The media think the area around the immediate perimeter of the Election Commission (EC) might be a high-risk zone.

More than two months ago, newspapers, election observers and concerned citizens began calling for the four election commissioners to resign, believing the commissioners, led by chairman Vasana Puemlarp, had lost their legitimacy to organise future elections due to their controversial role and alleged partiality towards the ruling Thai Rak Thai Party in the April 2 election.

Only one of the four resigned, and that was a month ago. The remaining three look set to cling onto their posts despite growing calls for them to step down for the sake of the country or risk 10 years' imprisonment from at least two ongoing lawsuits about their alleged partiality and abuse of power.

One senior election observer told this writer not long ago that he would love to "spit in the faces" of the three remaining commissioners if he happened to run into them in the future. Another called the problem unprecedented and said foreign countries may want to learn from the Thai experience to avoid facing the same crisis.

Even the Bangkok Post, known for its polite editorials, said not long ago, "If [the three commissioners] still had any self-respect, dignity or conscience, they would realise their continued presence in office could only cause the country more damage."

Some local Thai-language newspapers have even nicknamed Vasana Phi Na, or "Thick Face". Some have suggested that Vasana and his two deputies would make excellent presenters for manufacturers of roof and floor tiles that wanted to make consumers believe their products were indeed more durable against the elements.

Yet the three remaining commissioners have all pleaded innocent to every charge against them and said they've done nothing wrong. Never mind the fact that billions more baht of taxpayer money will probably be wasted if these three are allowed to organise yet another election. Never mind that the Kingdom continues to be administered by a long-term caretaker government that in effect must postpone any major policy decisions (which might be a blessing in disguise, actually).

So how did Thai society come to this? Is there no sense of shame that is universally recognised here? Is it fair to blame the EC trio alone, or do many others share the same level of shamelessness, which may be widespread albeit outside the public limelight?

Not a few corporations shamelessly take advantage of consumers despite protests. And we have a prime minister who said he would leave his position, only to shamelessly renege on his pledge and return to work in less than two months. Everywhere can be seen people shamelessly cutting ahead in queues and drivers overtaking one another dangerously.

A well-developed sense of shame and conscience seems to be the very quality that tempers greed and temptation. In the absence of the former, greed runs amok.

Perhaps the three election commissioners can be described as shameless. And in a society that values money above all else, shame is not ranked very high, just so long as you can get away with whatever it is you are doing.

But if these three are not shameless - and we suspect they aren't, judging from their hurt looks in public - then perhaps they have a very, very important mission to accomplish. Perhaps that's why they won't resign - no matter what. Some think they'll stick it out until the ruling party is safe and secure in its future. Or perhaps it's a combination of both a relative lack of shame and a need to finish their dubious assignment.

Given the current situation, Thai society would do well to develop standards for a public conscience for holders of public office. But we can't take our medicine before we can understand why this shamelessness of ours appears to be on the rise in the public sphere. Thorough research into this topic is needed.

Perhaps politicians and senior officials need to have their conscience or shame threshold measured before taking up their positions.

It's bad for the public when people at the top of the social echelon, like Vasana, at least appear to suffer from shamelessness, because they're setting a bad example. Thus a more creative and effective way of naming and shaming people who have done bad things is needed.

Or is it?

Perhaps it's this writer and those who criticise the EC trio who are wrong. Maybe shamelessness is the very quality that got these people to the top in the first place. If that's the case, then maybe society should openly celebrate the quality. Perhaps Thai society thrives on shamelessness, and it should be espoused as a desirable trait that ensures survival.

But we need to make up our minds about it one way or the other.

 Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation