BKKPost:Jan9 To go or not to go?
Kamol Hengkietisak
Knowing when to step down may ensure political future
Foreign Minister Thaksin Shinawatra should take his fate in his own hands
and resign before the Constitution Tribunal rules on his qualifications.
He may find that it's better in the long run, writes Banyat Tasaneeyavej.
FOREIGN Minister Thaksin Shinawatra may find that people heartily welcome
him back to politics as an MP if he decides to leave his ministerial post
"gracefully" when the amended constitution takes effect.
Many political analysts agree that Mr Thaksin should not wait until
judgement is passed on whether he is qualified to be a Cabinet member, but
should act soon.
While there may be no question about the telecommunications tycoon's
ability to be foreign minister, whether he is legally qualified for a
portfolio is another matter.
Answers are needed now to clear up any doubts as well as to assure the
public that "righteousness" exists in politics.
The legitimacy of Mr Thaksin's ministership is important to the public.
People's acceptance of him is crucial to his political career, according
to the analysts.
Any national figure who lacks legitimacy in the eyes of the public
cannot hold on to his or her position.
This was proven by Gen Suchinda Kraprayoon, who, although he became
prime minister with the support of a majority of MPs and the military
junta -- the so-called National Peacekeeping Council -- had to step down
in disgrace in May 1992 after soldiers bru tally crushed demonstrations
that called on him to resign because he was not elected.
In Mr Thaksin's case, allowing public doubts to linger about whether he
will use his ministerial post for his own gain will only reduce his
legitimacy in their eyes.
Speculation about whether Mr Thaksin would be disqualified after the
constitution amendments were approved by Parliament had been rife even
before he took the foreign minister's post. Now that the amended
constitution has been passed, a showdown is immi nent.
Article 114 in the amendment prohibits a minister from receiving
concessions from the state or state agencies or holding on to the
concessions or becoming a contract partner with the state in a
monopolistic way, directly or indirectly.
Most people believe this article applies to Mr Thaksin, who is the
majority shareholder in the multi-billion-baht Shinawatra Group,
Thailand's largest telecommunications company.
Many legal experts note that the article is aimed at patching up
loopholes on the qualifications of ministers in the 1991 version.
There might also be discoveries of abuses of authority by ministers who
had concessions with the state in the past so Article 114 was written as a
preventive measure, the experts said.
Reports of the meetings of Parliament's constitution amendment scrutiny
committee show that legislators wanted members of the executive branch to
be free of accusations that they exercised their power for their own
benefit.
There have been a lot of calls lately for a ruling on Mr Thaksin's
qualifications based on the new rules set under Article 114.
This can be done under Article 97, which states that the support of at
least one-tenth of the 360 MPs is needed to call for a ruling on any
constitutional problems by the House Speaker, who is also chairman of the
Constitution Tribunal.
Article 207 also says that if the Cabinet or Parliament or the Senate or
the Lower House resolves that there is a need to solve a constitutional
problem, the Prime Minister or the Senate or the House speakers can submit
it to the tribunal.
There has recently been a move to ask the tribunal to rule on Mr
Thaksin's qualifications. But if Mr Thaksin quits after the amended
constitution takes effect, it will show his political spirit -- that he is
not only interested in clinging to power or f urthering his business
interests.
His resignation, if his qualifications conflict with the supreme law of
the land, would also prove Mr Thaksin's claim that he only wants to serve
the country, the analysts said.
To set a precedent for other politicians who will become ministers, Mr
Thaksin should ask the Cabinet to resolve to submit his case to the
tribunal for a ruling.
Academics say that rulings by the tribunal whenever there are problems
should be a common procedure rather than something unusual.
Thai parliamentary history has recorded only one ruling by the tribunal.
That was when MPs questioned whether Suphan Buri MP Banharn Silpa-archa,
now Chart Thai Party leader, was qualified to be a legislator, taking into
account his education level and his father being an immigrant.
The tribunal ruled that Mr Banharn had finished secondary school and so
had met the requirements in the Constitution. That encouraged Mr Banharn,
and other MPs whose fathers were aliens, to further their education and
earn college degrees.
As for Mr Thaksin, there is a belief that with his ability and wealth,
he can still go a long way in politics, but that it depends on whether he
can maintain his legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
People may be on his side if he resigns as foreign minister after the
amended constitution comes into force and makes a comeback later by
running for election.