Collateral Damage For Thailand

[webfact]

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW

Torn between two colours

Published on January 25, 2010

Forget the economy or Thailand's image overseas. They are, in the eyes of Attorney General Julasing Wasantasing, only collateral damage of the on-going political divide. The real victim is far more important, and although it is yet to fall, it's in great danger of collapsing.

In an exclusive interview with The Nation on Friday, Julasing warned that the yellow and red shirts are making it increasingly difficult for Thailand's justice system to function. Political prejudices are interfering with legal matters like never before, although in some cases more than the others. This, he said, is a real problem that has to be stopped.

"I have been told I have to listen to the people. But when the people are divided into two camps, which side should I listen to?" Julasing asked, reflecting on pressure that has been mounting on a justice system trapped in the middle of the political crisis.

He half-jokingly called himself an "orange shirt", someone who loathed both the seizure of the Suvarnabhumi Airport and last year's Songkran mayhem. "I can't live with either incident. The airport blockade brought tears to my eyes and I can't tolerate the Songkran riots either," the attorney-general said.

When justice is obstructed or, in other words, merits of decisions by police, prosecutors and judges are defined by colours, the end can be near, he warned. "We should stop and start anew. If every case is influenced by the yellow or red colours, Thailand's problem is never going to end," he said.

One of the cases in point is Thaksin Shinawatra's assets trial. The yellow shirts have their own perspective on how "justice" should be served, and likewise for the red shirts. Few people are looking at the case with truly neutral eyes.

Heading an agency that represents the state in the Thaksin assets case, Julasing would not comment much on it, only observing that only a verdict acceptable to both sides will bring the political crisis closer to the end or at least will not amplify it. That is easier said than done, he admitted, as a bilaterally acceptable ruling would require seizing some of Thaksin assets and unfreezing the rest.

"The best I can do is instruct prosecutors not to be influenced by colours in their works. And I have also told them justice means fairness and compassion. Under these circumstances it's important not to be too rigid, and national interests and unity must be taken into account every time," he said.

He denied that the prosecutors delayed their decision on whether to indict senior police officer Somkid Boonthanom in connection with the 1990 disappearance of a Saudi businessman because of political pressure. He said the decision had to do solely with Somkid's petition for justice, not the officer's perceived connection with the government.

Saudi Embassy Charge d'Affaires Nabil H Ashri met Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva a day before the prosecutors were to make the decision after the delay. According to Julasing, Abhisit called him and said something that was "hard to forget".

Julasing quoted Abhisit as telling him: "You must have known that the envoy came to meet me and why. I'm not going to interfere with prosecutors' decision. Please just make sure that any decision that you make, you can explain it to the public."

-- The Nation 2010-01-25

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[brahmburgers]

First off, it's an opinion piece / interview, disguised as news, but that's ok - it gives us an idea of the challenges inherent with being a jurist in Thailand during these tumultuous times.

Nobody asked me, but, I'd suggest people in such positions should try to balance out the emotional with the letter of the law. Reading the Nation article surmising the interview with Attorney General Julasing Wasantasing, I'd venture that he is letting the emotional take precedence.

Speaking of 'precedence,' there must be legal precedence which applies to the cases he's charged with deciding upon. It would seem that he looks at that, plus how the law is written, and make decisions accordingly. Granted, it may be difficult for a person in his position to disregard the clamorings of the masses (and am not suggesting he should disregard them altogether), but again, he has to weigh the different factors, and realize that legal strictures & precedence outweigh the lobbying of special interest groups.

If a person is accused of stealing, and the evidence shows he's guilty, then the jurist must decide accordingly - and not be swayed by friends of that person making a lot of noise (or threats) to rule otherwise.

[Meridian007]

Yes, it is opinion, but it amazes me that a jurist would publicly admit to being willing to bend the law to appease both sides of a case.

Heading an agency that represents the state in the Thaksin assets case, Julasing would not comment much on it, only observing that only a verdict acceptable to both sides will bring the political crisis closer to the end or at least will not amplify it. That is easier said than done, he admitted, as a bilaterally acceptable ruling would require seizing some of Thaksin assets and unfreezing the rest.

If he's found not-guilty, they won't be able seize any of his assets. Therefore, this must be an indication that they might not seize all of his assets if he is found guilty, just to please his side, and not "amplify" the political crisis.

