This month I would like to relate two stories to you which highlight the breath taking incompetence of the Thai Justice System and its total disregard toward the welfare of prisoners in its care. The first involves a Taiwanese gentleman and prisoner of this building who for the purposes of this story we shall call Mr. Fang.

Mr. Fang was convicted on drugs charges in 1992 and sentenced to 50 years in prison. Since then he has benefited from two Royal Amnesties. The first Amnesty of one fifth brought his sentence down to 40 years. His second Amnesty of one sixth then reduced his sentence again to 33 years and 4 months remaining. A third Amnesty, again of one sixth, was awarded in June this year but it is not entirely certain if Mr. Fang benefited at all this time round because actually he should have been released last December after his application for a Royal Pardon was finally granted.

The Taiwanese, because of their long standing problems with their cousins from the mainland China, do not enjoy full diplomatic status here in Thailand and so there is neither an Embassy nor Ambassador to go with. Instead Taiwan’s relations with Thailand are overseen by their economic and cultural office based here in Bangkok. This means that Mr. Fang and other Taiwanese prisoners are not visited on a regular basis by their representatives like prisoners of other nationalities who have consulates here. Instead, any contact they wish to make with their Rep’s at the office must be made through the post here, often slow and completely at the mercy of Bangkwangs mail screening ‘Foreign Section’.

Mr. Fang submitted his petition for a Kings Pardon in 2003 having already served 11 years of his sentence. In December last year he was granted a Partial Pardon which stated that he was to serve a maximum of 12 years, whish by that time of course he had already exceeded by more than one year.

The Taiwanese economic and cultural office was informed of this good news via the department of corrections and was sent a copy of the relevant paperwork. They in turn contacted Mr. Fang’s family back in Taiwan to inform them that after 14 long years their son would at last be returning home. Naturally, Mr. Fang himself was also informed of his impending release by this office. Some 8 months later the champagne has still not been uncorked, his family is still waiting anxiously and Mr. Fang is still sharing Bangkwang building 6’s marvelous facilities with the other 852 of us.

Time and time again he has written to the authorities here to find out why he is still being held even though his release was ordered by his Majesty the King himself over 8 months ago. Each time he has been told that no such release papers have come to the prison from the department of corrections (whose H.Q. Building, incidentally, is 100 meters away from Bangkwang) If a paper authorizing his release comes, then he will be freed, but until then he, as far as they are concerned, still has 27 years and 10 months of his sentence remaining (minus the 14 years he has already served.)

Last week, MR. Fang, after many months of trying, obtained a copy of the original confirmation of Pardon paper that was sent to the Taiwanese Economic and Cultural Office by the department back in December 2005. He immediately took it to the building chief. Not everyone’s first choice when seeking official help. But the only man (and I can use that term loosely) who has the power to take a prisoners queries and concerns out of the confines of the building.

Mr. Fang, for the umpteenth time this year explained his predicament to the chief and showed him the Pardon Copy. The chief, unimpressed and shifting his weight a little in his high backed leather chair so the view of his morning TV favorites would not be impeded by Mr. Fangs head, quickly drew on his obviously pathetic imagination to come out with a ridiculous reason for Mr. Fangs continued presence in this prison.

“You see, you should forget all this nonsense. There’s obviously been a mistake by your Embassy and they’ve got you mixed up with another prisoner of the same name. There must have been another Mr. Fang from Taiwan and he’s already been released!”

This was blatant waffle as the last Taiwanese prisoner to be released went some 18 month prior to the approval of this Pardon. The chief never once made a move to lift the phone to try and help Mr. Fang solve this problem with the department. Neither did he put down the remote and pick up a pen to perhaps write a report on Mr. Fang’s behalf and send it out to someone who could deal with it. Incredulous as it sounds, that’s as far as Mr. Fang got and he was shown the door. The Thai equivalent of ‘OPRAH’ must have been due to come on the TV.

Neither the prison, nor the chief have received any kind of official documentation authoring Mr. Fangs release, that much is clear. But the fact that they are not prepared to get off their Arrses and do anything to help expedite Mr. Fangs freedom, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of his Pardon, from the department which he holds in copy form, is a true indicator of the contempt in which our gaolers hold all of us. It perhaps also gives you a clear picture of what we are up against when trying to resolve a myriad of different, but equally important problems with them. They are simply not interested in helping us in any way and indeed, in their culture, an officer seen to be taking the slightest interest in a prisoner (that doesn’t involve a payment or bribe to him) will be viewed as a weakness by his colleagues and thus he will suffer a ‘Loss of Face).

The chief’s failure to take up the baton for Mr. Fang is driven by the same motives and his attitude is an excellent example of how officers at all levels in this system, through to the top, defer to and protect their immediate superiors from any real decision making. Their deference to seniority ensures that a question that might embarrass through ignorance is never asked in the first place thus preserving the status quo. As far as the chief is concerned, any effort on his part to bring Mr. Fangs problem to a higher office within the system will be understood as passing a problem onto his superiors and cause a massive ‘Loss of Face’ for him and perceived weakening of his status amongst his colleagues. The only satisfactory way to rid himself of this problem is to ignore this prisoners pleas for help, continue spending his days watching daytime TV in his salubrious air conditioned surroundings and wait for instructions from those on high. After all, it is far more desirable for him to remain in his comfortable niche he’s carved out for himself than to risk everything by getting noticed assisting an insignificant prisoner to regain the freedom he is due.

The pure selfishness of this one officer is indicative of what makes this whole sorry system tick and should bring bile to the throat of any man with an ounce of compassion left in him. We can only wish the incredibly patient; time served Mr. Fang, Godspeed!!!!

