Use proper legal routes if innocent

But Yingluck’s method doesn’t meet this criterion. On transparency, first Thaksin’s ex-brother-in-law was made top cop, so that any immigration officer would be brave or foolhardy indeed to arrest the fugitive upon landing. Now, the proposed amnesty decree seems tailor-made to fit you-know-who. How can justice be seen to be done when everything about the matter is completely opaque? Is this what Thaksin means by “true democracy”?

If, as Pheu Thai claims, Thaksin’s conviction was political, by a biased court, then the existing judicial system provides for a means to remedy the situation so that justice will be seen to be done. For example, move to impeach the justices who tried the convict, showing that the coup-makers chose them because of their willingness to reach a pre-determined verdict. Then, replace any biased judges with those seen to be impartial, and re-try the defendant in open court. Then, all sides can see that justice has been served, and be reconciled to whatever verdict results.

Even if found guilty in a retrial, Thaksin could be pardoned due to what he’s done to benefit King and country, if His Majesty was so inclined. Either way, justice would have been served.

As things stand, Thaksin hasn’t even served part of his sentence, much less admitted guilt or shown remorse. How can he be pardoned for a crime he says he didn’t commit? If he really committed the crime, what assurances do we have that he won’t do it again? On what basis, then, might His Majesty pardon him? How can justice be seen to be done here, rather than a whitewash, and how can we become reconciled insofar as Thaksin is concerned?

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok