The following is a statement/plea from Thongchai Winichakul (confirmed as he used his .edu address) and has granted permission for this to be published on the blog:
I just read Prachatai re: arrest of a red shirt guy for threatening a Democrat MP at the Parliament House a few days ago, and re: the National HR Comm's report charging the police, Somchai (ex-PM) and many more for killings people at the Oct 7 incident [BP: See more at end]. Meanwhile the PAD get impunity for their crimes and wrongdoings.THIS IS AN URGENT PLEA, A VERY SERIOUS CONCERN.The lack of trust in a society due to the lack of a fair and just channel for conflict resolution could lead to an unimaginable social disaster.The current political crisis and the crisis in the south have one thing in common: the failure of the rule of law mainly due to unfairness and outrageous partiality in enforcing the law and in the justice system (from police all the ways up to the court). This failure leads to the collapse of trust in the political and justice system. Without the trust in the system, there will be no acceptable conflict resolution. Violence becomes the only option.ALL mechanism of law and justice system are digging a grave for Thai society. They do everything to win at the expense of the entire legal and justice systems. The "rule of law" from them is the abuse of law for their own benefits. Their victory over Thaksin is so costly -- destroying trust in the rule of law and in the justice system.The media, and the activists on human rights and liberty, and the NHRC are part of this failure too. Had they done their job with strong principles and professionally, ESPECIALLY UPHOLDING THE PRINCIPLE OF IMPARTIALITY, the legal and justice systems may not have become so corrupt, so biased, so unfair, as they currently are. Trust in the society may not have depleted as seriously as it currently is.The failure of media and HR community to uphold IMPARTIALITY is so costly in this conflict. They must be responsible for the crisis too. Sadly, up to now, they seem not understand how much they could have made things better, and how serious their mistakes actually are. Obviously, they do not understand and they learn nothing from the crisis in the south. They help creating a similar condition of distrust and potential violence, but on a larger scale.The call for the rule of law is necessary. But it needs the fair and just rule of law. As the justice system is abused, becoming outrageously unfair, biased, and untrustworthy, the only door for peaceful conflict resolution is being shut down.We cannot avoid conflicts. But it is a dangerous situation if serious conflicts find no trustworthy and fair system to resolve. A call for non-violence becomes a farce and ridiculous if there is no fair and just channel to solve the conflicts. Without the fair and just "means", regardless of an ideological end one may want, there can be no peace.
BP: This is the statement in full.
On the charging of the PM and others, The Nation:
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has held many high-profile figures, including Somchai Wongsawat, Chavalit Yongchaiyudh and Pol Gen Patcharawat Wongsuwan, responsible for the violence on October 7.Two people were killed and hundreds injured in running clashes on the streets of central Bangkok.On that day, People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) demonstrators surrounded Parliament House in a bid to prevent Somchai's government declaring its policies. Somchai, a brother in-law of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, was widely seen as Thaksin's puppet.Police used teargas to disperse the PAD mob, but exploding canisters saw several protesters lose limbs.The bloody crackdown prompted PAD demonstrators to clash with police throughout the day.However, Somchai successfully declared his policies and did not order police to stop using force.The NHRC has looked into the October 7 violence, questioning witnesses and reviewing evidence.Doctors, forensic-science experts, policemen, reporters and demonstrators all gave witness accounts.The NHRC probe has concluded that Somchai and his then deputy Chavalit should be held responsible for the violence because they were the ones who gave instructions to police.Patcharawat, who was then national police commissioner, and 11 other high-ranking policemen were also charged with violating human rights.
Matichon has more details and the NHRC wants them charged with half a dozen criminal offences including what seems to be manslaughter.
BP: If this blog had more time, it would critique the NHRC findings in greater details. There is an absurd point about Chavalit and Somchai stating they did not oppose the use of force and tear gas to disperse the protesters so they need to be held responsible for the losses and damages during the dispersal which was a breach of human rights and the law (แต่มิได้คัดค้านการใช้กำลังและระเบิดแก๊สน้ำตาเข้าสลายการชุมนุม ต้องรับผิดชอบต่อความเสียหายที่เกิดขึ้นในการสลายการชุมนุม ซึ่งถือเป็นการกระทำที่ละเมิดสิทธิต่อมนุษยชนและละเมิดต่อกฎหมาย). If Somchai and Chavalit ordered the protesters to be killed that is one thing, but to make them legally responsible just as they asked for the dispersal of protesters - hasn't the Admin Court already ruled on such protests that they were not peaceful protests? - is extraordinary.
The professor wrote....outrageous partiality in enforcing the law and in the justice system (from police all the ways up to the court)
It is not very scholarly to write that the court committed outrageous partiality in enforcing the law. First, one has to state what the law is, following with the court's application of the facts to the law and enlighten the readers why the legal conclusion of the court is "outrageously partial".
The following is an unmoderated comment from Tettyan:
"Yeah Netriat. All the laws that the NHRC want pressed against that red-shirted protester - obviously what he did was wrong - but how is it any worse than what the PAD have done? Is the only difference because he represented a set of political views with which the powers-that-be disagreed with, while the PAD can get away with highway robbery/terrorism/vandalism/manslaughter/treason/insurrection simply because you or the powers that be happen to agree with them?
