Panit
Ombudsman Panit Nitithanprapas says politicians take rulings seriously
How do you see the growing interest in the work of the state Ombudsman from various groups of society?
The position of Ombudsman has been in existence for 12 years. We have so far been able to alleviate the sufferings of citizens at the hands of state officials in more than 20,000 cases. However, we have not been doing as much public relations as we should.
Of late, we have been dealing with the issue of ethics of people who hold political positions, so the media has become more interested and this is leading to greater public interest. Nevertheless, we adhere to justice and non-violence in solving problems and allow both sides of the conflict to clarify.
The issue of ethics for those holding political office is an issue that the Ombudsman is worried about, not just national politicians but local ones as well. However, we have our nine principles and place public interest at the heart of our work so there should be no conflict of interest. If we can help foster conscience in society, society will become better.
Many see the Ombudsman as having power but not able to exercise it.
It's like that around the world. Our duty is to look into the complaints from citizens in a just manner and make recommendations. It's like a path before you reach the court of law. The court is the one who metes out punishment, and the job of Ombudsman is to alleviate some of the court's workload. We can forward cases to the Constitution or the Administrative courts.
From our statistics, it is obvious that politicians listen when me make a recommendation. We advised the prime minister about political appointments under Article 279 (4) of the charter and she listened.
In the past, an investigation by the Ombudsman tended to take too long.
Generally speaking, we must be fair to those who have been accused and must allow them to clarify themselves unless the information we have received is sufficient. However, we insist on rushing things as quickly as we can and those accused must clarify within 30 days; the longest investigation took less than a year.
How do you react to the belief that the Ombudsman has become a political tool?
This is something we look into as we ask whether the people or organisations are satisfied with our work or not. But we must adhere to our stance. There are many types of complainants and not all are politically motivated. People who have been accused also have the right to argue back if they think our reading is not what they expected. We must be just and well-rounded.
The power of the Ombudsman can be used as a channel to forward a case to the courts and used as a political tool to discredit the opponent. What do you think?
It's within the rights of the complainant. We cannot prevent them from lodging a complaint and we have always been criticised as to why some complaints were accepted while some were not. We must accept a [bonafide] complaint if it is in our power to consider, no matter which side lodged it. Once a complaint is accepted, we still have to adhere to the principle and listen to all parties involved and truly be impartial. Some cases are not in our power to consider. For example, cases about kamnan and village chiefs as government officials by definition and various kinds of panels. However, regarding the issue of ethics of political office holders, we can't do anything if no complaint is made with us as we cannot initiate investigation by ourselves.
In the past, the government only heard your recommendations but never acted on them. Can it be rectified?
In principle, there are laws covering it. If certain [state] organisations do not act on our recommendation, we can petition a higher governing authority, including the prime minister. If it involved the government, we can bring the matter to the attention of Parliament, though so far we haven't done that. We have to report to Parliament if we think the representatives of the electorate need to be informed.
Are you happy with the power of the Ombudsman today?
In Finland and Korea, the Ombudsman has the power to punish and also cover corruption. Actually, we have the power to punish under Article 34 of the Ombudsman Act and can carry out disciplinary investigation and press civil and criminal charges. We have, in fact, issued some punishment orders.
The Ombudsman is viewed as partial.
It's impossible to make all sides happy. When we decide in one way, the other side will not be happy. But we have to take it, as we have our stance of impartiality. This is normal. We must be able to accept [criticism]. I have prepared myself for such an accusation, but it's all right.
Latest stories in this category
- Group helping lese majeste detainees upset with media, govt
- Nearly half a year ago, a group of family members..
- 'It is impossible to please all sides '
- 'No change' in Korkaew status
We Recommend
- 'Country in crisis'
- Half a million have Aids virus |but numbers adding..
- Paetongtarn responds to coffee threat
- HM gets 'Gangnam Style' birthday wishes
Comments conditions
Users are solely responsible for their comments.We reserve the right to remove any comment and revoke posting rights for any reason withou prior notice.
Article source: http://www.thethailandlinks.com/2012/12/02/it-is-impossible-to-please-all-sides/
0 comments:
Post a Comment