur during the planned revamp of the Constitution, so, what’s happening to the plot?

Some analysts see the drastic changes to the amnesty bill as a “Hail Mary” pass. The quarterback, in this case Pheu Thai, has gambled with a long throw because success would save a lot of energy whereas failure would hopefully not lead to much. This school of thought has Pheu Thai ready to back down in Parliament if the proposed alterations to the bill threaten to cause too much trouble.

To other analysts, it’s Russian roulette. Passing a law to help Thaksin is perhaps better than going down the road of charter reform that is equally dangerous and far more time-consuming and unpredictable. Once a law has been passed, it will always be there. Unless coup-makers of the future abolish it, that is.

It’s Russian roulette because if the player (again, Pheu Thai) survives, the results will be worth it. Even if an uprising rocks the government and people are shot on the streets, as long as nobody revokes the law, those the legislation is meant for can always come back to reap full benefits. Such a law would be like money in the bank. If you can’t withdraw it today, you can come back later. All you need to do is win the next election. And you don’t even have to win by a landslide to make full use of the law.

But the player can also die. Which is why one big risk is apparently being removed. Over the past two days, the government denied that the vetted bill would give Thaksin back his money. The denial was a sensible thing to do, because any bill that deals with Bt46 billion can easily be classified as a “financial” bill, and every “financial bill” must have Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s name on it. If the amnesty bill, which Yingluck did not sign, becomes financial, it will also become unconstitutional, thus destabilising the whole government.

As for the Democrats, the altered bill cannot be that bad because it must have vindicated them somewhat. Now the toys that flew out of their parliamentary pram (including some chairs) have received some kind of justification. The opposition MPs can point at the vetted bill and say, “This is what we were talking about.”

If Pheu Thai is only “testing the water”, the “Hail Mary” pass could be intercepted and the consequences dire. The bill has already been subject to intense scepticism without the changes, so, why fuel the doubts with such an extremely reckless move? The only rational explanation is that this is not a “Hail Mary” pass, but rather someone’s “do or die” agenda. That “someone” may be looking down the road and not seeing realistic hope for charter changes that he wants. He may be thinking: a new election mandate may not be as big as this one, so why should I wait?

Standing in his way are the Democrats, the Urupong protesters and the Constitution Court. With the climax nearing, everyone will take risks and improvise. To some, the “parachute” will be the veto decision wrested out of the Constitution Court against either the massive borrowing plan or proposed charter amendments.

The Constitution Court remains a very important character in this story. Observers believe that vetoing the gigantic borrowing plan is technically likelier. In other words, blocking the proposed charter revamp or amnesty bill will beg more political questions because it’s debatable whether a ruling party elected to power “democratically” is entitled to change all the laws as it sees fit. Whether borrowing and using Bt2 trillion outside the normal state budgetary channels is constitutional is a much simpler question.

The government has been spontaneous regarding its charter agenda. The proposed changes to how the Senate is formed, or how international treaties are made, followed the Constitution Court’s opposition to writing a brand-new charter without first consulting the public. But while the government’s moves were understandable, they showed considerable inconsistencies on closer look.

When accused of having a hidden agenda to influence the “independent” writing of a new charter, Pheu Thai said the critics were biased against a drafting assembly not even born yet. According to the ruling camp, they did not want the charter changed for themselves or for Thaksin, and those claiming they wanted to turn the Constitution into a springboard to omnipresence were insulting the nation’s democracy.

When the “drafting assembly” plan hit a snag, Pheu Thai initiated its own amendments that critics claim would help the party rather than the system. The question is, what exactly does Pheu Thai want or stand for – an independent writing of a new charter that might keep the half-elected, half-selected Senate as it is, or implementing its idea of  “democracy” by turning the Senate into a fully-elected chamber?

The opposition are practicing double standards, too. Opposition to the setting up of a charter drafting assembly forced Pheu Thai to initiate its own article-by-article amendments. Between Pheu Thai and its rivals, who is the guiltier party is one of many political questions whose answers can go either way.

Obviously, the issue of borrowing Bt2 trillion and spending it through “special” budgetary means is a less complicated battlefield. Idealism will play a lesser role than legalism in deciding whether the government can seek a loan that big, so soon, and spend it in unorthodox ways. Risks involved are also numerical, which are easier to understand than threats of military dictatorship or parliamentary tyranny. 

In America, if a financial question of such enormity cannot be immediately answered, they partially shut down the government. In Thailand, we can still go to the zoo and visit museums while politicians squabble over how to use our tax money or how deeply indebted the government can be, to add to irreconcilable political differences. A very fragile and short-term compromise has been reached in the US, where a poll has the public ranking politicians lower than cockroaches and dog poop. If it sounds like heaven over there and the lowest level of hell over here, the bad news for Thais is that the worst is yet to come.