Justice Minister Pol Col Tawee Sodsong remains unruffled amidst the swirling controversy concerning the Ombudsman’s scrutiny of Thaksin Shinawatra’s hospitalisation decree. The hullabaloo revolves around the former prime minister, whose extended six-month residency at Police General Hospital (PGH) in 2023 has raised eyebrows. Nevertheless, Tawee has articulated his stance that Thaksin’s extended hospitalisation was thoroughly vetted and legally above board.
Earlier this week, Tawee expressed his lack of apprehension regarding the petition submitted by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which seeks to challenge the Department of Corrections’ (DoC) regulation that purportedly granted Thaksin preferential treatment. While respecting the autonomy of independent investigations, Tawee assures that the ministry maintains a hands-off approach, resisting any meddling.
The Ombudsman’s vigilance has already birthed three articulated opinions concerning Thaksin’s transition, medical care, and compliance with existing statutes. Meanwhile, Tawee clarified that the Criminal Procedure Code and the Corrections Act hold similar juridical clout. He further elaborated that historical precedents of prison-to-hospital transfers circumvented judicial permissions, which aligns with the previous iterations of the corrections law.
However, the specter of the Supreme Court’s ruling brings autonomous authority into play. Tawee has signaled an openness to elucidate the ministry’s standing should justification become necessary.
On a parallel note, Pol Lt Col Keerop Kritteeranont, secretary-general of the Office of the Ombudsman, announced last Friday’s receipt of the NHRC’s petition, emphatically highlighting two core concerns: the contentious regulation permitting inmate medical treatment outside prison confines, and the sanctioned transfer that sheparded Thaksin to PGH.
The Ombudsman has embraced the petition and is poised to unravel the factual tapestry. An exploration is underway regarding the DoC’s rationale for instituting such a regulation, with contemplation over potential repercussions on public welfare or constitutional alignment if rescinded.
Further investigative measures, including summoning agencies or procuring supporting documentation, hinge on this preliminary inquiry. Opponents of the original Supreme Court ruling argue that Thaksin’s hospital relocation veers from intended judicial pathways. The Ombudsman typically dispatches clarity requests within a week; agencies, in turn, are allocated a 30-day window to reciprocate, with extensions permissible up to 60 days. Should agency compliance falter despite the Ombudsman’s recommendations for regulatory amendment, the Administrative Court could engage as an escalatory measure.
Discussion on potentially restarting Thaksin’s sentence, as Pol Lt Col Keerop posited, relies on nuanced legal interpretations. Voided regulations might reverberate, affecting Thaksin, the DoC, the correctional hospital, or PGH under prevailing laws.
The backstory to the NHRC’s petition trails a previous-year grievance concerning potential human rights infractions due to perceived imbalances in law enforcement by a government body. The spotlight was cast on Bangkok Remand Prison’s alleged shortfall in upholding constitutional duties delineated in Section 53, insisting the state ensure lawfulness and law executorship.
Thus, the NHRC’s missive dated April 10 implores the Ombudsman to weigh propelling the matter to the Administrative Court, aimed at rescinding the medical treatment decision and revoking the 2020 Ministerial Regulation for external inmate medical transfers.
I don’t understand why some people are so focused on Thaksin’s hospital stay. Isn’t it just because he’s a high-profile figure that he got some special treatment? Happens all the time.
It isn’t about special treatment; it’s about fairness and legality. If Thaksin was granted privileges that others in his situation wouldn’t receive, it’s a justice issue.
I see your point, David, but how many people are really impacted by this? Is it worth all this fuss?
Pamela, it sets a precedent. If justice can be bent for some, it weakens the entire legal system.
Thaksin should be allowed to stay in the hospital as long as he wants. His health should be the priority, not political vendettas.
How can Tawee just brush off clear questions about legality? If the law was broken, there should be consequences.
Sarah, Tawee isn’t brushing it off. He’s letting the system work. And anyway, were any laws actually broken here?
Grower134, maybe none were broken explicitly, but they might have been bent to the point of breaking. That’s the concern.
It’s strange how everyone is suddenly an expert on medical regulations and corrections law. Let’s leave this to the professionals to figure out.
Putting Thaksin in a hospital could just be a smokescreen to keep him safe from his enemies while pretending there are medical reasons behind it.
Interesting point, Mark. That could be possible, especially given his controversial past.
But isn’t that a bit paranoid? I doubt they would go to so much trouble without some genuine reason.
The real issue here is trust. Once trust in the system is eroded, everything becomes suspect. The Ombudsman is doing the right thing by investigating.
Can’t we all agree that justice should not only be done but must also be seen to be done? This whole saga only fuels distrust in the system.
True, Holmes. It’s not just about Thaksin; it’s about ensuring that people continue to believe in fairness.
Honestly, Thaksin’s hospitalization is just a distraction. Why aren’t we talking more about the underlying issues with prison regulations overall?
It’s because of his fame and infamy, Lizzie. He’s a lightning rod for controversy, even when it distracts from other issues.
Exactly, Jordan! This obsession with Thaksin overlooks broader, systemic problems that need addressing.
Imagine if this much scrutiny was applied to every high-profile prison case. The system might actually improve. Why be selective?
What about human rights? If Thaksin’s case reveals abuses, shouldn’t we be supporting any investigation to ensure fair treatment for all inmates?
I agree, Ming. Human rights should be paramount in any corrections system.
Totally, but vigilance shouldn’t only apply to famous individuals. Everyone deserves fair treatment.
Good point, Laura. Makes you wonder how many cases like this fly under the radar without due publicity.