Legal system needs a revamp: NACC's Vicha

Bakseeda · April 6, 2014

Dirt box farmer....If the clothes fit......... you change your tune more than the <deleted> Bee Gees... and try speaking plain English.. Caveat Emptor sounds like a new Thai restaurant...

justanotheroldhippy · April 6, 2014

Actually, I think that it is not the legal system that needs a revamp. Many of the laws - as they stand - are actually very good, very fair... they simply need to be followed and implemented is all. It is the people who are supposed to uphold those laws, and bring true justice to legal 'situations' that need the revamp! (read 'kicked out and replaced with honest people who actually give a damn about justice and legality'!). Do you really expect this happen in the current culture of corruption? Not for a very, very long time. The higher up in the legal system a person is, the more potential to earn huge amounts of money. These people are not going to create a situation that highlights their own corrupt practices.

I am currently in the middle of a lawsuit, and taking someone to court, and (despite most people thinking they know just how corrupt the legal system is) you would not believe the level of corruption involved - backhanders, under the table payments to everyone involved (and I mean everyone!), and this is just to get people to do what they are supposed to do anyway! Want your case to come to court (relatively) quickly? In that case the person/administrator who creates the list of cases in order to appear before the court needs 'persuading' to bump you up a few places on the list! Practically everyone is after backhanders, and these must be paid for things to proceed, and that doesn't matter if you have a strong case (which I have) or not. For felang it is even more difficult (expensive). How/why Thai people put up with this is beyond me. Yes - justice is available - eventually, and at a cost - but that is assuming the other person doesn't have more money than you, or have bigger friends, or have a bigger lawyer, or (if you are felang) is a Thai! I am sure that there must be some examples where the law and legal system has done a good job - somewhere! But these are rare cases indeed. Justice in Thailand is very hard to come by. It makes 'Serpico' look like a kids movie!

phanangpete · April 6, 2014

Time to ask for outside help, but they won't, they would be far too embarrassed cause it would open a whole can of worms and the country would be made to look like fools.

When they are forced to join the ASEAN community, and they have already said that they need more time , like 2016, or maybe 2020. Then, hopefully, will all this corruption be revealed and the farmers will have their revenge.

Wishfull thinking perhaps ,but their are few alternatives !

Edited April 6, 2014 by phanangpete

marcusd · April 6, 2014

I am sorry I just never seem to understand you. I am fairly well educated having done a few years of uni and having an analytical mind...with fast and big fingers making a few spellin errars along the way BUT what country in the universe do you come from? i get the feeling you must be from one of the poorer ASEAN countries where education is severely lacking with your continued Democracy overtures.

I quote you "Regardless, the central role these judges have in expediting the judicial coup, render them effectively as "red flags walking" to the Electoral and Parliamentary majority." WHAT DEMOCRACY is it you hail from? Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would see this government is so corrupt. Do you read anything ap[art from your own comments? EVERY country with money that Thailand went to said no way because of the corruption in the various Electioneering schemes yet you cry out for a majority who would vote for setting off nuclear war if they were handed 500 baht.

Please sir or madam, get real with the comments before you post garbage.

marcusd · April 6, 2014

Bakseeda I agree with you and all the DEMOCRACY (i mean the RED SHIRT THAI DEMOCRACY supporters... you are fine examples of why some people should not be allowed to vote breed or deprive others of oxygen.

There are leaders.... and you lot are lemmings

DirtFarmer · April 6, 2014

read the post for what it is for you to speculate and draw inferences is just juvenile..

law applied equally.. in case you missed it...but we don't see that here because of the incredible imbalance in these non independent agencies...draw whatever conclusions your pedantic reasoning will let you...then go back and check out these characters in the NACC and DSI and Election Commission and draw your own inferences there also..

A NACC Commissioner has no business discussing a pending ruling or case in public for exactly the reason I was talking about unless it was to color the water in advance...

Edited April 6, 2014 by DirtFarmer

khunken · April 6, 2014

As a NACC officer is not a judge, he/she can comment in any way he/she likes - especially given the accusations from PTP, red shirts (& ignorant posters) that the NACC is a biased, amartish, fascist, coupist, elitist and devilish organisation. It's called getting some of your own back.

