Bangkokgo - TOURIST Safety news

Crippling the graft probe
By Veera Prateepchaikul
Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Post Publishing Co Ltd
The combative stance of Public Health Minister Chaiya Sasomsab has touched off strong reaction, but cannot be compared with the cold-blooded action of Justice Minister Sompong Amornvivat.

Of the entire "ugly duckling" cabinet, the most combative minister appears to be the big man from Nakhon Pathom, Public Health Minister Chaiya Sasomsab. Instead of focusing on pressing health-care issues, the minister chose to declare war on doctors and patients by threatening to do away with compulsory licensing (CL) which has enabled cancer and heart disease patients to have access to cheap, life-saving drugs. In the process, the minister axed Food and Drug Administration secretary-general Dr Siriwat Tiptaradol, well-known for his staunch advocacy of drug CL. Then, last week, he ordered Dr Pongthep Wongwatchapaibul, chairman of the rural doctors' society which has been very critical of him, transferred to work in front of his office at the ministry, only to back down shortly afterward. But Mr Chaiya's troubles of his own making appear to have just started. A signature-gathering campaign to oust him from office is under way among health advocacy groups. More than 1,000 signatures have so far been collected although the target is at least 20,000 signatures needed to kickstart the impeachment process. Having realised the strength of the opposition against him, Mr Chaiya has declared a cease-fire. Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej came to his rescue, saying the minister has not done anything wrong but was unfairly vilified for favouring pharmaceutical manufacturers.
How the CL issue will be resolved remains to be seen. But I don't think Mr Chaiya will easily give up his intention to have the CL policy revised. What's puzzling about the whole issue is why the minister, having just warmed his cabinet seat, was so keen to take on the CL issue. We have heard little protest from drug firms or threats from Washington to target our exports to the US if the CL policy is not revised. Well, as the prime minister said, Mr Chaiya has not done anything wrong and the embattled public health minister should be given the benefit of the doubt - for now.

But Mr Chaiya's combativeness pales when compared to Justice Minister Sompong Amornvivat's cold-bloodedness. In a single stroke last week, Mr Sompong sacked 31 officials at the Department of Special Investigation (DSI), all of them responsible for investigation into the SC Assets share concealment case against former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. They will join their former chief, Sunai Manomai-udom, who was earlier removed, at the Office of Prevention and Suppression of Corruption, an office which does not actually exist because the law for its establishment is in doubt because the National Legislative Assembly was short of a quorum when the vote was held to pass the law. In other words, they have been made redundant with nothing to do. Critics said they may not have an office yet. What a pity they were so unfairly treated for the simple reason that they were perceived as being not on the same side as Mr Thaksin.

What's more disturbing about the purge at the DSI is that the probe into the SC Assets case will be crippled??? BUT LETS WAIT AND SEE. The case is still pending with the Office of the Attorney-General which is likely to return the case to the DSI for further review. But how can the case be reviewed since all of those who have worked on the case from the very beginning have all been transferred elsewhere. Sunai's successor, Thavee Sodsong, has two options. One is to stop pursuing the case which may provoke public uproar that the DSI is protecting Mr Thaksin. The other option is to review the case as demanded by the prosecution. In which case, he may have to set up a whole new team which may have to start all over from scratch.Who knows, by the time the new team completes its probe into the case and it's ready to be returned to the prosecution, the statute of limitations may have already expired. That might make the prosecution more comfortable, not having to take the hot potato to court. The evidence is glaring. The purge at the DSI cannot be interpreted any way other than as an attempt to whitewish Mr Thaksin and his cronies of wrong-doing.
By Kamolwat Praprutitum

The Thaksin Shinawatra government will never fully recover from the crushing assault to its name for waging a war on drugs and this government must think carefully before launching a new drugs offensive.

At the cost of 2,500-plus lives, the 2003 campaign was trumpeted by supporters who said it had pulled down the floodgates on the torrents of drugs flowing into, through and throughout the country. In the process, it splatteed blood on the country's human rights record, as some human rights advocates have phrased it. Five years on and the new government is all fired up with plans to form a national centre with the prime minister as chairman to flush out illicit drugs. This is ominously familiar. Justice Minister Sompong Amornwiwat hammered home the pressing need to put drugs suppression on the national agenda and said he is consulting Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej on the best day to convene the first meeting of concerned ministries to finalise the centre's priority missions. The centre is eerily reminiscent of when Mr Thaksin inaugurated his drugs war campaign made sensational by the deadlines handed down for "cleansing" the drugs Interior Minister Chalerm Yubamrung instantly jumped on the Sompong bandwagon to offer his services by promising to coax drugs barons into giving up their billions from the illegal trade and switch to agric farming. It sounds as though the ruling People Power party is acting on its election promise that there will be a sequel to the 2003 war on drugs. But the best advice for the government right now is to hold its horses and exercise some restraint.Unless the justice minister can assure people the government's anti-drugs initiative will not be a repeat of the 2003 drugs war, and back it up with an unequivocal definition of the term 'suppression', he should steer away from the issue which could potentially bring the government to its knees. The drugs fight launched in phases by the Thaksin administration was slammed by opponents as a propagandistic vehicle to purport the government's firm-handedness in dealing with drugs problems. The policy operated on a rather simplistic and frightening assumption that availability of state resources and actions to 'expedite justice' would culminate in the decimation of drugs traders and traffickers.
But the equation represented a blatant disrespect of the judicial process because more than 2,500 people finger-pointed as drugs traders or those connected with them were allegedly killed by authorities on sight. Extra-judicial killings are a travesty of justice which any society must not tolerate. Many suspects were judged guilty the moment they were tallied up on a blacklist and the warrants signed for their arrest were essentially licences for them to be executed, families of many of the victims have charged. Often 'secret' intelligence reports were referred to in implicating the suspects in drugs syndicates and there were perceived patterns to label most of them as someone high up the gang hierarchy. Another popular theory was that many of the murdered suspects were actually insiders silenced by their bosses to keep police from getting any higher up the chain of command of these gangs. Any piece of 'intelligence' appeared to have been enough to warrant the taking of these suspects' lives when it should have been presented to the court so the accused could be tried and allowed their rightful opportunity to defend the allegations against them. Mr Thaksin, hounded by allegations of corruption and power abuse, should understand, more so now than ever, the importance of being accorded legal protection and a proper defence in court. The war on drugs in principle came across as a cause worthy of support. But the means of policy delivery had clearly jeopardised the ends - and the mistake has cost the country far too dearly to be repeated. So, when Mr Sompong uttered 'suppression' and the forthcoming establishment of a national anti-narcotic centre in the same sentence, he has re-awakened the dread of many people fearful of renewed carnage on our streets. The justice minister should first accept that the 2003 drugs war was a glaring policy error. He has yet to give everyone his word the national anti-drugs centre will see to it that the drugs suspects are captured alive and brought to court and that extra-judicial killings are not to be the mantra of the new campaign.