This post is part of New Mandala’s Thai institutions series. The first post in this series (Archives) is available here, the second (Unions) is here and the third (Police) is here.
For much of the 20th century, Thailand’s judicial system stood out as being relatively professional and apolitical. In his 1913 book Siam, Walter Graham claimed, “The Ministry [of Justice] has built up a service probably the cleanest and straightest Siam has ever seen, and containing in its ranks officers who could compare favourably with the members of the judiciary of many European countries.” According to a recent Asia Foundation survey, around two-thirds of Thais believe the judiciary conforms to a high level of integrity and is generally unbiased – the best rating of all institutions surveyed.
Yet, over the past decade, the judiciary’s standing has suffered considerably. Red Shirts allege that judges have applied a “double standard” and engaged in judicial activism (thulakarnwipat) against former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. While it is always difficult to assess accusations of judicial bias – after all, one party always loses in every case – Thai courts have undeniably become more involved in political life. In late 2008, there were even rumors of a plot towards a “judicial coup”. Contrary to popular belief, this politicization did not simply begin in April 2006, when King Bhumibol appealed to judges to resolve the political crisis. Rather, it has roots – or at least its seeds – in judicial reforms at the end of both the 19th and 20th centuries.
Historically, provincial governments exercised informal judicial powers, along with tax collection and public works. Often, the “judges” were elders or patrons within the community, making justice highly personalized. Sessions resembled mediation more than the formal proceduralism of a modern court. More serious cases could be appealed to the king himself. However, by the mid-19th century, two developments forced Thailand to launch judicial reforms: state-building and foreign encroachment.
King Mongkut’s drive to centralize and rationalize the Thai state requried changes to the judiciary. Interestingly, he briefly introduced judicial elections – but reversed himself soon after. King Chulalongkorn sent his son Prince Rabi to study law at Oxford. Upon his return, he headed the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) and spearheaded judicial reforms. In 1891, the MOJ centralized the courts within the ministry, in no small part to undercut local aristocrats and augment the king’s influence over judicial affairs. By 1908, the entire judicial apparatus was under the MOJ – and the monarchy. (Interestingly, Prince Rabi is now known as the “father of modern Thai law and judicial system” and his death on August 7 is still honored in Thai legal circles)
If the monarchy’s desire to centralize power determined the timing of judicial reform, European encroachment shaped its direction. Citing the inequities of Thailand’s pre-modern judicial practices, European governments established foreign and international courts to handle cases involving their own citizens. Thailand’s subsequent judicial reforms were in large part an effort to counter this violation of Thai sovereignty. Thai lawyers worked with French and Belgian jurists to draft a legal code. Notably, Prince Rabi had favored a British-style common law system, which would have separated the judiciary from the MOJ entirely and allowed judges to make law. However, the government believed that a civil law code, such as those found in continental Europe, would make Thailand appear more “civilized” to French observers. The plan seems to have worked, and foreign courts were gradually phased out.
While the rest of Thailand changed drastically during the 20th century, the structure of the judicial system remained largely intact – at least until the 1997 Constitution.* The “people’s constitution” separated courts from the MOJ, which provided judges with de jure independence. The Court of Justice hears general legal disputes and has special benches for civil and criminal cases, as well as tax, labor, intellectual property, and juvenile benches. Perhaps more importantly, the constitution gives judges an explicitly political role. The Supreme (Dika) Court hears election-related disputes, as well as cases of political corruption or malfeasance in its new Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions. In October 2008, this division sentenced Thaksin to prison for two years (in absentia) for facilitating a “heavily discounted” land sale from Bank of Thailand to his wife. This past February, the Court held that Thaksin had abused his authority for personal enrichment and ordered the seizure of 46 billion baht, around half of his frozen assets.
The 1997 Constitution also created a new Administrative Court to review administrative rules and acts for compliance with procedural fairness. The introduction of judicial review to Thailand (the Courts of Justice lacked this power) made judicial activism almost inevitable. The Supreme Administrative Court twice rejected Thaksin’s appointments to telecommunications regulatory commissions for raising conflicts of interest. In November 2005, it rejected the privatization of Egat because the government had not conducted a proper public consultation. The following year, it decided that at least 70% of iTV’s programming must consist of news, and that past violations incurred fines of 94 billion baht – a considerable blow to Thaksin, whose Shin Corp. was a majority stakeholder in the company. It is no coincidence that the recent junta kept the structure of the judiciary largely intact in the 2007 Constitution.
However, de jure judicial independence does not necessarily mean de facto impartiality. Under both the 1997 and 2007 Constitutions, judges swear an oath to the king and exercise power in his name. Moreover, the recruitment process leads to a corporate insularity amongst judges. Unlike common law judiciaries in America, where judges generally possess a variety of legal backgrounds, in civil law countries like Thailand younger law graduates can take an exam to join the judicial service. New judges must undergo yearlong training, resulting in early socialization with the judicial bureaucracy. A Judicial Commission consisting mostly of fellow judges screens and nominates judicial candidates. This ensures that judges whose views align with the conservative judicial elite are more likely to receive appointments and promotions. Ironically, the decision in the 1890s to adopt a civil law system created a socialization process that might not have arisen had Prince Rabi prevailed (much less with Mongkut’s judicial elections scheme).
To be clear, Thailand’s judiciary is not unique for its anti-populist attitudes, and similar trends can be found throughout the civil law world. Nor is this phenomenon particularly recent. During the 1970s, Supreme Court Justice Thanin Kraivixien hosted a television program in which he attacked the “inseparable trio of communism, student activism and progressive politics.” He became prime minister after the coup in 1976, leading perhaps the most rightwing administration in Thai history. Thai courts have also consistently rejected claims from the families of victims of the bloody crackdown in May 1992. Thus, there are sound reasons to suspect that the judiciary’s current stance stems from deeper structural and historical forces than simply the recent political crisis.
*Of course, the 1997 Constitution also created the Constitutional Court. Because of its importance in recent Thai politics I will dedicate a separate New Mandala post to it later this month…
Dominic J. Nardi, Jr. received his J.D. from Georgetown and has a Masters in Southeast Asian Studies from Johns Hopkins SAIS. He is the author of several articles about rule of law issues in Southeast Asia, particularly constitutional and environmental law. He will begin his Ph.D. in Political Science at the University of Michigan this fall.
