Borwornsak's real motives have been the subject of speculation. Some think he's simply jumping ship after having seen warning signs from all the three top courts handling the present political crisis. Others believe he has had conflicts with a caretaker prime minister who is growing ever more belligerent, albeit behind the scenes. And from his own statements, Borwornsak has indicated he has had enough of serving in a government that has caused widespread divisions among Thai people. Is it fear or conscience or estrangement from his master or a simple case of depression and resignation?

But an analysis of why he decided to leave should not make us forget the still unanswered question of why he decided to join a leader he had been quite critical of. When Thaksin was on trial in the share-concealment scandal, Borwornsak was among those who considered that the National Counter Corruption Commission had quite a solid case. In an interview with reporters from this newspaper before the Constitution Court handed down the controversial ruling acquitting the prime minister, Borwornsak preached the merits of holding all men equal under the law. The problem with Thailand, he said then, is that "we use one ruler to measure our faults but another to measure those of others."

It raised eyebrows when Borwornsak accepted the invitation to work for Thaksin, and even more so later when the respected legal expert became engaged in one controversial government act after another. In his capacity as secretary-general of the Cabinet, he was involved in drafting several controversial laws or decrees by the Thaksin administration. He was a key architect of the infamous executive decree designed to boost Thaksin's powers to deal more forcefully with problems in the deep South. When the law was questioned left and right, it was Borwornsak who was at the forefront in its defence.

His admirers' amazement turned to dismay as he simply sat and watched Thailand's checks and balances crumble before his eyes. As someone who played no small part in the creation of the 1997 "People's" Constitution, Borwornsak was expected to defend its key values, and if he could do nothing at all about it, he was supposed to at least protest. He did not. If his resignation is meant to be a show of objection to what is going on in Thailand's political system, it was long overdue. After all, one recent episode is still fresh in our minds: when Thaksin was under heavy attack by the People's Alliance for Democracy, Borwornsak led a group of civil servants at Government House to give their blessing to the embattled prime minister.

In a press interview after his resignation, Borwornsak said it was the great political divide that saddened and discouraged him. It's probably better late than never, yet we can't help but wonder whether that was a statement of remorse or whether he was distancing himself from the turmoil. If the former, it is too little and too late, because, whether he admits it or not, he played a big part in the circumstances leading to the present crisis. If it is the latter case, Borwornsak's resignation should not be hailed as a good sign, because it was simply an act of political expediency.

In either case, Borwornsak's story should serve as a lesson for all high-profile academics who want a glimpse of life in politics, if not something more ambitious. For one thing, legal expertise is best utilised in a neutral and independent environment. As Borwornsak said, all men should be equal under the law, but it's people like him who can help ensure that one ruler applies to all circumstances.