EDITORIAL
Chaiya Sasomsab, the former health minister, may wish and hope all he wants. But Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej should know better and realise that the return of Mr Chaiya - disqualified by the Constitution Court for breaching assets declaration rules - to the cabinet would be a slap in the face of the rule of law and a blemish on his impending Samak II cabinet.
Probably emboldened by the appearance of a thousand or so supporters from his home base of Nakhon Pathom and Ratchaburi, Mr Chaiya announced at his farewell ceremony that he might return to cabinet when Mr Samak reshuffles the ministerial line-up at the end of the month as promised. If not given the Interior, Justice or Commerce portfolios, Mr Chaiya said, then he would likely serve another term as minister of public health.
How ludicrous that would be.
On July 9, the Constitution Court ruled that Mr Chaiya had broken the assets declaration law by failing to disclose his wife's shareholdings in a private company within 30 days of his appointment. The court reasoned his failure to fulfil that duty meant he did not have the qualities to serve as a cabinet minister.
While accepting the ruling and stepping down, Mr Chaiya argued all along that he did not have any intention of assets concealment. As for his possible ministerial reinstatement, he contends that the constitution does not bar him from politics and therefore he could come back and serve at another ministry, or even the same ministry, and proceed with declaring his assets again, hopefully completely and correctly this time.
Mr Chaiya has the right to interpret the law to serve his purpose. It must be noted, however, that there are reasons why the rules were set and the punishment strict and harsh.
Conflicts of interest for cabinet ministers can easily lead to corruption. That is why all ministers must reveal every single piece of asset in their possession to the public. Failure to do so raises suspicions. He may plead that he simply overlooked the small shareholdings of his spouse. But the law cannot gauge people's motives. The law can only judge their actions.
Also, there is a valid point in why a minister should not be allowed to serve if he breaks the assets declaration law. If Mr Chaiya was not careful enough to inventory all his assets, no matter how substantial they are, or see to it that his staff handled it correctly, then how can the public trust him with the affairs of a ministry which arguably must be much more substantial and complicated, and with consequences to millions of people to consider?
Mr Chaiya's track record, short as it is, has been less than impressive. During his first few days as minister, he tried to abruptly reverse the policy on compulsory licensing for vital drugs, apparently without consulting the stakeholders. He also made a few transfers of senior health officials to inactive posts which sparked protests and lawsuits from the officials who believed they were wrongly moved. His comments on several important issues showed insensitivity and a lack of knowledge, among them his retort to people suffering from Aids that they should "eat dokmai chan" (paper flowers used in cremation rites) instead of pushing for access to cheaper medicine via the CL policy.
Consumer advocates and rural doctor groups have said they will oppose Mr Chaiya's reinstatement. If PM Samak wants his new cabinet to be of a calibre that merits public recognition, he should refrain from granting Mr Chaiya's wish to return.
Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Next
