Thaksin, Abhisit And The Rule Of Law In Thailand

[nemomil]

THAKSIN, ABHISIT and the Rule of Law in Thailand

I don't have any opinion about whether Thaksin is any better or worse than any other Thai politician of whatever T-shirt colour, but I do know from personal experience that his comments about failings in the Thai legal and justice system are not without foundaion.

You may care to call Thaksin a hypocrite for being content with the system when he was in office but that does not make his observations incorrect. Indeed he was in the perfect position to know.

So is Khun Abhisit.

The latter is also in the same position to know as was Thaksin and also because I have brought it to his personal attention in letters written on 25 May and 26 June this year. I wrote personally to the PM because in June 2008 I submitted to the Chief of the National Police Force and to the Attorney General a complaint about the Thai justice system and the laws of Thailand being unlawfully abused for the purposes of extortion. My complaint was supported by a detailed report and a file of documentary evidence. I have yet to recieve any response from the Chief of Police and the Attorney General's Office wrote to me on 21 July 2008 to say the matter was being subjeced to a process of "fact verification". I have heard nothing further.

I was not asking those to whom I had addressed my complaint to accept blindly what I was saying but was asking them to investigate it for themselves. I had already covered the ground for them and the conclusions from the evidence were pretty much inescapable. That was perhaps the problem for the Thai authorities. In a nutshell the documentary evidence showed that two individuals had either made deliberately false statements to the Thai police to use them as an instrument of extortion to obtain a financial "settlement" of a bogus criminal charge or the police and or prosecutor had fabricated a false indictment of their own volition, or, a third alternative, that they had all conspired together to do so. The investigation I requested was essentially simple, viz. ascertain who had drafted the false indictment and ask them where the information came from. Of course, it was inescapable that the finger would point somewhere. Perhaps even at an official and we can't have that, can we?

Why? Because "It is impossible to make an effective complaint against a state official in Thailand".

These are not my words but words given in evidence to the United Nations Council on Human Rights by the Asian Legal Resource Centre (Google - "Thailand" "prosecution" "meatball factory" for the original documentation).

In my original leter to the PM I enclosed a copy of the evidence to the UN Human Rights Commission becuse it very accurately reflected my experience. l quote from my letter to he PM dated 25 May,

"In particular it (the UNHRC evidence) points to - (i) a high incidence of deliberately concocting criminal charges in exchange for cash or other favours; (ii) cases being falsified by the police rather than pursuing and investigating the true culprits; (iii) the inability of anyone in Thailand to make an effective complaint against a state official; (iv) the lack of political and administrative will to address these issues."

In my letter to K. Abhisit I invited him to "demonstrate that the wrongful conduct of some of its officials and the failure of others to address injustice and abuse of the legal process is not reflective of government attitude in Thailand". I supplied the PM with a 50 page briefing document and a 250 page folder of documentary evidence. Presumably his office has the resources to cope with that.

Guess what? .....to date.....nada!! Not even an acknowledgement of receipt although all communications were sent with proof of delivery.

I am encouraged to read the PM's recent statement as quoted</FONT></FONT>But does he mean it or does the UNHRC have it right that in truth there is a lack of political and administrative will to address problems wihin the Thai legal and justice systems, even at the top of the tree, PM level?

As far as I am concerned the jury is very much out on K. Abhisit's statement. Now it is just possible that my communications are still in the PM's in-tray or that of one of his officials. So, please Sir, may I have a response to my submissions to you, to the Attorney General and to the Chief of Police?

When I asked the PM to "demonstrate that the wrongful conduct of some of its officials and the failure of others to address injustice and abuse of the legal process is not reflective of government attitude in Thailand" I, perhaps naively, expected a response. It could be that the lack of response is in fact the answer to my request.

I will keep TV readers posted as to any developments and may decide to share some further insights.

