They were just small hand-written notes but they have shaken the judiciary. The notes — one was sent to police chief Adul Saengsingkaew, and the other to his deputy — were scribbled by the secretary-general of the Office of the Administrative Courts Direkrit Jenkrongtham.
His objective was to bring to the attention of Gen Adul Saengsingkaew a police officer who is a close friend of Supreme Administrative Court President Hassavut Vititviriyakul’s nephew who, being a good guy, deserved to be promoted during the police transfer season.
Direkrit Jenkrongtham, chief of the Office of the Administrative Courts: Facing allegations of nepotism in the court of public opinion.
Of course, the notes, when leaked to the public by Prasong Lertrattanawisut of Isra News agency, triggered a huge controversy.
In fact, these small notes, one of two written by Mr Direkrit, one in October last year, and the other on Jan 7 this year, tell us many things.
Although Mr Direkrit insisted that the notes were not meant to exert any influence or interfere in the police transfer process, as his intention was only to “show admiration” for the officer who had taken care of the court president on several occasions, it reveals to us that favourism, cronyism or nepotism — whatever it is called — is a widespread practice in the bureaucratic system. Or we can say this is a culture that is very deep-rooted in our society.
Yes, some can argue that nepotism already existed in the police force, and this could be the reason why the officer in question had not been promoted and climbed up the professional ladder — which is why he needed an extra reference from high-level court people. It should be noted that Mr Direkrit, who appeared not to show any remorse, was quoted by the news agency as saying that as far as he was concerned many officers were doing the same thing and “it was not considered illegal”.
Or others may even argue that high-level positions in several state agencies, especially those with accompanying benefits, are already up for sale. Needless to say, this is a major cause of the corruption that has crippled the country.
There is every reason to believe that this is a political leak, something that is politically motivated with a clear goal of discrediting the judiciary. But this does not mean that such an act is right.
The damage has been done.
No one can deny that this saga has significantly dented public trust in the judiciary. The courts are expected to be free of moral corruption and a guarantor against favouritism.
However, the timing of the leak is ironic given the fact that it came in the first week that National Security chief Thawil Pliensri who, had fought against an unfair transfer to an inactive post by the Yingluck Shinawatra government, returned to his old job on the orders of the Supreme Administrative Court following a long court battle.
The ruling given by the Supreme Administrative Court that brought victory to the NSC chief, securing him a chance to return to his old position, symbolised disapproval of nepotism and favouritism. More importantly, the leak came just a week or so before the Constitutional Court is due to give a ruling on the high-profile Thawil case — a ruling that is based entirely on a previous verdict by the Supreme Administrative Court.
And this is a life or death ruling for embattled caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and her cabinet, even though the prime minister has tried to challenge the Constitution Court's power in the case.
Now, all eyes are on the judiciary. The immediate move by the Supreme Administrative Court president to launch a probe into Mr Direkrit’s act on Tuesday is very welcome. The fact that the court president himself is implicated in the affair could be a dilemma in itself. Needless to say, many will still be sceptical of the investigation process.
Beside, it does not help that many may doubt the investigation order is an about-face move that will not produce anything solid. If that is the case, the Supreme Administrative Court will be ridiculed for being the pot that called the kettle black.
The Supreme Administrative Court in general and the Court President in particular need to do something to restore the credibility of the judiciary. And that something must be done transparently. If not the institution will suffer a credibility crisis.
Ploenpote Atthakor is deputy editorial pages editor, Bangkok Post.