Nation waits anxiously for leader's fate

Court decision holds the answer

Mongkol Bangprapa

The Constitutional Court has the answer for a nation left in a quandary about whether it should be ruled by a leader with dubious ethics, a democracy activist said.

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra might lose his job if the court found he tried to hide his assets from public scrutiny.

Suvit Watnoo, secretary-general of the Campaign for Popular Democracy, said while people could not regard Mr Thaksin as having been "100% ethically pure", many believed he could pull Thailand out of crisis.

As an independent body, the court would give importance to the rule of law, but would also pay attention to a "social phenomenon".

Mr Thaksin and the National Counter Corruption Commission, which indicted him for falsely declaring his assets, are set to give a 20-minute closing statement on June 18.

Outside the court, a sign-up campaign is underway to keep Mr Thaksin in power.

Leading the campaign is Sem Pringpuangkaew, a widely-respected 90- year-old citizen and five-time public health minister.

Dr Sem said Mr Thaksin had done a good job in his first three months of office and that the nation should give him a chance to carry on.

Reform advocate Prawase Wasi also backed Mr Thaksin, commending the prime minister for his vision, determination and dedication.

Otherwise, public reaction was mixed. Some observers said legal principles should come before anything, even the survival of a prime minister who had overwhelming public support.

Some civic groups, however, argued that the charter guaranteed freedom of expression, including sign-up campaigns.

Mr Suvit said he respected Dr Sem and Dr Prawase for being free from political manipulation. He also supported the independence and integrity of constitutional mechanisms such as the graft agency.

Mr Suvit said he did not think that graft fighter Prasit Damrongchai's move to testify for Mr Thaksin had caused public faith in the agency to erode. But he said he could see that the work of the commission was not really free from political interference and commissioners should review their role.