The 1999 edition of the Thai-language dictionary of the Royal Institute defines the "rule of law" as basic principles of the law. The Cabinet has set up the Commission on the Rule of Law, chaired by Prof Ukrit Mongkhonnawin, and assigned it to oversee that the Cabinet, the Parliament, Courts, independent organizations and government agencies would comply with the rule of law. In other words, the commission would ensure that all other agencies would comply with the basic principles of the law.
Interference in Works of Independent Organizations
However, the government's opponents came out to attack the administration immediately, alleging that it set up the commission to interfere in the works of independent organizations. Some alleged that the commission's establishment was a silent coup. Some alleged that the government set up an unlawful panel to have more power than the constitution and the panel would destroy courts.
The opponents made the allegations although the Ukrit Commission only has the authority, which is empowered by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO)'s directive on rule of law of BE 2554, to draft strategies, directions and measures, recommendations and procedures for the government to carry out to guarantee that the implementation of the laws will be fair and honest under a single standard in line with the rule of law. The Ukrit Commission will simply propose that government agencies concerned should carry out their duty under the rule of law.
To simply put, the Ukrit Panel would simply compile reports and draft proposals for the prime minister, to whom it reports, and for other government agencies concerned. But the prime minister or the government agencies may ignore the proposals and the panel can do nothing about that.
Major Reasons
In the past, an independent committee was often formed with the PMO’s directive with either of three main reasons:
1. To buy time, drag feet and avoid taking responsibility. The government often used this tactic when it encountered a problem, which was too serious and difficult to handle. For example, the government of then Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra set up the independent National Reconciliation Commission chaired by former Prime Minister Anan Panyarachun.
2. To mediate disputes for agreements. The government often used this tactic when there were political conflicts. For example, the Aphisit Wetchachiwa government set up the committee studying how to reform the Constitution, chaired by Sombat Thamrongthanyawong.
3. To propose what the government wants to do but still lacks legitimacy to do it. The government needs to appoint "non-partisan" people to propose what it wants to do. And the Ukrit commission should fit this category.
Demand of Situation
The question that needs pondering is what the Ukrit Commission would do.
Justice Minister Pracha Phromnok, who proposed the establishment of the Ukrit commission, declined to answer this question. He simply said the commission would "improve the judiciary process to do away with double standards".
Phuea Thai Party MPs and red-shirt leaders declined to clearly explain the purpose of the Ukrit commission's establishment.
On optimistic view, the Ukrit commission may follow up on the works of the independent committee to investigate and search for truths for national reconciliation, chaired by Khanit na Nakhon.
The Africa model that the Khanit panel used to try to lead the country to national reconciliation has three steps: (i) to search for truths; (ii) to remedy the affected people; (iii) to reform judicial process. If the Khanit panel is regarded as the first step in the process, the Ukrit Commission should be regarded as the last one.
And in the second step, the government may set up a committee to remedy people affected by political incidents no matter which side they belong to. It has been reported Deputy Prime Minister and Interior Minister Yongyut Wichaidit may be assigned to chair the remedy panel.
On pessimistic view, the Ukrit Commission may be a new tool in disguise designed to help the big boss.
Such suspicion remains although Ukrit has declared that he would not touch the amnesty for Thaksin or reopen his legal cases. This is because Ukrit, three-time Parliament president, is known to have very close ties with two-time Prime Minister Thaksin.
The close ties were proved with the fact that the Thaksin 1 and 2 governments always used services from lawyers from the Ukrit Mongkhonnawin law firm.
Assets Concealment Case Against Thaksin
And Phuea Thai party-list MP Watthana Mueangsuk, who was in charge of seeking bail for red-shirt suspects in 2011 and who is a key messenger of Thaksin, is a favorite student of Ukrit, who formed the Faculty of Law of Chulalongkorn University.
There used to be unconfirmed reports that Ukrit was tipped to become the Constitution Court president when the court was trying the first assets concealment case against Thaksin.
It has been reported that the Ukrit Commission's main tasks are to amend the charter enacted following the coup as well as amending the laws enacted following the 19 September 2006 coup to do away with the perception of double standard legal enforcements from the Thai society.
But several people believe that the Ukrit Commission would have something to do with Thaksin or else the government of Thaksin's sister would not have rushed to form it.
Red-Shirt Movement
The term "double standard" has become a rhetoric that the red-shirt movement used to describe the feelings of people affected by the 19 September 2006 coup.
The term has been playing key role in helping the red-shirt movement grow very fast.
Two years ago, a group of demonstrators called on the Surayut Chulanon government to allow the People's Channel or PTV satellite channel to operate like the ASTV of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) or other satellite TVs. And the PTV demonstrators transformed into red-shirt demonstrators who have grown up with both political significance and mass-support strength.
