Yingluck joins growing army of passport-holding fugitives 

I disagree with your editorial on the grounds that I believe the Foreign Ministry should automatically cancel the passports of anyone who flees abroad to avoid serving a prison sentence. The number of fugitives from Thai justice living lives of luxury abroad makes a mockery of the courts. By allowing them to retain passports and even providing them with renewal services in Thai consulates, the Foreign Ministry is, in my opinion, committing contempt of court as well as reinforcing the notion that crime does pay.  
I disagree entirely that any of Thailand’s allies overseas would be antagonised by the cancellation of a convicted Thai felon’s passport.  Many of them do this themselves, as a matter of course. The UK has also cancelled passports of young people who are suspected of preparing to travel overseas to join ISIS. Passports are the property of the issuing nation and holding one is a privilege, not a right.
It is true that many people in allied and other counties, as well as in Thailand, disagree with the prosecution of Yingluck Shinawatra under military rule for an offence related to her democratically elected government’s policy, but that is a separate debate. Many others agree with it. The fact is that the Supreme Court did accept the case and, if she is convicted in absentia due to flight abroad, it will be right and proper for the Foreign Ministry to cancel her passport immediately. To make clear it is not discriminating against the former prime minister, the ministry would be well advised to do what it should have done a long time ago and cancel the passports of all fugitives from justice at the same time.   
Even though we can assume that Yingluck, like her brother, must already hold passports of various other countries and that cancellation her Thai passport would not be a great inconvenience to her, it is the principle that counts.      
George Morgan