COMMENTARY

Jury is still outon courtruling

Pichai Chuensuksawadi

Even though the official explanation justifying the 8-7 verdict for Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has yet to be announced, bits and pieces are beginning to emerge.

One crucial point made public at the weekend was that only four of the eight majority judges voted for the prime minister because they felt that he did not deliberately try to hide his assets. The other four voted in favour of Mr Thaksin because he was not holding political office at the time of the National Counter Corruption Commission investigation. In other words, they felt that Article 295 of the charter did not apply to him.

The other side of the coin is clearer. Seven judges said Mr Thaksin had intentionally hidden his assets. By my arithmetic, this makes it a 7-4 vote against the prime minister on the matter of intent but, overall, because of a technicality, he is not guilty when the votes were tallied.

Citing Article 295 is baffling. Surely, whether the National Counter Corruption Commission investigation applies or not should have been decided before the court accepted this case and began its deliberations.

The intent of the constitution in granting the graft commission such wide-ranging powers was so the agency could monitor and track down corrupt politicians whether they are in or out of office. Corrupt politicians do not make money only while they are in

office. They continue this practice whenever and wherever they are. Corrupt politicians do not suddenly become honest individuals once they leave public office.

It will be telling indeed to dissect the individual decisions to try to

understand their logic and thinking, especially on intent, because it will become the benchmark for future cases. And that benchmark will determine whether the rule of law applies to all, or whether exceptions will be made because of the status and position of the accused or because of public opinion.

If the official majority explanation is not credible, then there is no doubt that a travesty has been committed, setting back all that has been achieved throughout the political reform process.

Even now the forces of old are constantly trying to mould and change the rules. They are looking at every opportunity to legitimise their interests. Just look at how they are trying to stack the Election Commission.

Now there's even talk that the rules need to be changed to water down the powers of the Constitutional Court. And one of the advocates of this idea is the prime minister himself.

We Thais forget very easily why this constitution is in place. It is there, in part, so that we-through the independent agencies-can monitor the performance and behaviour of those who say they serve us, not the other way around.

Despite the euphoria of the 8-7 decision, which most Thais are delighted with, there is still a dire need to monitor and study the official reasoning for the verdict. It should not, and cannot, be swept under the carpet. The jury is still out as far as the Constitutional Court is concerned.

- Pichai Chuensuksawadi is Editor, Bangkok Post. All comments and suggestions welcomed at: pichai@bangkokpost.co.th