Similar to the World Cup in Russia, the justice system in Thailand has never run short of spectators holding their breath hoping for a just and fair play. Like a football match, they pick their team.
If you are a liberal-minded person, and have concerns about strangers' plights as much as yours, you may care to root for the finding of a key missing piece of evidence in the extrajudicial killing of Lahu activist Chaiyaphum Pasae by a soldier in Chiang Mai on March 17 last year.
Surasak Glahan is Deputy Editorial Pages Editor, Bangkok Post.
Like the video technology that can help football referees (and the watchers) better judge the game, footage of a closed circuit TV camera installed at the shooting scene can help judges, prosecutors and the police make a stronger case whether the gun fired was shot at Chaiyaphum in self-defence as claimed by the military. Unfortunately, that footage has not been found, prompting speculation that it was not provided to the police by the military in the first place.
Today, Chaiyaphum's lawyer will submit a letter to army chief Chalermchai Sitthisad requesting the seemingly missing footage.
Chaiyaphum was shot dead near a military-supervised checkpoint in Chiang Dao district. The military claimed he possessed thousands of ya ba or methamphetamines pills and that the shot was fired because the suspect tried to throw a hand grenade at soldiers. One soldier fired a single bullet in "self-defence" which killed the 17-year-old.
Chaiyaphum was a social activist and so many are not convinced by this claim. The footage of the camera can help clear the air. But where has it gone and why hasn't the military used it to cement its version of story and clear the air?
The whole saga about this missing evidence has baffled many throughout the handling of this case. First of all, Third Region Army commander Vijak Siribansop, who oversees the area, and Gem Chalermchai said they saw the footage.
Then, it got absurd when the military handed over the CCTV recorder and a hard disk to police on April 28 last year. But the police said they could not locate such footage on the hard disk even though the recorder was in good, functioning condition, according to Chaiyaphum's lawyer who had tried to ask for a court order for the military to hand over the footage. The request was denied.
Lawyers and family members of slain Lahu activist Chaiyaphum Pasae submit a petition to the prosecutor's office in Chiang Mai in May last year, calling for a transparent and just probe into the extrajudicial killing on March 17 last year, and the release of video footage at the scene. (Photo by Cheewin Sattha)
Even if you are not on the Chaiyaphum team, does the loss of the footage without justified reason demonstrate just and fair play to you? Do you care to question why the military did not provide the footage of the scene when its leaders said they saw it?
Another hard-to-believe handling of justice is the National Anti-Corruption Commission's probe into the scandal involving 22 luxury wristwatches, with a total value of almost 40 million baht, seen worn by Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwon. The agency has spent more than six months concluding whether Gen Prawit concealed these assets as alleged or whether he really borrowed the expensive timepieces from his friend as he claimed.
The key evidence in this case should be the serial numbers of the watches, which should be established as the proof of real owners. It should not be the time-consuming job as the anti-graft body, whose six of its nine commissioners are appointed by the current regime, has made it to be.
If you are a transparency-minded person, you may hold your breath hoping that the probe will not end up with a dubious excuse of missing evidence of the watch owners.
Similarly, many animal lovers and environmentally conscious minds also hope for real justice to be delivered in a case of the alleged killing of a black leopard by construction tycoon Premchai Karnasuta and his three companions at Thungyai-Naresuan sanctuary in February. They don't want this to end up as another story in which the rich can get away with an alleged crime.
And while they have campaigned for justice for the slain leopard, the same level of sympathy and attention has not been given to a group of Karen people being forced out of their ancestral land in the Kaeng Krachan National Park in Phetchaburi.
Of course, the leopard deserves justice. So does Chaiyaphum and the Karen people. However, unlike environment protection, human rights issues involving minority groups or the outcast, have always received little attention from the public.
The Karen people have been forced out of their ancestral land since 2011 by park officials who claimed they only followed the law.
The cabinet in 1981 made Kaeng Krachan forest a national park but it seemed to have not carried out a comprehensive survey to find out who lived there prior to the demarcation and find ways to give them land rights they deserve.
So the Karen now have lost their right to return home following the Supreme Administrative Court's verdict last week. As if the situation is not miserable enough, the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plan Conservation said last week it plans to file lawsuits against a 106-year-old Karen spiritual leader Ko-i Meemi and five others for forest encroachment.
The director-general of the department, Thanya Nethithammakul, vowed this would be pursued in accordance with the law. But is the law he referred to a fair and just one? Both the 1961 National Park Act and the cabinet's decision excluded participation of indigenous or local people into the demarcation of preserved forests.
No matter what legal case we care for, the fact that we have to hold our breath -- while waiting to see whether justice will be served in a just, sensible and fair manner without leaving a big elephant in the room that no one can talk about -- reminds us that there is something wrong with our justice process. For now, the missing video footage of Chaiyaphum's extrajudicial killing is the black elephant in the room. Someone needs to put the spotlight on it. No one should have to hold their breath hoping for a just and transparent process in the justice system.