Saxena more likely to appease politicians than bring them down

The newspaper headlines last week are point to a nation dwelling in the past instead of looking to the future.

After a long drawn-out extradition fight in Canada, Indian fraud suspect Saxena has returned to face charges related to his involvement in the embezzlement scam which brought down the Bangkok Bank of Commerce in 1996.

Fugitive ex-premier Thaksin remains regular fodder for headlines, a sure hit to stir up a media frenzy. Latest publicity about him is the pending recall of his police rank and royal decorations.

The red shirts are trying to win sympathy by portraying Thaksin as a victim of the government bullying. They have conveniently omitted to mention that the process to strip him of honours was launched under the Samak Sundaravej administration.

Even though the replay of certain past events might lead to a fresh perspective, the sound bytes surrounding Saxena and Thaksin appear to have been a rehash of old news.

The BBC banking fraud came to light following the censure debate led by the then opposition Democrat Party. Star opposition lawmakers at the time included Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban.

In grilling the Chart Thai-led coalition, the Democrats marshalled evidence to outline in graphic details the links between politicians from the Group of 16 and the banking fraud engineered by Saxena.

Politicians like Newin Chidchob, Suchart Tancharoen, Pairoj Suwanchawee, were blamed for making ill-gotten gains out of the banking fraud.

The censure debate spawned a flurry of criminal investigations and political inquiries.

But after the frenzy fizzled out and the probes were done, no politicians were named as suspects in all fraud cases related to BBC.

In fact the fraud cases built up by police and prosecutors have absolutely nothing in connection with the censure debate.

The court battles that have continued for over a decade involved former BBC president Krirkkiat Jalichandra, but not a single politician has been summonsed to testify or provide evidence.

Of some 20 cases involving Saxena, only one, which was the contentious issue for his extradition fight, is ready for trial. And this case is about Saxena setting up a dummy company to siphon money from the bank.

And the other 19 cases are not known to have links to politicians.

It may be high time to distinguish between lessons learned from the censure debate and evidence for prosecution. It is not always a ready-made assumption that every political wrongdoing can be criminally prosecuted.

Times have changed and the political landscape has been transformed. We now have the Democrats in a coalition with remnants from the defunct Group of 16.

Although the present story-line on the banking fraud is about the possibility of Saxena spilling the beans, he has not talked for more than a decade.

The legal wrangling against him has not been updated to include political developments.

Is there a reason to suspect he might complicate his predicament by apportioning blame to politicians?

One would think it would be more reasonable to assume he might try to pacify politicians in order to have friends who could help win a favourable verdict.

The media hype on Saxena is, interestingly enough, based on leaks from a certain clique of the Democrat Party.

The clique has boasted about the support of ranking Democrats such as Deputy Prime Minister Korbsak Sabhavasu. It is also known to feel uncomfortable about the close alliance between Suthep and the Newin faction.

Does this mean the Democrats are trying to communicate with one another through Saxena?