Which is more important to you: (A) Getting things done using whatever means possible or (B) Doing things the right way and hope for the desired outcome?

.........

The rumor has come true: Thaksin is gone. He has fled to England and has made it clear of his intention not to return to fight for the charges.

In his hand-written statement, he claimed that the judiciary process has been interfered and has used double standards against him to ensure that he gets punished and removed from Thai politics.

For once, there is some truth in his claim.

True enough, when he was in power, Thaksin himself did intervene in the judiciary system and independent organizations. To see these organizations being intervened by the very person to whom they are supposed to provide checks is discouraging and disappointing.

But it is also very hard for an unbiased observer not to believe that the whole judicial process against Thaksin has been politically motivated and interfered. I'm not saying that the court has surely and definitely been interfered and has been biased against Thaksin. I'm just saying that it's hard for a layman not to believe that the court has been free from pressure from influencial figures.

This is also discouraging and disappointing.

Surely, Thaksin needs to be tried, but the process needs to be transparent, fair and just.

In this regards, the establishment of the Asset Examination Committee comsisting of "obvious" anti-Thaksin personnel was the best example of how the process of achieving justice is not just. Putting obvious anti-Thaksin persons in charge of Thaksin corruption cases was far from just. The AEC should have comprised "neutral" people who at least did not clearly belong to either side.

With the establishment of the AEC as a bad start in the process to get Thaksin punished, it's hard to argue against Thaksin's claim that the judiciary system has been interfered by his political enemies with the outcome of the trial determined in advance. It's hard to believe that the various influential anti-Thaksin figures in Thai politics are not pressuring the judges. 

It's sad for me to see how the whole judiciary system in Thailand "seemingly" being interfered by some influential figures - pro-Thaksin or anti-Thaksin alike.

Even for a much bigger crimes as in the case of the Khmer Rouge, the whole jucidial process is much more transparent and just than the process against Thaksin. It will likely take longer to complete but it is indeed a just way of achieving justice.

If we do things the right way (don't stage a coup, get him on trial without interfering in the trial process) and in the end Thaksin somehow did not get punished, I would still be satisfied, although not that happy.

But if we do things the wrong way (stage a coup, set up the AEC with Thaksin's opponents, and interfer in the trial process) and in the end Thaksin is jailed, I am disappointed. I would not be happy at all with this "doing evil in order to do good" approach.

Similar line of reason applies for the PAD. If the PAD is critical of Thaksin and Samak in the right way (using proven facts, refraining from using extreme/irrational nationalism, distorted information, bad language and inaccurate accusations), I would love to support the movement.

But the PAD has used a combination of good and bad means in order to achieve its goals, and because of the bad means involved, I lose faith in the PAD.

And I've been losing my faith in Thailand in general too. It seems so many people in this country are willing to use "evil" means to achieve their ends.

When I play football, I love to win. But the win must be clean. Winning a game based on some cheating or bribing the referee or deliberately getting your opponents injured is not considered winning. It's a shame.

Different people think otherwise, but for me, the means is more important than the ends. Doing things the right way is more important than getting things done. 

Now that we have not done things in the most proper way, Thaksin can easily flee and should be able to get an asylum from some democratic government. He can always cite the coup and the AEC, claiming that he's not been fairly treated. And, unfortunately, there is truth in his case.

In the end, he would never get punished for his wrongdoings, not because he didn't do wrongs, but because we failed to do things the right way.

Justice, above all, needs to be achieved in a just way.