What you're really talking about

Oh dear, Khun Somsak. You dismissed one letter I wrote because I used examples of what can happen when people deify a leader that you felt were too “intellectual”, the Red Guards and the mourners at the death of Kim Jong Il, for example. (Somsak Pola, “Ball in the wrong court,” Letters, January 26)

So I’ll keep my reply to you simple this time, and won’t cite anything that has happened in any other epoch or country.

When legal cases are appealed in Thailand there must be new evidence to warrant a review.

If new evidence arises to show conclusively that a key witness lied, for example, that in fact he or she did not see the defendant take the money, or hide it, or whatever, then that case can be heard again and, if the evidence warrants it, the verdict can be readjusted.

In such cases the first court did not err in its judgement, or the judges pull a fast one. It was purely a matter of evidence, and the legal assessment thereof at the time.

A witness swears to tell the truth, and if it is the truth his or her testimony can never be turned into a lie by any sort of verdict that follows, or change of government.

Most important of all, judges don’t give evidence in Thailand, Khun Somsak, they assess it. 

Judges in Thailand also have a duty to consider all the evidence. They can’t throw out evidence because they disagree with the prosecutor’s politics, for example, or feel that the evidence has been gathered by an institute or commission they dislike. Only the quality of the evidence is relevant, and it is the judges’ responsibility to determine if what they are hearing is a) applicable, b) sound, and c) a basis for a legitimate prosecution. That’s why they have to be so well-trained and professional, and why HM the King went out of his way to explain why we the people must respect our courts if we are to achieve equality in our society.

By the same token, it’s immaterial whether or not the Asset Examination Committee (AEC) was related to the 2006 coup. If the evidence the AEC gathered was sound it can still be heard in court, however hard Parliament tries to vote the individual researchers who uncovered it into oblivion. And of course any other evidence can be considered as well – that’s the responsibility of any defence team, to come up with additional evidence in its support.

I’ve never seen anything that would suggest the AEC did not do a professional and thorough job in gathering the evidence in the Ratchadaphisek land case, or the defence either, for that matter. Nor have I ever seen anyone challenge the cogency of what was, after all, a very simple and clear-cut ruling. On the other hand, if Thaksin is really convinced of his innocence he shouldn’t worry – as Thailand is a whole lot more aware of the rights of the individual and the role of the courts now than it was before. Thaksin will get fair trials for sure, and if he’s innocent he can become Prime Minister again with the whole nation behind him.

Which is what you’re really talking about, isn’t it, Khun Somsak?

Lung Kip

Chiang Mai