From Cell to Suite: Genuine Illness or Special Favour?

The Medical Council of Thailand (MCT) has joined the Thai Supreme Court in tackling former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s hospital gambit, which he used to evade prison despite three corruption convictions with a combined imprisonment term of eight years. Its move could be seen as a reassertion of the rule of law, given the suspicious circumstances under which Thaksin dodged prison time.

On 8 May, MCT announced that it had found no evidence to show that Thaksin was in any life-threatening crisis that required six months of continuous hospitalisation when he should have served time in prison.

Earlier, on 30 April, the Supreme Court launched an inquiry to determine whether Thaksin had any court’s permission to seek emergency medical treatment outside of prison. He has been summoned to a hearing by five judges, which will start on 13 June.

If there was no such permission, Thaksin’s transfer from prison would be a violation of Section 246 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code relating to a respite from prison. The Supreme Court can then send him back to prison for one year of actual incarceration.

Thaksin was never chained to his bed, no CCTV was in place to monitor him, and no guards kept watch round the clock, unlike when other convicts receive treatment outside of prison.

Thaksin returned to Thailand on 22 August 2023, ending 17 years of overseas exile, and headed straight for Bangkok Remand Prison. On his first night in prison, shortly before midnight, he claimed to be very ill.

A prison doctor quickly concluded that Thaksin needed urgent treatment after merely listening for a few minutes on the phone to a prison nurse describing Thaksin’s “life-threatening critical conditions”. Inexplicably, Thaksin was not taken to the Corrections Department Hospital 300 metres from where he was detained; instead, he was taken to a premium ward at the Police Hospital, a 20-minute ride away by ambulance.

Ten days later, while he was still in hospital, Thaksin’s eight-year jail term was commuted by the king to one year. The king’s announcement referred to Thaksin’s claims of “respect for the justice system”, “admission of wrongdoings”, and his “being of old age with health problems” that required specialist treatment.

After spending six months in hospital, Thaksin was released in February 2024 to serve out the remaining six months at home under special parole terms for frail, older inmates. 

Subsequently, a National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) probe conducted upon a complaint found many “irregularities”: Thaksin was never handcuffed to his bed, no CCTV was in place to monitor him, and no guards kept watch round the clock, unlike when other convicts receive treatment outside of prison.

Earlier this year, a former national police chief told the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is conducting an investigation at the NHRC’s request, that he was able to secretly visit Thaksin in hospital twice and had found him in good physical shape and not undergoing any treatment. 

The NACC has summoned 12 suspects for interrogation, including the prison doctor, who is suspected of having prepared a medical referral in advance for Thaksin’s “emergency” treatment outside of prison.

For its part, MCT has faulted the doctor for not examining Thaksin in person before deciding to rush him to hospital. It has recommended a formal reprimand for her.

MCT has also recommended suspending the medical licences of two senior doctors in the Police Hospital found to have produced untruthful medical certificates to get official approvals for Thaksin’s hospital stay and for his early release under special parole.

MCT’s findings and recommendations are subject to the public health minister’s review in 15 days. Should he veto them, MCT can override his objection with a vote involving two-thirds of its 72 council members.

Given Thailand’s history of politically motivated judicial decisions, it is tempting to view the investigations into Thaksin’s hospitalisation as another case of lawfare. There was indeed open pressure from various forces to investigate Thaksin’s hospitalisation. The Supreme Court rejected previous petitions by a former Democrat Party parliamentarian to investigate the hospitalisation, citing procedural grounds.

However, the Supreme Court’s current inquiry is being held at its own initiative. This suggests the Supreme Court is on a counterattack against the Corrections Department’s efforts to erode the sanctity of court judgements. An oft-cited similar example of prison officials’ unchecked authority is the release last year of former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom after he had served only seven years of the 48-year prison term he had been sentenced to for his role in the massive paddy-purchase corruption scandal during the Yingluck Shinawatra administration.

As for MCT, half of its members are deans of medical schools and well-respected emeritus medical professors who would have been driven by a commitment to medical ethics rather than political motives.

Taken together, what MCT and the Supreme Court are doing shows that no one – not even Thaksin, whose daughter is the prime minister – can flout the law with impunity.

2025/179