• 
• 

Published on September 6, 2007

Whatever it was, the Thai government still needs to get the EU's delegation of observers here - and make sure they get equal treatment as those from all other countries.

But it should also make sure that no MOU is signed with the European Union. Or else the Thai government may be accused of not providing a level playing field. We would then end up with a Memorandum of Misunderstanding rather than the originally intended Memorandum of Understanding.

That, in fact, was what actually happened. The proposed MOU was supposed to promote understanding. Certain wording in the draft, however, had all the trappings of clear misunderstanding.

According to the Thai-language text sneaked out to the press, one paragraph said that the EU observers would have to be given guarantees to have access to "every stage, every meeting, every arrangement in the preparation of data related to the election organisation ..." That's my own loose, and therefore unofficial, translation.

If that draft, published in some local newspapers, wasn't some sort of a doctored document aimed at undermining the good relations between Thailand and the EU, you surely couldn't blame Foreign Minister Nitya Pibulsonggram for blowing his top and declaring: "We are not a failed state."

The next paragraph in the proposed draft demands that, on election day, the EU observers must be authorised to "observe" the ballot-casting activities "at any location" be it a polling booth or a vote-counting area. They must also be permitted to "observe the management of the election process".

That kind of language inevitably strikes any suspicious mind as an attempt by an outsider to "interfere with" rather than "observe" a national election of a sovereign state. Why else would the EU observers want to have access to "every meeting, every planning session" of the National Election Commission?

And when Portuguese ambassador Antonio de Faria e Maya, whose country holds the EU presidency, called a press conference to say that the MOU was "totally negotiable", that must have raised further doubt in the minds of the sceptics. Is this some sort of a poker game in which one side calls the other's bluff?

I am reasonably sure, however, that the tough, lamentable language used in the proposed MOU - even the one signed by president of the EU, Jose Manuel Barroso - was in fact the work of some overzealous technocrats in the EU's secretariat rather than the handiwork of any experienced diplomat.

Therefore, when the ambassador declared that the EU had no intention of controlling or interfering with the upcoming Thai elections, I had no difficulty lending him the credence he deserved. Indeed, it was quite obvious that the envoy was doing his best to appease the anger of the Thai public over what he described as "misunderstandings".

The September 2006 coup was of course against the basic principle of democracy, and when the EU took a critical position against the ousting of a democratically-elected government by a military junta, quite a few Thais accepted - even respected - that stance.

And now that the country is struggling to return to the democratic process - passing a new constitution and setting an election date - the least that most Thais could expect from the EU is a public show of support, not a lack of faith in Thailand's own ability to hold a reasonably free and fair election.

 Now, to prove that the National Election Commission means business, it will have to invite observers from as many countries as possible - and make sure they catch some big vote-buying candidates this time, with or without signing an MOU, with all the political parties suspected of employing all possible vote-buying tricks.

Suthichai Yoon

(Visit my English-language blog:blog.nationmultimedia.com/ThaiTalk).