EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW
'We serve the public, not the government'
By Somroutai Sapsomboon,
Kornchanok Raksaseri
The Nation
2011-03-14
The Department of Special Investigation (DSI) is not a political tool for politicians, director-general Tharit Phengdit said. He argues that the DSI should be elevated to be a "super" department just like the Royal Thai Police, National Security Council and the National Intelligence Agency.
DSI is seen as a political tool. Is that true?
I have to accept that the DSI has been always criticised as such. I have been working here for nine years, I can say the DSI does not serve politics. Everyone can make use of the DSI. We have to work no matter if it is the opposition or the government who files a complaint. Otherwise, we must be charged with malfeasance. The DSI is a public service, not the government's, nor the opposition's.
But the DSI is seen as more inclined to work for the government.
We are a law enforcement agency. We then have to work for the state sector. Our agency is under the government just as the police but we don't follow the government's policies. We stick to the laws. Right is right, wrong is wrong. It depends on how one can smartly make use of that.
Is the Special Investigation Board part of the reason the DSI is seen as having its work interfered with by politicians?
The board has nothing to do with the case order. It cannot say who is right or wrong. It's just similar to the police board in that some members are politicians.
The national police board can be involved in a reshuffle, but the DSI boards can't. Its duty is to screen cases that may become special investigation cases. Most of them match the laws listed at the end of the Special Investigation Act. Moreover, there are only two members that are politicians: the prime minister and the finance minister. The 20 others are government officials and experts.
By the way, do you think cases can be interfered with more easily if it they are with the DSI or with police?
DSI mechanisms involve many agencies so it is very difficult to interfere.
Three weeks ago, the DSI dropped the share concealment case against (former prime minister) Thaksin (Shinawatra) and Pojaman (Damapong, his ex-wife). Why would we do that if we worked for the government?
I insist we work straight-forwardly and it's difficult to dominate us.
It is said that you used to support the (anti-government) red shirts and switched sides later.
I'm not a member of any group but I can have a preference, as our country is democratic.
The turning point in my life was that I was moved from the Attorney's office to the Justice Ministry when Thaksin was the premier and Somchai (Wongsawat, Thaksin's brother-in-law) was the permanent secretary of justice. If you say those who got promoted at that time were red shirts, that would cover all the Justice Ministry's officers. Nevertheless, I still respect and I have faith in him just the same, that never changes.
How has your life changed? How is your security after being attacked by the red shirts?
I am still a good boy for my security guards. I used to go to the market and bring my kids to places. Now I can't, since I went to buy a newspaper and some red shirts surrounded and scolded me.
The security people then asked me not to go to public places. I have to follow that, as I am the DSI director-general.
If the DSI office is bombed with M-79 grenades or I am hit on the head, that will affect the DSI's credibility. People will say that we can't even take care of ourselves, how can we save the people?
Over the past nine years, do you think the DSI has accomplished the objective of establishing this agency?
I think so. According to statistics, a lot of cases were submitted by the DSI, the attorneys filed the cases and the court found the defendants guilty as we indicted.
What are the DSI's masterworks?
(Tharit described many cases the agency is in charge such as "tax evasion cases and natural resources and environment cases, which we reclaimed and save a lot of the country's interest," but not particular cases.) The success was a result of the DSI's teamwork. Our principle is that we cannot create a super man but we can create superman teams. Unlike police, the DSI integrates people from agencies to work as a task force. We don't work a one-man-show.
DSI is perceived as having conflicts with police.
No. In principle we examine each other so that no agency is 100 per cent authorised. That's for the country's sake. In practice, we work in parallel and sometimes share information. We don't conflict these days; we might have in the early age of the DSI, as police didn't want this agency to be established.
What are the examples of cases that show the DSI is not a political tool?
Our initial investigation that found out that soldiers were involved in the death of 13 people during the protest last May can clearly prove that we are not a tool or take one side. Do you think the military will be happy that we do the case? We work amid the likes and the dislikes. (There are both people who like and dislike us.) Another case is the "share concealment part two" when we dropped the case against Thaksin and Pojaman.
Is the Democrat Party dissolution case an example of the cases that are not in the laws listed at the end of the Special Investigation Act?
That happened in the era of (former DSI director-general) Tawee (Sodsong). Actually we don't have authority to do the party dissolution case.
We did the TPI case, which is a listed company and then in the list of laws.
(The DSI already dropped the case involving TPI Polene money donated to the Democrat Party, saying there was no evidence.)
Is FBI the DSI's model?
No, we mix and adapt from many models from many countries. Taiwan's MJIB (Investigation Bureau) and Japan's special police are most similar to us.
I believe we are heading in the right direction. DSI's director-general is a very meaningful [role] as the position is the head of investigators and can direct the guidelines for judgement. Therefore, the DSI director-general should have immunity from politics.
How can a DSI director-general be immune from politics?
In the future, the status of the DSI should be elevated from a normal department to a super department, whose CEO is of C-11 position (highest rank of government officials), just as the National Security Council, the Royal Thai Police and the National Intelligence Agency. The DSI's roles nowadays are not lower than those three agencies but their CEOs have higher immunity. They are C-11 government officials so they don't have to be afraid of being transferred or sacked.
May I emphasise that I'm not saying for myself. But fears that the DSI director-general will be transferred will be reduced if his position is at the C-11 level. There is a high chance that a C-10 DSI director-general would be sacked.
How many years do you have before retirement?
Eight years.
Search Option
Recent Posts
Todays Birthdays