P.S. I am sure the PM's office will be able to identify who I am but in the unlikely event that they are unable to do so please PM (that is use the personal message system to contact) me. Also any journalists who are interested in the full story. I would much rather keep the issue private but it seems that only public issues get any attention from the authorities in Thailand. </SPAN>

[topben]

empathise with your plight.

s.e.asian, if not most asian nations like most developed western nations, require you to enter politics to make any dent on the existing government system. otherwise, you are a nobody. and, when you enter the political fray, remember presidents nixon, regan,clinton,et.al.

no matter how well you may document your complaint, you are merely one voice in the wilderness . that makes no iota of a difference to the authorities as they themselves, like pm's thaksin and abhisit are overwhelmed by their bureaucrats each of the latter of whom have their private agendas to meet before the next election.

even in some very transparent bureaucracies in asia, you will learn that the the bureaucracies are served by self-serving bureaucrats whether in the legislative, the judicial or even the executive arms of government.

solution: walk away like someone did and shake the dust off your feet from that said place.

regain your composure and regain your peace of mind and tranquility and stay far away from these abominations of the human kind.

if it is any consolation to you at all, worst have been known to befall others with absolutely no justice regained. know at least you are still alive and kicking in this world of killing fields, betrayals, liars, con-men, et.al.

may the good lord or buddha be with you.

[Samuian]

is this about Mr.Thaksin has been "unjustly convicted" of a criminal charge?

but at his acquittal years ago when his ownership of shares was questioned the judicial system was okay...?

Is it this what is meant with biased - and yes certain figures did have their hands miles deep in everything, if not, then their fellow cronies, relatives and inlaws...and are these the signposts for "real democracy, democracy one can eat"?

[givenall]

is this about Mr.Thaksin has been "unjustly convicted" of a criminal charge?

but at his acquittal years ago when his ownership of shares was questioned the judicial system was okay...?

Is it this what is meant with biased - and yes certain figures did have their hands miles deep in everything, if not, then their fellow cronies, relatives and inlaws...and are these the signposts for "real democracy, democracy one can eat"?

Ok in my opinion, even if there were a justice issue here which is not then I don’t think Thaksin deserve to be in power based on his action while he was in power which were very questionable.

Regardless, we have to realize it is not really about who is the PM. It is who and which elites are in control of the country. It turns out the powerful ones (I would really want to know who they are ) do not want Thaksin or his colony’s in power anymore

[nemomil]

It seems my earlier post was edited by someone other than me so it is posted in full again. I will post the source of the UN Human Rights evidence on the Thai legal system in the next posting.

THAKSIN, ABHISIT and the Rule of Law in Thailand

I don't have any opinion about whether Thaksin is any better or worse than any other Thai politician of whatever T-shirt colour, but I do know from personal experience that his comments about failings in the Thai legal and justice system are not without foundaion.

You may care to call Thaksin a hypocrite for being content with the system when he was in office but that does not make his observations incorrect. Indeed he was in the perfect position to know.

So is Khun Abhisit.

The latter is also in the same position to know as was Thaksin and also because I have brought it to his personal attention in letters written on 25 May and 26 June this year. I wrote personally to the PM because in June 2008 I submitted to the Chief of the National Police Force and to the Attorney General a complaint about the Thai justice system and the laws of Thailand being unlawfully abused for the purposes of extortion. My complaint was supported by a detailed report and a file of documentary evidence. I have yet to recieve any response from the Chief of Police and the Attorney General's Office wrote to me on 21 July 2008 to say the matter was being subjeced to a process of "fact verification". I have heard nothing further.

I was not asking those to whom I had addressed my complaint to accept blindly what I was saying but was asking them to investigate it for themselves. I had already covered the ground for them and the conclusions from the evidence were pretty much inescapable. That was perhaps the problem for the Thai authorities. In a nutshell the documentary evidence showed that two individuals had either made deliberately false statements to the Thai police to use them as an instrument of extortion to obtain a financial "settlement" of a bogus criminal charge or the police and or prosecutor had fabricated a false indictment of their own volition, or, a third alternative, that they had all conspired together to do so. The investigation I requested was essentially simple, viz. ascertain who had drafted the false indictment and ask them where the information came from. Of course, it was inescapable that the finger would point somewhere. Perhaps even at an official and we can't have that, can we?

Why? Because "It is impossible to make an effective complaint against a state official in Thailand".