Red-shirt leaders successfully proved to their followers that the laws have been enforced with double standards. They cited several examples of double standards to incite protests by the red-shirt people.
For example, they have proved that the aristocrats could encroach on forest reserves without being taken legal actions against.
They cited the case of Surayut encroaching on the Khao Yai Thiang Mount. Eventually, public prosecutors decided to drop charges against the former prime minister on ground that he hacked intention to encroach on the forest.
Surayut's case was compared to the Ratchadaphisek land case in which the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Office convicted Thaksin and sentenced him to two years in prison.
The most successful strategy was to incite anger of the red-shirt people over double standards toward rallies of the red-shirt and yellow-shirt people.
Red-shirt leaders pointed out that yellow-shirt demonstrators were often provided convenience for their demonstrations while demonstrations of red-shirt people were cracked down on.
The first crackdown was ordered in 2007 when red-shirt protesters rallied in front of the Sisao Thewet residence of Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanon.
The red-shirt people faced the second crackdown in 2009 when they rallied on Phitsanulok Road in front of the Government House.
In the latest crackdowns in 2010, troops were deployed to crack down on red-shirt protesters on Ratchadamnoen Road and at the Ratchaprasong Intersection.
In all the crackdowns, the red-shirt leaders were arrested and faced legal actions and were detained in remand prisons.
In the worst situation, some of them were charged with having committed act of terrorism. The charges caused several of them to be remanded without bail.
These incidents became a key factor that the red-shirt leaders used to compare treatments received by PAD leaders, who once led protesters to storm into the Government House and NBT Station and to seize the Don Mueang Airport and Suwannaphum International Airport in 2008.
Although yellow-shirt people were slapped with terrorism charges like the red-shirt people, they were dealt with a different standard because yellow-shirt leaders were freed on bail and were not detained in a remand prison.
In the latest development, Sombat Bunngam-anong, the editor of the Laichut magazine, was sentenced to six months in jail for violating the emergency decree that banned rallies. He was given the sentence for rallying at the Imperial Lat Phrao shopping mall when the government declared the state of emergency in Bangkok in 2010.
Dissolution Case Against Democrat Party
However, at the same time, the multi-colored-shirt people, led by Tun Sitthisomwong, held a demonstration at the Democracy Monument without being arrested.
And the question that always troubles the mind of red-shirt people the most is why the dissolution cases against the Thai Rak Thai and People Power parties came up with different rulings from that in the dissolution case against the Democrat Party.
These are some of legal cases troubling the mind of red-shirt people waiting to be addressed by the Ukrit commission to do away with double standard.
Interference in Works of Independent Organizations
However, the government's opponents came out to attack the administration immediately, alleging that it set up the commission to interfere in the works of independent organizations. Some alleged that the commission's establishment was a silent coup. Some alleged that the government set up an unlawful panel to have more power than the constitution and the panel would destroy courts.
The opponents made the allegations although the Ukrit Commission only has the authority, which is empowered by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO)'s directive on rule of law of BE 2554, to draft strategies, directions and measures, recommendations and procedures for the government to carry out to guarantee that the implementation of the laws will be fair and honest under a single standard in line with the rule of law. The Ukrit Commission will simply propose that government agencies concerned should carry out their duty under the rule of law.
To simply put, the Ukrit Panel would simply compile reports and draft proposals for the prime minister, to whom it reports, and for other government agencies concerned. But the prime minister or the government agencies may ignore the proposals and the panel can do nothing about that.
Major Reasons
In the past, an independent committee was often formed with the PMO’s directive with either of three main reasons:
1. To buy time, drag feet and avoid taking responsibility. The government often used this tactic when it encountered a problem, which was too serious and difficult to handle. For example, the government of then Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra set up the independent National Reconciliation Commission chaired by former Prime Minister Anan Panyarachun.
2. To mediate disputes for agreements. The government often used this tactic when there were political conflicts. For example, the Aphisit Wetchachiwa government set up the committee studying how to reform the Constitution, chaired by Sombat Thamrongthanyawong.
3. To propose what the government wants to do but still lacks legitimacy to do it. The government needs to appoint "non-partisan" people to propose what it wants to do. And the Ukrit commission should fit this category.
Demand of Situation
The question that needs pondering is what the Ukrit Commission would do.
Justice Minister Pracha Phromnok, who proposed the establishment of the Ukrit commission, declined to answer this question. He simply said the commission would "improve the judiciary process to do away with double standards".
Phuea Thai Party MPs and red-shirt leaders declined to clearly explain the purpose of the Ukrit commission's establishment.
On optimistic view, the Ukrit commission may follow up on the works of the independent committee to investigate and search for truths for national reconciliation, chaired by Khanit na Nakhon.
