WHEN THAILAND'S former prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, flew into London Sunday night, fleeing indictment and a Monday court date in Bangkok, he illustrated the old saw that the very rich are very different from you and me. Thaksin's wealth and influence allowed him to elude corruption charges back home, enjoy an easeful exile as the owner of the Manchester City soccer club, and prepare the way for a claim of political asylum in Britain.
Thaksin's actions as a fugitive from justice merit attention not merely because he is reputed to be the richest man in Thailand or because of his international notoriety. Until he was removed from power in a bloodless coup two years ago, the media magnate presided over a debased version of democracy, a system that preserved the external forms of popular sovereignty but little of its substance.
Thaksin bought his popularity and the support of the rural poor in Thailand. He purchased or intimidated media outlets. He countenanced extra-judicial assassinations as a tool for waging a highly publicized war on drugs while leaving alone the drug lords in neighboring Burma, who are the source of that trade. He provoked popular protest when he sold his family's 49 percent share in the Shin telecommunications company for $1.9 billion to a Singaporean company and claimed exemption from any capital gains tax. And he is currently fleeing charges that he used his power to secure insider deals on real-estate purchases for family members.
In a self-pitying statement issued from London Monday, Thaksin pretended he could not receive impartial justice from the courts in Thailand. But his own previous actions belie that claim. Back in Bangkok he had appointed defense lawyers to fight the corruption charges against him, and he recently filed his own lawsuits against critics in those same courts.
Thaksin's allegations about a tainted Thai judiciary and his assertion that the cases against him are political should be seen as transparent attempts to lay the foundation for a claim of political asylum in British courts. To daub a little icing on that cake, he included in his handwritten statement a fear that he could face assassination if he were forced to return to Thailand.
Thaksin ought to be made to answer the charges against him in the Thai courts. A fair and transparent legal process could assure justice in particular corruption cases. It could also inoculate Thailand - and perhaps other countries as well - against the malady of one-man rule by the world's richest media moguls or energy barons.
