|
Dear
friends,
The
verdict
of the
Criminal
Court
which
sentenced
all
three
Election
Commissioners
to four
years in
prison
and
revoked
their
right to
vote for
10 years,
including
the
Supreme
Court’s
earlier
decision
not to
grant
them
bail,
finally
resulted
in the
Commissioners’
consent
to
resign
from
office.
Such a
political
drama, I
believe,
generated
a sense
of
optimism
in
Thailand’s
political
future
in many
people.
An exit
is
finally
seen for
the
first
time
after a
long
period
of
political
uncertainty,
the
origin
of which
came
partially
from the
Election
Commission
itself.
Established
as an
independent
body to
oversee
that
elections
are
carried
out with
honesty
and
impartiality,
the
Election
Commission
later
came
under
heavy
and
increasingly
harsh
criticism
with
regards
to its
integrity
and
honesty.
The EC
has
lately
been
perceived
to
function
clearly
in favor
of
certain
political
parties
and fail
to
organize
free and
fair
elections.
The fact
that the
three
Election
Commissioners
have now
been
removed
from
office
on
grounds
of
incompetence
and lack
of
qualifications
is
therefore
likened
to the
process
of
‘unblocking’
an
impasse
and
paving
way for
the Thai
politics
to
proceed
ahead.
However,
although
the
impasse
has been
partially
resolved
with the
authority
in
selecting
the new
Election
Commissioners
now
vested
in the
Supreme
Court, a
widely
accepted
and
respected
body,
the
future
situation
remains
unclear
on
several
fronts.
There
are also
fears
that
past
mistakes
will be
repeated
if the
new EC
selection
is not
well-planned
and well-executed.
One
important
concern
is that
the
burden
in
seeking
appropriate
candidates
now lies
with the
Supreme
Court.
The
reason
why I
think
this
will
become a
heavy
burden
for the
Supreme
Court is
because
an
internal
source
suggested
that
some
groups
are
trying
to lobby
those
involved
in the
selection
process
to have
their
names
nominated
as
candidates,
although
it is
understood
that
such
lobbying
effort
is by no
means an
easy
task.
I see
these
lobbying
attempts
as
normal
occurrence
in the
selection
process
of
organizations.
However,
what is
important
is the
need to
prevent
close
connections,
considerateness,
respect,
and
personal
favors
from
becoming
the main
factors
in
nomination
decisions
sent to
the
Senate
in place
of the
candidates’
qualifications
as
should
be the
case.
Therefore,
if the
ten
names
proposed
by the
Supreme
Court to
the
Senate
are of
those
with
suitable
qualifications
who are
well
respected
by the
society
at large,
many
quarters
should
see
their
concerns
alleviated.
This is
because
the
society
will
certainly
see
election
commissioners
with
appropriate
qualifications,
honesty,
political
impartiality,
and a
commitment
to the
primacy
of
national
interests
regardless
of the
circumstances.
There
will
also be
no need
to
speculate
on the
Senate’s
votes,
as the
Interim
Senate
itself
is known
to be
doubted
for its
independence
and
freedom
from
political
interference.
Moreover,
I also
make an
observation
that the
network
of
operations
and
systems
laid out
by the
former
Election
Commissioners
still
remain;
such as
some
officials
in the
Election
Commission
Office
and EC
Directors
in some
provinces,
particularly
some
provincial
Election
Commsioners
who are
hands-on
officers
in the
areas.
In other
words,
as long
as
provincial
Election
Commissioners
still
function,
there is
no
guarantee
that the
new
Election
Commission,
regardless
of their
impartiality
and
respectability,
will be
able to
learn
all the
complex
mechanisms
and
operational
procedures
in time
not to
be
outsmarted
by some
provincial
Election
Commissioners.
Therefore,
the role
and
responsibility
in
oversight,
scrutiny,
and
monitoring
still
lie with
every
citizen.
Nevertheless,
the
Election
Commissioners
represent
only one
problem
that has
been
resolved.
Other
problems
remain
unresolved,
particularly
the root-cause
of all
political
turmoils.
An apt
metaphor
would be
a tree.
Although
its
branches
or
stalks
have
been cut
down,
its
grassroot
still
remains,
waiting
to grow
back
again.
As such,
all Thai
citizens
must not
forget
that in
actuality
the
Election
Commission
is only
the end
of the
causal
line.
The root-cause
still
exists,
unresolved.
In my
view,
the Thai
society
surely
knows
“what
the root-cause
of all
the
problems
is in
such a
crisis”.
As long
as this
root-cause
still
remains
in the
Thai
society,
divisiveness,
conflict,
and
confusion
in the
society,
as well
as
doubts
about
interference
in
independent
bodies,
will not
go away
and can
erupt at
any
time. If
such a
state
persists,
Thailand’s
political
situation
is no
different
from
“rowing
a boat
in a tub”—going
around
and
around
unable
to find
any
solutions
but
impasse.
Getting
rid of
the
‘grassroot’
or the
root-cause
is
therefore
an
important
but
difficult
task.
This is
because
grassroot
has its
subtle
ways of
penetrating
into and
embedding
itself
unto the
system,
from
operational
level
right to
the very
grassroot
of
society
through
populist
policies
aimed at
gaining
grassroot
votes to
planting
its
friends
and
cronies
in
commanding
posts in
almost
all
domains.
However,
it is
not
entirely
impossible
to get
rid of
this ‘grassroot’.
Use of
judicial
power is
one
possible
way, but
another
and
perhaps
more
effective
way is
the use
of
people’s
power. I
think 15
October
2006
should
be a
good day
to
eliminate
this
‘grassroot’
by going
out to
cast
votes on
Election
Day,
showing
opposition
to the
unjust
regime,
and
inviting
those
around
you to
join
force in
the
fight
against
such a
dishonest
system.
|
