It's rare that the police should act in a more diplomatic manner than the Foreign Affairs Ministry when it comes to the handling of the same issue. But that's what exactly has happened in the past week in connection with legal proceedings in a high-profile political case against Future Forward Party leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit.
On Saturday, 13 Western diplomats showed up at Pathumwan police station where Mr Thanathorn acknowledged sedition and related charges for alleged involvement in a student demonstration in 2015.
They comprised representatives of Australia, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, New Zealand, the European Union, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States and the United Nations.
The police later clarified that the diplomats were not involved in the meeting with Mr Thanathorn. Instead, the police invited them to a closed-door briefing on the case after the session.
The Foreign Affairs Ministry criticised the envoys' presence in a reaction which was premature and uncalled for. This, however, reflects a wider sentiment expressed by critics and opponents of Mr Thanathorn, who also condemned the diplomats.
As Thai netizens' online condemnation of the envoys threatened to spin out of control, Foreign Minister Don Pramudwinai on Tuesday rebuked the envoys and accused them of breaking diplomatic protocol and interfering in Thailand's justice process.
A day after, the ministry issued a formal statement to register its "displeasure and concern" about the envoys for interfering in the country's internal affairs. The statement went as far as accusing the embassies of being a player and taking sides in Thai politics.
This strong tone and the harsh language could have been avoided. In fact, by abruptly expressing its "displeasure", the ministry seems to be expressing its political partiality to the world. It is understandable Mr Don has taken sides because he is appointed by the military regime. But senior officials at the ministry could have advised him to respond differently in a more diplomatic, factual and objective manner.
Instead of issuing the public rebuke and summoning ambassadors of those Western nations for "discussions" with the deputy permanent secretary on Wednesday and yesterday, the ministry should have arranged small group briefings for those diplomats to explain the case. And they could have done that after seeking information from the police and from the diplomats about why they were at the police station.
The EU and the United States have said their observation of the judicial process was standard diplomatic procedure. The US embassy said it was there to observe fair trial guarantees and respect for the rule of law. The EU emphasised it did not indicate any political preference.
The fact that such a process demanded a strong presence from these diplomats speaks volumes about the international community's skepticism regarding Thailand's justice process and the rule of law. Their mistrust could have stemmed from the widespread abuse of power by authorities over the past five years as the military regime has persecuted its political opponents.
It would be hard for any state officials to convince foreign diplomats that the groundless and politically motivated charges against Mr Thanathorn are legitimate, because they appear not to hold much water.
Senior officials at the ministry could have just remained impartial and provided foreign envoys with facts representing the concerns of all key players, instead of coming up with politically charged messages that have only served to escalate the situation.