Listen to this story |
“When we see men of a contrary character,” Confucius once wrote, “we should turn inwards and examine ourselves.” In the wake of the Constitutional Court ruling that former prime minister Srettha Thavisin committed an ethics violation and should be removed from office, it appears that advice along the lines of Confucius’ is being taken to heart by entire political parties in Thailand.
The Srettha case is without modern precedent in Thai politics. According to Section 160 of the 2017 Constitution, a cabinet minister must “be of evident integrity” and “not have behavior which is a serious violation of or failure to comply with ethical standards.” These are new requirements. The previous 2007 Constitution, for example, had listed a variety of necessary qualifications, but nothing so broad as this.
That ethics and morality would become a major force in Thai politics is long in the coming. The initial aborted attempt to draft a constitution in the early years of the Prayut Chan-o-cha government had gone as far as to propose a national ethics assembly that would set codes for moral conduct and investigate officeholders suspected of disqualifying conduct. This body never came into being under this charter, the Constitutional Court has emerged as the final arbiter of what counts as “evident integrity.”
Srettha, of course, denies that he violated ethical standards. “I am sad that I have been labelled as an unethical prime minister. I am not like that,” he had insisted in his final press conference. Unfortunately for him, the verdict was final, and everyone else in Thai politics must now live without consequences.
The formation of the new cabinet under Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra now proceeds in the shadow of Srettha’s case. Pheu Thai, which in perhaps under a sense of undue invincibility had appointed Pichit Chuenban as a minister, will now have to insist on rigorous checks on past behavior for Paetongtarn’s would-be ministers.
Erich Parpart recently argued in another Thai Enquirer article that the formation of a new cabinet is an opportunity for appointing qualified individuals who can foster real change. If Pheu Thai were to suddenly have an awakening and bring in competent outside experts, that would be highly welcome. The political quota system means that prospect is virtually out of the realm of possibility. But at the very least, we are seeing some major rethinking about a few individuals whose presence in previous cabinets were highly controversial.
Take the state of all-out war that has consumed the Palang Pracharath Party in recent days. Party leader Prawit Wongsuwan initially claimed in an interview that Agricultural Minister Thammanat Promphao, who has a conviction for drug-dealing while in Australia (he protests that he was innocent) would be dropped from the PPRP quota because Pheu Thai was reluctant to re-appoint him. The tide has turned against Prawit, and it currently looks much more likely that he, not Thammanat’s faction, will be excluded from the next government.
Yet reports also show that it is unclear whether Thammanat himself will continue serving as a minister. As former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra himself said, everything will come down to vetting by the Council of State: “those who pass, pass; those who don’t, don’t.” Several controversial ministers may still make it yet. But you can bet that they only made it after some thorough legal vetting. Few in government want to see another prime minister fall so soon.
If in the immediate aftermath, the Constitutional Court has raised the ethical bar of Thai politics, that is welcome. At the same time, this new politics of morality is also taking Thai politics into uncharted territory. What, exactly, constitutes “evident integrity?” Many will be tempted to joke that if that is truly the standard with which we are measuring our ministers, one wonders how many career politicians meet the bar.
The code of ethics for Constitutional Court judges and holders of office in state independent agencies states, for example, that one ethical requirement is to “uphold the national interest above self-interest.” In Section 219 of the Constitution, it is stated that this code of ethics shall apply to Members of the House of Representatives, Senators and the Council of Ministers.” Ideally, one would expect all politicians to prioritize the nation over themselves. Here, however, we get into thorny questions of defining where the national interest ends, and self-interest begins.
As long as the 2017 Constitution remains in effect, Paetongtarn and future prime ministers will be subject to these heightened and vague standards. Already, we suspect that Pheu Thai will refrain from risky initiatives under the new prime minister; she has said herself that no one wants to endure the same fate as her father and aunt. (See here for some of my thoughts on the “political hostage” effect of having Paetongtarn as prime minister.) Days into her appointment, for example, and we are already hearing that the 10,000-Baht digital wallet policy may be transformed into a mere extension of the Prayut-era state welfare card.
Combine that with the ethics ruling, and Pheu Thai is straitjacketed indeed.