Contempt of the Law: Criminally Convicted Thai Parliamentary Speaker Refuses to Step Down by Phairath Khampha 31 August 2001 Uthai: Do as I say, not as I do The hypocrisy that is Thailand's social, economic and political milieu grew stronger in August 2001 as Parliament President and House Speaker Uthai Pimchaichon unleashed a powerful kick to the head to Thailand's fledging political reform. By vowing not to quit his parliamentary posts following a suspended jail sentence upheld by the Supreme Court, Uthai, who chaired the Constitution Drafting Assembly that adopted the 1997 "People's Charter", showed contempt for the spirit of the highest law of the land which he had helped to create. It is a pity that a man who should have been remembered as an architect of positive political change has turned out to be part of the old, backward style of politics. His determined effort to cling to his posts reflect a retrogressive Thai political mentality that dictates that resignation means disgrace, and that staying on in office means redemption for your sins. No Thai politician has ever bowed out to show responsibility for his mistakes or for things going wrong under his jurisdiction; they always have had to be dragged kicking and screaming from office. Uthai might argue that the Constitution Court set a clear precedent that political office holders handed suspended jail terms can stay on in their posts. But from the beginning nobody said he was legally required to resign. All people wanted from Uthai was an example of political courage and responsibility. That seems too much to ask from him, or of most members of Thailand's economic and political elite. In his case, there are two main points to consider. He was the head of the legislative branch and the Supreme Court found him criminally guilty of misconduct for dismissing Commerce Ministry Permanent Secretary Bajr Isarasena when minister in 1994. The suspended jail term did not change the fact that three courts had ruled against him. Uthai's position was that he could choose to stay on like Newin Chidchob, a deputy agriculture minister in the Chuan government who was given a suspended jail sentence in a libel case, or he could take the Supreme Court's ruling like a man. It was a case of either himself or the integrity of his parliamentary posts. He has made a typical choice because he is not truly a man. The events in the lead-up to the Supreme Court's ruling were equally controversial. During the last week of July, Uthai was summoned by the court to hear its decision on his appeal to the rulings of the Criminal Court and the Appeals Court. Instead of obeying, Uthai submitted a writ requesting his case be heard by a plenary caucus of all Supreme Court judges because of his position as House speaker. He said his "good deeds" as House speaker should be taken into account when it came to a verdict and sentencing. Uthai also asked for his case to be transferred to the tribunal for politicians accused of criminal violations in accordance with the new Constitution, which had been promulgated after the lawsuit against him had been subjected to judicial review. Uthai had every right to defend himself. But everything he did should be in line with the spirit of the Constitution, which was designed to foster civil equality and promote political accountability. Should a House speaker deserve preferential treatment in a criminal case? Alternatively, should a former border patrol policeman accused of murder, say, demand a plenary Supreme Court caucus for his case just because in the line of duty he also had risked his life to guard the nation's frontier? The abuses by and legal privileges claimed by the social, business and political elite of Thailand were the main reasons Thailand needed political reform. The CDA, which Uthai chaired, prescribed measures to tackle this problem, and the concept of civil society was enshrined in every key article of the charter. The Thai people have not really seen the fruits of the 1997 charter in regard to legal equality. But although they have learned to be patient, they now do expect the likes of Uthai to set a good example, and thus the matter has become deeply disappointing. Political reform requires that the country use only one "ruler" to measure right and wrong, along with a readiness to admit one's guilt and show responsibility. Being deemed "guilty" might be a disgrace, but failure to admit it is a real shame.