EDITORIAL
By deciding to leave his post, Bangkok Governor Apirak Kosayodhin upholds his honour and restores a standard of practice that politicians have left in a shambles these past many years.
Mr Apirak, who won a decisive election to a second term at City Hall last month, is among the six holders of political office implicated by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) regarding alleged irregularities in the procurement of fire trucks and boats for the city's use.
In the indictment, the NACC argued that although Mr Apirak was aware of concerns about the deal when he became governor in 2004, he did not stop it. It also charged that his assertion - that he was bound by the contract and pressured by the Ministry of Interior to open the Letter of Credit which completed the counter-trade deal - was not valid, as the governor had direct control over whether or not the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration wanted to use its budget for whatever purpose. According to the NACC, while the acts of the five other accused did not result in financial damage, it was Mr Apirak's opening of the L/C that caused the BMA to pay more than 2 billion baht to the contractor without receiving the goods as specified.
The Constitution and NACC Act prevent office holders implicated by the NACC from performing their duties. Although Mr Apirak arguably has the more favourable option of keeping his powerful office, by suspending himself from duty so as to be in compliance with the law until the court hands down a ruling (in approximately six months' time), Mr Apirak has opted to do what he believes is the right thing, even though it is riskier and more likely to incur a heavy political cost to himself.
The risk is clear: announcing his resignation in the face of being accused could lead some people to simply point the finger and declare that it is an admission of guilt. But as the city governor maintained repeatedly at yesterday's press conference, he is willing to go through the legal process and prove himself in court. However, he had to step down from his job because he believes this is what the general public would expect from their representatives.
He is right. The Thai public has seen enough shameful manoeuvres by political office holders more willing to work hard to find a loophole or to twist the legal line until it becomes crippled, than to preserve the spirit of the law.
Still fresh in the mind is a similar case involving three ministers linked to allegations of wrongdoing in the two- and three-digit lottery. At that time, the accused - former Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Surapong Suebwonglee, Labour Minister Uraiwan Thienthong and former Deputy Transport Minister Anurak Jureemart - refused to step down from their positions even though the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions had accepted the case for deliberation. The three ministers argued that there were doubts as to how the law should be interpreted. Whether it was supposed to mean the position the accused held during the time the alleged misconduct occurred? Or the position the accused now holds? Given a choice between making everything clear and making use of the ambiguity, the three ministers chose the latter. They kept their ministerial positions but lost a measurable amount of public trust and goodwill.
Mr Apirak will remain the city's governor for less than another week and he still has to prove his innocence in the coming trial. His choice yesterday, however, should be a lesson in proper conduct for politicians.
Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Next
