ICC in Bangkok III

3 11 2012

At the Bangkok Post web site, this is the headline: “legal advice is pretty well unanimous” (see right) in rejecting the idea of allowing the International Criminal Court to examine the events of April and May 2010.

Yet when the reader clicks through to the story, it turns out that the headline is a fabrication of what the story actually does. In fact, the story cites just two lawyers, one of whom is anonymous. Of the two, one is opposed and another raises several points that could be problems. As we said, the headline at the web site is a concoction.

The opposing lawyer is Thammasat University’s Pokpong Srisanit, a former member of the┬áTruth for Reconciliation Commission, who argues for ratification of the ICC treaty but then argues “against accepting the court’s jurisdiction in cases which the Thai justice system is able to handle by itself,” which seems to completely contradict the idea of ratifying the treaty. Yet, as we have pointed out, logic is often lost in this debate. Perhaps the logic is that Pokpong knows that “ratifying the treaty … would require parliamentary approval necessary for legally binding matters involving national sovereignty under Section 190 of the constitution.” He probably knows that this would be unlikely as it would be opposed by the opposition and conservative appointed senators.

The anonymous “legal expert” says the “government must be careful in deciding whether to request that the ICC looks into the 2010 clashes.”

In other words, there is no “unanimity” even amongst the two legal professionals interviewed by the Post.

The other opponent of the ICC route cited is the conservative Deputy Senate Speaker, an appointed senator, Surachai Liangboonlertchai. No surprise there!

Both the Bangkok Post and The Nation appear to be ready to move into high campaign against the government, as they have consistently done since 2005, whenever the military or yellow shirts provided the opportunity. We guess the editors are pleased that Pitak Siam is providing that opportunity.