51 responses so far ↓
1 Jim Taylor // Jul 12, 2010 at 5:40 pm
so much for history but…the judiciary was stacked in 2007 with pro-coup and antiThaksinites; it is easy to name the names, but here I’d just like to ask the question: as the judiciary has failed the people can anyone now ensure safety, equity and protection for the masses? and when will judicial/state-sanctioned killing post massacre end? While interviewing red shirt second and third level leaders in the north recently one informant received a phone call from a “watermelon” soldier saying that Abhisit and Suthep had unofficially Ok’d (and financed) local mafia to take them out at this level. This appalling situation is rarely covered in the media because of the massive propaganda campaign clothed by the appearance of justice working when it has clearly failed. In the last two months four former red shirt leaders and guards were ruthlessly murdered including Nuttawut and Supon “Rambo’s” guards. Sawaat Duangmanee, 60, from Srisaket was found dead in Cholburi Province, with hands tied at the back and strangled with phakhawma, one of red-shirt guards who went to visit relatives in Rayong Province; then there was
Saknarin krongkaew, (Uan Buayai), 24, Arisman guard shot dead while riding a motobike home. Now it is the turn of third-level core leader Surat Sathithangkoon (Hang Wat-Sai), 46, member of Phue Thai Party, just back from hiding in Kanchanaburi after the crackdown. Someone pumped ten rounds into him while he was inside a temple in Bangkok. Thairat covered this story: http://www.thairath.co.th/today/view/95297
Quality comment or not?
24 
7
2 patiwat // Jul 13, 2010 at 2:44 am
This article seems generally sound, but my impression was that the legal issue at the heart of the Court’s ruling on in 2008 was not the “heavy discount” on the land, but about the fact that Thaksin allowed his wife to make the purchase, which was a conflict of interest.
My understanding was that even if she paid more than market value, he would still have been found guilty.
Quality comment or not?
12 
0
3 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Jul 13, 2010 at 11:35 am
Jim Taylor #1
a “watermelon” soldier saying that Abhisit and Suthep had unofficially Ok’d (and financed) local mafia to take them out at this level.
Isn’t this the same kind of “evidence” or ‘method of proof’ used by “anti-Thaksinists” against Thaksin’s ‘war on drugs’ policy? (i.e. that Thaksin “unofficially” gave order for police to take drugs traffigers out). In other words, the same kind of political point-scoring without much real evidence.
There are killings of Red Shirts activists in the provinces in the aftermath of the May incidents in Bangkok. But unless one has much better evidence or proof than that used by Taylor and Red leaders like Jatuporn, I suggest one refrain from this kind of point-scoring. It does NOT further the cause of the Red shirts in terms of credibility.
I would further suggest that there could be more plausible explanation for the killings. These are the same kind of killings that during election seasons happen to ‘vote-canvassers’ (หัวคะแนน). In fact the latter is of much wider scale than what’s happening now. From my understanding, most of local (provincial) Red activists are indeed the same people who in elections times act as Thaksin-Phua Thai vote-canvassers. (This’s one reason I maintain that it’s important to see the Red Shirt movement as organized and mobilized by Thaksin-Phua Thai network.) In normal time, these ‘vote-canvassers’ of political parties already live in environment of power-patronage conflicts. It’s likely that, their local rivals took opportunity of the present downturn in the Reds political fortune nation-wide, to ‘settle the score’ with them.
To say that the killings are the work of local rivals of the Reds activists is not to excuse the central government of resposibility (the nation-wide climate of fear, political persecution is certainly the result of the government’s action), but simply to avoid the kind of unrealistic, implausible explanations Red sympathizers like Taylor or Jatuporn love to employ, which in my views is counter-productive.
Quality comment or not?
20 
11
4 Tarrin // Jul 13, 2010 at 11:56 am
Patiwat – 2
You are right, the land wasnt heavily discounted. The land was confiscated from ERAWAN fund in 1997 by FIDF with book value of only baht 14 millions. There were 3 bidders who were interested in buying the land LH, Thai-Bev, and Khun Ying Podjaman. It was a an open envelope auction (that’s mean every bidder knows what the other was offering) Thai bev came in 3th with 550 mil, LH bid at 600, and Khun Ying bid at 750 mil (I could be wrong about the number).
but about the fact that Thaksin allowed his wife to make the purchase, which was a conflict of interest.
Now in legal perspective, it boil down to whether FDIF which is an agency set up under the BOT considered as “state own” or “state enterprise”. If we look at Supreme Court decision No. 4655/2533 (In brief the plaintiff is suing the government for FDIF miss management and asking the government to pay for the mistake because the FDIF had a legal shield) the Supreme Court had made a decision that the FDIF is not a state own or state enterprise so the charge was drop. Anyway, in 2007 the Junta re-classify the FDIF as being state own and they charge Thaksin on that ground.
Quality comment or not?
21 
0
5 LesAbbey // Jul 13, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Somsak – 3
These are the same kind of killings that during election seasons happen to ‘vote-canvassers’ (หัวคะแนน).
Now I stand ready to be corrected here, but during the no-confidence debate didn’t Suthep say that half of those red shirts killed during the protest had criminal records and didn’t Jataporn fail to dispute this?
Without in the slightest arguing that having a criminal record should be a reason for being killed, just as being involved in the drug trade should not give an excuse for extra-judicial execution, could the background of some of the red shirt guards have some connection with these recent killings? In other words, could there be mafia connections without the government being involved?
Quality comment or not?
6 
2
6 Jim Taylor // Jul 13, 2010 at 12:38 pm
somsak #3 always tried to link the red shirts back to Thaksin in a fictive move similar to the state to discredit them as a social movement. Well, there is no election going on now for canvassing, so that discounts that thesis; secondly, while Thaksin’s WOD (which incidently my reference has absolutely no relation to in this context) was “extra-judicial”, my argument here is that Abhisit and Suthep have established a loophole in the legal framework through cronyism in the court for these “judicial/state” killings to take place. There is no question of the hunt (if Somsak got out of Bangkok to the provinces more and talked with red shirts) and no question of the motive behind the illegitimate government to annihilate all opposition by killing second and third level regional red shirt leaders. I don’t believe that the fear in my informant after the phone call was imaginary. Look at the evidence to date.
Quality comment or not?
11 
9
7 shadow // Jul 13, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Regarding Thaksin’s land case:
The process was a public bid.
The court found his wife (the buyer) not guilty.