What k. Vicha says is totally correct. The laws are there but with a non-independent police force, DSI, & AG, there is nobody to uphold them. Every time someone speaks some sense here, the goons are out to discredit the (messenger) person and deliberately ignore the message.

michaelscottfan · April 6, 2014

I should point out at this point that I don't see Thaksin as some sort of innocent actor in all of this. I don't deny his corruption and see many of his actions as self-serving,

As for what you said here, in a theory yes the judiciary doesn't make laws but in practice I think we both know that this is not the case. Even in countries like America, even to this day with decisions regarding campaign finance we see creative decisions which shape and reform policy in ways nobody would seriously argue is strictly an unbiased reading of the constitution. In Thailand it has been used to undermine the government in a manner that goes well beyhond any argument of creative interpretation. You can say it was because of nepotism if you please, but she had a valid argument for why she removed Thawil from his post, and throwing out the transportation bill was also a farce to say nothing of the Constitutional Courts infamously absurd arguments for nullifying both the 2006 and 2014 elections.

But that isn't really what I was referring to when I said they shape policy: Appointed senators are selected by these courts. You could say that slightly over half the seats are elected, but the current setup only requires a few seats to be won in order for them to maintain control, a near impossibility even if 80% or more of the Thai population voted against their chosen candidates. So they have de facto control over the upper house of the legislature and have the power to shape the lower house as they see fit, as they did in 2008. In effect, they form an oligarchy which controls the country.

DirtFarmer · April 6, 2014

Exactly my point in my original comment/post...there is no equity in any of these organizations and they def need an overhaul..... but IMO I don't think any of these guys should be out discussing pending cases which to date have brought only inquiries ( that may change soon) but still no indictment yet...so a bit over the line I would say...The major thrust of his speech that day was about corruption at the provincial level and the "shady procurement" at those levels is where the politicians exploited it...he also added that corruption here was worse than the Philippines because Thailand was still stuck in system of patronage thru which many officials got their jobs ...so the speech at Thammasat yesterday was overtly a bigger more general topic of corruption...with less reference to the rice scheme than this piece pretends...in either case I still think these guys have to honor the idea that someone is innocent till proven guilty rather than the opposite...It's a shame the Nation doesn't always cover the entire story...

tingtongteesood · April 6, 2014

Also compare the amount you state here to the amount the rice ~~scheme~~ scam has lost the country and realize that the Dem scheme actually helped the farmers whilst the current scam has helped the Shin clan and their cohorts.

Also the Dem plan did not lose Thailand the top spot in world rice exporter rankings and did not threaten to destroy the market.

Edited April 6, 2014 by tingtongteesood

timewilltell · April 6, 2014

A well reasoned argument sir, not saying I agree but I do respect your points despite that I will now try to proffer another angle.

As for America and its legal system, contorted and distorted by the various states and their peculiarities, it is not a system I truly understand. I remember the Presidential race between Bush and was it Gore?, where the Florida vote was in the news for a while and Bush's mob controlled the state (wasn't his brother the governor) and another family member very high in the judiciary. As a result many would say he won as a result of the influence of his family. Unfortunately the loser did not take the matter through the legal process as it would have a fascinating case study.

Nevertheless it is a pointer, in a small way as to what happens even in a democracy, where too much power is held by one family. However I would prefer to examine the British system, as sad as it has become these days, because it is one in which I spent a good few years of my professional life.

The whole point is that in that democracy, MP's are voted in on policies which are sold to the people and represented by various common people who are the MP's. These MP's dream up the laws which are drafted by a pretty well educated smart bunch of civil servants. Let's pretend these Civil Servants are on the whole honorable and follow the instructions of their masters, the MP's which is near enough true, I think. These laws go to the upper house, recently stuffed with Lords created by the government in power but still having the residuals from the upper classes. There is a system for the Upper House to refer back a poorly thought out bill, essentially delaying it, but if it is truly stupid it can still be passed into law.