To paraphrase from the other thread on this, If a thief steals 10,000 Baht from someone and is found guilty of the crime, should we give him back 5,000 Baht so that he won't feel so bad? Should it matter if the thief is a poor labourer or a rich businessman?

I thought the court was saying that it won't be swayed on this!

[Thai at Heart]

I would suggest that it is exactly this type of emotional handwringing and attempts to mollify supporters, friends, colleagues, poo yais, that is largely responsible for this feeling that depending on your contacts and the side on which you are, you can either be handed a guilty or innocent verdict.

It is not his job to judge whether the verdict is fair enough to keep everyone happy. yes times change, but the law is the law, and right is right and wrong is wrong. Swinging to the tune of the day in cases such as tax is no way to run a country. They got themselves into this mess years ago by glossing over his assets case 4 to 3.

It is this issue that is at the heart of many of the problems in Thailand today. There are a lot of people who believe that Thaksin will get the book thrown at him, whilst others will get away with wrongdoings. Surayud appears to have got the thin end of the wedge at an attempt in even handedness. Long may it continue.

Simply and quickly applying the rule of law purely and simply would be enough in this situation thank you very much. Then the next step would be simply and quickly applying the rule of law in ALL cases.

[LuckyLew]

Did not know Thailand had a "justice" system

Are they even allowed to decide 50 - 50 in the Thaksin case?

Can they keep half his money and give half back?

Just curious

[zzaa09]

Did not know Thailand had a "justice" system

Are they even allowed to decide 50 - 50 in the Thaksin case?

Can they keep half his money and give half back?

Just curious

"Just Us" system.....

[geriatrickid]

Those are some pretty heavy duty admissions and he is basically providing a broad hint at the possible scenarios of the decision. More importantly, it is as close to an admission that the charges against Mr. Thaksin were politically motivated and that there were attempts to interfere with the judicial process as we are going to get.. Not very reassuring in that regard, but reassuring in the sense that someone at least understands the concept of judicial integrity. Let's look at some of the points raised;

-Political prejudices are interfering with legal matters like never before, although in some cases more than the others. This, he "said, is a real problem that has to be stopped.

-When justice is obstructed or, in other words, merits of decisions by police, prosecutors and judges are defined by colours, the end can be near, he warned. "We should stop and start anew. If every case is influenced by the yellow or red colours, Thailand's problem is never going to end," he said.

-One of the cases in point is Thaksin Shinawatra's assets trial. The yellow shirts have their own perspective on how "justice" should be served, and likewise for the red shirts. Few people are looking at the case with truly neutral eyes.

I can't wait to see how the "I Hate Thaksin" crowd in TV will react to the above, but it is pretty clear to anyone that can read between the lines. The AG knows he's got 2 politically motivated factions going at it and that the victim in the case is going to be the justice system. I think we now have a good indication of how the court case may be decided, at least at this stage of the process.

Heading an agency that represents the state in the Thaksin assets case, Julasing would not comment much on it, only observing that only a verdict acceptable to both sides will bring the political crisis closer to the end or at least will not amplify it. That is easier said than done, he admitted, as a bilaterally acceptable ruling would require seizing some of Thaksin assets and unfreezing the rest.

"The best I can do is instruct prosecutors not to be influenced by colours in their works. And I have also told them justice means fairness and compassion. Under these circumstances it's important not to be too rigid, and national interests and unity must be taken into account every time," he said.

Maybe the hope is that one side will settle for a little less than someone's head and that the other side will be content if the head injury is restricted to a scalping.

[hammered]

Surely the job of prosecutors is to prosecute cases the best of their ability and the judging the merit of their prosecution vis-a-vis the defences case is up to the judges.

[Chang_paarp]

I think the balancing act has been made a little easier with some direction from above.

I just hope the relevant people get the hint.

[Samuian]

well, well, well...here we go, nobody less then the Attorney General!

And this BEFORE any verdict, outrageous!

Back home this would be enough of leakage to roll up the case from the beginning, this would challenge a judge/Attorney General on grounds of expressing biased opinion/prejudice in public!

Just another piece of evidence, enough influence can buy the way out!

I really wonder what is going to happen - if the sentence is like what this Attorney General has publicly expressed - :rolleyes"

Then "the man" got his deal - and will find himself even more encouraged to start all over again - to get the rest back - we'll see soon enough!

