The rule of law in this country has reached another defining moment, as the fate of 41 MPs now hangs in the balance after House Speaker Chuan Leekpai forwarded petitions to the Constitutional Court this week, seeking a ruling on whether they breached the charter's rule on media shareholdings.
MPs of the Future Forward Party (FFP) submitted petitions against MPs from key parties in the coalition government on the basis that the nature of their rivals' shareholdings is the same as that of an FFP MP candidate in Sakon Nakhon, Phubet Henlod, who was disqualified in March by the Supreme Court.
Mr Phubet's disqualification had something to do with his shareholding in Mars Engineering and Service Partnership Ltd. In reality, the company is not engaged in the media business of any kind. But its memorandum of association -- a document stating its business fields used for registration with the Commerce Ministry -- covers a broad range of businesses, including media. This is a normal practice within the business community, as it makes it easier for them to expand their businesses into other fields, without having to go through the same red tape again.
The court interpreted the media company stipulations strictly according to the letter of the law, and disqualified Mr Phubet.
It is understood that the FFP MPs' petitions represent their quest for equal treatment in the justice system. This is because all the 41 MPs also hold shares in companies whose memorandums state that media is one of the business objectives, even though the nature of their business is not media-related at all.
The petitions also seek a ruling on whether the 41 MPs should be suspended if the court accepts the cases, the same way that FFP leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit was treated when the court accepted a media shareholding case against him. Mr Thanathorn's case centres on the timing of his share transfer.
If these MPs are suspended or later disqualified, it could turn the government into a minority administration, thus threatening its stability. If not, then questions of double standards will arise.
But the bigger, more important question is whether MPs, including Mr Phubet, should be disqualified on this basis at all. What should take centre stage in the debate on the issue, is the intent of the law.
The media shareholding restriction is intended to prevent MP candidates from using their media companies to canvass for votes or attack their rivals. Therefore, the law should be interpreted as a legal basis to see whether MP candidates used their media holdings for these purposes.
For more than a decade, politicians or their supporters have undertaken legal assaults against their rivals by citing "the letter of the law" and basing their cases mainly on technicalities, while overlooking the actual purposes of the legislation.
Mr Thanathorn was right when he said last month that no MPs should be disqualified over these kind of technicalities. Given that the FFP's key members have faced numerous "politically motivated" lawsuits, FFP MPs must feel that they have been cornered with no way out. But they should not use these petitions as revenge, because it would be the wrong move.
The petitions should be used as a call for a sound, justified and practical interpretation and enforcement of the law.
It is right for one to defy double standards. But it is not right for them to demand the wrong standard be applied to others who used it against them.