Too many political cases unhealthy for Thai justice

It has been a busy week for “political animals”, legally. First, ex-prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra slammed the Thai justice system, which is trying to find “culprits” in the controversial rice-pledging scheme, and then a court ruling triggered an uproar among those on her opposite side. In the latter case, the court killed charges against former leading state officials implicated in a bloody crackdown on protesters.
Both cases have chipped away at the image of the Thai judiciary, no matter what it really tries to do. Yingluck portrayed herself as a victim of a concerted campaign against her big brother and former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. She questioned evidence of negligence and malpractice in the rice-pledging scheme, which she insisted could not be cancelled as it was her Pheu Thai Party’s policy platform. That her trial has taken place while Thailand has been under military rule does not help.
Yingluck delivered her stinging closing statement at the end of her trial on Tuesday, firing up hundreds of supporters gathered outside the Supreme Court. The next day, however, was her opponents’ turn to feel aggrieved. The same court judged former prime minister Somchai Wongsawat and three other defendants not guilty over the crackdown on yellow-shirt protesters in 2008. Somchai is an in-law of the Shinawatras who have been targetted for the protests by the yellow shirts.
The political divide has spawned court cases. This has put the Thai judiciary in both the domestic and international limelight. Whatever decisions the judges have made or will make, with or without perceived political prejudices, are subjected to harsh scrutiny either way, creating a significantly unhealthy atmosphere for the Thai justice system as a whole.
The circumstances are either sapping the strength of the Thai judiciary or undermining its image at a time when the key pillar of Thailand needs both solid public support and strong credibility. As things stand, the judiciary requires firmer foundations so it can revamp the legal lopsidedness that has been in favour of the rich at the expense of the poor.
The country’s political system comprises three pillars. The monarchy is in transition and the legislature has been pretty much “taking a break”, following the 2014 coup which ousted Yingluck and installed the current interim parliament. Much hope has been placed on the third pillar, the judiciary, as one of Thailand’s most glaring weaknesses has to do with the legal privileges of the wealthy.
The problem of legal unfairness is not a political one. If the Thai justice system is to be reformed, it must be for the man on the street, not politicians.
Cases against Thaksin or Yingluck often draw massive attention both here and abroad. While that is understandable, they also make “man-on-the-street” cases go under the radar. The real issue in Thailand is not what has befallen politicians, but the ways affluent people are escaping from justice or delaying their cases.
To create legal equality will automatically reconcile a divided Thailand. “Fairness” can be subjective in politics, meaning whatever legal development occurring in the political arena is bound to upset a sizeable number of people. On the other hand, if a truck driver and the heir of a business empire are accused of similar crimes and undergo similar legal processes and timeframes, nobody will get upset about it.
The latter scenario is what is supposed to happen. That it couldn’t happen led to such cases as Thaksin’s and Yingluck’s, and their cases are making it even harder for it to happen.