This week’s developments must have increased the political temperature by a few degrees, but the fact that they manage to do so is the very reason why nobody should be optimistic.
Let’s forget the 112 case for the time being, and focus on the Supreme Court’s ruling ordering former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra to pay an enormous amount of tax for Shin Corporation share transfers to his children some two decades ago.
The tax case appears a straightforward legal matter on the one hand. On the other it’s perceived as a massive political issue whether it actually is or not.
Rich politicians always find the way to make things like this look like political persecutions.
The real question is not whether Thaksin should have paid 17 billion baht in tax, but whether someone so obscenely wealthy that his calculated tax is worth 17 billion baht should be anywhere near politics let alone be prime minister.
This may sound somewhat socialism, but how can someone so rich having garnered his wealth through all kinds of business practices including virtual monopoly and shrewd movements of assets understand how less-fortunate people feel?
How can someone truly understand the poor if his or her towel alone costs what many earn in an entire year?
How can someone scoop up land plots for speculation or future investment and offer to “help the people” at the same time?
It sounds absurd when we think of the fact that Thailand underwent a painful transition from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy, a “democratic” system, only to allow its political landscape to be full of players with ridiculous net worth.
The transition was a major change, but it was not the ultimate change.
The tax amount the Supreme Court ordered Thaksin to pay is jaw-dropping. But consider this: At the height of his political career, he gifted someone with an expensive car. According to some calculations, while that car cost millions, it was actually peanuts when Thaksin was concerned. It was mathematically the same as you spending just a few hundreds to buy a present for a close friend.
Legally speaking, if the Revenue Department thinks Thaksin should pay the said amount, who are we to argue? Politically speaking, it’s not that simple.
For over two decades, debate has gotten nowhere. Critics say Thaksin had too much business interest to protect, and that would clash with the need to really help Thai citizens. Admirers point at good social programmes and the fact that dishonest politicians are everywhere, not just in the party he built.
Both sides have strong arguments. Conflict of interest and hidden agendas degrade politics “for the people” even in America, where politicians always have vocal hair-splitting viewpoints over medical welfare but are simultaneously silent when it comes to the arms industry or spending trillions of dollars on wars elsewhere.
The point is that the problem over here and the one in the United States can be traced to the same cause, disfigurement of politics where vested interest influence key decision-makers. And this is why this week’s Supreme Court’s ruling may have just scratched the surface of the real Thai problem.
The Thaksin criticism is always countered, rather sensibly, by the argument that the infamy spreads across the political realm, so why Thaksin only?
On the bright side, the political divide sparked by the Thaksin disagreement can make us see why taxing him retroactively would not solve the problem entirely, until the righteous standard is applied across the board.
Should he pay more taxes? It’s a very important question but it’s not the most important question. What really matters is that Thailand must establish a system that ensures tax fairness, holds every corrupt politician accountable regardless of which ideological side he or she is on, and deals with every wrongdoing swiftly and equally.
Obviously, Thailand does not have such a system. How else can we explain the scandals rattling the very top of the Thai police, the tedious legal cases of politicians or politically-connected people, the 14th Floor, the constant changes of alliances among the Red, Yellow, Blue and Orange?
To add insult to injury, it seems constitutional amendment ideas could encourage, not discourage, such absurdity. Proposed changes could guarantee “justice” in the eyes of some but could be perceived as containing hidden agendas in the eyes of others. Nepotism would still be there, hidden behind the euphoria of “reform”.
The worst part is that whatever comes out of the “reform” everyone is talking about will be changed yet again. Even the 1997 “People’s Charter” was not immune to politicians’ bad traits of always trying to find loopholes and helping their relatives and peers.
To say that this week’s developments put the last nail in Thaksin’s political coffin is not an overstatement. His 112 case has been kept alive, in addition to the devastating tax ruling and current imprisonment.
But it’s not an overstatement, either, to say that, despite putting him away, Thailand’s political misery is far from over.
When the Palang Dharma Party refused to support a Democrat-led government about three decades ago over a land reform scandal, Thai people had some hope. Politics would be better, many thought, because a coalition government party itself was setting a respectable standard.
Little did they know that the party would soon be taken over by someone named Thaksin Shinawatra. He would head Palang Dharma briefly before setting up his own Thai Rak Thai Party.
The rest is history.