The Bank of Thailand (the seller) not guilty.
The purchase price was about 100 million Baht over the mean price.
The Bank of Thailand maintained that no damages was caused by the sale.
Quality comment or not?
22 
0
8 Ralph Kramden // Jul 13, 2010 at 1:07 pm
I’m a bit confused on the Taylor-Somsak-Abbey exchange. It seems to me that it is saying, despite Somsak’s caveats, that killing people with criminal records or who ate hua kanean is somehow okay. Likewise, Somsak’s alternative explanation has less real evidence than Taylor’s. Shouldn’t activists be demanding an independent investigation of these so far unexplained deaths?
But whatever happened to the (non-)investigation of alleged deaths (and the two real deaths) in April 2009. Or is such an investigation impossible in Thailand? If it is, then interpretations of the deaths will be circulated and will have meanings that are politically useful for all sides.
Yellow shirts do seem to celebrate each killing.
Quality comment or not?
16 
2
9 David Brown // Jul 13, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Somsak #3
please therefore doubt and criticise everything the CRES, PAD, etc say unless there is either a conviction or at least some evidence presented
for example…
how many military snipers were deployed and what did they do?
how many Men in Black have been arrested and identified?
how many people have been arrested and identified related to the arson after the redshirts rally was dispersed?
what explanation has been given for why the soldiers were not able to prevent the arson? (scared? orders just to stand by while their mates arranged to collect on insurance?
what plausible explanation has been given for the Cambodian government that sent the 2 Thai off their territory with the flimsy story that they were involved in the BJT bombing?
etc, etc
Quality comment or not?
14 
2
10 LesAbbey // Jul 13, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Ralph – 8
I’m a bit confused on the Taylor-Somsak-Abbey exchange.
Yes Ralph you do seem to be. There have been some people described by Jim Taylor as second or third level red shirt leaders killed. Now one of Jim’s numerous anonymous informants says it was a combination of ‘mafia’ and government hit squads.
Now we should hope the local police would be able to come up with some answers, after all many of the police have shown some fondness for the red shirt movement, but until we have some proof relying on the honesty or the existence of Jim Taylor’s informants would seem to be dangerous.
Now I can agree with you that investigations into all deaths would be a good thing. Certainly the only two we have a probable answer for in 2009 were killed by red shirts in a fight with locals protecting their soi. We could of course go even further back to the drug killings, in fact isn’t that under investigation again.
I think the point being made by Somsak who has some sympathy for the red shirt movement is that making up reasons for these killings without evidence for propaganda purposes doesn’t really achieve the purpose it’s intended to.
Quality comment or not?
3 
3
11 Srithanonchai // Jul 13, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Jim Taylor #6
“somsak #3 always tried to link the red shirts back to Thaksin in a fictive move similar to the state to discredit them as a social movement.” > > My impression so far has been that it is rather Jim than Somsak who lives in an imaginary world…
Quality comment or not?
8 
4
12 Dickie Simpkins // Jul 13, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Sri #11:
I concur. It seems that Jim has dyed himself red in and out, he sees the world, and especially Thai politics through red-tinted glasses and is seemingly unable (or unwilling which then smacks of intellectual disonesty) to view the world outside of those glasses.
Granted the current killings are horrendous, but the net of suspicion can be wide and far reaching.
1. Simple revenge killings from other hua khanen or revenge killings of this nak leng by other nak leng types (easier given that the state will be more than happy to look the other way or drag their feet in the murder investigations). You could argue this is state-sponsored, but if you argue this way than the earlier “Jim Taylor” arguments for the killings of drug dealers during the war on drugs and that Thaksin is not responsible for much is moot.
2. These are state sponsored killings and Jim’s “sources” are 100% correct. Of course we know that Jim’s sources can never be doubted because they unearthed hundreds and hundreds of bodies that were killed and put into army trucks and driven out to be burned/buried/destroyed/fed to alligators/fed to pigs (just watched Snatch again last night) in Songkran of 2009.
3. That after taking over Rajprasong for 2-3 months, businesses in the area, and some lucrative street area/owners/gangsters/mafia, and all various reincarnations are enacting revenge killings for lost income. Some played nice, even giving ‘donations’ to the Reds and their leaders in hope that arson would be avoided (ie: protection money), but alas no avail. It is very possible these people have hired guns doing various jobs.
With too many possibilities its too damning to blame any 1 party to it except the media, and the police. Why are neither doing thorough and deep investigations to come down to the truth? I fear the answer is deep-rooted into “Thai-ness’…. wonder who’s in charge of that.
Quality comment or not?
5 
5
13 Dickie Simpkins // Jul 13, 2010 at 5:53 pm
It is interesting, most upper middle class people I know, just 2 months after the media termed “Red Rampage” are full of contempt for the Abhisit government in private. These people I know wear only yellow and save strong anti-Red words in public or amongst colleagues, but behind closed doors have heavy sympathies for the Red movements (less Thaksin) and are quite emotional given the slate of killings and the ignoramus government following.
There is nothing really being done to promote reconciliation. No real enforcement of laws that establish rule of law, rather selective enforcements of laws to showcase a rule by law for the victors.
There is scent that the winds of change are coming. Will the reds be able to call on a very vocal and a highly Royalist group within Bangkok to join sides or to publicly split with the government? The established judiciary is within (also a minority) this group.
These people are bored with the visible and hidden leaders of ‘both sides’, but side with Yellow because they are happy within the current establishments. Unless of course the Red revolution is only about beheading anyone who disagrees with them and/or just about Thaksin getting his money back. (before all the crazies reply: my point is that it is neither just these, so room for compromise is always available).
where is Senor Enrique Damanche? I miss his posts.
Quality comment or not?
9 
2
14 Simon // Jul 13, 2010 at 7:32 pm
The judiciary is the only branch of government that actually works well in Thailand. It’s a shame that it tends to be tarred with the same brush as the (deplorable) legislature and executive.
The statement about the King appealing to “resolve the political crisis” in 2006 is innacurate and misleading. In an audience with some judicial recruits he simply appealed for them to do their job responsibly and act with impartiality.
New recruits into the Australian public service get similar lectures as part of their ethics training. It’s hardly controversial advice.
Quality comment or not?
