In seeking to counter complaints in the letters page from those who take issue with the apparent urgency with which the NACC has processed the accusations against PM Yingluck, Richard Bowler rather undermines his case by conflating two separate issues.
Whilst there have also been complaints from government supporters about the length of time taken to progress the murder charges against Abhisit Vejjajiva and Suthep Thaugsuban arising from the 2010 crackdown, Mr Bowler’s observation that the NACC has no jurisdiction over these charges is of course a statement of the obvious.
In reality, government supporters have frequently pointed out the seeming lethargy of
the NACC in pursuing charges made four years ago against the Abhisit government for alleged irregularities in its rice scheme, contrasting this with the speed with which the charges against PM Yingluck have been progressed.
The NACC have explained the lack of progress with the accusations relating to the Abhisit government’s rice scheme as being due to the loss of relevant documents, which, so they claim, were destroyed in the 2011 floods. I for one would not presume to challenge this explanation, however a cynic or a sceptic might note that the flood damage is extremely fortuitous for Mr Abhisit and the Democrat Party.
As for answering Mr Bowler’s question as to why no progress has been made against Thaksin relating to transactions involving AIS in 2006, well, I for one have no idea, and I doubt if anyone else does. Thailand’s legal system works in mysterious ways.