WHILE MEMBERS of pro-democracy parties continue to be targeted with suspected politically motivated lawsuits, a political scientist yesterday warned this tactic of eliminating political rivals might backfire and lead to a legitimacy crisis later.

In the latest case, Future Forward Party secretary-general Piyabutr Sangkanokkul yesterday acknowledged the charges pressed against him by the ruling National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), whose chief is a PM contender after the general election last month.

“Seeking advantage over rivals is common in politics. But this cannot be without consequences. They could face questions of legitimacy even if they successfully conspire to attain their goal,” said Attasit Pankaew, a political expert from Thammasat University. “All the unfairness that can be seen right now will lead people to question if [Piyabutr] would have been hit with a lawsuit if he were not so popular in the election.”

The pro- and anti-junta blocs have been going after each other since the election with politically motivated lawsuits.

But it has been observed that one camp may have been hit harder. For instance, when the court was petitioned to seek the disqualification of junta chief Prayut Chan-o-cha as a prime ministerial candidate because he was a public servant, the ruling went in favour of the incumbent.

While these kinds of political challenges are common around the world, Attasit said that public sentiment could play a major role in making any change. “It’s how the public responds to the treatment that could improve this culture,” he said. “Meanwhile, the authority has to provide an explanation and ensure that the due process of law is followed without victimising political rivals.”

While many people are counting on the March 24 election as paving the way for an end to political divisions, the expert warned that the relentless unfair treatment meted out to some groups of politicians could make people think the election did not really end the conflict.

Piyabutr has been charged with contempt of court and breaching the computer crime law for reading out a statement in relation to the dissolution of Thai Raksa Chart Party in February.

Piyabutr, a former law lecturer at Thammasat University, yesterday denied the charges. He insisted on his innocence, saying as a law scholar the criticism was meant as an academic comment and that he believed in the justice system.

“The chief of the NCPO is the PM candidate of a political party, which was a rival of Future Forward Party in the election and he has assigned an official to prosecute me for contempt of court,” he said.

“Let me make an observation: the judicial branch is a part of the sovereign state and cannot escape criticism, especially the Constitutional Court which rules on political conflicts and whose judgement is likely to be scrutinised,” Piyabutr told reporters. “Disagreement with a court judgement is not a crime.”

Paying the price of popularity?

Asked about the common perception that his party was being targeted because of its popularity, which helped it win more than 80 seats in the lower house on its electoral debut, Piyabutr said that was one way to look at the development.

“Future Forward was founded last year but we already face a number of charges,” the law professor-turned-politician said.

Earlier, Future Forward leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit was also charged with sedition.

Piyabutr’s meeting with the Technology Crime Suppression Division yesterday was observed by both international and local rights agencies – the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

NHRC observer Angkhana Neelapaijit told The Nation that lawsuits targeting activists, academics and politicians in Thailand in the past five years since the military took power were worrying.

This does not mean that those campaigning for democracy are above the law, but the authority should ensure that the treatment was not judicial harassment or a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

“If they have really committed crimes, they should be punished, of course,” the NHRC commissioner said. “But if it is SLAPP, we have to admit that once they get caught up in the lawsuits, it can really be a burden, making it hard for them to be activists.”

“The political situation is on a course that shows we are going toward a dead end,” he posted on Facebook yesterday, amid a climate of rising fears that forming a democratic government may be impossible.

Phumtham, Pheu Thai Party’s secretary-general, has called on the public and all concerned parties to think carefully about the idea that a national unity government would be an appropriate way out of the so-called political impasse.

He said there was a democratic solution for everything, and if the authorities followed the law, all necessary procedures could be implemented smoothly.

Phumtham called on the authorities, including the Election Commission, to complete their duties responsibly and to prioritise national interest so the country can find a way to avoid a dead end.

His statement referred to confusion over the calculation for allocating seats in the Lower House. Unless the issue is settled fairly, critics see the allocation process as being potentially used to justify an agenda to establish a national unity government.

Democrat politician Thepthai Senawong floated the idea of forming such a supra-constitutional government after post-poll signs pointed to difficulties in setting up a new government with key rival camps seemingly neck-to-neck in MP counts.

However, the idea of a national unity government is not being welcomed by most politicians. Phalang Pracharat Party’s deputy spokesman Thanakorn Wangboonkongchana dismissed the idea again yesterday, insisting there was no need because his party would eventually form the government.

