One man's fate should not overshadow entire society

The phone-in ploy to grab publicity is nothing new. After the 2006 coup, Thaksin stole the limelight from the junta by generating excitement about his planned telephone call to the anti-coup crowds at Sanam Luang.

Thaksin's call was hyped up for weeks by the media, although his speech turned out to be a rehash of past remarks and received scant attention from the crowds.

Following his October 21 conviction over the Ratchadaphisek land case, Thaksin has once again been up to his old tricks.

Like moths attracted to lights, his supporters and opponents are again falling prey to generate huge publicity by speculating on what Thaksin will say. The excitement of the anticipated message has conveniently diverted attention from the convicted wrongdoing and punishment meted out to him.

Although the Supreme Court penalised him with an unequivocal verdict of conflict of interest, the fugitive ex-premier is hard at work to whitewash his wrongdoing in the court of public opinion.

It is really bizarre that opinion-makers appear more obsessed with the convict himself than with the lesson to be drawn from the crime committed.

There is nothing unusual for a convict to insist on being innocent, or to blame everything but oneself, but it would be an anomaly if society were to allow the political polarisation over Thaksin to blur the sense of right and wrong.

For more than two years, differing views on the land case have been aired time and again. It is unlikely that Thaksin can or will say anything new on the matter. So is it justified to make a fuss over what he will say?

From his written and verbal statements, Thaksin has not disputed his guilty verdict. He just complains about circumstances leading to his predicament.

It is evident that Thaksin got into trouble because of politics. Although opposing camps try to politicise the judicial review on the land case and other litigation involving him, his verdict has purely and simply addressed legal issues without political overtone.

In other democracies, politicians are willing to assume responsibility for a breach of ethical standards or risk facing the voters' backlash. Thai leaders appear indifferent to righteousness and can often cling to office by the patronage system with their constituents.

Therefore, Thai laws have several specific provisions on ethics, good governance and transparency. Other countries uphold such rules by their political traditions instead of having to legislate them.

The anti-graft law's Article 100 penalises Thaksin for conflict of interest. Foreign leaders might have resigned if their wives were caught invoking the clout of office to win a lucrative deal with a state agency.

The punishment meted out to Thaksin is applicable only to him and Cabinet members, if they too are found to have committed conflict of interest. It is part of the specialised law of good government.

It is up to Thaksin to reflect on his performance in order to form a decision whether to obey the judicial decision. As a member of the billionaire's club, he can opt for a pampered life in exile in London. Or he can come clean by showing his remorse to serve out his two-year jail term in order to return to his roots in the motherland.

The provision on conflict of interest had been enforced since 1999, before he came to power in 2001. This is not a frame-up to bring about his downfall as he tries to portray himself as a victim to win sympathy.

The conflict-of-interest clause has no similar provision applicable to a British prime minister under English law, hence the extradition request to bring him back for imprisonment will likely be in vain.

However Thaksin decides on where to live his life - in his London mansion or in a Thai jail - it is a personal decision. There is no reason to allow the fate of a private citizen to overshadow society.