• 
• 

The division, which is oversee-ing the Ratchada land deal case against the former premier and his wife Khunying Pojaman, is facing problems now that the pair have told their lawyers to no longer represent them in court.

Nevertheless, the court has ordered the legal team that "used to" represent Thaksin and Pojaman to sit in on the trial. The Shinawatras are accused of abuse of power to buy the site in 2003 from the state-controlled Financial Institutions Development Fund.

However, it is still unclear how this tactic will be received here and overseas, but the eventual verdict and its explanation expected later this year, will prove whether or not Thai courts are impartial.

Nothing much can be done about the now defunct junta-appointed Asset Examination Committee (AEC), which pre-pared the Ratchadaphisek case.

Former AEC members like Kaewsan Atibodhi have told the court that they hold no personal grudges against Thaksin or Pojaman, but are still known to have spoken at the anti-Thaksin rallies organised by the People's Alliance for Democracy. Perhaps Kaewsan and other former AEC members know if their claim of being impartial is real or not. Of course, they can't do anything about being appointed by the junta that ousted Thaksin in Sept 2006, but Thaksin's supporters and people adhering to the prin-ciples of democracy will likely continue to regard the AEC and other junta-appointed bodies as illegitimate.

If the Thai judicial system wants to win greater acceptance and prove it's truly impartial, it will perhaps have to do more than just hand out a fair and convincing verdict on the Ratchadaphisek case.

For starters, it can re-consider the belief held by many Democrats that the court takes no position over those who usurp power through military means, and not just in 2006 by the self-styled Council for National Security, but several others over the decades.

This acceptance of a group of military men, who tear up one constitution after another once they've organised a "successful" coup, is disturbing to say the least and those at the receiving end will likely see the court as being partial.

What's more, unlike in countries like the United States, Thai citizens and the media are barred from criticising any court rulings. This prohibition prevents the society from having any meaningful political debates and many trials, such as those against Thaksin and his wife, end up having deep political repercussions.

The courts' need to keep things "traditional" is best illustrated by the swearing in of witnesses, who are made to read out a state-ment, which in effect says that if the witness lies, may he or she and his or her "family" meet with danger and disaster. This perhaps is a remnant of the feudal justice system under which relations, seven levels removed from a criminal were executed instead of the individual.

In fact, this feudal system is so deep rooted that one witness in the Ratchadaphisek trial refused to include his family in the swearing process, saying that what he said has nothing to do with his family.

As for the actual case, the deeply polarised political climate means that there will continue to be people who believe the judges are biased because the whole judicial process against Thaksin and his wife started with junta-appointed bodies like the AEC.

The court alone will now have to convince sceptics and Thaksin supporters that it is just and impartial - and its verdict will have to be no less than convincing.