Logical thinking, unbiased media, civil accountability and transparency in the justice system will help the country overcome the struggle through the aftermath of the historic ruling on the assets-seizure against ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra.
The ruling by the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders has become hot talk on every corner and street. The fact that the court ruling seems to be freely and widely debated by the public and the media is a boost for the country's democratic development, thanks to the court allowing this form of check and balance to take place.
One major argument the public has widely discussed is that the ruling must be rejected because from the outset it was not correct for judges to recognise the September coup 2006 orders that brought down the Thaksin government.
The argument may sound naive, but both laymen and academics and politicians support it. However the winners of this debate should be those who back up their belief with sound reason. Those who support the judges' decision on this issue say that in the history of over 20 coups since 1932, Thailand has never ruled against a coup's orders. If one coup order was to be overturned, all other laws would be scrapped with a domino effect, then the country's administration could never materialise and the Thaksin government - as an example- would never have come into existence.
People who have political convictions on both sides cannot reject this reasoning if they are to be fair, though this alone may not cause them to switch camps.
The backlash of this coup argument got Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij in hot water when some media and Korn's political opponents played up his comment, claiming the minister had justified the September 2006 coup which he strongly defended against the allegations.
Rejecting the coup but accepting the trials against Thaksin will always be like "hate the chicken but eat the eggs" - a dilemma we struggle with. Had there not been a coup that toppled the Thaksin government, what would the country would have turned into?
An academic lamented that the decision to take a short cut to bring down Thaksin had already demonstrated its negative consequences - a threat of a civil war by the red shirts who always cite the legitimacy of their anti-coup movement. Thaksin's supporters have also dismissed the court's ruling on the assets seizure case on the grounds of the coup. They have also threatened to seek impeachment against the nine judges, though this is unlikely to materialise because of insufficient grounds.
Experts dismissed charges the nine judges ruled in violation of the Constitution Court that was legally binding in all courts over the executive decree on the imposition of excise tax on the telecommunication sector. They reasoned the nine judges touched on the content of executive decree that benefited Thaksin and not that the legislation process was illegal.
Thaksin lawyers seemed to hesitate after court officials warned against lodging a complaint that might be regarded as contempt of court. "Constitutional rights come with accountability and responsibility".
The issue on how much of Thaksin's assets should be seized had been widely scrutinised before and after the court ruling. A top judge even expressed surprise, thinking Thaksin should have been satisfied that not all his assets were seized as many had expected or predicted.
The fact the judges ruled to confiscate only a part and not all of the assets has been cited as a counter to claims by the red shirts that the judges were influenced by extra-constitutional power and their verdict had been prearranged or was one of double-standards.
Office of the Judiciary spokesman Sitthisak Wanachakij's soundly reasoned defence against the allegations and criticisms of the verdict - and making public the verdict in detail (showing each judge's written opinion) should be hailed. Transparency and integrity of the court of justice could be the only thing to help save the country from more serious problems.
สมัครสมาชิก:
ส่งความคิดเห็น (Atom)
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น