And yet if something is not spelt out unequivocally, the people in power should know that constitutional wills sometimes dosn't need to be described word for word. It's as much about conscience as it is about legal interpretation. We have heard it all before. Or have we?
At least, we didn't hear it from Chaturon Chaisaeng when his boss, Thaksin Shinawatra, was embroiled in the share concealment scandal, the repercussions of which the whole country is still feeling today.
Chaturon, in a blog post slamming Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva over the UK "citizenship" controversy, sounds right in most, if not all, of his arguments. Abhisit can't say "others can do it" because he's not just an ordinary Thai citizen. That Abhisit has not invoked or abused his UK rights doesn't justify keeping those rights. The Charter isn't clear on the prime minister's post and dual citizenship, but those with good conscience should be able to tell what the constitutional wills are and abide by them. There has been no problem with those "rights" of Abhisit so far, but what about in the future? And so on.
Chaturon's line is that if the Constitution Court rules in Abhisit's favour on this one, "it will be great fun". That is exactly what this newspaper said when the Constitution Court let Thaksin off the hook in 2001 while on the same day finding a Thai Rak Thai MP guilty of a similar offence (which was a lot lesser in magnitude). We don't have to ask where Chaturon was at that time, because we know. He was in the Thaksin government.
(Before we proceed, let's assume that Chaturon's every reference to the "Constitution" was generically speaking. Thaksin, Pheu Thai and the red shirts do not cherish this present Charter, so it doesn't make sense to believe that Chaturon was sticking his neck out for an "undemocratic, military-installed" Constitution.)
Can Abhisit hold the right to claim UK citizenship? That's debatable. Should he keep it? Like Chaturon said, of course not. Chaturon rightly cited the case of a Peruvian president who fled corruption charges to Japan, the country where he also "belonged", in a bid to stay safe from Peru's legal reach. (Let's also forgo the mini irony of the red shirts' legal representatives attempting to use Abhisit's UK "citizenship" as a channel to take him to the International Criminal Court for last year's "Bangkok massacre". The Peruvian case is Chaturon's solid argument, as it demonstrated that a leader holding dual citizenship can lead his country into all kinds of trouble.)
Chaturon's biggest problem is that, where Thaksin was concerned, he failed to use the same logic that has led him to apply the Peruvian example against Abhisit. Chaturon failed to think that although concealed telecom shares - clearly unconstitutional and illegal at the time - were creating no big problem, they could in the future. And they have.
Now, Thaksin is no longer prime minister, but Abhisit is. What should we do? Last week, Abhisit "came out", admitting that he holds the right to claim UK citizenship, but he did not quite come clean. Even newspaper headlines suggested different things, indicating confusion remained. Thai Post, for example, splashed its front page with "PM admits to holding dual citizenship".
There's a huge difference between actually holding UK citizenship and being eligible to claim it. Where is Abhisit exactly? As a prime minister, the latter scenario is inappropriate, but the former sets him up for potential conflict of interest - like when Thaksin was both head of the government and patriarch of the country's biggest telecom company at the same time.
What Abhisit said in Parliament on Thursday is on the record. Shall we presume that he was well aware what it would be like if he were to be caught giving distorted information or telling a lie? The citizenship issue has opened him up to new scrutiny. Like it or not, he must face it, Chaturon or no Chaturon.
This is how Chaturon ended his article: "I'm not telling Abhisit to let go of UK citizenship. I'm telling the man, who knew all along that he was holding UK citizenship (or the right to claim it), and that he could have waived it if he so chose, that he no longer deserves to be prime minister."
This is what Chaturon said in March, 2006, as he voiced strong opposition to any solution to the anti-Thaksin political crisis if the solution breached the Charter: "How could I ever explain to the younger generation if I were to accept a political way out that required tearing apart the Constitution?"
Both statements sound righteous. The much-beloved 1997 "People's Constitution", which exists no more, would have said to that: "The story of my life!
No comments:
Post a Comment