Wrongfully imprisoned? Rejected bail unreasonably? Ask a question and risk being held in contempt of court? That's the universal perception inherited by a majority of Thais, including the media. It discourages us from commenting on any particular questionable court rulings.
But aren't judges just human beings with legal expertise who use the rule of law as the basis for their decision-making and who, like many of us, are capable of making errors?
Last Tuesday, the Office of the Attorney-General (OAG) further instilled this attitude into our minds. In light of growing criticism over the alleged wrongful imprisonment of 54-year-old former teacher Jomsap Saenmuangkhot, the OAG's spokesman delivered a contempt of court warning to critics of the ruling.
Given that our justice system is not perfect, intentionally or unintentionally barring criticism of mishandled due process could keep the system unchecked, thereby affecting its integrity.
More importantly, it poses a fundamental threat to our civil rights and the country's democratic advancement. Yes, I stress "democracy" -- not to make the issue political, but to remind us that the judiciary is one of the three sovereign powers, along with the administrative and legislative branches, that should be held accountable to the people. As the current regime is drumming up support for reconciliation and national reform, wouldn't anyone considering reforming the justice system go beyond the realm of the police? Part of that reform, if it happens, is legitimate clarification of what constitutes contempt of court.
Thais have great respect for the judiciary. While the public has doubted and criticised the police in numerous mishandled cases, little has been said about how the public prosecutors and judiciary have cross-examined evidence and witnesses, and finished the process. The latest case of Jomsap is not the first involving a (alleged) miscarriage of justice.
In 2014, 38-year-old pub co-owner Wuttichai Jaisamak in Chiang Mai was acquitted of murder by the Supreme Court following a new examination of the evidence. But previous rulings had imprisoned him for over three years for a crime he did not commit.
Back in 1990, four men were wrongfully convicted and jailed for over six years for the 1986 murder of Sherry Ann Duncan. They were later cleared by the Supreme Court. But it was too late. Many lives were shattered and torn apart.
These are just a few examples of the erroneous handling of due process. Most of the time, the police face criticism while the judiciary have rarely been questioned. True, judges made decisions based on the available evidence, but the benefit of the doubt could also be given if reports by the police and public prosecutors are weak. During the past decade of political turmoil, several court rulings on high-profile political cases have partially broken the taboo of contempt of court as they provoked public debate on the more political role of the judiciary.
Recently, the court's rationale for rejecting bail requests of lese majeste suspect Jatupat Boonpattararaksa, who posted a BBC Thai article on the monarchy on social media, reignited debate about the judiciary. However, this debate has gained little coverage, perhaps even being buried by the mainstream media. No one wants to face the prospect of being in contempt of court. But shouldn't the public be allowed to talk about the elephant in the room?
Many legal experts and academics, including Thammasat law lecturer, Worachet Pakeerut, and Chiang Mai-based academic Nidhi Eoseewong, insist that the law allows criticism and comments on court rulings as long as they are constructive, factual and objective and do not obstruct ongoing court procedures.
Sunai Phasuk, adviser to Human Rights Watch in Thailand, in his recent interview with Voice TV, pointed out that the entire justice system, from the police, to the public prosecutors and the judiciary, has not been scrutinised by the public. Contempt of court, he said, has been cited as the basis for barring comments on the problematic system.
During the past decade, the public and the media have actively kept the administrative and legislative branches in check. Lawmakers, ministers and prime ministers were not spared rebukes, sometimes in a senseless and groundless manner. Should this not be applied to the judiciary if it is done in a factual, objective and constructive manner?
An effective, transparent and accountable justice system will not only help strengthen our democracy but also serve as a strong foundation for advancement in other areas.