Prolonged

The Thai military will likely hold on to power for a prolonged period of time. The generals declared a coup last week, dislodging the elected government, two days after putting the kingdom under martial rule.

For two days, the military oversaw a conference between the contending parties to find a way out of the deepening political impasse. When no agreement could be forged, the generals proclaimed a coup and detained the political leaders to allow them the opportunity to “think things over.”

The military, under the leadership of Army Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha, announced the other day they would rule the country indefinitely. The objective of their rule is to create a “genuine democracy” for Thailand. Over the past week, despite a few protest actions in the streets, it seems the country has begun to accept military rule — especially as it now appears military rule is being endorsed by Thailand’s monarch.

Revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej has been silent on the coup. The King plays a very discreet but powerful role in Thai politics. His Majesty never explicitly instigates a coup. When a coup attempt produces even more uncertainty, the King calls in the generals and orders them to undo the situation. On the other hand, when a coup appears to be widely accepted, the King quietly throws his support behind it, providing the intervention with a mantle of legitimacy.

It is widely recognized that King Bhumibol was never comfortable with Thaksin Shinawatra, a business tycoon who appeared to usurp the King’s role as patron of the poor through his populist policies. Should elections be called anytime soon, it is likely that Thaksin, through his sister Yinluck, will continue to command the vote.

In a small item in the Royal Gazette the other day, notice was given that “there shall be a royal command to officially endorse the appointment of General Prayuth Chan-ocha as leader of the National Council for Peace and Order to administer the country from here onward.” No timeline is set for military rule. Prayuth, aged 60 and originally set to retire before events took a wild turn, is understood to be very close to the palace.

A score of countries have expressed their disagreement with the Thai military’s seizure of power.  That is an obligatory gesture for countries with elected governments. The US, for instance, cancelled scheduled joint military exercises and suspended a small amount of military assistance due this year.

In the end, however, no country will make too much of a fuss over the coup that just happened in Thailand. The ASEAN community, bound by the strict ethic of non-intervention in internal affairs, will maintain its usual silence on recent events.

After all, the last year demonstrated the bind Thai democracy finds itself in. Polarization can only deepen and likely lead to escalating political violence. The coup appears to be the only feasible method for averting this dangerous trend.

For better or for worse, in our neck of the woods, there is no monarchy to legitimize drastic acts dictated by the practicalities of statesmanship.

Liberty

Whatever our opinions of the man and the cases he faces in court, the lawyers of Delfin Lee do raise an interesting point that touches on the valuation our justice system places on the liberty of individuals.

In a petition to the Supreme Court, Lee’s lawyers argue from the premise that the Court of Appeals (CA) upheld a regional trial court ruling that there was no probable cause for the crime of syndicated estafa. On that basis, the warrant of arrest issued against him was recalled, lifted and quashed.

When prosecutors brought the matter to the Supreme Court, a temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued against the ruling of the CA. In the wake of that TRO, the Pampanga regional trial court arraigned Lee and has since kept him in jail.

This is the question raised by Lee’s lawyers: Can a mere TRO suspend the finding of the Appeals Court that there is no probable cause for the crime of syndicated estafa?

Continuing on that line, was there legal basis for the Pampanga trial court to arraign Lee on the basis of a TRO that merely put on hold the lower court’s own ruling finding no sufficient basis for the crime charged?

Lee’s camp is asking the High Court the opportunity to present oral arguments on these questions of law. These are questions that have bearing on concerns far larger than just the cases filed against Delfin Lee. A ruling by the High Court on these questions will define the valuation our political system puts on individual liberty.

Many of us were fascinated by the open trial held in South Africa last month involving the “blade runner” Oscar Pistorius. The issue in this trial is not whether the athlete killed his girlfriend. He has admitted to that. The only issue to be settled in the trial is whether this is a case of manslaughter or murder.

Pistorius’ admission that he did kill his girlfriend notwithstanding, the man was granted bail by the court. He has been free for over a year now to prepare for his legal defense. Beyond the case, we will have to admire the high value given South Africa’s justice system accords liberty.

By contrast, former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo languished in detention for years now even as government prosecutors falter every step of the way in proving their cases against her. She has been denied bail, a matter that now attracts the attention of human rights advocates worldwide.