Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin is facing mounting pressure over his somewhat controversial decision to appoint ex-convict Pichit Chuenban as a cabinet minister during the last reshuffle. A group of vigilant senators has taken a bold step, preparing to submit their closing statements to the Constitutional Court by end of month.
In the eye of this political storm are 40 determined former senators, spearheading the campaign to see Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin dismissed. Their fiery contention revolves around the appointment of Pichit Chuenban, an individual deemed ineligible for a cabinet minister position due to his past criminal record. One prominent voice among the senators, Somchai Swangkarn, declared on Monday that they are meticulously crafting a written closing statement intended for the Constitutional Court, a formidable document they plan to deliver via the Senate speaker.
Mr. Somchai revealed the thrust of their argument; they aim to hold the Prime Minister accountable for appointing someone who doesn’t fit the stringent criteria for a cabinet minister. Despite Mr. Srettha claiming he consulted the Council of State on this issue, evidence shared by the cabinet secretariat paints a different picture. The request to the Council did not inquire about the ethical and moral requirements pertinent under Section 160 (4) and (5) of the constitution, which are essential for anyone eyeing a cabinet post.
Section 160 (4) and (5) are quite clear-cut, mandating that cabinet ministers must uphold moral integrity and abstain from violating ethical standards meant for political office holders. However, Mr. Somchai pointed out that instead, the council was asked about entirely different requirements under Section 160 (6) and (7) of the constitution. These sections touch upon election candidate stipulations and conditions prohibiting convicted persons from holding a cabinet post.
“By questioning if Pichit met the requirements under Section 160 (6) and (7), the cabinet secretariat was cleverly attempting to construct a narrative of eligibility,” Mr. Somchai passionately stated. “Had they sought advice on whether Pichit adhered to the requirements of Section 160 (4) and (5), the response would have been crystal clear and unfavorable.”
Back in May, these former senators lodged a petition aiming to remove Mr. Srettha from his role as Prime Minister. Their focal point? The unsuitability of Pichit for a cabinet post, owing to jail time he served for contempt of court in 2008. The case involved a serious scandal where he tried to bribe Supreme Court officials over a controversial land issue linked to ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra.
Before things escalated, Pichit resigned from his post as PM’s Office Minister, seen by many as a strategy to save Mr. Srettha from further legal turmoil. While the court decided to take the case against Mr. Srettha into consideration, it dismissed the case against Pichit due to his resignation. Thus, the legal spotlight remains solely on Mr. Srettha, with a much-anticipated ruling slated for August 14.
Interestingly, a well-placed cabinet source earlier voiced that Pichit’s imprisonment didn’t initially disqualify him from a ministerial appointment. This was because his ministerial role came 10 years post his jail term, in compliance with election laws. The catch? Whether Pichit measured up to moral and ethical standards required by the constitution was another ball game altogether.
Former senator Wanchai Sornsiri chimed in on Monday, noting the finer details of Pichit’s conviction. He pointed out that Pichit was convicted for contempt of court — not attempted bribery. This nuance, according to Wanchai, makes a significant difference regarding eligibility for a cabinet position.
As the political landscape heats up, eyes are set on the unfolding drama. Will Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin weather this storm, or will the Constitutional Court’s decision transform Thailand’s political panorama? Only time will tell, and political aficionados are watching with bated breath.
I think it’s ridiculous that someone with a criminal background can even be considered for a cabinet post! This just shows how rotten politics can get.
True, but the law appears to have loopholes that permit such appointments after a certain period. Maybe it’s time the laws were revisited and made stricter.
You’re missing the point. The issue isn’t just about criminal background; it’s about the moral integrity required for such high offices. If the standards are not upheld, it undermines public trust.
@academic_777 Exactly! That’s why Srettha must be held accountable for appointing someone who doesn’t meet these ethical standards!
This sounds too much like a political witch hunt to me. If Pichit already resigned, why drag this on?
It’s not just about Pichit resigning. It’s about Srettha’s decision-making and accountability. If he bends the rules once, what’s stopping him from doing it again?
Indeed, integrity and trust in leadership are paramount. Plus, excusing such conduct sets a dangerous precedent.
@Najib But how do we know this isn’t just his political enemies trying to take him down? Politics can be so dirty.
This is all just optics and political theater. Both sides are more concerned with power than ethical standards.
Why not just follow the Constitution strictly? If someone doesn’t fit the criteria, they shouldn’t be appointed. Simple as that.
Appointing ex-convicts? That’s a new low. No wonder people have lost faith in politicians.
Pichit’s case is nuanced. He wasn’t convicted for bribery but for contempt of court. Does that really warrant this level of outrage?
Nuanced or not, contempt of court shows a disregard for the judicial system, which is serious for someone in public office.
But he served his time! Everyone deserves a second chance. This feels like political grandstanding.
@contrarian_2 Second chances are fine, but they should not come at the cost of the integrity required for public office.
@Justice_for_All Fair point, but the way this is playing out, it seems more like a political tactic than a genuine concern for ethics.
Section 160 (4) and (5) clearly demand moral integrity. If Pichit doesn’t meet those standards, then everyone should push for strict compliance.
Agreed! The law is the law. There’s no room for interpretation when it comes to moral standards in politics.
@journalist_gal Exactly. And the fact that Srettha tried to use a loophole is telling of his intentions.
But wasn’t the law adhered to, even though it’s flawed? It’s the lawmakers who need to step up and clarify these grey areas.
Is the court decision genuinely about ethics, or is it about political power plays? It’s hard to tell anymore.
I just want leaders who can improve our country’s situation. If they can’t meet moral standards, they shouldn’t be in power, period.
True, but remember, morality isn’t black and white. How do you draw the line?
@Vishal Patel There might be grey areas, but some actions, like appointing an ex-convict, clearly cross the line.
Interesting that Pichit’s past still haunts the political scene. It shows that actions, even from years ago, can have long-lasting effects.
This debate over legal and ethical standards is crucial, but let’s not forget the bigger picture: good governance and public welfare.
It’s sad but predictable. Power always comes with compromise. What about the people who genuinely want ethical leadership?
Unfortunately, those are the ones who get sidelined in political games.
@Jim88 Sidelined, true. But that doesn’t mean we should stop demanding better.
Seems like no matter the outcome, the credibility of the government will take a hit. Does Srettha think evading moral issues will help him?
Let’s see what the Constitutional Court decides. This ruling could change the future political landscape in this country.
What’s more, if Srettha is ousted, who will replace him? Sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.