Embattled Yingluck: Will she stay or will she go?

Technically, it’s easier for Yingluck to seek asylum than it must have been for her brother Thaksin. His trial and sentencing took place at a time when Thailand was under democratic rule, with his political party wielding the executive power. After being found guilty of violating the law by helping his then wife purchase a state-auctioned plot of land, Thaksin could hardly cite “political persecution” to back up an asylum request.

Yingluck will be tried and judged while Thailand is under military rule. This makes her case significantly different from Thaksin’s. Her opponents, however, can point to the fact that charges against her came from the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the trial and ruling are the responsibility of the Supreme Court’s political division. In addition, the charges involve corruption, a criminal offence, which is easier to prove than vague allegations of, say, threatening national security.

Any Yingluck asylum debate will mirror the root cause of the Thai political strife, however. Would she have been tried at all for corruption during a time of democratic rule? Would it have been better, easier or even possible to deal with graft democratically? Is it “political persecution” to tackle allegedly corrupt political office-holders by “force”?

These questions are legal and political at the same time, and they would combine to pose a diplomatic dilemma for any country receiving an asylum request from Yingluck. Bilateral ties would be affected one way or another. The country in question’s stance on democracy, human rights, sovereignty, corruption and so on would be placed under a fierce spotlight. Extradition, a nightmare term in diplomatic circles, would become an issue that haunts everyone.

In a couple of days, the prosecutors and the NACC will present Yingluck’s case to the court. But, if and when the trial does begin, she won’t need to make her first appearance in court for several weeks. Failure to show up then would lead to an arrest warrant being issued, and the “suspension” of her case, which would lead to an intriguing situation.

If her case is suspended by the Supreme Court, it would buy her considerable time. A lot could happen in that hiatus. Her party might win a democratic election and help swing the legal momentum back in her favour. The military government might lose power, again giving her side of the political divide stronger leverage. Bills or charter clauses might be initiated to neutralise or cushion the blow of the rice-pledging scheme case.

But that doesn’t mean a “Thaksin situation” definitely won’t happen. If Yingluck’s case is suspended and then reopened under democratic rule, any cries of foul in case of a guilty verdict would be weakened. 

The way would be open for her to follow in her brother’s footsteps. 

If she chooses not to flee, she could resort to the same claims he made – that although the verdict came under democratic rule, the legal process was initiated when the military was in power. And everything would go back to Square One.

Yingluck has been impeached in connection with the rice case, meaning her chances of a political comeback are next to zero. The court proceedings, however, threaten her with jail, thus generating rumours that she will seek political asylum as a last resort.

As the senior Pheu Thai member half-jokingly said, it’s still too early to run or make a formal asylum request. The military junta’s ban on her leaving Thailand, however, could be interpreted as an ominous sign. If the court decides she must be tried, the onus will be on the judges to rule on any request she makes to depart the country. What will the court say if she wants to take a foreign trip, with Thaksin’s one-way trip to “watch the Olympics” in 2008 still fresh in people’s memories?

Asylum can only be requested when the seeker is on foreign soil. That is apparently why there have been rumours about her taking refuge inside an embassy. It doesn’t matter who initiated the rumours: their significance is that they offer a glimpse of the legal, political and diplomatic complexities of Yingluck’s case. It’s one thing to deplore or condemn the coup and call for an early election; it’s another to give someone tried for criminal offences in a normal court system, albeit under military rule, the status of a political victim and then sanctuary.

Asylum requests by Thais are mostly made for ideological reasons. When money is involved, it becomes complicated. And more so if the country receiving the asylum request has financial worries or vested interests in the nation from which the asylum seeker comes. Hence what happens next in Yingluck’s case will be another political sensation, though it will be a far cry from the final climax in this drama.