I was opposed to Thaksin because I believed that he applied the law unevenly to those he didn't happen to like or agree. I can't see how what the police and the NHRC are doing are any worse.
By the way ... those clowns at the NHRC need to all resign and go back to law school."
The 'culture of impunity' (or CUI) it seems is no longer the exclusive preserve of the elite. Generation after generation of the elite grew CUI to its current monstrosity and the masses had taken notice. Ergo, the unlawful yellows and the lawless reds employed CUI to deadly effect and the Thai masses saw everything on their TVs.
Result: CUI is now Thailand's pop-ular culture.
BP/Tettyan: Why did you vent your anger on me?
I did not have anything to say about red shirts or NHRC.
I am also opposed to unequal treatment under the law.
Whatever, but the bottome line is the elites finally won their first round. I don't feel sorry for the cop who got jeered and assaulted by the PADs right in front of his own headquarters. No one from the department did anything when the PAD blatantly committed crimes right under their noses. And now, they are so gungho in rounding up the red-shirt guys who pelted at the Dem MPs. I do not condone their actions but I am questioning the justice of the law in Thailand.
I think Newin Chidchob won the first round. I don't know whether he fits your definition of "elite". He changed the power equation, drove a hard bargain and for now he is stting pretty.
Vichai N's "culture of impunity"(CUI) sounds perfect, any copyright?
BP:let's ignore comments from partialists(hey,I didn't mention any name!)
Netirat said: It is not very scholarly to write that the court committed outrageous partiality in enforcing the law.
Sigh.
First of all, why exactly should Ajarn Thongchai be "very scholarly" in what was originally an e-mail circulated to a number of people with whom he has had a round-robin dialogue for the past three years?
If one was going to make that argument, I would think it would be better applied to open and purposefully public statements. How "very scholarly" have been various columns in Manager (e.g., by Ajarn Chai-anan) and speeches made and broadcast from the PAD stage (e.g., by Ajarn Phuwadol)?
Second, and rather more to the point, one doesn't have to do a legal exegesis of any particular court cases to know which way the wind blows. Law is, of course, open to interpretation but to consistently interpret in favor of one side could be considered prima facie evidence of bias.
This would be especially true when rulings fly in the face of common sense and the common good, such as assuring peace and order. The most egregious cases that come to mind are sustaining the appeal against the injunction against occupying Government House, and the refusal to revoke bail for the PAD leaders after the occupation of the airports.
Actually, Netirat, are you claiming that the justice system has been fair and impartial in dealing with the country's political crisis? It's not clear from your remark.
As for the NHRC, they are hardly worth commenting on. They've been a total joke since Ajarn Saneh complained that the UNESCO ruling on Preah Vihear was a violation of Thai people's human rights.
BP,
I had made a comment on this post the same time I made a comment on "Democrat Angst"
Did you not get it? Or is it been canceled?
- Bkkeater
bkkeater: Comments are listed per post so even if it was rejected, not yet approved, or approved it would be listed in the same e-mail thread in Gmail. It is not there. Nothing in spam and searching for "Bkk Eater" only brings up your comment about that time for Democrat angst and nothing for this post. Apologies, no idea what happened to it, but it was not rejected so it must be lost somewhere in cyberspace.
trueblue, don't be surprised about Netirat's arguments. S/he isn't here for actual debate but is here to make ambiguous, fallacious yet easily deniable comments that "suggest" but does not "say" her/his point. After all, being struck down with reason and evidence is not the goal. The goal is to inject some partisanship into Bangkok Pundit's perceived pro-Thaksin blog.
Netirat applies rigorous standards to people who disagree with his/her views such as Thongchai, while giving others much more room for maneuvering and explanation. See how Netirat responded to allegations that Abhisit dodged the draft.
Netirat is as impartial as Thai courts.
BP,
Thanks for the clarification. I think my post must have gotten lost somewhere, or I must've picked (or not) the wrong user in 'comment as' box.... hence the error.
Anyways, I make a similar post now, as I can't remember the exact words I used in the last one.
------
I agree with you BP and Prof. Thongchai for whom I have great respect.
I go back to the 'Asset Concealment' case of 2001 when the then Constitution Court, in a perversion of justice, decided that 12million votes were somehow able to 'cleanse' an obviously guilty verdict. This set a precedent in the '97 constitution that up until today Thaksin and his allies cite as the reason why he is should be 'innocent' of all graft charges as he has the backing of the people.
Backing of the people is not an excuse for felony.
The perversion or unequal enforcement of the rule of law existed then.
Now too exists the unequal enforcement of the rule of law, just in the opposite extreme. Also very sad indeed.
To be fair, the current court, should jail the PAD leaders for their abhorrent actions in closing down the country's airports and government house. The ruling should not just be a 'slap on the wrist' but a serious indictment with far reaching consequences.
At the same time, the court should continue to partake in fair decisions regarding the Thaksin regime.
Thus, I conclude, that we can have actual justice under the law. Ignoring the wrongs of one over the other to me is bias.
Hence the yellow/red vision impairment.
David Brown: Don't get me wrong, we are all about one person/one vote universal suffrage. But your blatant excuses for the excesses of the Thaksin regime does provide for a sense of queasiness.