A year of living ominously - with a lame-duck govt
by Suthichai Yoon, The Nation, Bangkok
Now that the moribund Election Commission (EC) has set October 22 as the new election day, the whole country will have to learn to live with a lame-duck government for most of this year. In fact, one can safely say 2006 will go down in the nation's political history as the "Year of Non-government".
And all things considered, that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
We can't seem to settle for the middle way. The Thaksin regime wanted to place everybody under its tight control. Then suddenly, when the pressure grew to an immorally high level, people took to the streets. Thaksin at first tried to clamp even tighter control over our lives. But when he couldn't, he simply went into a hiatus. He should have quit, of course. But he didn't. He thought he could run the country by appearing not to run it. Now, he is a lame duck in self-denial.
Banharn Silapa-archa, the Chat Thai Party leader who is officially with the opposition but unofficially a Thaksin well-wisher, suggested the other day the "acting prime minister on vacation" should return to work, because it's embarrassing for an acting premier to be seen shopping on weekdays with his wife and children day in and day out. In other words, Banharn is saying even a lame-duck leader should be seen to be doing things. He is after all still drawing his monthly salary .
This unprecedented leave-taking issue could well turn into a serious political hot potato. Two members of the Law Society of Thailand have lodged a suit with the Administrative Court charging that Thaksin's going off on holiday is unlawful. It was never clear how long that vacation was going to be. (My question: Who has the right to approve or turn down the prime minister's application for leave after all?)
You may have forgotten all about it, but it's important that we, the tax-paying citizens of a legitimate nation-state, should know - and remember - the reason given by this elected prime minister for taking an extended break in the first place. Yes, Thaksin said he wasn't going to work for a while because he wanted "national reconciliation".
But the two lawyers say in their suit that citing "reconciliation" as a reason for taking a holiday is not permissible under regulations covering government officials taking leave. And if the PM's taking leave is not legal, the naming of an acting premier naturally becomes an issue. The suit also charges that under the law, a deputy prime minister is authorised to serve as acting prime minister only when the prime minister goes abroad or falls ill. The lawyers point out that Thaksin has remained in the country - and he did not take sick leave, either. In other words, he has been playing truant. Labour-law experts could chime in to point out that a CEO absent from work for three successive days without formal permission or a good reason would be subject to dismissal without compensation.
By playing golf and going shopping on weekdays, the lawyers say, the prime minister has shown his reluctance to fulfil his duties as prime minister. But the lawyers don't stop there. They are also requesting that the court bar the three defendants (Thaksin, the Cabinet and the Cabinet's secretary-general) from submitting any laws for royal endorsement. The legal argument is loud and clear: the prime minister's status remains unclear.
Of course, if he formally submitted his resignation, it would be a totally different story. At least, he wouldn't be paid as a premier. He could take up a leadership position at Thai Rak Thai Party headquarters; perhaps his salary would come from his wife's own purse. And newsmen would not have to go through the daily routine of reporting: "The caretaker premier who is on holiday refused to offer any comment on the issues of the day." If the Thai Rak Thai leader says nothing meaningful, that's not news; but if a country's premier keeps shaking his head when asked about all the major happenings in the country, it makes a major headline on the 7 o'clock evening news. And that could very well shake the confidence of foreign investors who still don't quite understand what's really going on in this country.
For Thais in general, though, Thaksin's unclear and confusing political status is proving a very valuable lesson on how we will have to learn to get used to living with a lame-duck prime minister, a crippled Cabinet and a paralysed government. The new election may not be held for at least five months, and it is very likely that the new coalition government won't be in place until early next year.
And that won't even be the end of our great period of virtual "absence of government", because the October 22 election is supposed to produce only an "interim government", one that oversees a new round of political reform. And that's supposedly the "Big Mission" - which is meant to be even more important than all the political posturing over the upcoming poll.
But nobody knows who will be in charge of that process, or how long it will all take - because a genuine government won't be in place until all those questions are cleared.
But don't panic. The lame duck is putting us through a real test of "self-sufficiency". If we can survive him, we can survive anything else.
Disclaimer
posted by Chazzsongs at
2:31 PM
