Former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra's fate in Thailand has been sealed. She has to live in exile, perhaps for the rest of her life, because she cannot return to her home country without being thrown into prison to serve the five-year prison term handed down in her absence by the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions.
She chose to flee, not wanting to spend even one day behind bars. Hence, her escape from the country before the court was due to read its verdict on Aug 25, with the help of a handful of policemen, reportedly including a retired police general.
One day after her rescheduled verdict was read on Sept 27, a new anti-corruption law concerning holders of political positions came into force which, in essence, says there is no expiry date for the statute of limitations of cases against holders of political positions if he or she escapes while being tried by the court or while the case is still pending.
Veera Prateepchaikul is a former editor, Bangkok Post.
In short, it means that no matter how long she lives in exile -- say 10 or 20 years -- she will still has to serve her jail term if she ever returns home.
Forget about the possibility she will appeal against her conviction because she will be required to make the appeal in person under a provision of the new Criminal Procedure Act for holders of political positions.
She cannot authorise a lawyer to do that on her behalf as she might have done previously as the new law was designed specifically to prevent fugitives from appealing against their convictions through their lawyers.
But do we have to be worried about her appealing or not appealing her verdict? Or how she will live a new life in exile possibly in London where her brother, former prime minister Thaksin, has a luxurious mansion?
Given their massive wealth, even after the confiscation of several billion baht of their assets in Thailand, I am sure Ms Yingluck will be much much better off than many people in Thailand. So, just leave her where she is.
But what leaves me dumbfounded and annoyed is the police conduct in the pursuit of Yingluck's escape case which appears little more than a charade, with Pol Gen Srivara Rangsibrahmanakul, the deputy national police chief, as the main actor.
The court issued an arrest warrant after her no-show. A team of forensic policemen went into her residence the following day reportedly to look for the DNA of people living there.
What for? Didn't the deputy national police chief make it quite clear that none of the three police officers implicated in abetting Ms Yingluck's escape broke any law, despite challenges against such an absurd assertion by several legal experts.
So why the need for more DNA tests now? And why not do it a month before when the court issued its first arrest warrant after her no-show on Aug 25?
Will this exercise of absurdity result in the name of the retired general who was allegedly involved in the escape plot being revealed? Or will it change the police assertion that the three helpers of Ms Yingluck's escape are innocent?
Even if more DNA or new evidence are found, it will never change the fact that some police were complicit in her escape. Nor will it change the belief among many of us that the police will never catch Ms Yingluck, or lack the resolve to have her caught. Take a look at the Red Bull scion, Vorayuth Yoovidhya -- after so many years, he remains scot free, perhaps quietly humming "Catch me if you can!"
One big problem about the police is their attitude -- they rarely openly accept their own mistakes or express regret for errors as manifested in several cases in which suspects were wrongly charged and convicted as a result of the shoddy work of the inquiry police.
Here are a few examples: Jomsap Saenmuangkhot, a school teacher in Sakon Nakhon, who was sentenced to three years and two months in prison for a hit-and-run incident which she persistently denied she ever committed. She was pardoned and released after spending one and a half years in prison, but lost her teaching career and her son dropped out due to a lack of support.
The case was revived after the real culprit admitted he committed the fatal hit-and run and after she and her friends filed a petition for justice. Earlier, a police inspector-general accused them of being a gang of con men, eyeing the prospect of a compensation pay-out by the police in the event the victim, Ms Jomsap, finally won her case.
Last week, the Khurusapha or Teachers' Council board decided to renew her teaching licence.
Another case emerged last week in Nakhon Phanom of a vendor who was detained for seven months under suspicion of stealing 15.8 million baht worth of jewellery from its owner at her house in Bangkok last year.
The Thon Buri Criminal Court acquitted the vendor, Phisit Suwanpim, citing insufficient evidence against the defendant.
Two prosecution witnesses, when shown a picture of Mr Phisit during the trial, told the court he was not the thief. The victim's own staff gave confusing statements about the descriptions of the thief.
More damning statements came from the court which criticised the police inquiry officers for not examining the fingerprints or DNA of the thief who was with the victim at her house before he grabbed the jewellery and took flight.
Instead, the police officers used a phone number given by the victim to track down Mr Phisit in Nakhon Phanom and made the arrest despite the suspect's claim he was in Nakhon Phanom on the date of the robbery.
The court noted the police did not produce an ID card for Mr Phisit to back up the claim that he was the owner of the phone number.
Deputy justice permanent secretary Dusadee Arayawuthi, who was instrumental in initiating a probe into the case by the Department of Special Investigation, said the case should serve as a reminder to police inquiry officers to do their job more carefully.
Silence from the Royal Thai Police regarding these two cases and many more which are not mentioned here. We are yet to hear the word "sorry" from any top-ranking police regarding these sad cases which result directly from the sloppy handiwork of the police inquiry officers. Perhaps, the world "sorry" does not exist in the police lexicon.