*************************************************************

The second of this month disturbing reports concerns four Malaysian Gentlemen and the notable, but by no means unusual mishandling of their criminal prosecution and later, appeal.

All four were arrested in 2003, in a so called ‘sting’ operation (better known as entrapment but that’s another story) when trying to hand over a consignment of what was supposed to be ecstasy to undercover police posing as buyers. They were jointly charged with the import, possession and sale of 640 ecstasy pills whose combined weight in pure substance was tested by the police laboratory and found to be a remarkably low 1.3

grams in total. Basically the ‘E’s’ were duds. On 24^th April 2004 in Rachada Criminal Court three of the four men accused gave a guilty plea in order to avoid the death sentence. They were convicted and each sentenced to 50 years imprisonment while the fourth Gentleman fought the charges at trial and won his case. He was dismissed from the court, freed, whereupon he returned to Malaysia.  The three convicted men immediately launched an appeal against the severity of their sentences, asking the court for a reduction. After all, a combined total of 150 years prison servitude for a mere 1.3 grams of a class 1 drug was bound to seem a little excessive, even to the most hard nosed of appellate court judges, or so they hoped. The appeal was eventually scheduled for 2 years later, on June 13^th this year. However on the day, the hearing was opened and immediately adjourned because only 3 of the original 4 defendants were in attendance according to the judge. This adjournment obviously came as a bit of a surprise to the remaining 3 as the record clearly showed that the 4^th defendant had beaten the charges and had been released. It seemed a little late for this clown of a judge to be asking of his whereabouts now, some 2 years after he was freed! Nevertheless, another hearing was scheduled for one month later and an arrest warrant issued for the 4^th defendant to ensure his appearance in the court. Nobody had the balls to question the judge over how the Thai police were to track down and arrest a man that had left the country after the original court had released him, but the judge, not allowing a small oversight such as this to stand in the way of justice ordered the new appeal to go ahead on July 13^th 2006. This time things took a really bizarre turn when the judge read out a new sentence of ‘Death’ to be bestowed on the, perhaps thankfully, totally oblivious 4^th defendant who had so cleverly evaded capture and avoided an appointment with fate by, er, staying at home I suppose?

Meanwhile, the 50 year sentences of the three men in attendance were maintained by the judge.

As of yet, nobody has been able to explain to me how a man who was found innocent of all charges and released can consequently be found guilty and sentenced to death by an appellate court in absentia some 2 years later?

The prosecutor had the option to appeal the original courts decision to free him on the day of the verdict but failed to do so and he was subsequently released following the rule of law. One wonders under which procedure the appeal court judge had the power to overturn the original courts findings, particularly when his own courts remit was only to hear the appeals against severity of sentence from the 3 remaining Gentlemen, originally found guilty as charged?

But the story does not end there. A few days ago the three remaining Malaysians who had presumed they had lost their appeal were informed that once again they were to return to court to have their appeals heard yet again, this time on August 15^th . Everything that went on in the last two appeal court sessions, they were told, had been ‘cancelled’, wiped from the record, and this new hearing would again consider their appeals: This time there has been no mention of the ‘fourth man’. Who can tell what has been going on in judge’s chambers (never mind his head) since their last appearance?

But no matter what fate eventually befalls the first three gents, I think it would be prudent to let their friend, the ‘fourth man’ know that it’s perhaps not a good idea to return to Thailand……..EVER!!!!

*************************************************************

On the subject of Tourist’s to Thailand coming to visit prisoners here in Bangkwang we have heard recently that quite a few interested  parties have been dissuaded from making a visit by one or two articles that have appeared in Tourist and Backpacking Publications. These articles suggest that prisoners do not like to receive visits from ‘Strangers’ because it makes them feel as if they are in some kind of ‘Human Zoo’ and are being visited out of the same curiosity that prompts people to stare at a monkey in a cage.

To set the record straight, nothing could be further from the truth. Prisoners have the right to turn down visits but as far as I know nobody ever has. We all enjoy getting visits whether it is from friends or strangers. If you are a stranger thinking of making a visit, you’ll have become a friend by the time the visit is over.

A visit, for most of us, can mean the difference between a very mundane and depressing day or the excitement and pleasure that meeting new people and contact with the outside world can bring. Many visitors who have come along intending to make a ‘one off’ visit have found themselves returning time and again, and firm friendships have developed. Indeed, many of our visitors stay in touch by mail (or through this website) after they have returned to their own countries.

The wonderful couple who administer this site for us, Paul and Ulla, have become great friends and invaluable allies in our struggles here. They too started off by making a visit to Steve here in Bangkwang after enquiring at the Embassy in Bangkok. Were it not for their decision to visit, this website would never have been brought into existence and you wouldn’t be reading this today.

Many of those that visit us have been recommended to do so by friends that have already been in to meet us before and we ourselves ask visitors to pass on details to other Tourist’s and people they may meet on their travels.

Your curiosity is natural and there is no need to feel anxious or awkward about visiting one of us. The visiting area is quite pleasant, perhaps more than you expect, and there will be plenty of time to chat providing you come early enough and allow yourself enough time. For our part we would like to assure you that we enjoy meeting anybody who’s interested in meeting us, are delighted to answer any questions you may have and will try to make your visit as enjoyable and memorable as possible. After all, we want you to come back!

Don’t concern yourselves with what the books have to say. We have yet to see one of those writers up here. It’s far better to see for yourself. We will always find it a pleasure to meet you so pop in and say “Hi” the next time you are passing through. Details of visiting days and times and how to get here can be found elsewhere on this site.

Come early to avoid disappointment!!

More Bangkwang News in September

See you there! - Bert