4 
6
15 michael // Jul 13, 2010 at 9:16 pm
Dickie S #12 – my concurrence is concurrent with your concurrence re. Somsak & Sri. “Look at the evidence to date,” says Jim Taylor. Yes? I’m waiting… For quite some time now I’ve been flabbergasted by Taylor’s frequent unsubstantiated assertions. One expects academics to have rather more familiarity with the rules of debate than the ‘informed retirees’ one is alarmed to hear arguing on both sides in cafes in the provinces. Surely his credibility in his field relies on his ability to back up his information, or sit on it until further investigation has provided him with real evidence that can be shown. Simply barracking for one side like a football fan can be very harmful to that side, and confuses the issues enormously. I wouldn’t think that Aj. Somsak is a Yellow, but he does tend to back up his arguments with fact, & he, who of all Thai academics, must find it difficult at times to maintain his objectivity, earns a good deal of respect & credibility for his truthful approach.
Dickie S #13, I’ve noticed the same thing with quite a few middle-class Bangkok friends, some of them very hi-so. They are disgusted with the crackdown, cynical about the current proliferation of committees, and very worried about the various spy groups being set up by the govt, as well as the restrictions to free-speech. But they are also fearful of the Red leaders, & the possible backlash if (when?) the Reds get into govt again. I concur.
Quality comment or not?
9 
0
16 Jim Taylor // Jul 13, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Simon #14, not sure what you mean about the judicary actually working well? it really depends on the judges who are sitting in the various courts…It hs been stacked at all levels after the coup and bribes of extended tenure for another ten years (judges can now retire at seventy years of age); mostly chosen for as anti-Thaksinites all now firmly embedded in the system to ensure a continued flow of skewed decisions and control and regulation according to the anti-democratic 2007 Constitution. A key element of this was to protect coup-makers and these “independent bodies” from any future prosecution. Many of these bodies will be in power until 2013/2015 to make sure Thai Rak Tha (TRT) and Thaksin (who has no aspiration to return to politics anyway) will never reappear again on the political landscape. Here’s what the king said back in 25 April 06
[King’s speech to Supreme Court judges]. In relation to Article 7 (1997 Thai Constitution) [see Michael Connors 2008 "Artyicles of faith: the failure of royal liberalism in Thailand" - though I do not agree with all of this]. King said you cannot refer to this Article in relation to appointing PM. My trans.: “I’m always asked to appoint PM outside of the democratic regime, but I have difficulty to appoint PM under these conditions. In relation to article 7 this is a worrying reference: I’m sorry to have to say this is like governing as มั่ว (orgy/slipshod/perfunctory manner) following rules that are made up on the run. Thailand will be sunk in Ocean like a large ship- going down to the bottom of the sea; [we] need to act according to wisdom. Nation is not in need of “revitalisation” กู้ชาติ (as Sondhi Lim stated)! so why keep saying this! No need to revive the nation under good management; fight for fairness…It is irrational to refer to Article 7: you who are judging from the Supreme Court are smart, intelligent, thinkers, should consider about proper implementation. If not a full parliament it is not going to work (think about mechanisms to make things work/I think it มั่ว/ You can’t pass it to the king to act…It has to be the courts…If you follow the law we would not be able to work because we don’t have 500 (400?) members of parliament. You must look into how to make it work. (reference to boycott by opposition to election in April 2006, where 281 of 400 constituency seats having only a TRT candidate and TRT won close to 16 million votes) Look again at Article 7: The king cannot order this because it has no rule or regulation to support the Constitution. I always follow the constitution. This request (Article 7) does not appear in the constitution.” Those who know the boackground will see there is no ambiguity here about who is getting ticked off!
http://tna.mcot.net/royal.php?clip_id=25172
Quality comment or not?
8 
0
17 David Brown // Jul 13, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Dickie Simpkins #13
as I am sure you must know but for some reason dont/wont say…
- the royals/privy council/military are in control
- they are the origin of the mythical “thainess” (meaning anything they agree with)
- they control what Abhisit and the government can do
- they control what the police can do
so state sponsored means whatever the royals/privy council/military want… it was the same in Thaksins day as now
and guess who cannot be called to account, prosecuted by the police and the judiciary?
now, were you just avoiding a minefield by not stating this or did you just want to keep some story going?
meanwhile at least we should respect that Jim is out in the field interviewing people, getting some real life stories… we are the ones pontificating about ultimate structures and hypothesing on reasons
Quality comment or not?
13 
3
18 David Brown // Jul 13, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Michael #16 (Dickie S #12, 13)
so, you are frightened, dont know what to do
maybe you should talk to your fellow Thais who have worked it out
if Thailand is ruled by a democracy you dont need to be paralysed, because democracy gives a solution to a “bad” government
the solution is to work to make sure that the bad (in your view) government is voted out at the next election
whereas when you have a dictatorship, ruled by the amart/military hidden hands then you are right to be scared because their is no solution, you only can gripe and complain in private, like everyone is doing now
dont worry who wins the next election, as long as the royals/privy council/military are forbidden to interfere then the government can only last as long as it keeps performing to get enough votes from the people
Quality comment or not?
11 
2
19 Dom // Jul 14, 2010 at 2:58 am
Hi everyone, I just wanted to clarify a few things about my article:
- Regarding Jim’s comment (#1), I’ll discuss the “stacking” of the Constitutional Court and other articles related to that institution in my next article.
- When I said “heavy discount,” I was trying to be coy with a euphemism (hence the quotes). The comments are correct in that the crux of the matter was the conflict of interest – allegedly, the price was suspiciously below market rates because of that conflict of interest.
- Regarding Simon’s comment (# 14), I agree that in the majority of cases, the Thai judiciary is still one of the strongest institutions in the country (the Asia Foundation poll I cited certainly suggests so). Also, I agree that the king’s 2006 speech could be read different ways. However, my larger points were 1) the speech was widely interpreted as an appeal to the judiciary to resolve the political crisis, but 2) the politicization of the judiciary, to the extent that it’s happened, did not simply begin after that speech (for instance, the latest International Crisis Group tries to draw a direct causal connection).
Thanks for your comments!
Quality comment or not?
2 
2
20 The Asia Foundation : News : » Blog Archive » Mandala Blog Cites Asia Foundation’s Thai Survey // Jul 14, 2010 at 9:11 am
[...] A New Mandala blog post about the Thai judiciary system cites findings from The Asia Foundation’s “Survey of the Thai People,” which found that approximately two-thirds of Thais believe that the judiciary conforms to a high level of integrity and is generally unbiased. Read the full blog post: “Thai Institutions: Judiciary.” [...]
