Wrong target
Activist Veera Somkwamkid's relentless pursuit against former deputy prime minister and ex-defence minister Prawit Wongsuwon in the luxury watch saga has been out of the media's attention for some time. The case seems to have been left in a drawer, gathering dust for years.
However, there is a recent development in the case. Last week, Mr Veera filed a lawsuit with the Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct against four commissioners of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) for ignoring the Supreme Administrative Court ruling to disclose details of the NACC's investigation.
The NACC did release documents pursuant to the court order, but with redactions. It argued that the investigation report contained the names of individuals and investigators, which are confidential and had to be protected. Perhaps the plaintiff should also question whether the redactions were carried out to ensure compliance and protect confidentiality, or to rule outright that the commissioners have ignored the law it is supposed to enforce.
I wonder how far this trial can go. According to the 2017 Constitution, NACC commissioners cannot be directly sued in ordinary courts. Any challenge or complaint must go through the Senate. This immunity is designed to let them act independently without fear of personal lawsuits.
In these circumstances, would it be more appropriate for Mr Veera to drop the case and file a complaint accusing the commissioners of misconduct with the Senate instead?
Yingwai Suchaovanich
Pivot to what?
Re: "Pheu Thai must pivot", (Editorial, Sept 16).
Yes, if it is to recover faith in itself as a moral exemplar to the nation that is worth voting for, Pheu Thai must pivot, but to what?
The vote in May 2023 showed that Thais want reform in line with justice under democracy. They most definitely do not want the old guards, which grab power through repeated coups and make a mockery of the assertion in Section 3 of the current (and too many former) constitutions that piously state that "sovereign power belongs to the Thai people" -- cute words that the following clauses nullify.
If Pheu Thai is to restore faith in its own good ethics, might it, too, need to embrace what is legally "bad ethics", albeit without explicitly stating that it supports such good ethics, a no-no under the lawfare-enabling law nestled under the 2017 constitution?
It is perhaps more likely that a large swathe of Pheu Thai's former voters will sensibly switch to the party that they know exemplifies the moral values they respect, and will implement the reforms they want for the nation over which they, the voters, should truly hold the sovereign power, as the constitution tells them they do.
Felix Qui
Bleak prospects
Re: "Myanmar election 'limited'", (World, Sept 17) and "Time to listen", (PostBag, Sept 17).
AM paints a depressing picture of Myanmar in his PostBag submission.
However, it is worth noting that the junta now only controls 21% of Myanmar territory and has lost control of large amounts of border trade.
Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAOs) that have replaced them have created sophisticated systems to manage this trade, and have even built schools and hospitals in the areas which they control.
Hopefully, the junta's reign of terror will soon come to an end, although what kind of Myanmar will emerge from it is difficult to predict.
Tarquin Chufflebottom
