No replies to this topic

[Hedda]

In case you missed it, here's part of a recent editorial in the Nation, provocatively titled: Can we accept courts that look away during coups? It seeks to raise the issue of the activist role that the Thai courts have been playing in politics. The article is interesting because it skirts a subject that could become critical to this country's democracy as the courts wade increasingly into the political arena.

It is perhaps no accident that the Thai courts have imposed what seems to be the judicial equivalent of lese majeste: Thou shall not criticize the court. It's a difficult trick trying to remain above criticism when you are standing knee deep in the political process. The Nation's editorial seems to recognize that, albeit more gingerly put:

"Former AEC members like Kaewsan Atibodhi have told the court that they hold no personal grudges against Thaksin or Pojaman, but are still known to have spoken at the anti-Thaksin rallies organised by the People's Alliance for Democracy.

Perhaps Kaewsan and other former AEC members know if their claim of being impartial is real or not. Of course, they can't do anything about being appointed by the junta that ousted Thaksin in Sept 2006, but Thaksin's supporters and people adhering to the prin-ciples of democracy will likely continue to regard the AEC and other junta-appointed bodies as illegitimate.

If the Thai judicial system wants to win greater acceptance and prove it's truly impartial, it will perhaps have to do more than just hand out a fair and convincing verdict on the Ratchadaphisek case.

For starters, it can re-consider the belief held by many Democrats that the court takes no position over those who usurp power through military means, and not just in 2006 by the self-styled Council for National Security, but several others over the decades.

This acceptance of a group of military men, who tear up one constitution after another once they've organised a "successful" coup, is disturbing to say the least and those at the receiving end will likely see the court as being partial.

What's more, unlike in countries like the United States, Thai citizens and the media are barred from criticising any court rulings. This prohibition prevents the society from having any meaningful political debates and many trials, such as those against Thaksin and his wife, end up having deep political repercussions.

The courts' need to keep things "traditional" is best illustrated by the swearing in of witnesses, who are made to read out a state-ment, which in effect says that if the witness lies, may he or she and his or her "family" meet with danger and disaster. This perhaps is a remnant of the feudal justice system under which relations, seven levels removed from a criminal were executed instead of the individual.

In fact, this feudal system is so deep rooted that one witness in the Ratchadaphisek trial refused to include his family in the swearing process, saying that what he said has nothing to do with his family.

As for the actual case, the deeply polarised political climate means that there will continue to be people who believe the judges are biased because the whole judicial process against Thaksin and his wife started with junta-appointed bodies like the AEC.

The court alone will now have to convince sceptics and Thaksin supporters that it is just and impartial - and its verdict will have to be no less than convincing."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/08/20...cs_30081002.php