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
21 goo_stewart // Jul 14, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Whilst I will concede that the judiciary is a highly respected institution, I remain adamant that it is as thoroughly corrupt as any branch of the Thai governmental framework. In criminal cases, it is notorious for being complicit in deals for acquittals/lesser sentences, in political cases it is certainly stacked and active in the political arena.
Ok, my belief can not be based in hard fact, but smoke and fire, eh? We hear rumours of far too many cases involving deals done between prosecution/judges and defence for there to be no truth behind them.
Having said that, I do believe that there is an openness and fairness in the traditional ‘civil’ areas of the Thai legal system. Tax, Labour and IP cases do seem to get resolved in a largely independent way. To hear of some of the judgements coming from the Labour Courts I sometimes cheer quietly to myself, it does some to be an arena for fairness, where the little guy can win fair judgements. Maybe there is hope for one of the Thai institutions.
Quality comment or not?
10 
0
22 StanG // Jul 14, 2010 at 12:39 pm
“appeal to the judiciary to resolve the political crisis”
Sure it could be interpreted that way, if one wants to deflect the argument that the House was dismissed to avoid solving Thaksin’s personal problems with the law.
Then followed shameless April elections fraud which had to be addressed regardless of the vote outcome.
What we have here is an attempt to make oneself untouchable and outside the law by claiming electoral popularity.
So far the judiciary hasn’t caved in and withstood the assault.
Quality comment or not?
2 
9
23 Dom // Jul 14, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Goo_Stewart, I can’t really confirm or deny rumors, but those are the types of rumors you hear in a lot of developing country judicial systems. I might say two things. First, make sure you’re not confusing corrupt deals with something more akin to plea bargains. In a lot of civil law systems, prosecutors have more discretion as to whether a case has sufficient evidence. Also, it’s important to beware of rumors, especially in this field. Law is complex and there might be a lot of non-corrupt considerations (although, that’s certainly not to ignore the corruption that does exist).
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
24 Dickie Simpkins // Jul 14, 2010 at 2:48 pm
David Brown #17:
When I ask who’s in charge of Thainess, I mean it in the most rhetorical way possible, but I’d like to add on to your arguments:
When asked what is more important, getting your work done, or maintaining a good relationship given that you are in a conflicting situation and must choose between the two: 70% of Bkk office workers answered relationship. 61% of farmers said getting their work done. A typical Bangkokian will tell you that maintaining harmonious relationship is the ‘Thai” way, yet the majority of the country (the farmers) will tell you that getting their daily crop is more important and is the Thai way. I work with the Bangkok people and I hate it, but I love and respect the people who are willing to get the job done more.
It would be great if this government, or any government asked the question, “What is Thainess?” and allowed for a national civil discussion (not debate mind you) on what it means to be Thai because the the makeup of the Thai public has changed in these last 15-20 years. In Pahurat you’ve got your 3rd and 4th generation Thai-Indians, in Yaowarat your 5th and 6th generations Thai-Chinese, in the North, you have many ethnic and tribal minorities whose 2nd generations are now born and bred in Thailand, in the South-Central region (Kanchanaburi, Samut Sakorn, Ratchaburi) you’ve got 2nd generation of Thai-Burmese growing up here. The industrial areas have their own collection of blue-collar Thais, then of course you have the farmers, the “elite” Thai with ‘connections’, the land owners, the land lords, beauracrats, etc. etc. etc. What does it mean to be Thai? Do the ‘controllers’ of Thai culture actually have control any more?
There are many more voices, there are rumblings of a major wind of change, there are those who feel the time has come not to just change the “jockey” but to change the horse itself, and these people are like I mentioned above, a very influential elite, whose Yellow is now more like a public showing and a baby-like security blanket they aren’t willing to discard yet.
If you ask me why am I so worried about this elite when time and time again democratic elections has shown that the Thaksin parties, TRT, PPP, PT has (and probably win) elections again, I will ask you to think of the following:
in history, any time (even during democracries) when the elite (or a tiny (above 25% of them) did not back the winning candidate, they were able to use constitutional tools to totally deter the elected government from doing their jobs, these usually would come under ridiculous and frivilous law suits (the judiciary being key here, so I am topical), crazy investigations to nowhere, and no support of any government programs, making an elected government impotent.
When the elite fails at this, then you have someone like Senor Chavez of Venezuela (not to be confused with vuvuzela), and the country is then disjoined from the global conversation and economic investments is replaced by crazy populism causing the country to slide backwards as the leaders find ways to keep themselves in power under any democratic means possible. I am not saying that Thaksin is Chavez, we won’t know now, there was a coup in 2006. It probably would’ve been better not to have had a coup, and see what Thaksin would’ve done to subsequent PAD protests.
Instead, we have Abhisit Vejjajiva, a seemingly very smart man who gives excellent tv interviews. A man whom I know is actually very good natured and good hearted. He means well, but is genuinely not in charge of the country at all. He still does not realize that yet despite the mounting evidence. He prefers not to see it and live in the la-la land he’s developed in his own mind that he is in charge of things.
It seems that for Thailand, the road to hell is indeed full of good intentions.
Quality comment or not?
10 
0
25 Christoffer Larsson // Jul 14, 2010 at 6:13 pm
@shadow
Just some clarifications.
The purchase price of the land was about 10% (or 72 million baht) above the appraisal value.
The purchase price was still about one third below its book value. This was because Bank of Thailand bought the land for a very high price in 1995 from a company in financial difficulties.
Is it possible that judges do not understand the difference between appraisal value and book value, even when it is explained clearly to them?
It’s also worth adding that two plots, adjacent to the land Pojaman purchased, were sold by BoT during the same period for a lower price per raj. These cases have not resulted in any legal processes.
Quality comment or not?
10 
0
26 StanG // Jul 14, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Prime Minister and his family cannot go shopping at government auctions, period. Doesn’t matter how much they pay.
The old case on FIDF being the state agency is comparing apples and oranges. That was about government’s financial liability for operating losses. Land case was about political supervision which isn’t the same thing at all, and the court ruled 9-0 on that account.
Quality comment or not?
2 
7
27 michael // Jul 14, 2010 at 8:29 pm
David Brown #18: “so, you are frightened, dont know what to do,” yes I am nervous, although my sympathies are much more with the rank-&-file Redshirts than with the Yellow Peril. The problem, as I have stated, is with the Red leadership, who are overly emotional, erratic, and seem to have very little to say about how they would reconstruct Thailand in the event of winning the election – always assuming that there is one eventually.
