Since both Mr Noppadon and Mr Samak are seen as being close to Mr Thaksin, they should let others explain the Cambodian World Heritage Site application
KAMOL HENGKIETISAK
 |
Concerning the demarcation map, Mr Noppadon should let Lt Gen Daen Meechu-at, director-general of the Military Mapping Department, handle the details.
Explaining the procedure to be followed in listing Preah Vihear as a World Heritage Site should be the duty of Krit Kraijitti, director-general of the Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs for the Foreign Affairs Ministry.
Explaining the process from the very beginning, before the issue was tabled for approval by the cabinet, should be the duty of Lt-Gen Suraphol Phoen-aiyaka, secretary-general of the National Security Council.
Concerns over national sovereignty and rights over the disputed land should be handled by Supreme Commander Gen Boonsang Niampradit and Army Commander-in-Chief Gen Anupong Paochinda.
Not only should Mr Noppadon lower his profile on Preah Vihear, Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej should as well, and both for the same reason: their connections to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
 |
| An armed Thai ranger stands guard on top of a cliff near Preah Vihear temple on the Thai-Cambodian border in Thailand's Si Sa Ket province in this June 2001 photo. |
Mr Samak, leader of the People Power Party (PPP), widely regarded as a reincarnated version of MrThaksin's Thai Rak Thai Party, has in the past openly accepted that he was Mr Thaksin's nominee.
Meanwhile, Mr Noppadon, before he assumed the position of deputy secretary-general of PPP, was the personal lawyer of the Thaksin family.
It is generally considered that he did his job so effectively that he was awarded the foreign affairs minister post by the PPP.
Since both Mr Noppadon and Mr Samak are seen as being close to Mr Thaksin, they should let others explain the issue to the public in depth, as it is being charged that Mr Thaksin has a hand in promoting the listing of Preah Vihear as a World Heritage Site in return for favourable investment treatment in Cambodia.
Since the opposition both inside and outside parliament are trying to link Preah Vihear to Mr Thaksin, it is best to let bureaucrats do the explaining.
The Matichon writer pointed out that the issue was thoroughly vetted by various bureaucratic departments, including those listed above, before it was submitted to the cabinet. Therefore, let's trust the technocrats and let them handle the sensitive issue. They are paid to do so, concluded Matichon.
People's politics
Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej's admission that he did not know anything about "people politics" was described in a Thai Rath editorial as ancient thinking or a pretence at naivety. Mr Samak said that all he knew was that both his government and the opposition got their legitimacy through the ballot box,
Analyses that ascribe much of Thailand's democratic progress to people's participation are now commonplace.
Only the politicians still adhere to the idea that democracy equates only to elections and that whoever wins at the ballot box can do anything they please afterwards.
Those who oppose them are relegated to the "mob" or depicted as "gangsters" in the street.
People's politics is not only the jargon of the day.
It was enshrined in the 1997 constitution, which allowed the people to propose laws and start impeachment proceedings against politicians.
Both the 1997 constitution and the current 2007 constitution guarantee the right to free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press and the establishment of workers' unions. Both constitutions compel the state to promote the public's participation in political decisions and in monitoring the use of power by the politicians.
But although the constitution accepts people's politics as legitimate, some politicians still don't. Some even say that people exercising their constitutional rights are acting illegally, and thus threaten to use force to disperse peaceful assemblies, or issue threats against TV stations for daring to broadcast the protesters' speeches.
These politicians think that people should fade from politics after exercising their rights at the ballot box for a few seconds.
After that their duties are finished and it is the job of politicians to carry on with the task of governing the country.
Such thinking is not tenable, according to Thai Rath.
On the other hand, the demonstrators do not have an unlimited right to assemble. If they break the traffic laws, they must be prosecuted.
If they say bad things about others, they may face a libel suit.
None can stay above the law: not the politicians in power, and not the protesters, concluded Thai Rath.
Lessons from 2006 political crisis
The movement to remove the government of Thaksin Shinawatra started in late 2005 when certain people claimed that the government was corrupt beyond recovery and the right to govern the country should be returned to His Majesty the King, who would be requested to appoint a royal government. This could be done through Article 7 of the 1997 constitution, noted a Matichon writer.
The movement to remove Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej began from the allegation that the PM is a nominee of Mr Thaksin and that he had looked out for the interests of the former prime minister rather than those of the country in agreeing to the application by Cambodia to sponsor the Preah Vihear World Heritage Site.
The two movements have similarities, said the writer. Both have the same target - the so-called "Thaksinocracy". Both also concern the issues of the monarchy and nationalism. In 2006, the tipping point was the tax-free sale of the Shinawatra family's stake in Shin Corp to Temasek Holdings of Singapore, while in 2008 the issue of "losing" Preah Vihear to Cambodia is being whipped up.
Faces of the old movement are showing up again in the new. For example, the coordinated effort to remove Jakrapob Penkair from PM's Office Minister for alleged lese majeste was initiated by the Democrat Party and supported by the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD).
In 2007 there was an attempt to elevate privy councillors to a higher status so that they would be off-limits to criticism of any kind, said Matichon.
The old movement to remove Mr Thaksin regime was initiated by the upper class, including persons of royal descent, intellectuals and academics. These are the same people opposed to Cambodia's effort to unilaterally apply for the listing of Preah Vihear as a World Heritage Site.
The old movement started in late 2005 and became concrete in February 2006 when the PAD was established. Eventually Mr Thaksin's government was toppled by the military coup of September 2006.
No one knows how the movement that began in May 2008 to topple the Samak administration will end. What can be seen is that the PAD and the opposition Democrat party are still closely allied. The opposition can also count on support from certain appointed senators and the administrators of independent organisations, a legacy from the Council for National Security (CNS), which staged the 2006 coup.
Judging from the rhetoric coming from both sides, no compromising solution is likely. The question is whether the resolution of the 2008 conflict will end with a military coup, as was the case in 2006. For the moment at least, said the editorial, the armed forces seem to be neutral, and are forming a buffer between those who support the government and those who want to see it come to an abrupt end.
Miscellany
Two lawyers in the pay of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and a law clerk were sentenced on Wednesday to six months in jail, with no chance of probation, by the Supreme Court's Political Division, for trying to bribe the court with two million baht on June 10, 2008. Only two of the lawyers, Pichit Chuenban and Supasri Srisawat showed up to hear the verdict, while the other lawyer, Thana Tansiri was absent, citing a headache. The court deemed that was insufficient reason for the no-show and issued an arrest warrant.
Sitthichoke Sricharoen, chairman of the Ethics Committee of the Lawyers Council, noted that any lawyer jailed by the Supreme Court would be stripped of his licence to practice for five years, after which it is up to the Lawyers Council to grant a new one.
No comments:
Post a Comment