These are not my words but words given in evidence to the United Nations Council on Human Rights by the Asian Legal Resource Centre (Google - "Thailand" "prosecution" "meatball factory" for the original documentation).

In my original leter to the PM I enclosed a copy of the evidence to the UN Human Rights Commission becuse it very accurately reflected my experience. l quote from my letter to he PM dated 25 May,

"In particular it (the UNHRC evidence) points to - (i) a high incidence of deliberately concocting criminal charges in exchange for cash or other favours; (ii) cases being falsified by the police rather than pursuing and investigating the true culprits; (iii) the inability of anyone in Thailand to make an effective complaint against a state official; (iv) the lack of political and administrative will to address these issues."

In my letter to K. Abhisit I invited him to "demonstrate that the wrongful conduct of some of its officials and the failure of others to address injustice and abuse of the legal process is not reflective of government attitude in Thailand". I supplied the PM with a 50 page briefing document and a 250 page folder of documentary evidence. Presumably his office has the resources to cope with that.

Guess what? .....to date.....nada!! Not even an acknowledgement of receipt although all communications were sent with proof of delivery.

I am encouraged to read the PM's recent statement as quoted</FONT></FONT>But does he mean it or does the UNHRC have it right that in truth there is a lack of political and administrative will to address problems wihin the Thai legal and justice systems, even at the top of the tree, PM level?

As far as I am concerned the jury is very much out on K. Abhisit's statement. Now it is just possible that my communications are still in the PM's in-tray or that of one of his officials. So, please Sir, may I have a response to my submissions to you, to the Attorney General and to the Chief of Police?

When I asked the PM to "demonstrate that the wrongful conduct of some of its officials and the failure of others to address injustice and abuse of the legal process is not reflective of government attitude in Thailand" I, perhaps naively, expected a response. It could be that the lack of response is in fact the answer to my request.

I will keep TV readers posted as to any developments and may decide to share some further insights.

P.S. I am sure the PM's office will be able to identify who I am but in the unlikely event that they are unable to do so please PM (that is use the personal message system to contact) me. Also any journalists who are interested in the full story. I would much rather keep the issue private but it seems that only public issues get any attention from the authorities in Thailand. </SPAN>

[nemomil]

Here is the full text of the UN staement re Thailand's legal and Justice system. I am no supporter of Thaksin but my point is that K. Abhisit apparently wants to silence Thaksin's comments about the state of the legal and justice system in Thailand. But can he do so without acknowledging the problems as clearly stated in the evidence below?

My own personal experience is that the UN report is spot-on. I have personally asked K. Abhisit whether the failings of officials and the abuse of the legal process is reflective of government policy and if he will act to right the wrongs that I have suffered. The answer has been silence.

I have no love for Thaksin but rather than silence him shouldn't K. Abhisit be addressing the failings in the system and, in that way, show himself to be a more upright person than K. Thaksin?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AS-261-2006

October 20, 2006

A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission

THAILAND: False criminal cases much more than a problem of money

An October 17 article in the Bangkok Post reported that the Ministry of Justice there has to pay hundreds of millions of Thai Baht in compensation to people who have been wrongfully prosecuted for crimes they did not commit.

The law providing for compensation, the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act BE 2544 (2001), arises from the 1997 Constitution of Thailand, which the military abrogated on September 19. Among relevant provisions, section 246 held that

"Any person who has become the accused in a criminal case and has been detained during the trial shall, if it appears from the final judgement of that case that the accused did not commit the offence or the act of the accused does not constitute an offence, be entitled to appropriate compensation, expenses and the recovery of any right lost on account of that incident, upon the conditions and in the manner provided by law."

According to the Post, the head of the Department of Rights and Liberties Protection has urged criminal investigators to get proof before arresting suspects, because his department has to pay out 250 million Thai Baht (USD 6.7 million) for 2890 cases of false charges from last year alone. As its entire annual budget is only 420 million Thai Baht (USD 11 million), it will spread the payments over two years, leaving the question hanging as to where the money will come from to pay those persons who claim compensation this year. The director, Charnchao Chaiyanukij, was quoted as saying that,

"I would like to call on state officials involved in investigating the cases to collect clear evidence before making arrests, because wrongfully charged people, to whom the government has to pay compensation, account for more than 30 per cent of the cases deliberated."