It seems to me that it would be much more constructive all around if they put some energy into developing some coherent policies, encompassing all regions of this divided nation, rather than wasting it with polarising & negative rhetoric.
It appears that everyone is coming to an understanding of the nature of the current government that could be helpful to the Reds in their bid for government. This understanding is the outcome of what everyone can see. It is not necessary for the Reds to be screaming it out. However, it is necessary for the Reds to articulate some coherent and workable policies, so that the pseudo-Yellows, who are now losing faith in the govt will get on side. In short, they need to move Thaksin out of the picture – the middle-classes & quite a few others are not going to support his reinstatement; he is a dead issue – and they need to come up with a leader who is clearly clean, intelligent, and able to communicate with the South and Bangkok on the basis of what he can do for them, as well as with those who are already on side.
They need to take notice of Abhisit. Whatever support he has is because of his ‘squeaky-clean’ image, and his articulateness, his ability to say what the people want to hear. That he is alienating so many of his former supporters is due to the fact that they can now see that his government is just as corrupt as any other (& he can’t do much about it), his rhetoric is hollow and blatantly mendacious, and he is dismally weak due to the composition of his coalition. Those who support him now are Facebook airheads & the radically blinkered. The time for a leader to emerge has never been better.
re. “you…don’t know what to do.” I don’t have to “do” anything; I’m a farang, with no vote, &, although I comment on NM and listen to what my many Thai friends of all sides have to say, I am not an active participant in Thai politics; I’m an observer. To be more than that would be delusional & improper, in my view. When I do participate in discussions it is mainly to point out the superiority of rational processes over violent & emotional ones, & the value of civil society organisations engaged in any constructive projects whatever in local areas as a way of beginning a more democratic approach to running the country, because this is ‘doing’ democracy, rather than waiting for it to be done by someone else.
In your post #18, you seem to be talking about a hypothetical-to-delusional situation, in the final paragraph. I will agree that the country needs to get back to elections & full-term governments as soon as possible, having only had one such govt in the past. But I am not so naiive as to imagine that the next election will automatically lead to plain sailing in that direction.
Quality comment or not?
10 
0
28 Christoffer Larsson // Jul 14, 2010 at 10:18 pm
@StanG
Re #22: The “shameless April elections fraud” was an accusation against the Election Commission that concerned the positioning of voting booths. It was not about Thaksin or TRT.
Re: #26: BoT and FIDF are institutions independent from the government. It was not a government auction.
Thaksin was found guilty for helping his wife to buy the land at a “heavily discounted” price. And this is obviously not true.
Quality comment or not?
11 
1
29 Dom // Jul 15, 2010 at 12:42 am
I just wanted to remind everybody that New Mandala posted an excellent analysis of the 2010 Supreme Court case against Thaksin back in February. It addresses an issue similar to Larsson’s in comment # 25 – namely, that the justices might have based their decision on faulty economics (willfully or unwittingly, I can’t say). Here is the post: http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/02/27/making-sense-of-the-verdict/
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
30 Tarrin // Jul 15, 2010 at 2:25 am
StanG – 26
FDIF was independent institution (I think since 1937 if I’m not mistaken) until 2007 when the junta said otherwise. Now that the land was purchase in 2003, I hope you understand the rule of law about non-retrospective.
Dom – 19
When I said “heavy discount,” I was trying to be coy with a euphemism (hence the quotes). The comments are correct in that the crux of the matter was the conflict of interest – allegedly, the price was suspiciously below market rates because of that conflict of interest.
The land book value was 14 million, since the only way to know the current price was by comparing to the selling price of the adjacent land plot. However, from the record those land was also selling at below apprised price so when you said “heavy discount” it gave the sense of inaccuracy here because nobody know what is the price of the land. That’s why they use auction instead of selling at appraised price.
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
31 LesAbbey // Jul 15, 2010 at 12:13 pm
So if the court decides in the coming months to dissolve the Democrat Party and ban its executives, including Abhisit, for 5 years, will all those complaining about the judiciary then change their minds?
Unlikely that the court will do this? Well in an interview with Abhisit by the Nation we get this.
He acknowledged that if a party-dissolution ruling came after Democrats had registered candidacy for a new election under the current party’s banner, “it will be a massacre”.
I have said before that I have never seen the Thai judiciary so independent as they have been in recent years. I should clarify this by saying I have never seen the Thai judiciary so independent of the politicians and government. Even in non-political cases we seem to be seeing less corruption than in days past.
Now of course the judiciary should be independent of the government as its loyalty is to the State via the monarch. This is mostly the case in Western democracies, although those without a monarchy would be to the State without the royal figurehead. In this the State is above its current government and politicians.
Now does anyone really want to go back to the days where politicians can get their sons off of blatant murder charges through the courts? Some here have short memories.
Quality comment or not?
1 
4
32 Dom // Jul 15, 2010 at 3:56 pm
LesAbbey (comment 31): just a point of clarification – the Democrat Party case is going to be heard in the Constitutional Court. That’s a very different animal from the regular judiciary (although somewhat less so after the 2007 Constitution). I’ll cover that in my next article. Long story short, it’s certainly not impossible to imagine the majority ruling in favor of the Democrats. After all, in 2007, the court dissolved TRT but not the Democrats, even though there were charges against the Democrats as well.
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
33 StanG // Jul 15, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Christoffer Larsson #28
“Shameless election fraud” I was talking about was setting up fake parties and hacking the official EC database. That was all over newspapers at the time the King delivered his address to the judges.
In his speech he didn’t refer to that, however.
Two months later the court decided to annul the elections on voting booths etc, which was a charge against the EC. The fraud case against TRT took a lot longer.
BoT and FIDF are not fully independent from the government. Prime Minister at that time had full authority to sack BOT governor, not to mention the Finance Minister, and they, in turn appoint FIDF board members with BOT governor himself as a chairman.
Quality comment or not?
1 
4
34 jonfernquest // Jul 15, 2010 at 4:14 pm
The article would have been a lot better with proper citations and references. An introduction and some history is provided but no means of following up is provided.
The whole thing veers towards a polemic towards the end.
