If it hadn't happened in Thailand but in some other country, many of us in the media might have seen the Yingluck Shinawatra escape from a different angle.
"A former prime minister, ousted by a military coup and, subsequently, criminally tried for dereliction of duty over a misguided policy, has fled overseas."
That kind of a news splash would possibly have prompted reactions similar to when we heard the Cambodian government of Prime Minister Hun Sen was ramping up criminal charges against members of the political opposition. Or when we heard of Hong Kong political activist Joshua Wong being jailed for his activism. But not when it's in Thailand.
Surasak Glahan is deputy editorial pages editor, Bangkok Post.
And no, I don't think Ms Yingluck, being prosecuted for oversight in the "loss-ridden" rice pledging scheme, is in the same league as those unfortunate people. She's simply a rich politician with a very powerful and rich brother who has the luxury of escaping criminal charges, perhaps even with some official help, and then possibly living a good life abroad with that brother.
But the way in which the media and political pressure groups, such as the now-defunct People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), have reacted to her supposed escape from the verdict previously scheduled for Aug 25 is out of proportion.
The media scrutinised her escape strategy in detail. The police investigated the matter using DNA samples from a car allegedly involved in the escape. Former PAD leader Suriyasai Katasila yesterday even linked the issue with national security.
We have chosen to react to Ms Yingluck's escape as though she is the No.1 criminal in the country, not a politician fleeing the consequences of her stubborn implementation of a flawed policy to woo votes.
On the contrary, little attention has been given to whether it is legitimate to pursue criminal charges against her for policy flaws, especially during a time of military rule.
While we despised her Pheu Thai Party's previous efforts to push for a blanket amnesty bill, we seem OK with the military giving amnesty to themselves under the new charter.
I have tried to have discussions with my friends about how fixing the wrongdoing of politicians through unfair means is counterproductive. Administrative missteps rather need to be handled in parliament, the Constitution Court and through the ballot box. But few people agreed with me. I am either part of the minority or the silenced majority.
Like it or not, it is hard to argue that Ms Yingluck was a subject of selective prosecution. She is the only prime minister being tried for running a large-scale subsidy policy.
I don't know how far the verdict by the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions on Wednesday will set a precedent for future governments when it comes to implementing public policies. And I hope that's not the case, otherwise we will end up with unstable future governments prone to prosecution for their policies.
On the contrary, one party that will be shielded from being prosecuted for flawed policies is the National Council for Peace and Order, led by Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, who seized power from Ms Yingluck. Under the constitution, the NCPO will enjoy an amnesty for all actions and orders issued during its rule. Put simply, any policies fast-tracked by NCPO orders issued under Section 44, which gives Gen Prayut's sweeping powers, will not be held accountable.
At the end, no matter how financially destructive or flawed the policies of the current regime are, the NCPO can get away with their acts. No one can bring malfeasance or dereliction of duty charges against the men in uniform.
So I do think that we should just move on from the Yingluck escape and be prepared for other messes waiting for us in the coming years.
For the first time ever, during the first five years after the general election, we will have a Senate whose members will be handpicked by the NCPO. In addition to the amnesty given to the NCPO for their actions, can we expect the new Senate to scrutinise policies run by the current regime?
Over a decade, we seemed to have endorsed the coup makers' actions against the administrations they ousted. But the fact that Thaksin is still free to roam around the globe in many democratically-ruled countries means outsiders and foreign governments look at our domestic problems differently.
We should rather capitalise on the Yingluck escape by looking at it from other people's lenses and move on.