Would revisiting Thaksin’s share case cleanse our souls?

But at least one prominent figure disagrees. In an interview a few days ago, Kanit na Nakorn, who led the now-defunct Truth for Reconciliation Commission, believes all our political troubles still revolve around the case, which Thaksin Shinawatra’s supporters say was settled once and for all in early 2001 by the Constitutional Court. Thaksin was acquitted, his fans say, and that should be that.

A big irony already. For once, the Constitutional Court did the right thing in the eyes of a pro-Thaksin camp that has often maligned the institution. As for those who cheered the court as a champion of democracy when it handed down one verdict after another against the Thaksin empire, they should also accept the 2001 ruling – which they don’t. It makes you scratch your head, doesn’t it?

Two wrongs don’t make a right, it’s said. Problem is, in Thailand, the polarised camps employ “different wrongs” in their argument. Thaksin is not clean (and that’s one wrong), but overthrowing him in a coup (another wrong) can’t make things right, one side says. Now, let’s hear from the other side: Thaksin is corrupt, and acquitting him in 2001 to accommodate his popularity is a classic case of two wrongs leading to a genuine disaster.

The good news is that both camps agree on one wrong. Thaksin’s supporters concede that he’s not that clean, although they don’t call him a crook, as his opponents do. Kanit suggests that we must put the “share concealment” controversy in the right perspective for both camps. In other words, the country including the new generation, needs to see how wrong that first wrong was. And we can do so by concentrating purely on legal and constitutional facts and taking politics out of the equation.

Reopening the case would require some extraordinary methods that would risk amplifying the “Thaksin is being persecuted” claim. However, there are reasons why Kanit’s idea merits serious consideration. The biggest of them is that people’s opinions of Thaksin were formed by this very case and by how the Constitution Court’s acquittal verdict was reached, so unbiased and un-political facts can help clear their muddled minds.

Another reason is that this issue involves incidents that happened before things went haywire in Thailand, politically, legally, ethically, morally and constitutionally. Thais were respecting the same laws and constitutional rules, so related events couldn’t have been labelled “influenced by a national divide”. Nobody can say this rule or that rule was dictatorially made to undermine opponents. What we need to know is strictly of a legal nature, such as why Bt10 billion worth of stocks ended up in the hands of the Shinawatras’ servants, whether that was wrong, whether Thaksin’s failure to report that part of his family’s assets was a constitutional breach, and what grounds the Constitutional Court judges used in setting him free.

Last but not least, the purchase of Shin Corp by Singapore’s Temasek, followed by Thaksin’s insistence no tax was due on the sale – which triggered an outcry and political turmoil that ended in a coup – was strongly related to the share case. Some of the “concealed” shares became a major part of the deal, and tax allegedly would have been due but for the stocks’ dizzying transfers. An autopsy of the share concealment scandal would go a long way toward clearing the air on the Temasek sale and non-tax payment. 

Consider this saga carefully and it’s difficult to know whether to laugh or cry. If Thaksin had been found guilty, a five-year political ban would have passed about 10 years ago. Many of the “conflicts of interest” charges would not have materialised because he would not have been prime minister. The Ratchadapisek land purchase, which led to him being sentenced to jail in absentia, would have been totally legal because he and his ex-wife would have been ordinary folks at the time.

Thaksin wouldn’t have had the luxury of buying Manchester City (which he sold to rich Arabs who changed the English football landscape for good.) Yingluck Shinawatra could have remained a little-known businesswoman, rather than someone now staring at a possible jail sentence. Most importantly perhaps, Thais would have retained a common moral standard. They wouldn’t have had to check the “colours” of those involved every time they passed judgement on a public issue.

It’s said that reopening the case would be like opening a can of worms. Truth is, the country is crawling with them already.