Though Phalang Pracharat, with 118 MP seats, is second to Pheu Thai with 138 seats in the Lower House, Thanakorn insisted yesterday that his party would set up the government through normal means.

A national unity government was impossible and the country has yet to reach a dead end, he said, adding that everything would be settled after the election results are announced officially next month.

Meanwhile, Thepthai who brought the idea to the table iterated that the next government would be unstable if not impossible.

“We cannot keep going without a government; it will affect the national administration and international confidence,” he said, continuing to argue for a national unity government as the solution.

The three biggest winners in last month’s general election have all rejected the idea floated by a Democrat politician of forming a national unity government amid uncertainty over the election results and government formation.

Phalang Pracharat Party core leader Somsak Thepsutin yesterday brushed off the suggestion, saying the current circumstances would not lead to such a deadlock and he believed a normal government was still possible.

“I don’t think a national unity government will need to be formed. Eventually, all parties will adapt themselves and find a common ground,” the veteran politician said. “Nobody wants to go back to chaos and conflicts.”

Rebutting the idea of Democrat MPtobe Thepthai Senapong, Somsak said those talking of a national unity government were mostly insecure or did not having enough seats to form a government.

He added that the Constitution has been well designed and has all the solutions.

Somsak had stirred controversy last year when he said the Constitution had been designed for Phalang Pracharat, but he reiterated that the juntaappointed 250 senaฌtors would help tone down the extremes in politics.

“Without the 250 senators, politics would have been on fire,” he said, referring to the controversial Upper House to be appointed by the junta, which would have the power to shape postelection politics by having a decisive say on picking the next PM.

Somsak also appeared confident that though the two rival camps were nearly tied in the number of MPs they have, the presence of the 250 juntaappointฌed senators would tilt the balance in Phalang Pracharat’s favour.

Future Forward Party, the thirdlargest party in terms of number of MPs, also completely rejected the idea of forming a national unity government.

“It is clearly against the Constitution,” said party spokesperson Pannika Wanich. “The charter says we must have an opposition. And even though it is constitutional, still it is undemocratic and no different from authoritarianism. Democracy requires a checks and balances system.”

The only way out of any deadend is to respect the people’s voice and allow the bloc with the majority seats to set up a coalition government, she said.

Pheu Thai Party, meanwhile, warned that the delay and current uncertainty was jeopardising the economy.

“The longer the formation of a new government is put off, the more investors will lose confidence,” party spokesperson Ladawan Wongsriwong warned, adding, “If the government forฌmation is delayed until the fourth quarฌter, it is possible that economic growth this year may be limited to 3.5 per cent.”

The idea of forming a national unity government will only aggravate the sitฌuation, she added. It is a bad sign for the business sector, she said.

“The solution is easy. Just respect the rules and let the winning party form a government. If [Pheu Thai] fails, then the second, third and so on can take the lead.”

Following much criticism, Thepthai yesterday explained he was worried the government would be unstable as both camps have around the same number of MPs.

“This is my personal suggestion, not the party’s,” the MPinwaiting said. “It’s not that we have a few MPs and we want this for ourselves.”

Thepthai also denied that his sugฌgestion to let Democrat patriarch Chuan Leekpai lead the next governฌment was aimed at benefiting the Democrat Party. He said it was his perฌsonal view that Chuan could be a perfect candidate as a conciliatory prime minister, he added.

Following a war of words over the weekend amid rumours that the middle-sized New Economics Party had been won over by Phalang Pracharat – which supports the return of General Prayut Chan-o-cha as premier – Pheu Thai Party’s core leaders were quick to reiterate that the six-MP party remained with the pro-democracy league.

Pheu Thai’s de facto leader Khunying Sudarat Keyuraphan on Saturday night posted on Facebook that she believed New Economics leader Mingkwan Sangsuwan would not break his word to voters that he would not side with the junta.

Her colleague, party secretary-general Phumtham Wechayachai, delivered a similar message via Facebook, stressing he believed Mingkwan was a man of his word.

“I never believed the rumours that Phalang Pracharat is forming a coalition with support from parties that campaigned against the junta. I never did,” he wrote.

Prior to those movements, news circulated on Saturday that Phalang Pracharat had managed to gather over 250 MPs to set up a coalition government with the help of the |New Economics Party, which had defected from the pro-democracy front.

