As one deputy leader, who runs the government, has given an unconvincing and feeble defence about him taking a nap at work, another deputy, who runs the Royal Thai Police, has pursued a retaliatory lawsuit against a lawyer who dared to bring up a case of his office's incompetency which wrongly sent her client to jail.
What they share in common is a lack of remorse for something they should not just feel sorry about but also take steps to ensure won't be repeated. What they represent is typical characteristics embedded in our breed of public office leaders. Yes, I am talking about Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon and deputy national police chief Srivara Ransibrahmanakul.
Surasak Glahan is Deputy Editorial Pages Editor, Bangkok Post.
A photo of Gen Prawit seemingly sleeping tight while seated alongside Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha at a public function -- an opening ceremony of renovated Din Daeng flats for low-income earners in Bangkok -- has been circulating on social media since Monday (it is still perplexing why two national leaders were needed at such an event).
The picture prompted sarcastic comments. Well-known cartoonist Khai Maew made a caricature of it. Others joked about it as an example of how one can earn a "passive income". For many people, the photo reminds them of the National Legislative Assembly members who were last month pictured while taking a deep, deep sleep during a parliamentary session debating the government budget for next year.
Gen Prawit's explanation? He said he was not sleeping but the photographer merely took a shot of the second he blinked his eyes. Given his body gesture in the picture, the explanation is as weak as his clarification about the set of luxury watches he claimed he borrowed from a friend.
Gen Prawit wouldn't have faced such strong criticism, given that snoozing at a reception ceremony could be more tolerable than doing it in parliament, if he admitted he was just tired. An apology would usually suffice.
It reminds many Thais that expecting a sense of responsibility from many of our leaders is but a fantasy with little chance of coming true. We can only dream about such things when reading news from other countries. A notable good example is British peer Michael Bates who offered his resignation in February for being less than 60 seconds late to work (it was refused).
Meanwhile, the national deputy police chief, known for his confrontational nature, has refused to be held responsible for his office's miscarriages of justice that resulted in a scapegoat suspect being jailed for one year.
Red-shirt supporter Amporn Jaikorn, a 59-year-old Chiang Mai native, had been charged with conspiracy in two bomb incidents -- one at Saman Metta Mansion in Nonthaburi in 2010 that killed four people, and another explosion in Bangkok's Min Buri district in 2014 that killed two.
She was jailed while awaiting trial on the second charge in September 2016. Last year, the Criminal Court ruled she is not guilty on both counts because eyewitnesses, and forensic and circumstantial evidence all confirmed she wasn't involved in the incidents.
After her release, her lawyer Benjarat Methian told Prachatai news agency that her client planned to file a malfeasance lawsuit against 12 police including Pol Gen Srivara for mishandling her case. She said her client simply wants the police to be more competent so that no one else ends up being a scapegoat like her. But Pol Gen Srivara has filed a defamation lawsuit against her in response.
Pol Gen Srivara seems to have forgotten that he is a public servant, running a public office and is accountable to all Thais. Anyone who suffers the sloppy work of the police has a right to seek legal redress or be kept accountable.
A good leader should have shown a sense of remorse and responsibility, offering a public apology and pledging to improve the work of his or her office. But the second most powerful policeman in the nation shows he is that other kind of leader. It is not clear whether he has used public resources and official time in seeking a personal vendetta against the woman, when he could have used them to better the police's work for the sake of the public interest.
It may be unfair to cast such a negative light on the two deputies. They are just part of a species of public-office holders who do not see themselves as public servants paid by taxpayers to work for them. Instead, they have acted as if they are our big bosses who can get away with things, such as snoozing at work or doing a sloppy job.