• 
• 

The lengthy court verdict has been described by some local media as "a landmark" or "historic", but it will likely deepen the political divide even further, at least in two aspects. First, on how the court regards the September 19, 2006 coup and military junta. The second, on how watertight the verdict was in concluding that Thaksin was guilty.

As to the role of the junta, the court had to touch upon it because the legitimacy of the junta-appointed Assets Examination Committee, which decided to bring the case against Thaksin and his wife Pojaman, was questioned by the defendants.

The court said in its verdict that the body created by the junta was lawful because the coup-makers only usurped the power of the executive and legislative branches and not the judiciary, except that of the Constitution Court, which went down along with the 1997 charter. The courts were able to continue their work unhindered after the coup, the verdict said.

Now, some may ask what does such a conclusion do for the future possibility, or even probability, of having more coups staged? Does such a view encourage or even help legitimise more putsches in the future, or does it discourage future takeovers?

Also, wasn't the court disturbed at all by the takeover of the executive and legislative branches by a group of armed soldiers? Can such an act be regarded as acting in the line of "good governance" on the part of the coup-makers - which is the very argument the court used against Thaksin in this case?

The court said nothing about whether the act of staging a coup itself is appropriate or not, not to mention whether it's morally right or wrong.

Thaksin was found guilty of conflict of interest by acting through his wife to bid for a land plot at a low price from the state-controlled Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF). But what about possible conflict of interest on the part of the military junta, which is clearly an enemy of Thaksin, and which ousted Thaksin and also appointed the AEC, whose members include well-known figures with anti-Thaksin credentials like Kaewsan Atibodhi? Nothing was said about the issue in the verdict of the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders on Tuesday.

It is clear that many who opposed the coup, which includes both people who support and do not support Thaksin and the current People Power Party, will harbour many doubts about the issue, to say the least.

Moving on to how concrete was the evidence presented against Thaksin, it's not difficult to understand why many Thaksin supporters will likely continue to believe in his innocence in this case.

There was no hard evidence but an assumption that because Thaksin was the prime minister, and was influential, back in 2003 when the bidding was made by his wife for the state-controlled land, Thaksin must be guilty because he and his wife "could have deterred other bidders from fairly competing in the bidding process". And to make matters worse, Thaksin also used his signature and PM identity card to acknowledge the transaction made by his wife.

So we're dealing with an assumption and probability here - it's nonetheless an assumption and probability.

There is no doubt that it is unbecoming for the wife of any prime minister to be entering into the bidding for state-controlled property and so this is Thaksin and Pojaman's weakest point.

But why should Thaksin be regarded as guilty when he failed to prove that he did not know more nor do more than lend his signature and his PM ID copy for the transaction? Is it a case of Thaksin being guilty until proven otherwise?

These questions will surely linger and the pro-Thaksin camps will continue to believe in what they want to believe. As one Thaksin attorney, albeit not involved in the Ratchadaphisek land case, told this writer: "The people shall be the judge".

And the people are divided too.