Management of Thai Office of the Attorney General : Responsibility and Accountability

Abstract

The three objectives of the study on Management of Thailand’s Office of
the Attorney General: Responsibility and Accountability were to investigate on 1) the
process of administration for the protection of freedom of the people, 2) elements
of causal factors, nature of problems and effects on the protection of freedom of
the people and 3) application methods and administration related to appropriate protection of freedom of the people toward public reliability under Thailand’s
office of the Attorney General.
The qualitative research was used so that the availability of existing
management of Thailand’s office of the Attorney General could be described
significantly. The Key Informant, Documentary Research and Focus Group were used
as tools from fieldwork of collection data. The findings were found that:
1.Even the administration strategy of the office has been implicitly
established, the unsuccessful management from the executive head of individuality
was observed by uncompromising, irrelevant and even situational manners against
it. In consequence, the inconstant, irresponsive and inactive natures of
management resulted regarding irresponsibility and lacks of authentic evaluations.
2. The authoritative office concerns accountability on legality against
offences and others while the protection of freedom of the people has been
regarded as inactive and unjust manipulation toward the litigants as clients. The
office has been criticized on discrimination and a known “double-standard”, of
which it has been serving for high profiles and society of the individual including the
rich for long.
3. Apart from its authority by laws, the public services which has not been
constantly improved to serve for the trends in administration has confronted poor
access of people who require its services. The office seemingly separated from the
people should have rather made public interest than individual interest when
innate nature of services with public affairs and spirit should be recognized.
4. Being nearly authority of its own territory and making it in the trap like
other justice offices, the cooperation and networks among the administrative offices
have been deprived of in full operation but conflicts instead.
5. The lack on improvement of administrative structure with functional
authority, systematic procedure and integrated operation in services of public
interest has remained when the divisions of the office have not operated in
compliance with their authority concerning with utilization. As the result, the
complexity and procedure occurred by operational services of individual authority 
would often be a reward of unresponsiveness upon the required clients and the 6. Having been monitored by code of conducts and regulations of time

routinely recognized by his or her duty and no commitment with selfconsciousness
on the protection of freedom of the client as its ideal accountability
toward the insight of the people.
7. Its responsibility of providing information has been obviously reflected
via a conduct of poor public relations as many as assertion and doubts of the
decisions made by the office against the curiosity of the people
8. The management of office of the Attorney General would not have
been achieved effectively due to a shortage of potential personnel, sufficient
subsidy for moving on the operational services and policy plans for activities of the
protection of rights and freedoms of the people.
frames under the legal system, the daily-basis individual authority has been
office would never have been verified thoroughly.