The Tawil-Yingluck face-off gets complicated

Expect a drawn-out battle between Premier Yingluck Shinawatra and Thawil Pliensri, the former secretary general of the National Security Council, demanding to be returned to his former post. The Administration Court last week ruled that the premier must give him back the previous position.

Several complications are bound to emerge. For one thing, the premier isn’t likely to comply with the court’s order immediately. Thawil was a tough-talking bureaucrat who mounted a relentless campaign against being transferred from his NSC post to become an adviser to the prime minister. He wasn’t considered “one of us” within the Yingluck government who almost immediately upon taking office replaced Thawil with an “insider” – Lt Gen Paradon Pattanatarbutr.

Thawil fought the case with vehemence. He claimed that the transferred was carried out unfairly and that he had done nothing wrong to deserve the move. The premier had said the transfer was aimed at “boosting the efficiency in implementing government policies because Thawil was well versed in national security affairs and would be able to better serve the government as adviser to the prime minister.”

Thawil took the matter up with the Administration Court, seeking a return to the post, citing unfair practices.

The court’s verdict sided with Thawil, the premier’s official reason for the transfer did not match real action. Part of the ruling read:

“The position of NSC secretary general carries a higher degree of responsibility (than those of a premier’s adviser) and the incumbent could offer advice to the prime minister (without having to be transferred anyway…”

The court also ruled that the transfer had been carried in violation of normal practices which state that recipient unit must initiate the move by seeking the superior’s approval before putting a written request to the work unit of the person involved. That process apparently wasn’t followed.

Once politicians are in power, they tend to think they could move bureaucrats around without having to comply with the established rules. Or perhaps, the premier might have been ill advised, having just taken over office, as to how to reshuffle technocrats around without facing court cases.

Technically, Premier Yingluck doesn’t have to comply with the court’s order immediately. She has the right of appeal – and there is little doubt that she will pursue that path. Accepting the verdict without putting up a fight would entail further problems. Several other prominent bureaucrats who have complained about being edged out of their positions for “political reasons” have lodged similar complaints. Those who haven’t done so may be emboldened by Thawil’s case.

Thawil himself has made no secret of his desire to encourage others in a similar situation to follow his example. He told reporters: “My advice to government officials who have been maltreated the same way not to submit to political pressure. If they are bullied, don’t go down on your knees to ask for mercy. That would not futile. They should follow the procedure available to them. That means to fight. To win or lose is another thing. Bureaucrats shouldn’t fight among themselves. In most cases, it’s the politicians who bully officials…”

Another possible complication is related to the fragile ongoing peace talks with representatives from Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN). The Thai official delegation is led by the current NSC secretary general, Lt Gen Paradon Pattanatabutr. The fact that the incumbent may have to vacate his seat to make way for his predecessor’s return has thrown a spanner in the works.

Opposition Democrat Party’s deputy leader Thaworn Senneam has already called for the postponement of the peace dialogue until the government resolves the uncertainty over the leadership at the NSC. The premier will have to decide how to handle this highly sensitive issue that has both domestic impact and regional consequences.

It’s a Catch-22 situation for the premier. If she doesn’t appeal the verdict, her political clout would be dented. If she does, Thawil is set to mount his second attack. He says he will take the case to the National Anti-Corruption Commission if the premier decided to appeal “in order to protect myself from further persecution.”

Either way, the battle promises to be a long, painful one

We are a nation without Plan B

Energy Minister Pongsak Ruktapongpisal says the May 21’s power blackout in all 14 southern provinces was “unavoidable.” He put the blame on a natural occurrence: lightning striking a high-voltage transmission line that supplied power to the South.


Then came the warning from energy officials that because of the lack of power plants, a similar breakdown of power on a regional scale could hit the Northeast and even the capital, Bangkok.

The two official explanations – technical and natural accidents – obviously don’t answer the crucial question: Where was Plan B?

Even if we were ready to accept all the official reasons cited for the country’s worst power breakdown, there is still no guarantee that a repeat of the scary “Southern Total Blackout” would not take place.

It’s even more frightening when you suddenly discovered that Thailand had always been in such a vulnerable situation. All the “what if” questions immediately surfaced. What if some terrorists had detected the “power vulnerability” of the country’s energy supply system? What if lightning had struck in other parts of the country at the same time. What if a “human error” had added to the “technical trip-up?” What if the total blackout had taken place on an election evening?

Let’s assume we accept all the explanations given so far by the government:

- Power produced in the South doesn’t meet the local demand.

- The incident was not part of a conspiracy to stage incidents to support the policy of building coal-fired power plants.

- The blackout wasn’t related to the energy minister’s earlier warning of a widespread blackout because a natural gas facility in Myanmar that supplies Thailand’s power plants was under maintenance.

- The blackout wouldn’t have been so widespread had it not been for the fact that the system was running on a automatic mode. Had the system been handled manually, the power failure would have been on a more limited scale.

Still, the main question remains: Where was the “contingency plan” and where did the buck stop?

No heads have rolled so far. Accountability doesn’t appear to be high on the political agenda.

The national malaise of the lack of “Plan B” affects not only the energy sector that this particular incident has underscored. It pervades the whole political and social spectrum. And that’s the main reason why we have been stuck in the mud for so many years.

There is no “contingency plan” for a country caught in a conflict that has plunged the country into an abyss from which we have yet to emerge. We now hear calls for “going for broke” from the ruling politicians to ram through the constitutional changes and an amnesty bill that have stirred new controversies.

The ruling elite have Plan A to get what they want. We aren’t sure what would happen if the “going-all-the-way” strategy backfired, triggering a “political blackout” that covers the whole country. In that case, it would not be possible to put the blame on a natural occurrence such as lightning. There is no Plan B to avoid a potentially disastrous confrontation.