A lot of terms are thrown about ( judicial activism, impartiality, anti-populist attitudes, judicial independence and conservatism) and there seems to be some nascent critique of the Thai judicial system which could be quite interesting but in the end the author fails to mention the big recent cases that go against his claim of “anti-populist attitudes” and conservatism: Map Ta Phut and PTT and also fails to mention that key controversial ruling that allowed Thaksin to become Prime Minister in the first place.
The author doesn’t touch upon criminal law as it affects ordinary people at all. The 1997 constitution guaranteed the accused certain rights and it is unclear whether these rights were ever activated in the system itself. In fact the criminal legal system including the penal system seems to be a big black hole without much media coverage or critical academic attention at all, perhaps even a taboo to talk about it.
The prosecution also supposedly has a much more narrow role than western legal systems, prosecution of cases severely limited by the often sparse evidence provided by the police.
There is also the issue of how low level disputes are resolved by the police and village headmen. For instance, the use of local guarantors in a Bangkok traffic accident accident. If a rural person cannot get anyone to vouch for them, they can end up paying a huge fraction of the damages. I have heard secondhand of these things but all of it remains very unclear and undocumented.
There is also the issue of ill-defined property rights to land which plagues the system (may be a factor of the French vs. British legal inheritance, but unclear).
In short, please documenting the basic facts and how the whole system works would be much more useful than engaging in political polemics particularly at this point in time in Thai history.
Quality comment or not?
1 
2
35 Tarrin // Jul 15, 2010 at 4:25 pm
BoT and FIDF are not fully independent from the government. Prime Minister at that time had full authority to sack BOT governor, not to mention the Finance Minister, and they, in turn appoint FIDF board members with BOT governor himself as a chairman.
That’s not what the supreme court said according to ruling #4655/2533.
Beside, no country in the world that don’t separate central bank from the executive branch. Moreover, even if the government has the authority the appoint the board for the BOT or its Chairman it doesn’t mean that the BOT is dependent of the government. Let me ask you back, who select Ben Bernanke to be the Fed chairman? and if that’s the case, does the Fed considered as independent or under the US government?
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
36 StanG // Jul 15, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Dom,
If you are going to do another article on Dem dissolution case – how can they apply the current Political Parties Act to what happened before it was re-written in 2007?
The offenses might still be the but sentencing is totally different. Under current rules, for example, if one party executive is found guilty the whole board must go, no leeway, as the court explained in PPP dissolution case. Party dissolution requirements are also different, as far as I know. Misuse of electoral funds, the first case to trial, was not punishable by dissolution but it is now.
Quality comment or not?
0 
4
37 Christoffer Larsson // Jul 15, 2010 at 6:34 pm
@Tarrin #30
Let me try to go through the details of the case again.
The book value of the land that Pojaman purchased was 2 billion baht.
The appraisal value of the land was 700 million baht.
Determining the appraisal value of land in rural areas can be almost impossible. This is not the case in urban areas, where land are bought and sold all the time.
Pojaman paid 772 million for the land.
There were 2 more bidders in the auction. Their bids were lower than Pojaman’s. Both of them are public companies listed on SET. This means that their bids must have been approved by the Board of Directors. If there are a conspiracy, the members of these boards are a part of it.
FIDF also sold 2 more plots of land during the same period adjacent to the land Pojaman purchased. Both were sold at cheaper price per sqm.
Conclusion:
Thaksin may be guilty of conflict of interest, but this is setting the bar very low. He is not guilty for facilitating a “heavily discounted” price.
In any case, why would a dollar billionaire go out of his way to manipulate both FIDF and company boards to save himself a million bucks?
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
38 Tarrin // Jul 15, 2010 at 9:18 pm
Christoffer Larsson – 37
The book value of the land that Pojaman purchased was 2 billion baht.
You are 100% wrong on this one, there’s no way the book value of an empty piece of land can be at 2 billion. When the land was on sell in 2003, the entire ERAWAN group (3 buildings including office at Rathcaprasong) worth a bit above 2.5 billion there’s no way an entire corporation based in Ratchaprasong can be worth less than a piece of empty land in Ratchada. Moreover, a friend of mine was being ask to join the auction then and he showed me the detail and the land was definitely booked at 14 million (1997 value) with 850 million opening price. However the price was perceive as being too high so he didn’t join the auction same with hundreds other investors. Not until they lower the opening price to 500 million that some investors actually interesting in joining to auction.
Their bids were lower than Pojaman’s. Both of them are public companies listed on SET.
The 2 bidders are LH and Thai-Bev both listed but one is listed in Singapore. However, in my opinion Sia Jarearn actually did the bidding himself not trough Thai-Bev, but I could be wrong on this one.
Thaksin may be guilty of conflict of interest
I still believed that Thaksin wasn’t guilty of conflict of interest based on Supreme Court decision #4655/2533 and that the court is being less than independent and politicized.
Quality comment or not?
6 
0
39 Christoffer Larsson // Jul 16, 2010 at 12:20 am
@Tarrin #38
You are probably right about the bidders. I was too lazy to look them up again. But my memory on numbers are better.
“The fund sold the land plot located at Rama IX Road to deposed PM Thaksin Shinawatra’s wife Pojaman for Bt772 million in 2003, higher than the appraisal price of about Bt700 million.
The AEC claims the fund lost money in the deal, because it had bought the land from Erawan Trust Finance and Securities for Bt2 billion in 1995.”
The full article can be found here:
http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/01/24/politics/politics_30024938.php
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
40 Dom // Jul 16, 2010 at 12:42 am
StanG (comment #36) – From my understanding, retrospective application of the law is an issue the Democrats have already raised. That’ll probably be the crux of the case. I can’t predict how the Constitutional Court will rule though!
jonfernquest (comment #34) – One of the problems with any type of article like this is it’s length. Generally, they run at 800-1,000 words, which is simply too short to cover everything – much less include citations (I sympathize, as I generally cite to everything, but that’s simply not feasible here). Because New Mandala’s audience seems interested in politics, I decided to focus on politically salient issues and not issues like the criminal justice system or land disputes, important as those are for everyday life. Besides, there are many other sources that discuss those issues, far better and in more depth than I could ever do.
I thought it would be more helpful to discuss how structural and historical forces have shaped the current judiciary. Really the point was to suggest that the judiciary did not simply mindlessly turn against Thaksin after the king’s 2006 speech, as many seem to suggest (including the recent International Crisis Group report). Rather, by highlighting historical issues, I hope I made a deeper takeaway point. I hope this didn’t come across as a polemic! There are certainly courts around the world that have done far, far worse (Lisa Hilbink has written about how Chile’s judges never challenged Pinochet because they sympathized with the right-wing military).
