'Silent' NLA members could hinder impeachment

'Silent' NLA members could hinder impeachment

Every time there has been a vote in the National Legislative Assembly on issues connected to the impeachment cases against former Senate speaker Nikhom Wairachpanich, former House speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont and former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, a group of 10 or so members abstain for reasons which have never been explained publicly.

Last week, a vote was taken to decide whether a session — involving Vicha Mahakhun of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and Mr Nikhom, who were to present statements — should be held behind closed doors. Although the majority of assemblymen voted down the closed meeting motion in a close call, about 15 members abstained.

What does this mean? In my opinion, it means three things: they have no opinion at all about the issue at stake; they do not have the wisdom to make a judgements on the issue; or they simply do not know the job they are required to do as members of the NLA.

NLA vice-president Surachai Liangboonlertchai maintains that all NLA members are impartial and independent. But being impartial and independent does not mean they should remain silent and not even make a decision about what is right or wrong or what is improper or proper, even if they have never spoken in parliament.

I have, of course, no authority at all to force any of these abstainers to explain why they are not partaking of a vote. But as a taxpayer whose money is being used to pay these abstainers their salaries, I believe we should have the right to doubt their conduct. We have the right to question the point of them being in the NLA if they cannot judge how to vote on matters which are of public concern and public interest, such as the rice pledging scheme.

In her defence in the impeachment case against her in parliament last week, Ms Yingluck claimed a rice pledging scheme was implemented by the government of prime minister Prem Tinsulanonda more than 30 years ago, but that the one implemented by her government was an improved version.

Why implicate Gen Prem? As a matter of fact, the Pheu Thai government's rice pledging scheme was misleading from the outset. It was not at all a pledging scheme in the true meaning of the word because if it was, farmers who submitted their paddy by pledge to the government would be required to redeem the crops later.

It was a straightforward purchasing scheme with the government being the single buyer of all rice crops, every grain of rice, from the farmers at a price that was about 40% higher than market price.

The big differences between the rice pledging scheme implemented by Ms Yingluck's government and her predecessors are the price and the right to redemption.

Hers offered an unrealistically high price, apparently designed to woo farmer votes, and did not require the farmers to redeem their crops.

No farmer could be that foolish as to take back their crops at the price offered by the government which was 40% higher than market price.

I don't understand why the scriptwriters for Ms Yingluck had to snipe at Gen Prem without telling her of the big difference between schemes that share nothing more than a name.

When offering her defence to parliament, Ms Yingluck claimed her government had instructed all authorities concerned to ensure there was no corruption and that she had not ignored the NACC's warnings of irregularities in the scheme.

She also claimed the 600 billion baht loss from the scheme as claimed by the incumbent government was over-inflated.

As far as Ms Yingluck is concerned, she may have a good chance of escaping impeachment because it is not going to be easy to garner the 132 votes, or three-fifths of the NLA, to push the motion through. There are quite a few assemblymen who don't want to impeach her as they claim this will undermine reconciliation efforts.

But reconciliation and accountability for the huge loss to the state from the rice pledging scheme are two separate issues. Both must be pursued for the sake of public peace and order and the rule of law.

I hope the respectable members of the NLA will listen to their conscience and make the right judgement in the best interests of the country, not for their own interests for certain groups of people.


Veera Prateepchaikul is a former editor, Bangkok Post.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (10)