• 
• 
• 

And mind you, it wasn't even about seizing that Bt11 billion or making him pay some taxes. It was all about a tiny little thing of determining if he was a liar who should be banned from politics for five years.

As we know it, Thaksin's phenomenal poll triumph loomed large and obscured everything, including potential political risks associated with Ample Rich and shares in the servants' accounts and how those stocks would complicate his work as prime minister and Thai politics as a whole. He was let off the hook through a murky verdict issued by a badly-swayed court, and was allowed to run a country that pretended to believe his assertion that there was no need to worry now because the entire telecom empire had been transferred to his son.

Blame the elite, the military, or any conspiracy you want to for the current state Thailand is in, but the truth is that a MAJOR rule of the game was broken at that 2001 crossroads. Thaksin had the choice of accepting that he could not have it both ways, but he didn't take it. The Constitution Court, which banished another politician in the same week for the same offence, could have followed its main obligations but chose to bend over backward to help him, and in the process has made Shin Corp a monkey on the back of the national conscience ever since.

As the Supreme Court yesterday all but concluded its hearing on Thaksin's frozen Bt76 billion - and is set to rule whether the staggering wealth must be seized by the state - we wish things were as simple and straightforward as in 2001. Thailand has gone a long way off course since the infamous ruling eight years ago. A coup has been staged. Government House has been seized and occupied. Political parties have been disbanded. Charges of double standards have abounded, fuelling vengeance and more hypocrisy. Political division is tearing the country apart.

What if the Constitution Court in 2001 had gone strictly by the book? Nobody knows for certain, but a ruling based on the core spirit of the 1997 charter would have set a tough standard, and a few more big political names would have faded away, rightly or undeservedly. Governments would have been shaky, and "qualified" people could have deserted politics in droves.

What a paradise that would have been. The Shinawatras could have bought and sold anything they liked. They could have used a thousand nominees for all we cared, albeit at their own risk. Yellow shirts would have peacefully co-existed with their red counterparts. As far as Hun Sen goes, it would be easier to keep the toys in his pram.

It wasn't to be. The assets seizure trial is at best addressing the symptoms, not the causes. The patient's condition has become so extremely complex that this awkward treatment may yet make things worse. And as far as "justice" goes, nobody knows the real answer, whether taking away all Bt76 billion from Thaksin is the right thing, or whether he deserves to keep hold of at least the original part of the fortune.

We all, Thaksin included, chose this route to hell. It used to be an easy question of whether a capable businessman with massive interests hinging enormously on the state's decision-making mechanisms should be allowed to be the decision-maker. And it's not like we had no guidance; the much-cherished 1997 charter was crystal clear on what should have been done.

The stakes are a lot bigger now. But unlike in 2001, Thaksin's asset case has little to do with the national conscience. And if there exists a magic middle path to lead Thailand out of this jam, we have yet to find it. Should the money be seized but Thaksin pardoned? Or vice versa? Or should whatever was gained after he became prime minister be taken by the state and what he earned before that be returned? Or should there be an entirely new investigation since the red shirts have denounced the current process?

Most, if not all, of the questions could be irrelevant by the middle of next month, when the Supreme Court delivers its verdict - after which we may end up on the edge of yet another abyss.

"Thaksin ruling courts disaster", said the headline of our editorial in the aftermath of the 2001 Constitution Court ruling. To many on that day, it looked a gross overstatement. Understandable. When crossing the line, we can never tell what will happen next.