The government’s controversial and highly expensive rice pledging scheme has been a glaring Plan A to “raise the living standards of poor farmers.” Now, despite the fact that the plan has floundered and could incur the tax-payers huge losses, there is no “contingency plan” to beat a tactful retreat. There has never been a Plan B either.

Before the next disaster, be it energy, political or superstitious issue, strikes, we badly need a Plan B in place for every major endeavor in the country.

The risk of being unceremoniously hurled from Plan A to chaotic Plan Z is simply too high to be acceptable.

A confession? A ruse? A slip of the tongue?

Kittiratt vs Prasarn: Sport topics are great; interest rates too hot for dinner

Central bank governor Prasarn Trairatvorakul had a dinner appointment with Finance Minister Kittiratt na Ranong the other day and the whole of Thailand wanted to know how it went.

The minister had publicly said he wanted the governor replaced for not reducing policy interest rates. The governor has stuck to his gun, arguing that interest rates weren't the real reason behind the strengthening baht.

"The first half an hour of the dinner was fine because we were talking about sports. But when the topic was interest rates was raised, the atmosphere became somewhat tense because we still had different ideas on the issue. The minister still wanted the policy interest rate to be reduced by 1%," Prasarn told Matichon in an interview published today.

Obviously, the two left the dinner the same way they had met earlier in the evening: Both agreed to disagree.

Asked whether he had given up on the fight? Prasarn responded: "I would have to make a decision if we hit a situation where we can't find a way out and if my continued presence causes damage to the country. But the fact remains that our economy remains reasonably stable with a proper balance."

My take? Prasarn isn't giving in easily. He is here for the long haul.

PM's interference won't end Finance-BoT conflict

Bank of Thailand chairman Virabongsa Ramangkura has urged Premier Yingluck Shinawatra to intervene in the currency dispute between the central bank and finance ministry.


But is this an issue that can be resolved through political “mediation?”

In fact, I am not sure that Dr Virabongsa was serious in making that suggestion. In fact, it was more like an afterthought during a surprise press conference he called last Thursday. It was clear that his intention to hold the public session was to dramatise the “failure” of the central bank in curbing the rise of the baht value.

Virabongsa made no secret of his fear that that if nothing was done to solve the problem, the country could “sink to its demise or the economic could go into bankruptcy.”

But he devoted a great amount of time to discussing how difficult it was to dismiss Dr Prasarn Trairatvorakul from the post as central governor.

In fact, earlier reports said the premier, in a meeting of her kitchen cabinet earlier last week, had posed the question of how the central governor could be legally replaced. Her office has yet to issue a denial to that story.

Finance Minister Kittirat na Ranong has gone on public saying he was “thinking about replacing the central governor every day.”

There is little doubt that the government is very unhappy with Prasarn for not being “obedient” enough in a number of controversial policy issues, the latest being the repeated suggestion by Viragongsa and Kittirat to reduce interest rate to curb the strengthening of the baht.

Prasarn has argued, both publicly and in official documents to the government, that bringing down the interest rates wouldn’t solve the problem. But then under the law, decisions of interest rates doesn’t rest with the governor. The Monetary Policy Committee is in the official organ to review interest rates on a regular basis. The central bank governor is only a member of the committee although the finance minister appears to believe that the governor could influence most, if not all, of the MPC members.

Can the central governor be sacked? Under the law, he can be removed from office by the Cabinet on the recommendation of the finance minister – not for defying political wishes or orders – but for “serious wrong misconduct or dishonest performance.”

The BoT says the MPC is in charge of interest rates. The finance minister holds the BoT responsible for the strong baht. Virabongsa, as BoT’s board chairman, insists that he doesn’t really want to see Prasarn dismissed. Perhaps, he has read all the clauses in the law and come to the conclusion that sacking Prasarn for disagreeing with the government would make things worse.

Does he really think that the premier’s direct intervention would resolve the conflict between the central bank and the finance ministry?

This isn’t an issue between two politicians fighting over their respective interests over which the prime minister has total control. This is in fact a normal and in fact healthy divergence of views over whether interest rates are related to the strengthening of the currency – and what policy options are the most appropriate. It’s not about sharing the cake. It’s about academic analysis and pragmatic experience. It’s about mutual respect between politicians and technocrats.

It’s not about threats of dismissal or “you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch yours” compromises. It’s about mature, responsible people putting all the arguments for all sides on the table and, realizing there are no panaceas, deciding on the most practical monetary tools while closely monitoring to check on the outcomes.

Political intervention will only raise more questions and answers. Restoring mutual respect and professionalism between the finance ministry and central bank as well as the MPC is the only path to a real solution.

What's up, Madame PM?

A rare pose of Premier Yingluck Shinawatra. It's not clear what she was laughing about but photographers say the premier often shows her personal, soft side when the right question is posed to her. Avoid tough, political questions especially about her elder brother at all costs!

Thaksin goes for broke

Thaksin Shinawatra is going for broke. According to a Pheu Thai MP, the former premier said in a recent Skype session with the party members that if the move to amend the constitution failed, the party should turn the table -- by dissolving Parliament to call a new election so that Pheu Thai could return with an absolute majority to clear the way to amend the charter.

Ubon Ratchathani MP Somkid Chuakong quoted Thaksin as saying that the Constitutional Court had no reason to stop Parliament from voting to change clauses in the charter. That's why if the party's plan could not proceed, the alternative is to go back to the people to ask for a clear-cut mandate to return to Parliament and get the job done.

That, of course, will prove very controversial. Perhaps, it's only a threat to get his way without having to return to the polling booths. But one thing is clear: He is desperate to get the constitution changed the way he wants -- and he isn't sure that the plan will pull through.