Bold stance by judges
text size

Bold stance by judges

Listen to this article
Play
Pause

In a rare and commendable display of courage, two Supreme Court judges have written to the president of the Supreme Court, calling for the cancellation of an executive-level course organised by the Judicial Training Institute. They also urged the judiciary to refrain from enrolling judges in executive courses conducted by other institutions, such as the National Defence College, the Capital Market Academy, and the King Prajadhipok's Institute.

Judges Boonkhet Poomthip and Anurak Sa-nga-areekul argued that these courses offer no tangible benefits to the judiciary's work and, therefore, misuse public funds. While the stated objectives of these courses are lofty -- promoting justice-related knowledge and fostering collaboration among senior executives to protect citizens' rights -- the reality is starkly different. These courses are often perceived as platforms for building connections among elite groups, privileging those with high social status, financial means, and influential networks. This practice reinforces patronage systems, perpetuating inequality in Thai society.

The judges warned of potential conflicts of interest arising from these networks. They wrote: "When the judiciary and its judges build relationships with external parties through such courses, these individuals might later become litigants or stakeholders in cases. This inevitably raises doubts among the public regarding the judiciary's impartiality, independence, and integrity."

Both judges' concerns hit the nail on the head. It is hoped that the Supreme Court will not take it lightly as individual observations. While networking among organisations might raise concerns about patronage, such issues pale compared to the erosion of public confidence in the judiciary's integrity and fairness.

Former prime minister Srettha Thavisin once remarked during an executive course lecture that many participants misuse their positions, act arrogantly, and exploit public resources improperly, branding such individuals as "despicable".

These executive courses were initially designed to harness diverse expertise from senior executives across public and private sectors to drive national development. However, they have evolved into venues for forging connections that benefit personal and business interests, career advancement, and privileges. Some courses even require lobbying or paying significant sums to secure admission.

Korn Chatikavanij, a former finance minister, praised the two judges on social media for their stance, stating: "Although these courses have benefits, their drawbacks -- particularly in fostering patronage and corruption -- outweigh them." He further criticised the increasing trend among Thai executives to prioritise networking over professional development. He shared that some participants endure these courses and their associated social activities -- such as late-night drinking or fundraising events -- reluctantly to maintain their social standing in a system reliant on connections.

The judges' call to reevaluate these connection-driven courses extends beyond the judiciary. All organisations offering such programmes must reflect on whether their courses align with their original objectives and genuinely serve society and the nation. Especially for programmes funded by taxpayers, there is a moral and fiscal obligation to ensure they do not cater to the interests of specific groups or individuals seeking undue advantage. This bold stance by the judges serves as a wake-up call for Thailand's institutions to prioritise integrity, transparency, and public trust over personal and organisational gain.

Editorial

Bangkok Post editorial column

These editorials represent Bangkok Post thoughts about current issues and situations.

Email : anchaleek@bangkokpost.co.th

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (9)