Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin finds himself in hot water following his contentious decision to appoint ex-convict Pichit Chuenban as a cabinet minister in the recent reshuffle. A coalition of 40 former senators, who have petitioned the Constitutional Court to oust the Prime Minister over this decision, has announced plans to submit their closing statement by the end of the month.
One of these ex-senators, Somchai Swangkarn, revealed on Monday that their group is finalizing a comprehensive closing argument. This statement, set to be delivered through the Senate speaker, urges the court to hold the Prime Minister responsible for appointing an ineligible individual to a ministerial position.
Mr. Somchai pointed out that despite Mr. Srettha’s claim to have consulted the Council of State on the matter, the request submitted by the cabinet secretariat painted a different picture. According to Mr. Somchai, the secretariat conveniently sidestepped the pertinent criteria under Section 160 (4) and (5) of the constitution, which demand that cabinet ministers uphold moral integrity and refrain from violating ethical standards set for political officeholders.
“Instead of seeking guidance on whether Pichit met the standards detailed in Section 160 (4) and (5), the secretariat asked the council about the unrelated requirements in Section 160 (6) and (7),” Mr. Somchai elucidated. Section 160 (6) lays out the parameters for election candidates, while Section 160 (7) explicitly bars convicts from holding cabinet posts.
“By framing the question around Section 160 (6) and (7), the secretariat attempted to manipulate the narrative to suggest that Pichit was eligible for the ministerial role. Had they inquired about compliance with Section 160 (4) and (5), the council’s response would have undoubtedly been different,” Mr. Somchai argued.
The former senators had initially lodged their petition to remove Mr. Srettha in May, asserting that Pichit was unsuitable for the cabinet post due to his 2008 imprisonment for contempt of court. The charge stemmed from an attempt to bribe Supreme Court officials in a notorious land dispute involving ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra.
Interestingly, Pichit resigned from his position as PM’s Office Minister just before the court accepted the petition, a move that many viewed as a strategic attempt to extricate Mr. Srettha from the ensuing legal quagmire. While the court agreed to probe the allegations against Mr. Srettha, it dismissed the case against Pichit, citing his resignation.
The Constitutional Court has scheduled its ruling on Mr. Srettha’s case for August 14. Meanwhile, sources within the cabinet argue that Pichit’s 2008 imprisonment does not disqualify him from ministerial appointments, as he was named a minister more than a decade after completing his jail term, a stipulation in the election law.
However, whether Pichit meets the moral and ethical standards required by the constitution remains a contentious issue. On Monday, another former senator, Wanchai Sornsiri, chipped in, pointing out that Pichit was only convicted of contempt of court, not attempted bribery, a distinction that would have precluded him from taking the post.
I can’t believe that Pichit, an ex-convict, was even considered for a ministerial role! This is a disgrace to our country.
Totally agree. How can someone who tried to bribe a Supreme Court official be suitable for such a high position?
But wasn’t he only convicted for contempt of court, not bribery? There’s a big difference.
Ethical standards should still be maintained, regardless of the crime. Contempt of court is a serious matter!
Come on, everyone deserves a second chance. It’s been more than a decade since his conviction.
It’s clear the PM tried to manipulate the system by focusing on the wrong sections of the constitution. This kind of behavior is unacceptable.
Srettha is just trying to protect his political allies. This is nothing new in politics. It’s all about leveraging power.
That may be true, but shouldn’t we hold our leaders to higher standards?
Absolutely, but good luck finding any politician who hasn’t bent the rules to their advantage at some point.
It’s this kind of cynicism that allows these things to happen!
If the court dismisses this case, it will be a clear signal that our legal system is corrupt. This needs to be a wake-up call.
Seriously, people need to chill. The guy served his time. He’s eligible under current laws, so what’s the fuss about?
The issue isn’t just legal eligibility. It’s about whether he meets the ethical standards expected of someone in his position.
At the end of the day, this is more about political power plays than actual concern for ethics.
Maybe, but holding our leaders accountable is critical for a healthy democracy.
True, but politics has always been dirty. This isn’t new!
I find it hilarious that Pichit resigned just before the court accepted the petition. Such a strategic retreat.
It’s a pathetic attempt to save face. Srettha needs to own up to his mistakes.
All this drama over something that happened more than a decade ago. People need to move on.
And let people with questionable ethics run our country? No way. Accountability is key.
Everyone makes mistakes. If he’s reformed, why not let him serve?
What does it say about our system if we can’t even agree on what sections of the constitution apply? This is absurd.
Agreed. The legal interpretation game is just politics disguised as law.
Why didn’t Srettha just appoint someone without a criminal past? Seems like there were better options.
Maybe Pichit has skills and experience those other ‘clean’ candidates don’t have. Who knows?
Skills don’t override the need for ethical and moral standards in leadership. That’s a slippery slope.
People always get worked up over stuff like this, but in the end, nothing will change. It’s all theater.
Srettha’s strategy is clear: manipulate the narrative to fit his agenda. It’s insulting to the public’s intelligence.
Politics isn’t about truth. It’s about perception and control.