That would be sad. But worse is the tendency of local critics to jump on the "show us the proof immediately" bandwagon. Corruption cases involving people who used to be very powerful are never easy. While we can criticise the coup-makers and the interim government on many things, they deserve a big break when it comes to the graft probes. They decided not to launch a totally summary crackdown on the allegedly ill-gotten wealth of Thaksin and his family - something they could have done after the power seizure - and opted instead to make it a fairly transparent process as close to the normal justice route as can be.

Despite serious allegations levelled against him, Thaksin "hasn't been formally charged". Somehow, this popular line in foreign news report has overshadowed the fact that any probe into the graft that triggered the middle-class discontent leading to the downfall of Thaksin wouldn't have been possible had he remained in power. Is he guilty as charged? We should leave it to the current due process. Was a probe necessary? Yes, undoubtedly.

Thaksin's destruction of checks and balances made him invincible in a democracy that he had flawed. The reaction to his wife's dubious purchase of state-auctioned land never went beyond criticism on front pages, despite the possibility of a major breach of the law. Airport corruption scandals created just a ripple in Parliament. Amid growing resentment over the Temasek deal, Thaksin chose to dissolve Parliament before a scheduled debate on the big controversy, apparently hoping a renewed "mandate" would blunt future political attacks regarding the affair. When an activist raised questions about his business empire's wealth, it slapped her with a staggering civil suit. When a newspaper published claims about "cracks" in Suvarnabhumi Airport's runways, Thaksin threatened to sue it for Bt1 billion.

Whether the coup was right or wrong, the subsequent corruption probe was probably the only hope of tackling major doubts about Thaksin's integrity. Those doubts would have only accumulated, the protests continued and the political impasse persisted had he stayed in power. The probe has taken the interim leadership more than four months, but in a parallel world where Thaksin was in control, anyone digging into alleged Suvarnabhumi irregularities, questioning the merits of selling telecom properties to Singapore or decrying Khunying Pojaman's land deal would have been deemed "unpatriotic" - and that would be it. And many critics seem to have forgotten one thing. "Policy corruption" is so named for a reason. The executive decree on telecom excise duty, for example, is not illegal on the surface, but it benefited the Shinawatra empire enormously and there were enough grounds to suspect that the state and consumers were being robbed blind in a politically shrewd scheme.

When Thaksin was in power, many painted policy corruption as the most fearsome monster. Now that he has been overthrown, it is close to becoming something legitimate. When he was prime minister of Thailand, one used one's heart to judge whether the share transfers among his family members, servants and Ample Rich and the related tax-free sale of Shin Corp to Singapore's Temasek was right or wrong. Now that he's gone, his formerly mocked claim that selling equity through the stock exchange doesn't require tax payment sounds much more convincing.

People are using their heads to judge Thaksin now, and that's most likely what he wants. It's probably his best skill - to make the law appear to be on his side while he flaunts its spirit at will. His escape from conviction in the asset-concealment case in 2001, in spite of damning evidence, was magic. But from what many foreign and local critics are saying, the "Thai con" may be on the verge of pulling off an even greater miracle.