The Africa model that the Khanit panel used to try to lead the country to national reconciliation has three steps: (i) to search for truths; (ii) to remedy the affected people; (iii) to reform judicial process. If the Khanit panel is regarded as the first step in the process, the Ukrit Commission should be regarded as the last one.
And in the second step, the government may set up a committee to remedy people affected by political incidents no matter which side they belong to. It has been reported Deputy Prime Minister and Interior Minister Yongyut Wichaidit may be assigned to chair the remedy panel.
On pessimistic view, the Ukrit Commission may be a new tool in disguise designed to help the big boss.
Such suspicion remains although Ukrit has declared that he would not touch the amnesty for Thaksin or reopen his legal cases. This is because Ukrit, three-time Parliament president, is known to have very close ties with two-time Prime Minister Thaksin.
The close ties were proved with the fact that the Thaksin 1 and 2 governments always used services from lawyers from the Ukrit Mongkhonnawin law firm.
Assets Concealment Case Against Thaksin
And Phuea Thai party-list MP Watthana Mueangsuk, who was in charge of seeking bail for red-shirt suspects in 2011 and who is a key messenger of Thaksin, is a favorite student of Ukrit, who formed the Faculty of Law of Chulalongkorn University.
There used to be unconfirmed reports that Ukrit was tipped to become the Constitution Court president when the court was trying the first assets concealment case against Thaksin.
It has been reported that the Ukrit Commission's main tasks are to amend the charter enacted following the coup as well as amending the laws enacted following the 19 September 2006 coup to do away with the perception of double standard legal enforcements from the Thai society.
But several people believe that the Ukrit Commission would have something to do with Thaksin or else the government of Thaksin's sister would not have rushed to form it.
Red-Shirt Movement
The term "double standard" has become a rhetoric that the red-shirt movement used to describe the feelings of people affected by the 19 September 2006 coup.
The term has been playing key role in helping the red-shirt movement grow very fast.
Two years ago, a group of demonstrators called on the Surayut Chulanon government to allow the People's Channel or PTV satellite channel to operate like the ASTV of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) or other satellite TVs. And the PTV demonstrators transformed into red-shirt demonstrators who have grown up with both political significance and mass-support strength.
Red-shirt leaders successfully proved to their followers that the laws have been enforced with double standards. They cited several examples of double standards to incite protests by the red-shirt people.
For example, they have proved that the aristocrats could encroach on forest reserves without being taken legal actions against.
They cited the case of Surayut encroaching on the Khao Yai Thiang Mount. Eventually, public prosecutors decided to drop charges against the former prime minister on ground that he hacked intention to encroach on the forest.
Surayut's case was compared to the Ratchadaphisek land case in which the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Office convicted Thaksin and sentenced him to two years in prison.
The most successful strategy was to incite anger of the red-shirt people over double standards toward rallies of the red-shirt and yellow-shirt people.
Red-shirt leaders pointed out that yellow-shirt demonstrators were often provided convenience for their demonstrations while demonstrations of red-shirt people were cracked down on.
The first crackdown was ordered in 2007 when red-shirt protesters rallied in front of the Sisao Thewet residence of Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanon.
The red-shirt people faced the second crackdown in 2009 when they rallied on Phitsanulok Road in front of the Government House.
In the latest crackdowns in 2010, troops were deployed to crack down on red-shirt protesters on Ratchadamnoen Road and at the Ratchaprasong Intersection.
In all the crackdowns, the red-shirt leaders were arrested and faced legal actions and were detained in remand prisons.
In the worst situation, some of them were charged with having committed act of terrorism. The charges caused several of them to be remanded without bail.
These incidents became a key factor that the red-shirt leaders used to compare treatments received by PAD leaders, who once led protesters to storm into the Government House and NBT Station and to seize the Don Mueang Airport and Suwannaphum International Airport in 2008.
Although yellow-shirt people were slapped with terrorism charges like the red-shirt people, they were dealt with a different standard because yellow-shirt leaders were freed on bail and were not detained in a remand prison.
In the latest development, Sombat Bunngam-anong, the editor of the Laichut magazine, was sentenced to six months in jail for violating the emergency decree that banned rallies. He was given the sentence for rallying at the Imperial Lat Phrao shopping mall when the government declared the state of emergency in Bangkok in 2010.
Dissolution Case Against Democrat Party
However, at the same time, the multi-colored-shirt people, led by Tun Sitthisomwong, held a demonstration at the Democracy Monument without being arrested.
And the question that always troubles the mind of red-shirt people the most is why the dissolution cases against the Thai Rak Thai and People Power parties came up with different rulings from that in the dissolution case against the Democrat Party.
These are some of legal cases troubling the mind of red-shirt people waiting to be addressed by the Ukrit commission to do away with double standard.
No comments:
Post a Comment