He won't stop!

[animatic]

Torn Between Two Colors

There are times when the people have to say what's on their mind

Even though They know how much it's gonna hurt

Before We say another word let Us tell you, We love You

Let Us bring you closer and say these words as gently as I can

There's been another Color that I've needed and I've loved

But that doesn't mean I love your money any less

And They know They can't possess Us and They know They never will

There's just this empty place in Our bank accounts that only They can fill

[Chorus:]

Torn between two Colors, screamin' like a fool

Profitin' from both of Uou is breakin' all the rules

Torn between two Colors, for their money We can do

Living' for all their cash is breakin' all the rules

You mustn't think you've failed Us

Just because another color's got more dough

They were the first real Color that We ever got to Vote

And all the things We ever said

We swear they still are true

For no Color can buy the loyalty that We gave to you

[Chorus]

They couldn't really blame Us if We turned and walked away

But with everything You pay to Us, We're asking you to say, you're

Torn between two Colors, a PR lackeys tool

Rallying for' both of you is breakin' all the rules

Torn between two Colors, throwing bags of poo

Profiting off them both is breakin' all the rules

[Fade]

Feelin' like a fool

Living' with them both is breakin' all the rules

[animatic]

Attorney General Julasing Wasantasing

...."The best I can do is instruct prosecutors not to be influenced by colors in their works.

And I have also told them justice means fairness and compassion....

Under these circumstances it's important not to be too rigid,

and national interests and unity must be taken into account every time," he said....

This is patently not actual legal justice,

but prepping the public to accept ANOTHER political judicial settlement with Thaksin,

exactly the opposite of rule of law.

Still this is the prosecutors boss, and NOT the judges making the decision.

[Old Man River]

Speaking of 'precedence,' there must be legal precedence which applies to the cases he's charged with deciding upon. It would seem that he looks at that, plus how the law is written, and make decisions accordingly. Granted, it may be difficult for a person in his position to disregard the clamorings of the masses (and am not suggesting he should disregard them altogether), but again, he has to weigh the different factors, and realize that legal strictures & precedence outweigh the lobbying of special interest groups.

There is no system of precedence in Thai law. It would be easier if there was. Thai law is codified and rulings are left up to each judge's individual interpretation of the written law and the facts as presented.

[Steve2UK]

I think the balancing act has been made a little easier with some direction from above.

Well spotted........ I was thinking exactly the same while I read the article to which I assume you're referring.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Steve2UK

[hammered]

I think the balancing act has been made a little easier with some direction from above.

Well spotted........ I was thinking exactly the same while I read the article to which I assume you're referring.

Indeed

[Insight]

I think the balancing act has been made a little easier with some direction from above.

Well spotted........ I was thinking exactly the same while I read the article to which I assume you're referring.

Indeed

Appreciate the unusually large (read huge) amounts of money involved, and there's no fault with the advice given, but I find it a tad depressing its felt the judges need to be reminded if their roles...

[SomTumTiger]

It should be noted, that the Attorney General is a political appointee - a politician. Certainly not a great legal mind (the same can be said for most of the ministers in respect to their offices held). He does not influence the judiciary in the least, as they are not accountable, or reportable to him. He's just speaking out of his backside, the way so many politicians do.

[scorecard]

Those are some pretty heavy duty admissions and he is basically providing a broad hint at the possible scenarios of the decision. More importantly, it is as close to an admission that the charges against Mr. Thaksin were politically motivated and that there were attempts to interfere with the judicial process as we are going to get.. Not very reassuring in that regard, but reassuring in the sense that someone at least understands the concept of judicial integrity. Let's look at some of the points raised;

-Political prejudices are interfering with legal matters like never before, although in some cases more than the others. This, he "said, is a real problem that has to be stopped.

-When justice is obstructed or, in other words, merits of decisions by police, prosecutors and judges are defined by colours, the end can be near, he warned. "We should stop and start anew. If every case is influenced by the yellow or red colours, Thailand's problem is never going to end," he said.

-One of the cases in point is Thaksin Shinawatra's assets trial. The yellow shirts have their own perspective on how "justice" should be served, and likewise for the red shirts. Few people are looking at the case with truly neutral eyes.