It doesn't matter if it is the will of the people or a majority of MPs bullied by the whips into passing the brain child of a rather egocentric and stupid prime minister. So let's say by hook or by crook, a stupid law finally goes into place. That law is the subject to judicial interpretation. Judges in the UK are on the whole a pretty fair bunch and have a habit of interpreting the law in a way that is on the face of it fair - sort of. If parliament doesn't like the interpretation the legal 'division' spin on it, then it can pass amendments to clarify what was intended. That process takes several years during which time the government which created the stupid law will have had to go to the country once more for a mandate to get in again (and amend the stupid law to what it wants it to really be). Thus the process of change is slow if a government wants to ride roughshod over everything. This prevents a government being elected that then goes on to do whatever it wants whether or not if was in the manifesto they were elected under. This is the checks and balances system of the UK which works to a fashion.

Of course Thailand is not the Uk and neither are the people of a like mindset so the same system probably would not work in the sand way. However Thailand has adopted a somewhat similar idea for its democratic process, bastardized of course and with a sort of American influenced constitution plugged in.

Unfortunately I am not sure either side of the political divide there properly understand the concepts of checks and balances and the roles of the various elements, certainly not on a comprehensive basis. The whole way the democracy has been set up seems like a folly much the same as a working judicial system from the UK and Germany has been chopped about to form an ineffective mush that serves no-one except the corrupt. Perhaps they don't want to understand these things or perhaps they understand very well how they are changing things to suit themselves - the people in power I am talking about here.

The PTP want to pass laws that are ill thought out and almost certainly designed to put the money belonging to the country into the pockets of people. They despise the courts for being a stop on them. The Democrats hate the fact that they cannot control the poor whom the PTP have to a small degree empowered. The military think they are the all powerful group because of their mandate to protect the monarchy and country but with an eye to changing times. The police couldn't give a damn because they can do what they like and persecute the people in whatever manner they like knowing they can usurp the power of the court and scam money any which way they like through a set of laws that is so full of holes to be wide open to corruption. The same is true for lawyers by the way but the argument rest too long winded.

This is a country in development with an ill educated population amongst a social mindset of corruption and selfishness. There is little widespread understanding of the juxtaposition of government and society nor the problems caused to society by the various factions.

This is the reason the current position between Suthep and the PTP gas come about and there is little understanding of the issues which have been spat out to leave 'Are you Red or Yellow?' The reality is far more complicated of course and each side has their plus points amongst the plethora of minus points but how to explain concepts way beyond the concept of most of the electorate to enable them to make a choice is a, probably, impossible task.

Here is the difficulty of a young democracy which has arisen from a disjointed conjunction of tribes and taken over by a ruthless and selfish Chinese influence.

That is why I believe I believe the arguments to not be much more complicated than Red or Yellow is best. What Thailand needs is some people high on morals and honour and low on corruption and I am not seeing any.

Thai at Heart · April 6, 2014

Thing is, its not that they aren't independent, but that they sway with the politics of the day. They are used to achieve a political outcome instead of judging legal right and wrong.

3NUMBAS · April 6, 2014

its toooo late the tentacles are too embeded in the system ,the cancer has spread toooo far

Thai at Heart · April 6, 2014

Quote name="timewilltell" post="7658459" timestamp="1396792827"]

A well reasoned argument sir, not saying I agree but I do respect your points despite that I will now try to proffer another angle.

As for America and its legal system, contorted and distorted by the various states and their peculiarities, it is not a system I truly understand. I remember the Presidential race between Bush and was it Gore?, where the Florida vote was in the news for a while and Bush's mob controlled the state (wasn't his brother the governor) and another family member very high in the judiciary. As a result many would say he won as a result of the influence of his family. Unfortunately the loser did not take the matter through the legal process as it would have a fascinating case study.

Nevertheless it is a pointer, in a small way as to what happens even in a democracy, where too much power is held by one family. However I would prefer to examine the British system, as sad as it has become these days, because it is one in which I spent a good few years of my professional life.

The whole point is that in that democracy, MP's are voted in on policies which are sold to the people and represented by various common people who are the MP's. These MP's dream up the laws which are drafted by a pretty well educated smart bunch of civil servants. Let's pretend these Civil Servants are on the whole honorable and follow the instructions of their masters, the MP's which is near enough true, I think. These laws go to the upper house, recently stuffed with Lords created by the government in power but still having the residuals from the upper classes. There is a system for the Upper House to refer back a poorly thought out bill, essentially delaying it, but if it is truly stupid it can still be passed into law.

