Lack of police reform has been a major letdown

Ever since we could remember, the Royal Thai Police has lived with an identity crisis.
Technically, it is a police force. But some times, it wants to act and behave like a military unit, or at least have the hardware that the soldiers have.
Morally speaking, the police are supposed to be a source of comfort for the general public. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Ask just about any ordinary person on the street and see what they say when they see a police officer passing by their way.
One can’t really blame the public for this perception. We only have to look at the overall quality of their performance, not to mention the police force as an institution.
Yes, reform is long overdue. And so in the immediate aftermath of the coup two years ago, when it was learned that police reform was in the pipeline – but not the reason for the coup – many people were happy.
But two years on and the public still has yet to see any meaningful changes coming from the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), the ruling junta, with regard to reforming the police force.
No one has taken the time to seriously look into the force and ask what needs to be done and what issues need to be addressed, be it at the structural level or issues such as personnel training, performance standards and adequate equipment.
Common sense would tell suggest that once these issues are identified, the next step is to prioritise what most needs to be done.
But sadly to say, the NCPO lacked the political will to carry out these measures because the junta prefers to use the police force to help them with maintaining order and stability, thus, it has been unwilling to shake things up in the force.
To prevent the police from being exploited politically, Thailand should seriously consider decentralising the force. Reforming the police can and should be carried out at various levels – from structural to developing criteria to measure performances.
Right now, the command structure is very much like a military force. Yes, there are units that are dedicated to fighting crime at the national level. But that doesn’t mean the command-and-control of the entire force should be designed along such lines.
Because power rests at the top of the chain of command, it makes it easy for political leaders and others to exploit the force for their own gain.
As for changing the attitude and perception of the public towards the police, officers and their units should be judged by their performance.
Moreover, benchmarks for success are not exclusively based on crime rates. Laws can and have been
broken in a very hush-hush manner. This is called corruption.
In this respect, more transparency in the form of civilian-public oversight at the local level should be seriously considered when it comes to evaluating police performances, as well as hiring and firing.
Too often, officers are dismissed or transferred in the aftermath of a shocking crime. Such moves create the perception that the leadership is on top of thing. But in reality, nothing really changes. In such circumstances, criteria for performance would come in handy. If it was determined that a crime could have been prevented if the police officer or local unit had done their job better, then dismissal may be justified. But if that occurs purely for public standing, then the morale of the force could be at stake.
In the aftermath of the bomb attack at the Erawan Shrine, outgoing police chief Pol Gen Somyot Poompunmuang condemned the Immigration Bureau for widespread corruption. Somyot was trying to explain how alleged foreign suspects behind the attacks were able to enter Thailand to carry out the attack.
His remark jolted the public and gave hope that something serious might be done. However, it was a big letdown, like the NCPO, who were supposed to push through some serious reform of the police but ended up doing nothing.