Case of the media man and what we learn

There are various reasons why Thailand always fights a losing battle against corruption, and one of them became glaringly obvious yet again over the past few days. Following a Criminal Court verdict finding the host of a popular news talk programme guilty of embezzlement and sentencing him to jail, society was divided. One side lauded the ruling and demanded that he stop his TV appearances immediately. The other side expressed full sympathy for a man it views as a “victim”.
With all due respect to the lower court’s ruling and his right to appeal, the social division reflects what is seriously wrong regarding “corruption” in Thailand. The issue has been politicised, massively, overly and inappropriately. It began with the downfall of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra but the country’s deeply divided stand on corruption has continued unabated. This makes “political reform” a daunting task, if possible at all.
It’s already extremely hard to combat corruption without such a split down the middle. The powers-that-be always decry any attempt to scrutinise a dubious project as a “conspiracy” rather than admitting that it’s their own fault. They often go after the whistle-blowers instead of digging into allegations. Officials are protective of their people who are accused of graft. Very few political or bureaucratic officials have voluntarily stepped down when facing corruption scandals.
The case of Sorrayuth Suthassanachinda, the TV news host, may partly explain some of the above. Social attitudes are very important, because it can influence how those accused of corruption, especially the powers-that-be, react to allegations or judicial rulings. When the accused are under social pressure, they will do one thing, but when they feel they have society on their side, they’ll do another.
The TV personality has won some sympathy, and understandably so. However, some arguments in his defence are mind-boggling. Some deplored the fact that he is “talented”, which shouldn’t have been the case since talent and righteousness are completely different things. Others have gone farther, attributing his downfall to “middle-class jealousy”, which is a totally weird reasoning.
The “middle-class jealousy” is another way to describe what happened to the news host as a “conspiracy”. Again, people fail to look into the evidence and national politics plays a big role in regard to how a man is perceived. If you are on one side of the political strife, he’s guilty. If you are on the other side, he’s a victim. This is not the way to fight corruption in Thailand.
His case, after all, is so simple. It concerns how many minutes his media firm could earn from advertising, how many “additional minutes” it actually earned from advertising, and what the contract with the Mass Communications Organisation of Thailand said.
The case shouldn’t have involved how “talented” he was, how rich he was, how popular he was, or what he did during this or that. If those elements continue to play a part, only poor, non-talented or unpopular people can be convicted of corruption in this country.
Charges of “double standard” have plagued the Thai political scene, but if we trace the dots carefully, we may be able to see where it really began. Shortly after the “People's Constitution” was enacted in 1997, a few people outside one camp of the national strife were punished or took responsibility for alleged corruption. We can check the history and see exactly where things went wrong.
Politics makes it really hard to fight corruption. Society’s attitude can make it a lot more so. When the two things work in cahoots, there can be only one winner.