The story goes like this. Two English judges went out for a bicycle ride and a few drinks at the village pub. They had a few more than they intended and the journey home was giggly and wobbly. Until PC Plod interrupted their jollies with the observation that they were riding without lights. Both were summoned to appear in court.
They made an agreement before their trials. Judge 1 would hear the case of Judge 2, who would plead guilty and express sincere remorse and a promise not to do it again. He would receive a finger-wagging and a warning but, in light of his previous unblemished record, he would be let off. They would then change places and Judge 2 would do the same honours to Judge 1.
The first part of the plan worked a treat. However, when Judge 1 was in the box and Judge 2 on the bench, things took an unexpected turn.
‘This law is being flouted with impunity’, said Judge 2. ‘There is far too much of this riding without lights going on. Why, this is the second case to appear in court today. It is time to set an example. £50 fine plus costs.’
This is no joke in Chiang Rai.
In early June 3 farmers’ leaders blocked the main Phahonyothin Road as a protest against paddy prices. Brought to court last week, they were sentenced to 1 year in jail, halved because they pleaded guilty. Oh, and they were fined 200 baht for using an amplifier without permission, again reduced to 100 baht for the guilty plea.
Chiang Rai Provincial Police Chief Pol Maj Gen Songtham Alpach commented that while he had every sympathy for the farmers’ cause, anyone who violated the law had to be treated the same way.
(Unless of course you happen to be the PAD who blocked roads in Bangkok for months without punishment or even prosecution.)
The farmers’ case should be taken as a warning, said the Police Chief. The sentence was not suspended so as to set an example to others.
The zeal of the Chiang Rai police in cracking down on the law then led them to pursue another case which unfortunately backfired so badly that Prachatai has only with great difficulty pieced together the story.
After receiving urgent messages from the Ministry of Interior to stop the signature campaign for the Thaksin pardon petition, Chiang Rai police learned that the two-million-one-hundred-and-thirty-five-thousand-seven-hundred-and-sixty-ninth person to sign was a som tam seller from Mae Suai market, 57-year-old Mrs Laksana Bohumang. Rushing to the market, they quickly apprehended Mrs Laksana and escorted her, amid great fanfare, to the local nick.
The interrogation got off to a false start when Mrs Laksana initially denied signing the petition. It eventually transpired that only technically was this true, since Mrs Laksana is illiterate and had merely affixed her thumb print. When asked how an illiterate could know what she is signing, Mrs Laksana stoutly declared that you didn’t need to be able to read to know what a mess the country was in.
Mrs Luksana was then asked what law permitted her to subscribe to such a petition, which was designed purely to cause divisions in society and drag the institution into politics. Mrs Laksana was here ably represented by a group of fellow market hawkers who had followed her to the police station.
It wasn’t her job to say what law allowed her to act, they argued. It was the police’s job to say what law she had broken. It was every Thai citizen’s traditional right to petition the monarch in any case of grievance. Had the police never read the Ramkhamhaeng Stone?
Besides, they weren’t dragging the institution into politics, they were dragging it in the courts where it belonged.
After a number of frustrating calls to Bangkok to establish just what law could be used to prosecute Mrs Laksana and make of her an example that the rest of country so badly needed, the police finally dug out an obscure municipal by-law covering markets and Mrs Laksana was charged with being illiterate in charge of a som tam stall.
Appearing in court next morning, Mrs Laksana pleaded guilty and threw herself on the mercy of court. This was a wise move since the judge happened to be an aficionado of som tam and was particularly fond of Mrs Laksana’s som tam lao.
He dismissed the charge as unconstitutional discrimination against illiterates. Frivolous and vindictive charges such as this were a waste of the court’s time, he said, and he warned the police to act more responsibly in future.
Otherwise they could find themselves in the dock and he would be happy to make an example of them.
About author: Bangkokians with long memories may remember his irreverent column in The Nation in the 1980's. During his period of enforced silence since then, he was variously reported as participating in a 999-day meditation retreat in a hill-top monastery in Mae Hong Son (he gave up after 998 days), as the Special Rapporteur for Satire of the UN High Commission for Human Rights, and as understudy for the male lead in the long-running ‘Pussies -not the Musical' at the Neasden International Palladium (formerly Park Lane Empire).
