LESSONS THAT THE LOTTERY VERDICT DIDN'T TEACH US

       Collective responsibility of the Cabinet did not feature in court ruling on controversial scheme The Supreme Court this past week gave another good political lecture, or so it looked. The grounds for ruling that the Thaksin Shinawatra government's "on-land" lottery scheme was wrongly conceived, approved and implemented seemed solid. This was no "charity lottery" as claimed by the defendants, the court said, because a charity lottery was supposed to be temporary, with its own unique rules on tax-waiver and how the income generated from the sales was spent.
       The ruling, however, did not tackle the issue of joint accountability, as most members of the former Cabinet were acquitted by the court. The verdict found one minister and two senior officials guilty and gave them suspended two-year jail terms. This has raised many eyebrows, as the Cabinet resolution approving the scheme had been thought to be the joint responsibility of the entire Cabinet.
       The court pointed out that the scheme had been rushed through the Cabinet under the guise of an "extraordinary item on the agenda". This is a common term not just in politics. Every boardroom has special items on its agenda, but few, if any, must have a rule that says board members are immune from the consequences of decisions made on such urgent issues.
       There are two ways to look at it. One is that the court has shown sympathy toward "innocent" or helpless Cabinet members after establishing that Thaksin collaborated with the three convicted defendants to ram the lottery scheme through a Cabinet session. That was reportedly how the Thaksin cabinets worked on certain issues - the boss would say what he liked and the rest would follow his will.
       But should there have been a proper time to teach Thai political officeholders about responsibility and accountability, this was it. All Cabinet members are constitutionally entrusted to exercise their judgement on every single item on the agenda. We have heard about "heated debates" on less controversial issues, which were subsequently delayed or suspended, or put through several special committees, and it was amazing to learn that this particular Thaksin Cabinet let the questionable lottery scheme through without anyone trying to put a brake on it.
       Concern that the on-land lottery would be nothing but a vice-promoting tool should have been enough to make a Cabinet member or two stand up and say, "Hold on". Sadly, we have seen such valiant acts only when two coalition parties disagree over certain lucrative projects. Sincere protests caused by honest concern for national interests are hard to come by at Cabinet meetings.
       Make no mistake. Whether the on-land lottery scheme was good or bad is debatable. And there were times during its implementation when underground lottery rackets were said to be really reeling. Money generated from sales was used for educational subsidy, although critics claimed the "populist" purpose was not worth introducing a project that could lure more Thais into gambling.
       Without an on-land lottery, people would continue indulging themselves in the underground lottery anyway. Should those people have been brought "on-land" and their money taken to "noble" causes like school or university scholarships? On the other hand, was our state so desperate that it had to fund scholarships through vice money? Couldn't the money be found elsewhere without risking the impression that more public gambling was fine as long as the state played the role of bookie itself?
       These, of course, were among the questions that the Thaksin Cabinet in question should have collectively thought thoroughly about. It is unbelievable that only four persons were responsible for pushing such a controversial scheme through. We are not that surprised to learn that many crucial decisions that were supposed to have come through Cabinet scrutiny were in fact made by just a few men - but that we're not shocked doesn't mean we shouldn't be scared.
       The ones who are supposed to be scared of consequences of autocratic Cabinet meetings are the Cabinet members themselves. To get away with being silent when they should have made a noise may not be a travesty of justice. It may not be a crime to helplessly watch a crime. But can this argument really be applied in favour of the Cabinet members who were let off the hook?
       The Supreme Court's ruling on the lottery case may provide a good lesson for future prime ministers or ministers advocating key projects, but nothing has been taught when collective responsibility is concerned.
       Checks and balances should begin at home. In other words, it is the Cabinet members' foremost duty to screen all projects with only national interests on their minds. They are supposed to do that before the media, the opposition, the Senate or any critic. Amid all the debatable questions regarding the Cabinet members who were found not guilty, one thing is certain: they failed to fulfil that duty.