Has Thailand been caught between a rock and a hard place over the extradition case of detained Bahraini footballer Hakeem al-Araibi, who holds refugee status in Australia but is wanted by Bahrain for alleged vandalism?
Or have our law enforcement personnel been caught for acting in a questionable and seemingly unreasonable manner?
Araibi has been detained by Thai immigration police since Nov 27 based on what appears to have been a wrongly issued Interpol "red notice", which was later lifted, and a request by Bahrain.
Surasak Glahan is Deputy Editorial Pages Editor, Bangkok Post.
He can now look forward to spending at least the next two, or more likely six months in a Bangkok prison while he awaits a court trial in late April, after prosecutors requested last Friday that the Criminal Court approve his extradition to Bahrain.
Since he was first detained, there have been growing international calls for his release and return to Australia, where he gained permanent residency after fleeing alleged persecution in his native land in 2013.
Thailand may be able to escape wide-ranging condemnation and calls for tourists to boycott the country, however, if logic and fairness are applied in response to the extradition request.
Sadly, Araibi's fate has been determined within the realm of our poorly scrutinised justice system, which in many cases has overlooked people's basic human rights and been subjected to the whims of political motivation.
The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) based its decision on Araibi on the 2008 Extradition Act. Thailand does not have an extradition agreement with Bahrain. Therefore, it is not under any obligation to send Araibi back there.
Moreover, the red notice has been dropped because it should not been issued in the first place, as Araibi had already gained refugee status in Australia.
Now Thailand is merely responding to Bahrain's extradition request, thus making it a sensitive issue as bilateral relations are at risk.
The OAG managed to fit the case within the provisions of the extradition law that focus on reciprocal benefits, which means Thailand can ask for a similar favour from Bahrain in exchange. This sounds pretty heartless to a layman like myself.
Even if former prime ministers and fugitive siblings Thaksin and Yingluck Shinawatra (who also claimed they were victims of political persecution) were to somehow show up one day in Manama, the capital of Bahrain, and Thailand could then use this card to have them sent back to Thailand to face justice, is that really worth putting a man's life at risk?
Araibi claims he has become a target of political persecution because of his brother's activism and due to Araibi's criticism of a certain member of Bahrain's royal family.
By virtue of the extradition law, Thailand must ditch this case if it really is found to be politically motivated.
But the prosecutors have already ruled this out, even though many people have been punished for their political activism in Bahrain.
Regardless of whether Araibi is guilty of the alleged offence of not, Thailand should respect his rights by cross-examining the evidence before making a decision on an extradition request, especially one that could prove to be a life-or-death matter.
In Araibi's case, there should be a fair evaluation of his claim of political persecution to counter that given by the Bahraini government. Such an evaluation could also be provided by Australia, which does not easily grant asylum and spent about three years assessing Araibi's case. Given that length of time, surely there must be ample evidence available.
One piece of evidence has even been posted on the website of the Sydney Morning Herald. This comes in the form of video footage of a televised football match in Bahrain on the date Araibi allegedly attacked the police station at around 8pm.
The match ended at 7.20pm and the police station was located half an hour's drive away. While this means Araibi could plausibly have just made it there just in time to commit the act he has been charged with, testimony from his teammates that he stayed with them after the game would seem to contradict that and render it impossible, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.
Shouldn't this footage have been cross-checked prior to the prosecutors' proceeding with their request to approve Bahrain's extradition demand?
Even though the case is being handled in court, the final decision will be made by the Thai government.
Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and Foreign Affairs Minister Don Pramudwinai have urged Australia and Bahrain to engage in dialogue to resolve the issue.
The ministry insisted yesterday that Thailand has been put in a difficult position, purely as a result of bad luck. Even if the red notice is cancelled, the legal proceedings cannot be reversed, it claimed.
The logic here seems to be fairly questionable. Does it mean even if new evidence or fresh developments arise, prosecutors would be unable to drop the case?
While the Thai government has said that respecting human rights is now a core part of its national agenda, it seems as though neither the premier nor the ministry have taken this to heart in their handling of this politically and diplomatically sensitive case.
That being said, we've seen this kind of thing before. The current regime has on numerous occasions shown a lack of respect for people's basic rights, notably in its persecution of political activists, many of whom have been jailed under its watch.
During the Thaksin government in 2003, Thailand faced international condemnation over its war on drugs, which resulted in the extra-judicial killing of some 2,800 people. Under the same administration, the army's heavy-handed raid in 2004 on the Krue Se mosque in Pattani left 32 insurgents and three Thai security officers dead. Such incidents helped to breed animosity and galvanise resistance in the three southernmost provinces, spurring resentment and violence.
In another incident under the former Abhisit government, about 100 protesters were killed in the heart of Bangkok during a military crackdown.
The Prayut government in 2015 also forcibly returned nearly 100 Uighur Muslim migrants to China despite their fear of political persecution.
All these incidents barely generated any public outcry in Thailand. In the Araibi case, many Thais have asked why the country is being held responsible for this whole business.
A lack of interest in human rights issues means there is little pressure on the government to take such cases seriously.
The decision by Thai prosecutors to entertain a request by Bahrain -- a country where democracy has not taken root -- and disregard a plea from a free man may bode ill for our future. The question is: Which part of the world order do we want to join?