Allegations of wrongdoing include policy corruption, abuse of power, influence peddling, human-rights violations and the suppression of civil liberties. So far, none of these allegations has resulted in criminal prosecution. This is probably because the prime minister is too clever at evading the long arm of the law, or perhaps he has consistently succeeded in persuading those who enforce the law to look the other way, help him find loopholes or bend the rules in his favour.

The closest he came to being held accountable for his transgressions was when he narrowly escaped early political demise in 2001, when the Constitution Court voted in a wafer-thin 8-to-7 decision to clear Thaksin of assets-concealment charges.

In the controversial case, Thaksin and his wife transferred billions of baht worth of shares of Shin Corp to nominees and failed to report those transactions in their assets statements that were submitted to the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC), which holders of high public office are required to do. Thaksin was earlier found by the NCCC to have failed to declare part of his and his wife’s assets to nominees comprising his household maid, security guard and driver.

Thaksin insisted that those transactions had been conducted by his wife without his knowledge and that he had not benefited from them. The majority of the Constitution Court judges took him at his word and voted to let him off the hook on grounds of a lack of dishonest intent. The prime minister was so emboldened by this perceived political invincibility that he went on to bend or break every political, administrative or legal rule standing in the way of his political self-aggrandisement and selfish interest.

With the benefit of hindsight, the Constitution Court’s dubious ruling on Thaksin’s 2001 assets-concealment case was the beginning of the systematic weakening of the rule of law and system of checks and balances underpinning the country’s democracy. Through intimidation and financial inducement, the Thaksin administration has also largely succeeded in its attempt to gag Thailand’s once-vibrant free press.

It has now become clear that such skilful manipulation of the country’s democratic institutions, coupled with alleged widespread misuse of the government’s rule-making and regulatory powers, were designed specifically to enrich politicians and their families and business associates.

Conflicts of interest arising from incestuous political-business connections of the prime minister and his Cabinet have been an issue of public concern from day one. It has gone from bad to worse, from subtle string-pulling to shameless deception.

Conflicts of interest abound: the allocation of PTT shares that benefited Cabinet members; the establishment of AirAsia, the budget airline run by Shin Corp and established by Thaksin; free-trade pacts in which the businesses of Cabinet members stand to reap huge gains; public-health policy and its links to numerous hospitals owned by families of Cabinet members; the iTV-takeover saga; and charges by a US senator that there was a link between a Thai satellite operation majority-owned by Shin Corp and Thailand’s foreign policy of appeasement towards Burma.

Thaksin has taken for granted Thais’ notoriously short memory span and inability to draw lessons from past mistakes. It comes as no surprise then that he should have succeeded in pulling off such a spectacular self-serving act as cashing in on the staggering Bt73-billion Shin Corp sell-off.

Every conceivable tactic was used in that sale, whether lawful or downright underhanded, expertly employed to maximise personal gain for the premier, and he still had the temerity to turn around and tell the public to be grateful that he was doing away with conflicts of interest at long last.

Thai society must seriously ask itself how it can allow Thaksin to get away with so much while he shows it so little respect.