Where large numbers of serious criminal cases can be clearly identified as resting on false charges, something has gone awfully wrong. While the development of a law and office for payment of compensation to victims of state injustice in Thailand under the 1997 Constitution is laudable, the issue cannot stop there. It is not just a matter of compensation and the problems that it is causing for the limited budget of a small government department. Rather, the claims for compensation are symptomatic of deeper ailments in the entire criminal justice system. These demand many more serious questions. They include the following.

What is wrong with the supervisory system of the police?

Criminal investigation is central to policing. Where large numbers of persons are being arrested, charged and tried without evidence, it means that there are serious defects in the police. The organisational structure of the police should guarantee supervision of investigators by superiors, and scrutiny of their work before it is used to deprive someone of his or her liberty. If the problem of false charges in Thailand is to be addressed, it is necessary to deal with this failure of supervision. It is also necessary to address long-recognised structural problems in the police force that have arisen due to its being built on principles of self sufficiency rather than centralised state support and control.

What percentage of cases is deliberately fabricated?

Among the wrongful serious criminal charges, while a certain number may simply be due to careless police work, others will have been deliberately concocted against innocent people, in exchange for cash or other favours. The police in Thailand are almost universally recognised as thoroughly corrupt and frequent users of torture and other means to extract confessions and falsify material evidence. They also have strong links with the crime world. Under these circumstances, it is not sufficient to urge investigators to check the facts before submitting a case. This may simply lead to more sophisticated falsification of evidence, particularly where the charges are serious, as in the cases demanding compensation from the government. The real issues go to the nature of justice and society in Thailand. Is the level of criminal intimidation in the society so high that the guilty persons cannot be prosecuted and innocent ones used instead? Are the police so heavily influenced by criminals that they will sooner falsify cases than seek to locate and charge the culprits? How can these deep institutional and social problems be addressed?

What is wrong with the laws and procedures on evidence?

The 1997 Constitution brought with it many reforms aimed at improving the delivery and management of criminal justice in Thailand. It contained specific provisions on the getting of evidence before arrest and inadmissibility of confessions obtained through torture or other illegal means. Notwithstanding, the judicial system in Thailand has still tended to rely disproportionately on police and witness testimony. This makes it easy for police to lodge wrongful charges against innocent persons. One important way to address this imbalance is to place a greater emphasis on forensic evidence, particularly when obtained by independent professionals. In Thailand, the Central Institute of Forensic Science has been a pioneer in this field; however, as it has challenged the established authority of the police it has been subject to heavy attacks and its work unnecessarily hampered. Much more needs to be done to develop the institute and the laws and procedures to admit and utilise reliable forensic evidence from reputed experts in conjunction with testimony. As Thailand is a modern and advanced society with more resources compared to many other countries in Asia, there is no acceptable reason for its criminal justice system to be left behind. Much more attention must be paid to scientific methods of investigation and the bringing of specialist testimony into the courts in Thailand.

What is wrong with the public prosecution?

The responsibility of the public prosecutor is to review cases before taking them to trial. However, it is widely known that in Thailand the prosecutor acts with little independence and relies almost exclusively upon whatever is given by the police or other criminal investigators. The prosecutor is not involved in the investigation work, except in some special cases. One person working for the office has described it as a "meatball factory": whatever it gets, it grinds up and serves to the courts without question. The unprofessional behaviour and lack of independence of the prosecutor's office also is a serious barrier to addressing the high number of false cases going to the courts.

The announcement by the director of the Rights and Liberties Protection Department that his agency is struggling to pay off the large number of compensation claims lodged by wrongfully charged persons needs to receive widespread attention in Thailand. It is not simply a matter of budget; it is a matter of justice.

