When two sets of rules spell double trouble

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha may want to tread carefully in exercising his special power under Section 44 to serve his increasingly arbitrary and unpredictable decisions. These have proven even more erratic recently, especially after he invoked Section 44 to fire Election Commissioner Somchai Srisutthiyakorn last week.

Granted, this is not Gen Prayut’s first dismissal of a key official. He earlier used his dictatorial powers to replace former Bangkok governor MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra with incumbent Pol Gen Aswin Kwanmuang.

After sacking Mr Somchai, the premier signed another order using his power as head of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) to dismiss Thai Rubber Association governor Titus Suksaard.

There is no question that Section 44 is a capricious power concentrated only on one person while superseding every administrative branch in the country. Nothing can keep it in check.

Thanks to its whimsical nature, there is no doubt that the more frequently this power is used, the more dubious it becomes. With great power comes great responsibility — even Spiderman knew that. The immense power of this sweeping measure can only be supported by as sizeable a legitimacy. Otherwise, it will soon crumble.

While it is difficult to justify using the power of what may be plainly described as someone’s subjective judgement to remove state officials — or run state affairs, for that matter — invoking it against a member of an independent organisation like the Election Commission for reasons that do not seem that hefty will make the military regime’s standard operating procedure look even more lopsided.

According to the dismissal order, Mr Somchai was sacked for offering his personal opinions in a way that caused confusion about the timing of the general election tipped for next February.

Another reason cited was that the former election commissioner caused a conflict of interest after he applied for the role of EC secretary-general without resigning first as a commissioner. Under the law, EC members must select the secretary-general.

It’s true that Mr Somchai may not be the most popular election commissioner. He did give a lot of opinions, some of which were neither welcomed nor principled. His decision to compose a poem about the 2013-2014 political crisis that saw parts of Bangkok shut down is one example.

Mr Somchai is also known for his penchant for grabbing media attention. His attempt to prove that a newly procured ballot box was more durable than a previous version by throwing it to the floor to see if it would break merely added to his clownish image.

It’s also true that some people, especially those from the pro-democracy camp, might view Mr Somchai’s dismissal as a fate well-deserved. The former commissioner was considered one of the NCPO’s cheerleaders until it sacked his entire election panel by means of an organic law under the new constitution.

Since then, Mr Somchai has grown critical of Gen Prayut’s roadmap to the election. He insisted a petition to the Constitutional Court urging a review of the MP election bill would affect the roadmap when the top brass insisted it would not.

But did all these negative qualities merit his being fired as a member of an independent agency designed to counter the power of the executive arm?

Most of all, can he really be held responsible for why the public has become so confused about when the election, which has already been delayed several times, will be held?

Mr Somchai’s opinions may differ from others in the regime but he could not have misled the public more than Gen Prayut, who has repeatedly reset the poll date.

The PM now insists next February is a date we can trust. According to simple logic, if he is a man of his word, there should be no more doubt or confusion about the timing of the poll, right?

Wrong. Gen Prayut even admitted in his order to dismiss Mr Somchai that the public remains perplexed about when they will get to cast their votes. Are we to infer from this the public does not believe the PM? If so, is it Mr Somchai’s fault?

While the grounds for firing Mr Somchai are dubious, the power of Section 44 appears to be arbitrary.

If he could be fired simply for contradicting the regime, how about others seen by the public as being more unscrupulous? As the saying goes, a double standard once applied will always jut out.