The 2001 Thaksin case was a CONSTITUTIONAL COURT case, which I’ll be discussing in my next post.
You make a fair point to raise those cases, and I had almost included Ma Ta Phut in my article, but I’m somewhat reluctant to put Map Ta Phut definitively as a case of the Administrative Court acting in a “populist manner,” as you seem to suggest. In fact, the Thaksin administration was criticized by many environmentalists for big development projects (and the ChiangMai night safari), while the king has been notably vocal in his support for environmental protections. The 2007 Constitution has stronger environmental provisions than its predecessor. You make a fair point to raise those cases, and I had almost included Ma Ta Phut in my article, but I
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
41 Christoffer Larsson // Jul 16, 2010 at 1:37 am
@LesAbbey #31
If the judiciary decides to dissolve the Democrat Party, it is making a pretty clear statement. Any government that it does not view favorably upon will be dissolved.
The expanded powers that were given to the judiciary by the military junta has to be reversed.
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
42 Jaco Pastorius // Jul 16, 2010 at 5:01 am
Too much intellectualizing. Giving them too much credit for integrity and character. Has anyone checked up on Rakesh Saxena? What are they feeding him? Why has his story gone dark? Last we saw they were wheeling him off to jail in a wheelchair. Take a look. He’s got more to say about the way it is than anyone. Where is he?
Jaco
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
43 Tarrin // Jul 16, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Christoffer Larsson -39
Yes but ERAWAN book that piece of land at 14 million. The FIDF bought the land at such a high price to help shoring the fund so you can’t take that as book value since it was a rescue package so the best way to gauge the book value is to look at how much the ERAWAN bought that piece of land for.
this quote is from the same article you gave:
“An FIDF source said the fund had paid such a high price for the land plot so as to strengthen the company, which was facing liquidity problems. It was the cheapest way to keep the company afloat at the time. In addition, the market price at the time was high in keeping with a boom in the property sector.”
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
44 Christoffer Larsson // Jul 16, 2010 at 3:11 pm
@Tarrin #43
If FIDF bought the land from Erawan for Bt2 billion, that is the value in the balance sheet, i.e. its book value. The circumstances of the purchase does not change this. And this value will not change with time as land is not a depletable asset.
If Erawan bought the land for Bt14 million that was its previous book value.
It seems to me as you are confusing book value with market value.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
45 Tarrin // Jul 16, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Christoffer Larsson – 44
No I did not confused book value with market value, even if we are talking in term of market value then the price wouldn’t be at 2 billion anyway. I’m just saying that if you are a well conscious and logical investor, which value would you take as book value 14 million or 2 billion? and at what price do you think is a fair value. The whole reason why I said using book value at 2 billion is wrong simply because just saying that FIDF acquire that land for 2 billion as a investor we wouldn’t take that as de facto book value since the fund was acquire under special condition so its fairer to put the book value at 14 million before the ERAWAN fund sell the land to FIDF.
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
46 Christoffer Larsson // Jul 18, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Tarrin – 45
The book value is an accounting number and it is not up for interpretation. As defined by wikipedia “the value is based on the original cost of the asset less any depreciation, amortization or impairment costs made against the asset”. If you pay 2 billion Bt for an asset, that is the book value. It doesn’t matter if it is only worth 200 Bt.
I’m beginning to understand that it is actually a possibility that the judges were not corrupt, but simply did not understand the difference between terms like book value, appraisal value, market value and fair value.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
47 John Brown // Jul 19, 2010 at 1:58 am
StanG re comment 33
The logic you use here {#33} would of course mean that any reconciliation or reform committee appointed by Abhisit would then automatically not be independent.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
48 Tarrin // Jul 19, 2010 at 3:26 am
Christoffer Larsson – 46
Yes I understand the definition of book value and you are right at the definition but I’m not interpret anything here, I simply stat that between the book value that ERAWAN fund paid and book value that FIDF paid, the book value that ERAWAN paid is more accurate in representing the land value. Moreover, like the definition said “the value is based on the original cost of the asset less any depreciation, amortization or impairment costs made against the asset” the 2 billions piad is the cost of shoring up the ERAWAN fund and should not be considered as value in the book.
Whether the court is corrupt or not is open for interpretation, IMO I dont think they do, I think they are well aware of book value, fair value and so on. However I agreed that the court is heavily politicized like the article said. Thaksin was charge under conflict of interest not acquire the land at “heavy discount”. The legal term is that whether there’s actually wrong doing? so the core of the case is whether FIDF is an organization under the Thai government authority.
There are 2 technicalities here that show that the court is bias and politicized, first the buyer Khunying Podjaman was found “not guilty” of any wrong doing and the seller or the FIDF under the BOT also found “not guilty”. If the court found the seller and buyer not guilty of any wrong doing then, in technical, there’s no wrong doing in regard of the purchase of the land. How did a third party, Thaksin, be found guilty base of that analogy is totally puzzling. Second point is that the FIDF was never classify as state own agency but rather an independent organization according the the pre 2007 Supreme Court decision. Therefore, after the junta reclassify and FIDF in 2007 and charge Thaksin on the event occur in 2003, that’s a pretty obvious that’s another technicality on retrospect. The court might not know the different between book value or market value, but there’s not excuse for the court not the know the “rule of law”.
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
49 StanG // Jul 19, 2010 at 4:30 pm
..any reconciliation or reform committee appointed by Abhisit would then automatically not be independent.
If Abhisit started messing with their work they’d be public outrage.
Or if there’s a government change the committees can be simply dissolved and, I suppose, you could say Anand and Prawase want Abhisit to stay longer to secure their own jobs.
All that was obvious from the start, no need to draw analogies with Thaksin.
Quality comment or not?
0 
1
50 StanG // Jul 19, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Meanwhile in Singapore they’ve arrested a British author for a book about death penalty
“attorney general’s office says the book casts doubt on the impartiality, integrity and independence of Singapore’s judiciary.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10680143
They’d have jailed half of NM commentariat if it was here.
Quality comment or not?
0 
4
51 John // Mar 21, 2011 at 12:45 am
Too many things disappear in Thailand’s judicial system. Whatever happened to Rakesh Saxena?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.