The rumours caused uproar among a large number of netizens who vented their frustrations on Twitter and Facebook, expressing disappointment and reprimanding Mingkwan for betraying their trust. The hashtag #Mingkwan was trending top on Twitter with hundreds of thousands of tweets.

Mingkwan issued a statement in the evening dismissing the news, saying he had never entered into any political negotiations with Phalang Pracharat.

Though Mingkwan had said on several occasions before and after the election that he was opposed to a military-led regime and would join the pro-democracy camp, public distrust grew after the New Economics Party failed to turn up at the democratic front’s press conference, held to claim victory and to sign a pact to collaborate in opposing the junta.

Many observers viewed New Economics as insincere and non-committal.

Though the election results are yet to be confirmed by the poll agency, it is estimated that the pro-democracy league led by Pheu Thai and Future Forward has 247 to 255 seats – placing it in a grey area to claim legitimacy to form a government.

Hence, the camp’s coalition must rely on MPs from smaller parties such as New Economics. Though New Economics may have only six MPs, its decision could make or break the Pheu Thai-led coalition.

There are other grey areas too: parties such as Democrat and Bhumjaithai, which have won over 30 and 50 seats respectively, have yet to commit to any side.

It might be unthinkable for the Democrats to join hands with old foes Pheu Thai but this does not necessarily mean it would side with Phalang Pracharat to support a Prayut-led government.

The country’s oldest and most established party is now divided into two factions: one backs support for Prayut to deter Pheu Thai while the other group wants the party to sit in opposition.

Bhumjaithai, meanwhile, remains non-committal while also being pressured by the large party Pheu Thai.

In the same posts reiterating that Mingkwan remained with the pro-democracy front, Pheu Thai leaders seemed also to warn Bhumjaithai to not betray the voters’ trust.

Sudarat wrote that some veteran politicians might use the same old trick of going back on their word and claim it was for the national interest, to justify their collaboration with the junta.

“You think voters will forget easily. Well, try them,” she wrote. “If you betray them this time, you |will become extinct in the next |election.”

Phumtham, meanwhile, tweeted: “Whoever betrays the voters, don’t vote for them next time.”

In a related development, EC president Ittiporn Boonpracong yesterday said he respected the people’s rights to petition for the impeachment of him and his colleagues over alleged irregularities in the March 24 election.

“People can exercise their rights. I’m ready to provide any information any agencies will request from the EC,” Ittiporn said. “It’s up to these agencies to decide if we are guilty.”

Mingkwan, however, did not reveal which of the two camps — the so-called pro-democracy group led by Pheu Thai or the pro-junta Phalang Pracharat — his party would prefer to support as a coalition partner.

Mingkwan’s clarification on Saturday came after local media reported that Phalang Pracharat had successfully gathered the support of more than 250 MPs to form the next government with Mingkwan agreeing to support their group.

“The report is not true. I have neither talked on politics with Phalang Pracharat nor bargained for any political posts,” Mingkwan said in the statement posted on his Facebook page.

After the news spread yesterday, social media users slammed Mingkwan for going back on his word of not working with Phalang Pracharat as they had a different ideology.

Two Thai-language hashtags–#Mingkwan and #MingkwanBusted became top trends on Twitter for a while yesterday along with criticism of the New Economics Party leader.

Tipped to win five to six MP seats, Mingkwan’s party can make or break the Pheu Thai-led bloc’s bid to form the next government, as without his backing they will not have the 250-seat majority required to tip the balance.

Responding to Mingkwan’s latest statement, Pheu Thai key figures yesterday expressed confidence that he would not betray them.

“I’m confident that Mingkwan is a good politician who keeps his word,” Khunying Sudarat Keyuraphan, Pheu Thai’s PM candidate, said on her Facebook page.

Pheu Thai secretary-general Phumtham Wechayachai said he had never believed the report of Mingkwan backing Phalang Pracharat, whose party had told the people that they would not support the military to continue in power.

Pheu Thai and five allied parties held a press conference a few days after the election to declare that they would be standing together to fight the junta’s moves to retain power, claiming they already had the support of at least 255 MPs to form a coalition.

The bloc, based on unofficial poll results, includes Pheu Thai (137 seats), Future Forward (88), Puea Chart (5), Prachachat (7), Seri Ruam Thai (12), Phalang Puang Chon Thai (1), with New Economics Party as the seventh member with five or six seats.

