Impeachment cases closely watched

Burin Kantabutra hits all the nails squarely on the head when he emphasises that justice needs to be seen to be done in the impeachment case against ex-PM Yingluck. One aspect needing emphasis is the deep resentment continually expressed on social and broadcast media sympathetic to the UDD and PTP at what is seen as a “double standard” approach by the NACC to the rice scheme losses incurred during the PTP’s time in office, as compared to losses incurred by the Democrat Party’s scheme.
Now, the circumstances in each of these cases might have been different, but it has been noted that, while the NACC has pursued its case against Yingluck with an almost frantic zeal and determination, its case against the Democrats lumbered on for a while before petering out.
One of the reasons given for the lack of progress was the apparent loss of documents during the 2011 floods. That might have happened, but to Yingluck’s supporters it seems like a remarkably convenient mishap for Abhisit’s government.
It’s all about perceptions, really, and one side of the political divide is convinced that its opponents are being given an easy ride by the courts. Whatever, but Burin effectively highlights the way in which this sense of grievance can be laid to rest.
In this regard, it is worth noting that, despite the barrage of abuse and criticism that Yingluck and her government faced over their handling of the 2011 floods, the Administrative Court has thrown out a petition by individuals for compensation for losses incurred, stating that there is no case to answer.
Robin Grant
Bangkok