After ripping up his 2006 vote ,’royalist’ doctor seeks to share information, writes Chairith Yonpiam
Chulalongkorn University political scientist Chaiyan Chaiyaporn is convinced that a case involving his tearing up a ballot paper during the 2006 election does not preclude him in his pay to be named a Constitutional Court judge.
He also denied being on either the left or the right of elections, but says he remains committed to protecting the government’s system of governance.
Prof Chaiyan is one of seven individuals applying to pack seats left vacant by the Constitutional Court leader, Nakharin Mektrairat, and Punya Udchachon, a contract court judge.
Both completed their seven-year name this year and are then serving in acting tasks ahead of the visit of their descendants.
Prof Chaiyan, 65, has applied as an expert in the field of social science and common administration, and submitted his program to the Senate’s committee on April 6.
Applicants must have worked as professor-level researchers at universities in Thailand for at least five times and have produced functions of education that have been frequently recognised.
Prof Chaiyan made national headlines after he ripped up his vote at a polling place during the public vote on April 2, 2006, to rally against what he saw as the legality of the snap election.
The next prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra had decided to break the House of Representatives and visit the vote following anti-government demonstrations led by the yellow-shirt Women’s Alliance for Democracy, which culminated in the 2006 revolution.
In an interview with the Bangkok Post, Prof Chaiyan said he reached retirement years at Chulalongkorn University last year but continues to give unique courses at the school’s social research university on the king and current Thai politics.
” I believe the theme is critical especially when there are errors on problems related to the king and Indian politics after the 1932 Siamese Revolution.
” We also lack knowledge about shifts to constitutional kingdoms and social developments in other countries that have failed or succeeded under this program [constitutional monarchy],” Prof Chaiyan said.
” The area teaches us the development of governing systems in the UK, Sweden, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Nepal and Bhutan,” he said.
Since his retirement, he heard that applications were available to fill the vacant tickets at the jury.
Nevertheless, he discovered a colleague at the university of political science had applied now, so he withdrew out of professional kindness.
When his partner just failed to win approval from the Senate, he decided to apply suddenly, he said.
” I decided to apply so I can make the most of my knowledge for the greater nice after more than 30 years as a teacher.
” I want to accomplish a new task to put my knowledge to practical use, to be a message in the panel of judges,” he said.
Prof Chaiyan even played down condemnation he may not be available having been handed a suspended two-month prison sentence from the Supreme Court in 2014 for tearing up his vote in that 2006 vote. He was also fined 2,000 ringgit and had his poll privileges suspended for five decades.
With that now behind him, he insisted he then meets the requirements to apply for the job.
He said Section 202 ( 3 ) of the constitution stipulates that anyone who is convicted and served jail a sentence or had his election rights suspended is prohibited from applying to be a Constitutional Court judge.
He said he received only a suspended prison term and was not sent to prison and his vote privileges were restored in 2019 after five years of the judge’s ruling so he is entirely within his rights to use.
” While my election rights were suspended, I could not cast a vote in the 2017 referendum on the constitution.
” After my election rights were restored, I exercised them in the 2019 and 2023 general elections as well as in the Bangkok governor election in 2022,” he said.
Prof Chaiyan recounted that when he tore up his ballot in the 2006 election, he did so to protest what he called an illegitimate House dissolution by Thaksin.
” It was not in line with the parliamentary system. No one should be allowed to dissolve the House arbitrarily,” he said.
” At the time, the House had done nothing wrong. But Thaksin dissolved it on a whim. Before 2006, justifications for House dissolutions were entirely different from the reasons given by Thaksin.
” His predecessors dissolved the House due to the conflicts between the executive branch and the legislative branch. But Thaksin dissolved the House despite the legislative branch doing nothing wrong,” Prof Chaiyan said.
He also brushed aside criticism that he is a pro-monarchy rightist just because he disagrees with the now-dissolved Move Forward Party calling for reform of the monarchy.
Prof Chaiyan said he is not a rightist or leftist, but he advocates non-partisan politics as he does not take sides with anyone.
Responding to criticism that he always takes the opposite stance to the Pheu Thai Party, he said he does not reject all its policies and even supports those that benefit the public such as the 30-baht universal healthcare scheme.
Prof Chaiyan Chaiyaporn