The Election Commission's (EC) harsh decision related to the loan taken by the Future Forward Party (FFP) from its own leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit certainly raises questions about disproportionate punishment, if not downright double standards.
In a 5:2 vote, the poll agency ruled on Wednesday that the 200-million-baht loan was in violation of the organic law on political parties. It cited Section 72, which prohibits parties and their executives from accepting cash, assets or any other benefits if they know or should know or suspect that the money comes from "an illegitimate source". Based on this, the EC asked the Constitutional Court to disband the party, which is known for its anti-military stance.
The loan came under the spotlight last May, when tycoon-turned-politician Thanathorn told a forum at the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Thailand that his newly established party had borrowed close to 200 million baht from him to finance its election campaign. This revelation was seen as his eagerness to be transparent.
As for Section 72, it's true that compared to the previous law on political parties, this does not list loans as a source of income, but on the other hand, FFP secretary-general Piyabutr Saengkanokkul is also correct in saying that this law does not actually prohibit borrowing.
Some political observers have, therefore, argued that this is a matter of legal interpretation and there are enough grey areas in the law to make the harshest penalties, such as party dissolution, appear politically motivated. Sympathy has been pouring in for the embattled party, which if anything, acted out of sheer political naivete.
The decision on Wednesday under EC chairman Itthiporn Boonpracong has intensified public doubts about the commission's neutrality, especially since this agency was created by the now-defunct National Legislative Assembly, which was previously handpicked by the junta-led regime. The new party, meanwhile, has done many things to challenge the old powers-that-be.
The EC landed itself in hot water the way it handled the uproar caused by the presence of many high-ranking state officials at the pro-military Palang Pracharath Party's (PPRP) lavish fund-raising event last year, which raised more than 600 million baht. The officials' presence had people querying the law that requires civil servants to maintain their impartiality.
There were also allegations that some of the donors were firms that had been running at a loss for several years, yet managed to make donations, while quite a few were concessionaires that had won bids from the junta-led government.
The EC's decision on this scandal, which favoured the pro-military party, only showed the agency has no teeth, in sharp contrast to its decision with the FFP and Mr Thanathorn, which is bound to dent the trust people have. The ball is now with the Constitutional Court -- the same court that last month stripped Mr Thanathorn of his MP status over the media shareholding saga.
At this point, it should be noted that such disproportionate penalties handed down by an agency that is supposed to stay neutral will only do further harm to a country like Thailand, which is already haunted by divisiveness.