EC must carry on with its work

General News - Thursday December 20, 2007

EDITORIAL

EC must carry on with its work

The Election Commission really has a tough job trying to ensure a free and fair election for all parties and candidates. Moreover, its equally important task is to encourage as many voters as possible to go to the polls by making it convenient and easy for them to exercise their voting rights. Thus, the advance voting held on Dec 15-16 was meant for voters who cannot make it to the polling booths this Sunday for different personal reasons. It is fair to say that the EC has been extraordinarily flexible in allowing advance voting without the need for eligible voters to register in advance for the right to vote ahead of election day. The unusually convenient advance voting held last weekend was hailed as a great success for the EC. Almost three million voters or more than 80% of those who applied for advance voting have cast their ballots.

Unfortunately, the EC's action has landed it in unexpected trouble. Three candidates of the New Aspiration and the Pracharaj parties on Tuesday filed a suit against the EC with the Central Administrative Court, demanding that the court immediately scrap the advance voting and put off the elections. Citing the constitution and the royal decree pronouncing the holding of the election, the three candidates claimed the EC had no legal basis to organise the advance voting.

As of yesterday, the Central Administrative Court had yet to accept the case for consideration. It is still a big question whether the Central Administrative Court or the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the case. Nevertheless, this has caused widespread confusion among members of the public about whether the election will actually take place. Or whether the outcome of the election will be affected if the court accepts the case for consideration and rules against the advance voting.

The EC is unperturbed by the petition, although some of the commissioners raised questions about the three candidates' motives. It has assured that the election will go on as scheduled, despite persistent rumours that certain powerful elements want it postponed for fear that it may bring back the old power clique and set the country on a course of confrontational politics, as witnessed in the final year of the Thaksin administration.

The EC has been constantly tested and challenged, both by election cheats employing all the tricks imaginable to win the poll, and by those whose intention may only be to test the commission's mettle. A case in point is that of Prasaeng Mongkolsiri, a People Power candidate of Uthai Thani, who has openly challenged the EC to disqualify him by putting up posters of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra together with his own during campaigning and by distributing VCDs of Mr Thaksin's speech.

The EC claims it is investigating more than 10 cases of election violations, including Prasaeng's, with the possibility that red cards may be issued. While it is understandable that the EC has to be thorough in its investigations, it is necessary that the EC teach a lesson to violators and thereby send a stern message that the election watchdog is not a paper tiger and that it means business. The longer it takes for a verdict to be issued, the bolder the violators will become in challenging the EC's authority.

In the Prasaeng case, some critics have wondered aloud why the People Power party has done virtually nothing to stop its candidate from acting in breach of the electoral law. Is it possible that the party has benefited from his action and chosen not to intervene, as has been the case with the widespread distribution of the Thaksin VCDs?

In light of all the challenges by bona fide politicians and election cheats, the Election Commission cannot afford to be seen as wavering, shaken or cowed. The EC must have the resolve and courage to punish wrongdoers by issuing them with red cards or, in more serious cases, to dissolve their parties even if such decisions may cause widespread resentment. Certainly, such unpopular decisions must be unbiased and based on a thorough consideration of all the evidence available.

Bangkok Post