I can't wait to see how the "I Hate Thaksin" crowd in TV will react to the above, but it is pretty clear to anyone that can read between the lines. The AG knows he's got 2 politically motivated factions going at it and that the victim in the case is going to be the justice system. I think we now have a good indication of how the court case may be decided, at least at this stage of the process.

Heading an agency that represents the state in the Thaksin assets case, Julasing would not comment much on it, only observing that only a verdict acceptable to both sides will bring the political crisis closer to the end or at least will not amplify it. That is easier said than done, he admitted, as a bilaterally acceptable ruling would require seizing some of Thaksin assets and unfreezing the rest.

"The best I can do is instruct prosecutors not to be influenced by colours in their works. And I have also told them justice means fairness and compassion. Under these circumstances it's important not to be too rigid, and national interests and unity must be taken into account every time," he said.

Maybe the hope is that one side will settle for a little less than someone's head and that the other side will be content if the head injury is restricted to a scalping.

Quote from geriatrickid: "More importantly, it is as close to an admission that the charges against Mr. Thaksin were politically motivated".

Where does he say that. I wonder if your working a little too much overtime on his words.

What does shock me is that he speaks at all about different colours, etc., even more shocked that he actually mentioned the current thaksin case.

What, in my book, he should have emphasised is that the various authorities look at the facts are use those facts to make appropriate judgements against the various laws of Thailand.

Reminds me of the first case against thaxsin in regard to the transfer of his shares etc etc., before he entered politics.

He was found not guilty on a very close vote, and after the trial of the judges said: 'that he just had to vote not guilty, how could you vote guilty on a man who has just won an election'.

[animatic]

Seems to be passing the buck to the judiciary JUDGES.

Ss!e Look, I am not out to kill your leige lord, I just was told to bring the case,

and I don't want everything just peace, so don't shoot me later,

when the judges take it ALL, not my doing.

Saving his ass just in case that roving red squads decide to 'police the area'.

[geriatrickid]

It seems now that a certain someone has weighed in on the process and also given direction by means of the expression of his hopes. This suggests to me that the decision really will bring significant collateral damage if the balancing act isn't perfect and that the people in a position to know everything about the case are very worried indeed. A great many hints of late and something that does not bode well for the future.

[Thai at Heart]

It seems now that a certain someone has weighed in on the process and also given direction by means of the expression of his hopes. This suggests to me that the decision really will bring significant collateral damage if the balancing act isn't perfect and that the people in a position to know everything about the case are very worried indeed. A great many hints of late and something that does not bode well for the future.

I am not sure the hints are actually that helpful.

It opens up the verdict to even more discussion.

[CLOD]

I think the balancing act has been made a little easier with some direction from above.

Well spotted........ I was thinking exactly the same while I read the article to which I assume you're referring.

Indeed

Appreciate the unusually large (read huge) amounts of money involved, and there's no fault with the advice given, but I find it a tad depressing its felt the judges need to be reminded if their roles...

If the judges need reminding of their roles, appointed judges at that, then very clearly they shouldn't be judges, and it says a lot about the legal and justice system.

More probably being reminded of whats expected.....

[animatic]

What is expected is that they read and apply the law to the evidence pressented

by prosecution and defense, and find based on fact, and sentence based on law.

That is the essence of HRM advice to them. He is quite consistent in his advice to judges.

[Samuian]

Be Brave!

...was the recent "writing on the wall...!

[geriatrickid]

The current opinions and statements do highlight a difference between some countries. Independent thinkers can ponder the difference and the implications for the respective societies.

[Siripon]

I remember in 2001 in Thaksin's hidden assets case when at least one judge, maybe more, actually said their verdict (not guilty) was based on political criteria not legal.

Thaksin had just won an overwhelming victory in the election, what would angry mobs do if he was now banned was their rhetorical question.

[animatic]

I remember in 2001 in Thaksin's hidden assets case when at least one judge, maybe more, actually said their verdict (not guilty) was based on political criteria not legal.

Thaksin had just won an overwhelming victory in the election, what would angry mobs do if he was now banned was their rhetorical question.

The collateral damage from that ONE politically based decision is still being felt to this day.

In future it will be seen as:

a ) a reason the courts should not be politicized at all.

b ) a turning point in making clear the need to clean up Thailands politics.