Fire truck verdict lost amid the political impasse

Thailand’s deep-rooted political conflict must have taken some of the gloss off an historic clampdown on corruption earlier this month. Former deputy Interior minister Pracha Maleenont became the fourth high-profile politician to be convicted of graft in our modern history, but much attention was given to those acquitted in the same case. That a top Democrat, ex-Bangkok governor Apirak Kosayodhin, was let off the hook means one side of the political divide has been celebrating while the other has been left fuming.

Politicisation of the court’s verdicts in the fire-truck scandal seems hard to avoid. In fact some bets have been placed on who will “last longer” – Pracha or the anti-corruption mechanism credited with his downfall. The conviction by the Supreme Court’s Political Division followed a steadfast campaign by the National Counter-Corruption Commission (NCCC) after the Attorney General’s Office was reluctant to prosecute.

The NCCC, the Supreme Court and the Constitution Court have always been criticised by one side of the political polarity for being biased against certain political figures. The other side, meanwhile, has charged that the government’s reform agenda carries the ulterior motive of blunting the powers of the so-called “independent” bodies. How Pracha’s conviction will affect the ongoing, trouble-plagued charter-reform effort remains to be seen.

He is only the fourth political big gun to have been jailed for corruption in Thailand’s modern history. Before him were ex-Education minister Rakkiat Sukthana, ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and another ex-deputy Interior minister, Vatana Asavahame. All fled when prison sentences were handed down. Rakkiat was the only one subsequently found and arrested. He spent five years in jail before being released and subsequently entered the monkhood.

More significantly, perhaps, all four were convicted under the anti-corruption mechanism that was established by the 1997 Constitution and has been allowed to keep functioning under the current 2007 charter. Without a system that shields investigators and judges from political influence, whether such convictions would be possible remains a big question.

Debate could get fiercer as to whether the powers of the “independent” bodies should be clipped or maintained. There are those who claim the current system is plagued by extreme prejudices, whereas others point at the simple fact that the key convictions that sent powerful politicians fleeing are solid ones. One side asks if Thailand needs a biased yet totally powerful system serving as a tool to destroy elected politicians. The other asks if elected politicians should be trusted to combat corruption by themselves. 

As yet, the reform debate has not addressed such questions. But it will soon, especially if the government has its way on writing a brand-new charter. Some political analysts consider the enacting of a new Constitution the only way to expunge the legal consequences of the 2006 coup, which include Thaksin Shinawatra’s corruption conviction and seizure of his assets. And if writing a new charter is possible, the process will involve two big questions: Should the legal consequences of the 2006 coup be nullified? And how much power should the “independent” bodies have, if they are to continue to exist in their current forms?

Regarding the second question, some will take a look at the outcome off the fire-truck case and say something, while others will do the same and say something else. That’s how cursed Thailand’s fight against corruption is.