Most Thais oppose Thaksin’s 14th-floor hospital stay, fearing double standards in law

Professor Dr Kriengsak Chareonwongsak, Chairman of the Institute of Future Studies for Development (IFD), on Saturday announced the results of an IFD Poll on public opinion regarding former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s treatment at the 14th-floor Police General Hospital. The survey, conducted between August 27-31, sampled 1,256 Thai citizens aged 18 and above.

The majority, 78.8%, opposed Thaksin being allowed to stay at the hospital instead of serving his sentence in prison. Among their reasons, 30.88% believed he should face the same punishment as everyone else, 23.72% suspected he was not critically ill and was using illness as an excuse to avoid imprisonment, 19.84% saw it as preferential treatment benefiting the powerful, 13.80% worried it could set a precedent for future sentence evasion, and 10.74% considered the monitoring lax, allowing easy and comfortable visits. Only 10.56% expressed support.

Those in favour cited that it was a matter of medical and correctional discretion rather than Thaksin’s own decision (32.06%), that treatment remained under correctional oversight (28.24%), that critically ill prisoners should receive proper care (20.62%), and that this was a right available to all prisoners (18.32%).

Regarding whether the 180 days Thaksin spent at the Police General Hospital should count toward his prison term, 63.25% of respondents said it should not. Within this group, 38.72% doubted his illness was genuine, 32.89% felt his hospital stay was excessively long and undermined public confidence in imprisonment, and 28.17% viewed it as a privilege reserved for the powerful. In contrast, 26.60% believed it should count, 41.26% arguing that were still under correctional control, 41.75% recognised the legal authority of the Department of Corrections to order external treatment, and 16.99% thought critically ill prisoners should receive care with the time counted as part of their sentence. 

Public concern over the 14th-floor case centred on double standards favouring the powerful and wealthy (25.97%), potential interference in the justice system for political gain (20.12%), the risk of creating loopholes for future sentence avoidance (12.82%), possible secret deals for certain interests (12.77%), unclear reasoning behind verdicts (12.54%), punishment falling on officials while the main culprits escape (9.71%), and dissent sparking protests or conflict (5.65%).

Kriengsak commented that the 14th-floor case has become a critical turning point for public trust in the justice system. The majority of people perceive it as reflecting “double standards,” and if left unresolved, it could lead to a deep and hard-to-repair crisis of confidence in the future. The perception of preferential treatment for powerful political families reinforces the sense of legal inequality, acting as a political tinderbox embedded in society’s collective memory.

At the same time, the public has expressed pressure for reforms in the law and the correctional system, calling for clear conditions regarding medical leave and oversight to close loopholes and prevent further doubts. Confidence in both politics and the justice process remains at risk if society continues to witness “secret deals” lacking transparency, which could be exploited as political tools and make it easier for the opposition to attack. Meanwhile, media and social platforms accelerate the spread of public dissatisfaction, making it fast-moving and difficult to control.