It doesn't matter if it is the will of the people or a majority of MPs bullied by the whips into passing the brain child of a rather egocentric and stupid prime minister. So let's say by hook or by crook, a stupid law finally goes into place. That law is the subject to judicial interpretation. Judges in the UK are on the whole a pretty fair bunch and have a habit of interpreting the law in a way that is on the face of it fair - sort of. If parliament doesn't like the interpretation the legal 'division' spin on it, then it can pass amendments to clarify what was intended. That process takes several years during which time the government which created the stupid law will have had to go to the country once more for a mandate to get in again (and amend the stupid law to what it wants it to really be). Thus the process of change is slow if a government wants to ride roughshod over everything. This prevents a government being elected that then goes on to do whatever it wants whether or not if was in the manifesto they were elected under. This is the checks and balances system of the UK which works to a fashion.

Of course Thailand is not the Uk and neither are the people of a like mindset so the same system probably would not work in the sand way. However Thailand has adopted a somewhat similar idea for its democratic process, bastardized of course and with a sort of American influenced constitution plugged in.

Unfortunately I am not sure either side of the political divide there properly understand the concepts of checks and balances and the roles of the various elements, certainly not on a comprehensive basis. The whole way the democracy has been set up seems like a folly much the same as a working judicial system from the UK and Germany has been chopped about to form an ineffective mush that serves no-one except the corrupt. Perhaps they don't want to understand these things or perhaps they understand very well how they are changing things to suit themselves - the people in power I am talking about here.

The PTP want to pass laws that are ill thought out and almost certainly designed to put the money belonging to the country into the pockets of people. They despise the courts for being a stop on them. The Democrats hate the fact that they cannot control the poor whom the PTP have to a small degree empowered. The military think they are the all powerful group because of their mandate to protect the monarchy and country but with an eye to changing times. The police couldn't give a <deleted> because they can do what they like and persecute the people in whatever manner they like knowing they can usurp the power of the court and scam money any which way they like through a set of laws that is so full of holes to be wide open to corruption. The same is true for lawyers by the way but the argument rest too long winded.

This is a country in development with an ill educated population amongst a social mindset of corruption and selfishness. There is little widespread understanding of the juxtaposition of government and society nor the problems caused to society by the various factions.

This is the reason the current position between Suthep and the PTP gas come about and there is little understanding of the issues which have been spat out to leave 'Are you Red or Yellow?' The reality is far more complicated of course and each side has their plus points amongst the plethora of minus points but how to explain concepts way beyond the concept of most of the electorate to enable them to make a choice is a, probably, impossible task.

Here is the difficulty of a young democracy which has arisen from a disjointed conjunction of tribes and taken over by a ruthless and selfish Chinese influence.

That is why I believe I believe the arguments to not be much more complicated than Red or Yellow is best. What Thailand needs is some people high on morals and honour and low on corruption and I am not seeing any.

Wonderful explanation.

I think the biggest point to remember is that often the so called educated in Thailand are still incredibly ill informed.

Investing too much power into few with too little knowledge and experience is what produces poorly written laws and constitutions.

Moving to appointed parliaments assumes that the people you appoint into it are first of all selfless in their application and mentally capable enough to reason on their own a sophisticated answer.

Oh yes Thailand is just overflowing with these philosophical brains that it makes sense to overthrow the possibility of changing their representative by vote. I wouldn't want my country to be run by a bunch of PHD students from Oxford or Harvard.

Why would I want a bunch of theocrats from Chula or Thammasat. Seems they even have trouble to understand democracy let alone be ttrusted to replace it.

phanangpete · April 15, 2014

Not more than three years ago a Bangkok Uni did a survey in the northern provinces, mainly about attitudes to politics and were hopeful in getting a broader view.

One of the questions was , 'what do you think about democracy' most of the answers were left blank but quite a few asked 'can you eat it'.

This was reported in one of the farlang newspapers in Pattaya, im only quoting .

Sign In

Legal system needs a revamp: NACC's Vicha

Recommended Posts

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US