The Asian Human Rights Commission urges all concerned branches of government to pay serious consideration to his request for evidence-based investigations, rather than evidence-free investigations, and examine the wider implications for their work. Above all, deep institutional defects in the police must be tackled: these have been known and studied for decades but are as yet among the biggest obstacles to the rule of law in Thailand. The AHRC also calls for widespread discussion about the problems among concerned professionals, which could be spearheaded by the Lawyers Council of Thailand and the National Human Rights Commission. They know the problems well, and are in a position to respond to them directly and concertedly. Only this way can the needed institutional solutions be found, and the costs of compensating victims of systemic injustice thereby be reduced.

# # #

About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

Posted on 2006-10-20

[animatic]

What is wrong with the supervisory system of the police?

Thaksin is one of the greatest hypocrites of out times.

When he is out of power he loudly complains about the same quirks and bad elements of the Thai system

that he was so willing to profit grandly from while in power. He was a Policeman who used that

under-supervised post and it's connections to get a 'Sweetheart' contract that then made him

a businessman. Contract for essentially a monopoly, he rolled into another monopoly.

One MUST wonder what type of leverage had he accrued back then,

to adequately pressure the 'decider' to give this generic L. Colonel such a plumb monopoly?

Had something on SOMEBODY... I wonder what, it certainly wasn't his track record as a businesman....

By most accounts the last person you want at the top is a retired mid-level policemen,

since by most reports they are the most schooled in graft and using leverage for advantage.

Why would someone raised in a culture of unending pursuit of wealth and power,

then be a good choice for top man with all the levers to pull? Old habits die hard.

Edited September 12, 2009 by animatic

[nemomil]

What is wrong with the supervisory system of the police?

Thaksin is one of the greatest hypocrites of out times.

When he is out of power he loudly complains about the same quirks and bad elements of the Thai system

that he was so willing to profit grandly from while in power. He was a Policeman who used that

under-supervised post and it's connections to get a 'Sweetheart' contract that then made him

a businessman. Contract for essentially a monopoly, he rolled into another monopoly.

One MUST wonder what type of leverage had he accrued back then,

to adequately pressure the 'decider' to give this generic L. Colonel such a plumb monopoly?

Had something on SOMEBODY... I wonder what, it certainly wasn't his track record as a businesman....

By most accounts the last person you want at the top is a retired mid-level policemen,

since by most reports they are the most schooled in graft and using leverage for advantage.

Why would someone raised in a culture of unending pursuit of wealth and power,

then be a good choice for top man with all the levers to pull? Old habits die hard.

The issue I have is not so much about Thaksin. Everything that can be said about him has more or less been said. But when Thaksin states that the Thai Legal and Justice System is an abomination he is right. But what has changed since Thaksin? From the lack of response to my detailed complaints to the Naional Police Chief, The Attorney Greneral and ulimately Khun Abhisit, the prime minister, I am left with the conclusion that all of these persons find the status quo morally acceptable. (TV readers please look at the UN evidence and think of its implications for Thai citizens. Farangs in Thailand are not exempt as I have personally found out).

Thaksin, albeit in his own personal interest, is actually doing a favour for the man in the street by broadcasting about corruption in the legal system and the UN's evidence supports that as do the facts of the issue I sent to the PM.

The Thai government want to silence Thaksin and maintain the corrupt system instead of saying "Yes Mr. T. you are right and you expolited it to its fullest when you were in power but we are going to do something about the corruption and make things different". I have personally asked K. Abhisit to ask the Police and the Attorney General to do their jobs in the interests of justice regarding the issue I sent to him and it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. So how should I regard him in comparison to Thaksin? Just a change of face but equally unwilling to act against corrupt practices?

Please prove me wrong in the impression you are so strongly giving me, Khun Abhisit. An acknowledgement of receipt of my letters and the documentaion I have sent to you would be a good start. Show me that you are a better man than Thaksin, please.

How can you ask Thaksin to come back and face a Justice system that he knows is corrupt when you have maintained the staus quo? I don't think Mr. T. is that gullible.

I am way down in importance to the Thai government than is Mr. T. but I too would not dream of subjecting myself to a justice and legal system which is more aptly named "injustice and illegal system of Thailand" when the country's leaders find its failings acceptable.