Whether it is the proposal to de-list methamphetamine as a dangerous narcotic, the failed attempt to arrest influential money laundering suspect Phra Dhammajayo, the apparently illegal possession of a brown hornbill by billionaire Vikrom Kromadit or the use of Section 44 to roll out a 15-year free education policy instead of 12 years as proposed in the draft constitution, these diverse occurrences point to the same malaise: The country's justice system is crumbling.
Thais have been aware that the legal process is in deep trouble. Such sayings as the prison is built only for the poor or it's better to eat a dog's waste than to go to court would not have been born if not out of a real-life learning curve.
What is disheartening is as the country undergoes reform, more incidents have emerged showing how anarchic the justice process is, how exemptions and favouritism seem to be accepted as the rule of the game instead of the rule of law as it should be.
Certain cases appear to defy logic. For example, suspects were swiftly found in the case of the alleged irregularities concerning the 39-million-baht New Year light show by the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA).
Atiya Achakulwisut is Contributing Editor, Bangkok Post.
Governor Sukhumbhand Paribatra and eight others were implicated. The state auditor took just six months to wrap up its investigation.
However, the story is not the same for the GT200 bogus bomb detector fiasco. The device had been exposed as a fake for years but investigations into who should be be held responsible for its purchases here in Thailand -- 1,358 devices were bought by 13 agencies with a total expense of nearly 1.4 billion baht between 2006 and 2010 -- have gone nowhere.
In October last year, a National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) member said the case was a mystery.
The device may have been proven to be ineffective but that is not enough to determine who is guilty, commissioner Vichai Vititasevi reportedly said.
The GT200 hoax has resurfaced because a United Kingdom court last week ordered that compensation be paid to the affected countries from the forfeited assets of its convicted seller, James McCormick.
McCormick was sentenced in 2013 to serve a 10-year jail term for selling the dud devices. That was three years ago.
Interestingly, while investigations into possible corruption concerning the GT200 procurement have yet to be wrapped up, Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon, who is in charge of security affairs, insisted yesterday the procurement process was correct and transparent at every stage.
Incredibly, Gen Prawit, who is also defence minister, said the device, proven to be a dud, seemed to have worked at first. It did have some success, he said.
Meanwhile, the proposal from Justice Minister Paiboon Koomchaya to remove crystal meth from the dangerous illicit drug list because suppression has proven ineffective and because methamphetamine's effects on health are supposedly less harmful than those from alcohol and cigarettes is worth a look.
Whether or not we would want to adopt a softer, more liberal approach to fight the war on drugs remains to be seen but at least the issue has triggered a debate that is based more on data than emotion for a change.
Still, what is remarkable about the proposal is the admission by Supreme Court president Veerapol Tungsuwan that several state agencies including the courts of justice have failed to work together to address the drug problem.
The question is, unless that failure is fixed, where can people find the trust that the new approach of if-you-can't-beat-it-join-it will be better?
The failure by the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) to apprehend Wat Phra Dhammakaya's abbot despite court-warranted search and arrest warrants reinforce the impression that justice is only meted out against certain people.
For the rich, famous and powerful, justice is sometimes replaced with a skewed interpretation of common sense.
Where is the sense in Gen Prayut's use of Section 44 to extend the free education scheme from 12 years to 15 years when the draft charter, which is yet to be approved, sets down 12 years of free education? Even more bizarre is the assertion by Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam that the 15-year policy would not contravene the draft charter.
What is the point of asking people to vote for or against the draft charter when it's changeable? And if the highest law can be treated as a plaything, what hope do we have for the entire justice system?