Thailand's political polarisation knows no bounds. The raging controversy over media personality Sorrayuth Suthassanachinda's criminal conviction is merely the latest manifestation of a morality war being waged in Thai politics over the past decade between the rightful and the righteous for the country's future power and soul. While it does not seem that way on the surface in Sorrayuth's case, closer scrutiny indicates otherwise. The case also instructs us that such polarisation is no good for Thailand, that middle and third ways are still the only pathway out of the country's holding position.
Sorrayuth is in huge trouble from a business manoeuvre back in 2005-06. His business venture, Rai Som Company, connived with an official of MCOT, an incorporated state enterprise formerly known as the Mass Communication Organisation of Thailand, for ill-gotten gains of 138.8 million baht. This amount was part of advertising revenue that should have gone to MCOT per contractual terms but instead was hidden from the books and went to Rai Som, the concessionaire and content provider.
Although Sorrayuth subsequently returned the money with interest, the misdeed had been done. The National Anti-Corruption Commission took up the case, which found its way into the Criminal Court. The malfeasance verdict that set the Sorrayuth controversy in motion was a jail sentence of 13 years and four months, commuted from 20 years owing to the defendant's cooperation during the trial. In addition, a Rai Som employee received the same jail term, while the MCOT official was given a 20-year sentence, shortened from 30 years. The fine for Rai Som was just 80,000 baht, which is negligible compared to the total damage.
As the debate is over whether Sorrayuth should be allowed to continue working on Channel 3 -- by law he can -- the anchorman announced yesterday that he would suspend his role.
Those who invoke ethics and morality through good governance and corporate social responsibility advocate a stoppage of Sorrayuth's news programmes. From one side of the Thai divide, they are vehemently anti-corruption and generally supportive and sympathetic to the protests that led to the coup in May 2014 and to the consequent military government itself. The other side believes Sorrayuth has a right to work while he appeals the case. They despise the morality and ethics platform and see it as hollow and hypocritical, full of double standards.
What's at stake is the entire apparatus for what passes as crime and punishment in Thailand. It is clear from the court's verdict that Sorrayuth and accomplices cheated. To what extent such cheating is criminal, punishable by a multi-year sentence, is a matter of contention.
To be sure, Sorrayuth's troubles are more than meet the eye. He is an object of deep envy who happens to be irreverent and wildly successful in turning irreverence and media talent into a lucrative business. News archives will show that he has been a regime critic since he cut his teeth as a newspaper reporter 25 years ago. Sorrayuth was more or less against whoever was in power. His hard-hitting investigative style and dramatic flair became good business, and just about all issues and controversies of the day eventually found their way onto his TV programmes.
As Thai society degenerated into a dualism of either/or and "us versus them" in recent years, the cost of Sorrayuth's journalistic independence and personal media style mounted. There was little room for mistakes in a toxic political environment. The MCOT embezzlement ultimately did him in, even though crimes of that nature are not uncommon. It was not enough that he was a critic of all regimes over 25 years but that he had to be a critic of a certain regime (i.e. that of fugitive, self-exiled Thaksin Shinawatra) in the last decade. Not taking sides contributed to Sorrayuth's downfall.
Notwithstanding the long appeal process to reverse the Criminal Court's damning verdict, Sorrayuth made the right decision to go off the air in the interim, not to succumb to the witch-hunting frenzy but rise above his opponents by obeying the spirit of the law. This is not easy to do in view of precedents where even bigger media moguls, such as Sondhi Limthongkul of Manager Media Group, worked under a criminal conviction while waiting out an appeal.
For the Thai public, the Sorrayuth case should not stop there. This is an opportune time to step up efforts to go after other corruption cases and places where big cheats reside. Cracking down on crooks and meting out tough sentences and imposing social sanctions on them should be even-handed and consistent across the board.
For example, in a recent case of insider trading at CP All where wrongdoing was admitted, relative impunity thrived with hardly a slap on the wrist. Why not impose social sanctions in that case? There have been instances in Thailand where people have been killed but the convicted perpetrators ended up not spending even a day behind bars.
Corruption and cheating reign in different shapes and forms. Sorrayuth's is a case that normally would have involved a larger fine and a suspended jail term for a first offence. Making him a poster man for lack of integrity and criminal malfeasance puts more pressure on Thailand's anti-corruption crusade not to come off as selective in enforcement and disproportionate in punishment.
Thitinan Pongsudhirak is associate professor and director of the Institute of Security and International Studies, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.