However, neither Mingkwan nor his party colleagues showed up at the conference, and their absence obviously raised doubts about which side New Economics Party was planning to be on.

On April 6, several diplomats showed up at Bangkok’s Pathum Wan Police Station to witness Future Forward Party leader, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, being officially charged with sedition.

The ministry’s deputy permanent secretary, who is responsible for bilateral relations, passed this message on to the diplomatic corps between April 10-11, according to a ministry statement.

The senior official separately met ambassadors and representatives from the embassies of France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America, Finland, Belgium and the delegation of the European Union.

In the meeting, he expressed “disappointment and concern” about the presence of diplomats at the police station.

“In particular, the embassies’ action was seen as a show of moral support for Thanathorn as well as taking of sides in Thai domestic politics,” the diplomats were told.

“This action is clearly beyond the functions of a diplomatic mission, an interference in Thailand’s internal affairs, and in breach of Article 41 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The ministry therefore urges the embassies to prevent a recurrence of such actions in the future.”

Despite this request, many embassies later issued statements defending their representatives and their action.

Later the ministry issued a second statement justifying the procedure that will see Thanathorn being tried in a military court – an act that has been criticised by the diplomatic community.

Thailand, like many other countries, including the UK, the US and several European countries, have been using the system of military courts, the statement said.

“Although practices may differ between countries, military courts are not established with the purpose of targeting particular individuals.

“The military courts form part of the judicial system under Chapter X [the courts] of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, which also includes the Courts of Justice and Administrative Courts.

“The Constitution also affirms the principles that trial and adjudication of cases must be carried out in accordance with the laws and in the name of the monarch, and judges and justices are independent in trial and adjudication of cases, in accordance with the Constitution and laws in the expeditious and fair manner, and without any partiality,” the statement read.

Under the junta’s orders, legal proceedings against persons accused of committing certain offences under the Criminal Code before September 12, 2016 will be subject to the jurisdiction of military courts.

Thanathorn’s allegedly committed the offences in question on June 24, 2015.

The EC says that the formula would give seats to parties who received fewer votes than a threshold set in the Constitution.

The EC conceded that its preferred formula may not meet Constitutional requirements but said that other calculations would not enable it to fill all 150 party-list seats.

The EC’s move comes after days of disagreement and debate over the calculation method for party-list MP seats.

The election agency yesterday announced it had decided to approach the Court after finding it difficult to distribute seats due to the complex election system.

Based on the 2017 Constitution, the agency said their initial calculation resulted in some parties not being eligible to gain any seats in the Lower House. But after the next step of the computation, the EC found that these parties would each gain one seat.

This method would fill the House with the 150 party-list MPs required by the law, the EC said. However, it admitted that this might clash with the Constitution, which states that no party should get seats unless entitled to them in the initial calculation.

Parties are not eligible for seats per the first calculation unless they gain at least 71,000 votes. Some parties now being considered for seats did not win even half that number.

This constitutional hurdle has been the core of arguments made by numerous politicians over the past week.

The politicians say the correct method of calculation would allocate the 150 party-list seats to some 14 to 16 eligible parties. However, the poll agency announced yesterday that it would in fact be impossible to completely fill the chamber by any calculation method. That discovery led them to ask the Constitutional Court to rule if it could use the controversial calculation that would allocate seats to parties apparently ineligible under Constitutional rules.

“No calculation methods were able to produce the 150 party-list MPs in line with the Constitution,” the EC statement read, without elaborating on which methods it had tried nor on why or how they were unable to make the numbers fit the 150 vacant seats.

Meanwhile, election experts insisted yesterday that most experts on the issue had agreed on a path that would result in the perfect allocation of 150 seats and that there was no interpretation problem with the election method.

Yingcheep Atchanont, programme manager of rights defenders iLaw, reiterated yesterday that it was possible to give seats to eligible parties and fill all 150 seats.

“Most people agree with this interpretation. It cannot be interpreted in any other way, unless the EC is trying to distort this,” he said.

Yingcheep said he agreed that the EC should take the matter to Court to settle the dispute. However, he said that the process should be completed within the deadline in May and avoid any further delays.

Political scientist Stithorn Thananitichoti agreed that numerous experts had no problem in allotting the seats to the eligible parties via their calculation method.

However, Stithorn said the Constitutional Court may choose to refuse the case, as the EC’s approach had not yet been enforced. The EC might just have to continue with its method and endorse the election results before the case could be brought to the Court again, he said.