A small battle won in the war on graft

From the many muddy political aspects in the case against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, a significant development has emerged that could represent a legal, social and political precedent. Sentencing her in absentia to five years in jail holds no profound promise for Thailand’s future, though. Politics thoroughly undermines the will to fight pervasive high-level graft, meaning that any positive development can turn out to be a false dawn. 
The court held Yingluck accountable for a state policy that turned out to feed massive corruption. The penalty was basically awarded for her failure to act when suspicions of graft plagued the rice price-pledging scheme implemented by her administration. The verdict did not implicate her directly in the corruption, but made her pay for what the judges said were glaring irregularities happening right under her nose.
When her brother, Thaksin Shinawatra, the previous premier also overthrown in a coup, was sentenced to prison, also in absentia, nearly a decade ago, he was deemed guilty of being involved in a type of transaction from which political officeholders are barred. The case was more straightforward than Yingluck’s. Thaksin’s then-wife bought property being auctioned by the state. The blunder had nothing to do with any government policy.
In Yingluck’s defence, her lawyers pointed out that the rice programme had been a campaign pledge that her party had to honour once elected. If it led to corruption, they suggested, she should not be held responsible because she had taken steps to guard against graft and she had nothing to do with the graft that arose at the implementation level.
One month ago, the court 
punished high-ranking officials implicated in the corruption that befouled the rice scheme. Boonsong Teriyapirom, who’d been commerce minister at the time, was jailed for 42 years. Yingluck’s verdict was supposed to be read the same day, but she opted to flee from justice. The verdict’s announcement was postponed until this week. All the while there was heated speculation about what it might be. Would she be acquitted, found guilty of corruption as Boonsong was, or found guilty of malfeasance – negligent in her duties – which would be unprecedented in Thai politics and law?
Should politicians be punished for policies that go wrong or are ill intended? The answer depends on the definitions used, including how the term “poorly implemented” might be defined. Worthy policies can turn into disasters merely because of an honest mistake, and politicians should perhaps not be heavily punished for those that go wrong due to mundane oversights. But if there is costly corruption, the overseers must pay the price, even if only to encourage other officials to avoid temptation and remain alert to what others are doing.
To be sure, though, the degree of punishment must be consistent. A former Cabinet minister drew a heavy jail term because he was directly involved in corruption, and a former prime minister received a relatively light prison term because the court decided she should have done better in her job. 
Thanks to Thailand’s political divide, no one will be celebrating either decision, but at least we are seeing politicians convicted and jailed for the first time, rather than shuffled to “inactive posts”. When the level of punishment handed Boonsong and Yingluck becomes the rule rather than the exception, the fight against corruption will be truly engaged.