How Thaksin was “convicted”

A letter reproduced from Bangkok Pundit

You carried a report quoting Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban that it was too late for Thaksin Shinawatra to complain about his trial and that he was tried just like any other criminal.

It’s never too late for Thaksin to say that he has been unfairly treated. Let’s look at the record of the process that Thaksin was subjected to.

Who investigated the case against him? Was normal procedure followed? Was it the police? Was it the National Counter Corruption Commission [NCCC], which had been established specifically to investigate corruption charges?

No. The deed was done by a special Asset Scrutinizing Committee, appointed by the junta. Why?

Even if the NCCC is an independent agency originated from the 1997 Constitution, the present members of the NCCC were all appointed by the junta. Still, why didn’t the junta follow normal procedure and trust the police or the NCCC to do the job?

Why did the junta pack the Asset Scrutinizing Committee with all its nominees?

Worse, why did the junta nominate judges to the Asset Scrutinizing Committee – to do police work? Was it because the chosen judges could be paid twice – one salary for being a judge and another for doing police work – which indeed they were? Until the junta captured power, judges in Thailand, as in most countries, could not be appointed to work in any other body and be paid more than one salary.

The junta was not taking any chances with the bench either. It amended the rules governing retiring judges in such a way that those wishing to serve could continue to serve in their positions for another 10 years. It undermined the 1997 Constitution’s well-considered provision that if a judge wished to serve beyond the age of 60, he could do so only in a court of first hearing. By its amendment, the junta watered down a crucial provision of the 1997 Constitution which tried to instill independence and impartiality in the judiciary. Not surprisingly, the bench that heard the case against Thaksin included judges enjoying an extension of their retirement. This was only just as strange as the case of some judges who were by then earning three salaries by serving on the Constitutional Tribunal as well.

Let’s now look at the case itself. Thaksin was charged under Section 100 of the Constitution Act which had never been invoked either before or after his case.

Though the Act came into force in 1999, provisions as to who Section 100 would apply to were not gazetted until February 15, 2001 – one of the last acts of the outgoing Chuan government. The original intention of the 1997 Constitution was that Section 100 should apply to all government servants, including permanent secretaries, policemen, prosecutors, judges and officials of the NCCC and, of course, ministers. But the establishment decided, presumably with the connivance of the Democrats, that it was too precious to risk prosecution under the Section and gazetted that only the prime minister and ministers may be subjected to Section 100.

Secondly, Thaksin and his wife were together charged of buying state land from the Financial Institutions Development Fund. His wife was the highest bidder in an open auction and Thaksin gave consent to his wife in the sale contract. The wife was acquitted. However, Thaksin was convicted on a technicality that as prime minister, who gave consent to his wife, he was considered the buyer. In other words, there was no wrong-doing in the first instance but giving consent to doing something that was not wrong was wrong. This extra-ordinary conclusion was reached by only five of the presiding judges. The other four stuck to logic.

The punishment that was meted out to Thaksin was equally extra-ordinary. Penalty provided for a prime minister giving consent to a relative to buy land is a maximum of three years in jail, while that for vote-buying, which the law considers a more serious offence, is one to 10 years. A Democrat was caught giving cash to an election official and was convicted. The Supreme Court gave him the minimum sentence of one year and suspended it. The court sentenced Thaksin to two years’ imprisonment with no suspension.

Anyone can see why Thaksin feels he didn’t get justice and is refusing to serve the jail term.

P Vas