If it was the subject of a piece of detective fiction, the long-running probe by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) into allegations that Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon deliberately concealed assets in the form of over 20 luxury watches would probably be a colossal flop: forgotten overnight or ridiculed for years to come.
The NACC cleared Gen Prawit -- the second-most-powerful man in the military regime who also holds the titles of defence minister -- of any wrongdoing when it released the results of its investigation into the luxury wristwatch scandal last week.
This unsatisfactory conclusion to the saga, which first surfaced at the end of 2017, has left the public reeling in disbelief at the agency's weak findings and unconvincing summation.
Surasak Glahan is Deputy Editorial Pages Editor, Bangkok Post.
The widespread anger following the ruling has little to do with the public's desire to see one of the regime's least-popular figures chastised or punished, however. No, that anger stems from the NACC's refusal to act independently or do its job with a stronger sense of integrity.
Its work on the case reflects the shameful and damaging reality that this and other "independent" public organisations, which should have acted as check-and-balance mechanisms, have let political partisanship, biases or social pressure influence their judgement and misguide their actions.
Whenever such organisations fail to follow the book and do their job independently, the consequences tend to be quite severe.
Of note here is the Constitutional Court's ruling in 2001 that acquitted then-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra of concealing his assets. This created a pretext for prolonging the political turmoil that has haunted the country for more than a decade.
Thaksin was indicted by the NACC, under another group of commissioners, for failing to declare company shares owned by him and his wife. Instead, he tried to conceal them by transferring the shares to their driver and domestic helpers.
Given Thaksin's record-high popularity at the time, the court's acquittal was seen as a decision that bowed to social and political pressure.
In the wake of this, there have been a series of allegations made against Thaksin, over and above claims that he was trying to conceal the shares. His apparent subterfuge, combined with his government's own policies, reportedly helped to boost the value of the company's shares.
The allegations spurred prolonged anti-Thaksin street protests. These competed for space and public attention with pro-Thaksin demonstrations by the fugitive former premier's supporters.
Later, the Constitutional Court found itself tarred with the same brush as it faced allegations of political partisanship. But this time the tide has started to turn against the Shinawatra clan and their political camp in a number of key rulings.
Independent organisations such as the Election Commission (EC) have since been questioned over their lack of independence and "impartiality."
During Thaksin's reign, the EC was accused of not taking any action against his political party over the alleged wrongdoing. With its current members selected by the military-appointed National Legislative Assembly (NLA), the agency has also kowtowed to all the directives and requirements issued by the ruling regime.
Like the case against Thaksin, the NACC's ruling on the wristwatch scandal involving Gen Prawit has huge political implications.
First of all, five of the eight commissioners who ruled to clear Gen Prawit from wrongdoing were selected by the NLA. NACC president Watcharapol Prasarnrajkit opted out of the voting process to avoid a conflict of interest because he was once a secretary to Gen Prawit.
The agency has had a year to investigate the scandal, which erupted in Dec 2017 when online sleuths and the media exposed a series of photographs of Gen Prawit wearing expensive wristwatches on various occasions. None of the 22 watches photographed, worth nearly 40 million baht in total, were part of his declared assets to the NACC, a process required by law for public officer holders to ensure transparency and prevent corruption.
Since then, the NACC's investigation has proceeded at a snail's pace. Gen Prawit, who claimed he borrowed the expensive timepieces from an old friend (who has since passed away), failed to act in a straightforward manner when providing an explanation to the NACC.
After a year, the anti-graft commission "discovered" the purchase papers for three of the watches at the house of Gen Prawit's deceased friend.
The agency has failed to track ownership or the purchase papers from local dealers or foreign manufacturers, even though it has enough justification to convince them this is part of its corruption probe. It didn't bother to ask the family why they did not maintain the purchase papers for such high value items, for the sake of warranty or other claims.
But the agency quickly decided Gen Prawit's claim was believable as the watches were found at the house of his deceased friend when the probe team visited.
Here you can laugh. How difficult can it be to move some wristwatches from one place to another, especially after you've been caught in the act of possessing them? Would someone really dispose of purchase or warranty papers for such expensive watches? The missing papers must be in someone's home, but the agency is refusing to investigate further.
Here you can still laugh. Instead of basing its decision on the "gotcha" moments, the dates when Gen Prawit was spotted wearing the watches in public, to define ownership, the NACC only lent weight to where the assets were recently found.
At this point, you may cry. The NACC posted a different ruling on a similar case in 2011, when the subject of its probe was former transport permanent secretary Supoj Saplom. He had been found to be in possession of a 2.9-million-baht car that he had not declared among his assets, and which he also claimed belonged to an elusive friend, according to Isra news agency.
The agency indicted Supoj based on the timing of the "gotcha moment" when the car was first found at his home. It also ruled that, in its opinion, the argument that Supoj's friend had lent him such an expensive car was paper-thin.
Due to its weak rationale for clearing Gen Prawit from wrongdoing, we couldn't help butwonder whether the agency had spent the entire year investigating the case -- or just composing a narrative to convince us to buy its decision to free the general.
During the course of the year, many of us waited keenly for the agency to wrap the case up because we were worried it would simply prolong it indefinitely.
This would be similar to how it has handled a complaint against Suthep Thaugsuban, a political firebrand and ex-deputy prime minister, over the unfinished construction of 396 police stations.
But I suspect few people expected the NACC's ruling would be based on such weak reasoning, an unconvincing reconstruction of events, and the unfinished probe. The findings look more like an excuse for the agency to prematurely let the suspect off the hook.
The backlash against the general isn't dying down, which potentially paves the way for even more political turmoil.
