Ashamed to be British; ashamed of the UK authorities

As a British passport holder living in Thailand, I feel nothing but shame because of the PAD protest that took place outside the British embassy here in Bangkok. It sought to draw attention to the fact that Thaksin, his criminally convicted wife and family et al now reside, care free, in the United Kingdom. Indeed your particularly well-crafted and cruelly cutting article entitled "Dear British exile and asylum authorities..." (Stoppage Time, August 20) did little to lessen my discomfiture.

Whilst I am rightly proud of the shelter the UK has given genuinely persecuted political refugees over the years, Thaksin and his wife most certainly do not qualify for this label as they are both fleeing criminal justice in a country the UK has an extradition treaty with.

Whilst he is merely a bail-jumper at present, his wife is a convicted criminal who was unusually, in a country concerned with the preservation of "face", personally reprimanded by the court for setting a shoddy example, for one in a privileged position, to others in the country.

Yet she was permitted unhindered access to the UK. Why this was allowed needs explaining to the people of Thailand and Britain, who will rightly judge the British authorities as aiding and abetting a fleeing sentenced criminal.

Sadly, however, we can expect little from the embattled Gordon Brown, who is fighting for his very political survival. And I cannot imagine for a single second that the British delegation here in the Kingdom will run the risk of putting their heads above the parapet.

This is a very black day for the country I defended in my youth and have, until now, rightfully held a deep respect for. Now, in later life, I find that country very wanting in the virtues of truth and justice I felt that, as a young man, I was protecting.

I feel genuinely ashamed to be a Briton living in Thailand at present.

John Symons

Bangkok

----------

There is no honour or dignity for fugitives

People who want to protect Thaksin's honour and dignity as former prime minister may want to consider this dilemma. It is not possible to be a fugitive from justice and remain dignified. Dignity is preserved only if Thaksin stays to prove his innocence. In most cases he cannot even offer an explanation to convince the public.

Although he was not a co-defendant in the tax avoidance case that his wife was convicted of and sentenced for, we all know that her action did not take place without his knowledge, if not complicity.

Thaksin has accused the Thai judiciary of being impartial or "out to get him". Would he agree to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court?

Netirat Intira

Bangkok

-------------

Crimes committed yesterday can be made to go away

Re: "Court refuses to rule on three 'lottery' ministers", August 20.

I read this article with considerable dismay, as it revealed some troubling outcomes.

Much has been spread across your columns concerning the belief that the courts have a decisive role in steering the Kingdom from some form of impending self-destruction. I do not share these hopes or the optimism expressed by various contributors. My reasoning is as follows.

If we examine the judgement by the Council of State, which has the role of final arbiter on the interpretation of the Kingdom's laws, also reported in the article, we see a striking anomaly. At a very simplistic level, it is this: its ruling, in essence, says that if a politician is being investigated for wrongdoing, and that wrongdoing happened to have been committed "during the previous administration", then it is as if that wrongdoing does not exist in the here and now; it is to be investigated in some legal netherworld. It is ring-fenced and cannot affect their suitability to be in public office now.

This is clearly bizarre and is at stark variance to the rest of the developed democratic world, where standards of probity expected in public office are much higher and processes to investigate wrongdoing clearer and simpler.

This "amnesty" clause in the process is not in Thailand's interest and shows the original drafting process to be severely flawed. If the "alleged problem" was clearly of sufficient seriousness as to require state agencies to investigate, to allow the alleged wrongdoer to remain in a current public office is quite absurd.

Any mature, intelligent observer can only be aghast at such a deeply flawed process and can only deduce that proper, reasonable and independent decision-making is impossible as the framework in which that decision-making must be made is so profoundly twisted in favour of the wrongdoers - which is not surprising since these lawmakers drafted the process in the first place - as to be almost useless.

Which gives me to wonder just where the poisoned fruit and the poisoned tree that were recently referred to by the fugitive ex-prime minister are actually located.

John Patterson

Bangkok

-------------------