Police reform hits a wall
So much hope had rested on the shoulders of the panel headed by former supreme commander Boonsrang Niumpradit to reform police in a way that could radically shape the police force. However, when the blueprint of reform that promised to deliver a bang was unveiled at the end of last month, it landed with a thud.
No one was more disappointed than Meechai Ruchupan, chief of the body that wrote the charter that carries a clearly worded stipulation on police reform.
The fact the constitution explicitly mandated the overhaul of the 200,000-strong police force, long mired in graft and ethics scandals, serves to illustrate the Constitution Drafting Committee’s (CDC) intention to see a radical revamp of the Royal Thai Police (RTP), according to observers.
However, the reform proposal which the Boonsrang panel had spent months putting together was perceived by critics as too “accommodating” to the police and offered no substantial restructuring.
Gen Boonsrang earned respect as a decisive military leader with impressive credentials, who was well-trusted not to harbour vested interests or bias in leading the panel to lay down a reform plan which could “deconstruct” the RTP and reconstruct an efficient, slimmed-down organisation with augmented accountability.
But several critics agreed that while Gen Boonsrang himself may have won confidence from many quarters, the line-up of his panel members had failed to impress. The critics felt too many senior police occupied seats in the panel and that they were there to keep the status quo rather than initiate constructive changes to reshape the force.
The critics insisted they had been proven right, given the Boonsrang panel’s recommendations, including a suggested pay rise for more than 100,000 officers, brighter career prospects for inquiry officers as well as a rejig of the standard practice of choosing the national police chief that attaches overriding priority to seniority as the main selection criteria.
Nothing, however, was mentioned of the much-anticipated issue of creating checks and balances by keeping the investigative and inquiry officers under separate agencies. Experts said any unscrupulous officers could be prevented from “cooking up” cases to incriminate scapegoats if those in charge of gathering evidence and summarising an inquiry for prosecutors belonged to different agencies.
Less than pleased with the Boonsrang panel’s police reform plan, Mr Meechai came out with a rather blunt comment that some of the proposals were “too considerate” toward police and had to be fixed.
He said his team of legal experts had looked over the Boonsrang panel’s reform ideas and was troubled by the absence of essential details which needed fleshing out in order to tackle problems in the force.
The reforms will be implemented via a specific bill organic to the constitution. The committee thought one of the first steps to take was downsizing police agencies by transferring “non-police missions” to local administrative bodies.
Committee spokesman Kamnoon Sidhisamarn said the missions pertained to work that is not directly related to criminal investigations. They include public services and administrative jobs, he said.
Mr Meechai’s move to undo some of the proposals set out by the Boonsrang panel has split observers. Some contend the committee has the right to straighten out issues which may not be constitutional.
However, other critics argue the committee’s intervention is tantamount to meddling, with Mr Meechai trying to have the last say on reform.