Journalism: 1) High-profile media personality, Suranund goes against rejection of “Nitirat Group” news

/ September 30, 2011


  • By Ranger, Thai Intel’s political journalist

When the Bangkok Post first broke its report on the Nitirat Group-the head-line was something like: “Turning back the clock is stupid.” Since then, at the Bangkok Post-it is one negative report after another on the Nitiray Group.

It got to the point that Bangkok Post reported on the Thai Lawyer Association blasting away at Nitirat Group.

Well, everyone in Thailand knows the Thai Lawyer Association have saidf it repeatedly that, quote: “A coup is better than the corrupt Taksin.” The sad fact is, some editors at the Bangkok Post, thinks the same way as the Thai Lawyer Association.

  • “The recent election is so corrupt it put MPs in power to corrupt Thailand,” said a Bangkok Post editorial recently.

The fact is, I did not read the Bangkok Post article-about how stupid it is, to turn back the clock. From reading the head-line, I did not know if it is the opinion of someone or is it an editorial.

  • And off course, anyone mature knows, sometimes you have to “Turn Back the Clock” and revisit history. Lets just say, that the Bangkok Post headline confused me.

But the following is from the “Opinion” section of the Bangkok Post, by Suranund.

Why should anyone care about the Nitirat Group? Well, it is the first group who propose accountability relating to the 2006 coup.

The proposal never had a chance of gaining traction with the Thai establishment and its press. However, Nitirat Group proposal have gotten a cult followers-with the enlightened Thais. The group’s impact, in the final analysis, is to serve notice-that there are those in Thailand, that are thinking about accountability.

The following is from Suranand Vejjajiva:

LET IT BE

Nitirat and the original sin of coups d’etat

    Published: 30/09/2011 at 12:00 AM

    Newspaper section: News

The argument put forth by a group of law professors from Thammasat University who call themselves Nitirat (pronounced nitti-raat and meaning Citizens’ Law), has stirred up a vibrant debate between academics, politicians and the general public, especially via the online community.

A member of the Nitirat group, Worajet Phakeerat, addresses the audience at Thammasat University’s faculty of law auditorium.

The gist of the controversial proposal is: to nullify the legality of the coup d’etat of Sept 19, 2006 and the subsequent legal actions taken as a result of the coup. These would encompass all orders declared by the Council of Democratic Reform (CDR) formed by the coup leaders as the legal entity which exercised power at the time.

Nitirat’s proposal also seeks to nullify Sections 36 and 37 of the temporary constitution of 2006, which endorsed the actions taken by the CDR and provided amnesty for the coup leaders. Any rulings by the Constitution Judiciary Commission, the Constitution Court and the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions based upon the orders of the CDR and others resulting from the coup _ especially those rulings from the processes initiated by the Assets Scrutiny Committee appointed by CDR _ are also to be invalidated.

There are many other interesting aspects in the declaration of the Nitirat group; these touch upon the rationale behind the measures proposed, the ongoing debate over Article 112 concerning lese majeste, the judicial and remedial processes for the losses endured by many from the political conflict and violence after the coup d’etat, and the drafting of a new constitution.

All are important matters which should be addressed and publicly debated. But so far in the past fortnight the agitation has centred on the nullification of the coup and subsequent legal actions.

On the surface, the uproar over Nitirat’s proposal remains front and centre on the ongoing political conflict between the forces against ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, and his supporters. Nitirat has been accused of exploring and pursuing a path to cleanse Thaksin of all wrongdoing and pave the way for his eventual return. The pro-Thaksin forces have, of course, quickly embraced Nitirat’s proposal as part of their cause.

I am not a legal expert, so I will not dwell on the legal technicalities; I am only following the arguments closely. But as a student of political economy, this is my take:

First, it is intellectually refreshing that a group of young and progressive academics is willing to challenge the establishment by “thinking out of the box”. Their statements have substance and not the usual political rhetoric from either side of the conflict. The red and yellow shirts, the government, the Puea Thai Party and the opposition Democrat Party have all so far been unable to move beyond the daily scuffle. Agree with them or not, Nitirat has certainly sparked a round of stimulating democratic exercise needed in this country.

Second, it would be unfair to the seven law professors constituting the Nitirat group to say they are political tools of anyone in particular. When the group was formed last year, its intent was clear. The professors declared they did not agree with the 2006 coup since it went against democratic principles; they were among the first few who came out to condemn the coup. The use and abuse of the power snatched by the coup leaders and their interpretation of the law were not consistent with the ideology of being a legal state and a democracy.

On its website , Nitirat states: “We, a small group of people who by profession are law professors, formed a group called ‘Nitirat’ with the hope of being one of the nuts-and-bolts in establishing lawful/legal state politics/democracy so that ‘the supreme power of the country is of the citizens’ and ‘all humans are born free and equal in honour/status (saksri) and rights (sitthi)” _ (niti means law, rat from raatsadorn or citizens).

Third, nowhere did the Nitirat professors indicate in their proposed measures the assumption that would lead to the vindication of Thaksin or others. All Nitirat argues is that the means were wrong and the end did not justify the means _ i.e. putting an end to an elected government, even one accused of corruption and abuses of power, through a coup is not democratic and just. The viability of the democratic and judicial processes is as important in maintaining a fair and just society. If the processes are corrupted, the results are as the fruits of poisonous trees.

Nitirat may want to nullify the coup, but any allegations and evidence of wrongdoing do not simply disappear and still could be arraigned through the established judicial process.

Fourth, since any coup d’etat is wrong, an amnesty for coup leaders is not valid. Nitirat’s proposal to nullify the amnesty instituted in the temporary constitution of 2006 (and carried into the present constitution of 2007) is a direct hit at those involved in organising the coup. Coup leaders, military personnel and civilians who facilitated the coup could be made liable for the damages they caused in taking matters into their own hands, in tearing up the 1997 constitution and snatching power from an elected government.

In reality, of course, this may not conclude in sending the coup leaders and to jail; more importantly, it will be a lesson that must be learned _ that the will of the people must be preserved and respected. The problems of a democracy must be resolved democratically and it is a moral hazard to believe that any white knight riding on a tank can push the “reset” button and make the world better overnight.

Lastly, Nitirat has touched on a raw nerve, which has been underlying the struggle of Thai democracy for the past 79 years. Royalists, monarchists and elitists in Thailand have always argued that the “original sin” stemmed from the Revolution of 1932 by Khana Rassasadorn _ Citizens Party _ that brought about democracy under a constitutional monarchy. The revolution was premature, the population was not ready, more education was needed, the people were misled _ and the like, some of which excuses were still being reiterated during last year’s bloody crackdown on the red shirts.

But the original sin that has led to coups d’etat and instability of the Thai democratic system is not what happened in 1932. It is, however, the mentality of the elite in this country: that they are superior in morals and intellect and thus should be the “guiding class”. But it has been proven again and again that technocrats are no better than elected politicians and the military, as the defender of the country and the king. They always use the privilege as an excuse to suppress the masses for personal interest.

This is the essence of Nitirat. Humans are equal. We are born equal and should be given equal opportunity to pursue our lives and the liberty to achieve our dreams. Democracy, for all its faults, is the best system to protect our freedoms.

Suranand Vejjajiva served in the Thaksin Shinawatra cabinet and is now a political analyst.

Related articles

Related posts

Leave a comment