Jump to content

It Is Impossible To Please All Sides


Lite Beer

Recommended Posts

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW

'It is impossible to please all sides '

Chanikarn Phumhiran

The Nation on Sunday

30195425-01_big.jpg

Panit

BANGKOK: -- Ombudsman Panit Nitithanprapas says politicians take rulings seriously

How do you see the growing interest in the work of the state Ombudsman from various groups of society?

The position of Ombudsman has been in existence for 12 years. We have so far been able to alleviate the sufferings of citizens at the hands of state officials in more than 20,000 cases. However, we have not been doing as much public relations as we should.

Of late, we have been dealing with the issue of ethics of people who hold political positions, so the media has become more interested and this is leading to greater public interest. Nevertheless, we adhere to justice and non-violence in solving problems and allow both sides of the conflict to clarify.

The issue of ethics for those holding political office is an issue that the Ombudsman is worried about, not just national politicians but local ones as well. However, we have our nine principles and place public interest at the heart of our work so there should be no conflict of interest. If we can help foster conscience in society, society will become better.

Many see the Ombudsman as having power but not able to exercise it.

It's like that around the world. Our duty is to look into the complaints from citizens in a just manner and make recommendations. It's like a path before you reach the court of law. The court is the one who metes out punishment, and the job of Ombudsman is to alleviate some of the court's workload. We can forward cases to the Constitution or the Administrative courts.

From our statistics, it is obvious that politicians listen when me make a recommendation. We advised the prime minister about political appointments under Article 279 (4) of the charter and she listened.

In the past, an investigation by the Ombudsman tended to take too long.

Generally speaking, we must be fair to those who have been accused and must allow them to clarify themselves unless the information we have received is sufficient. However, we insist on rushing things as quickly as we can and those accused must clarify within 30 days; the longest investigation took less than a year.

How do you react to the belief that the Ombudsman has become a political tool?

This is something we look into as we ask whether the people or organisations are satisfied with our work or not. But we must adhere to our stance. There are many types of complainants and not all are politically motivated. People who have been accused also have the right to argue back if they think our reading is not what they expected. We must be just and well-rounded.

The power of the Ombudsman can be used as a channel to forward a case to the courts and used as a political tool to discredit the opponent. What do you think?

It's within the rights of the complainant. We cannot prevent them from lodging a complaint and we have always been criticised as to why some complaints were accepted while some were not. We must accept a [bonafide] complaint if it is in our power to consider, no matter which side lodged it. Once a complaint is accepted, we still have to adhere to the principle and listen to all parties involved and truly be impartial. Some cases are not in our power to consider. For example, cases about kamnan and village chiefs as government officials by definition and various kinds of panels. However, regarding the issue of ethics of political office holders, we can't do anything if no complaint is made with us as we cannot initiate investigation by ourselves.

In the past, the government only heard your recommendations but never acted on them. Can it be rectified?

In principle, there are laws covering it. If certain [state] organisations do not act on our recommendation, we can petition a higher governing authority, including the prime minister. If it involved the government, we can bring the matter to the attention of Parliament, though so far we haven't done that. We have to report to Parliament if we think the representatives of the electorate need to be informed.

Are you happy with the power of the Ombudsman today?

In Finland and Korea, the Ombudsman has the power to punish and also cover corruption. Actually, we have the power to punish under Article 34 of the Ombudsman Act and can carry out disciplinary investigation and press civil and criminal charges. We have, in fact, issued some punishment orders.

The Ombudsman is viewed as partial.

It's impossible to make all sides happy. When we decide in one way, the other side will not be happy. But we have to take it, as we have our stance of impartiality. This is normal. We must be able to accept [criticism]. I have prepared myself for such an accusation, but it's all right.

nationlogo.jpg

-- The Nation 2012-12-02

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The inherent nature of some is to complain or find something to be upset about regardless of the circumstances. I think those types are naturally drawn to politics or political issues.

Is that why you're here?

Haha, yep. You guys offer some form of entertainment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish her well with dealing with politicians and ethics.

That is a long uphill battle and by the very nature of the people they are trying to bring ethics to it will be a fight with a solidly entrenched enemy. All the best to them

Straighten them out and she will be directly enriching the life's of 66 million people,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.







×
×
  • Create New...