Former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his deputy from the dark days of 2010 were summoned again on Monday to the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) for questioning.
The ex-premier and former deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban testified about the crisis of the red-shirt protests, and how they responded. The ostensible reason they were summoned to the DSI was to assist in the investigation into the 91 deaths in April and May of 2010. But that probe is beginning to look decidedly unfair and even biased.
The DSI is an agency formed to try to bring professionalism and public trust to law enforcement. It was founded on a rough model of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), widely known as a competent, credible, incorruptible and especially non-political police unit. The DSI is charged with investigating crimes that are often beyond the scope of regular police units.
It takes years and many high-profile cases to build up a reputation as an honest defender of justice and the law. The entire reputation can be ruined almost overnight. It is disheartening, then, to see the DSI apparently swayed by politics. During Mr Abhisit's time as head of government, DSI chief Tarit Pengdith was accused of being pro-government. Today, under Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, he faces the same criticism. There appears to be merit in these charges.
It is hardly unusual that a government employee would decide to act like bamboo _ to bend with the wind so that he or she retains a good position. Currying favour with whoever holds political power is an old game. But this is supposed to be anathema to law enforcement and other security forces. It is particularly unacceptable in the DSI.
There can be no doubt that Mr Abhisit and Mr Suthep can be enormously helpful in the investigation into the 2010 violence, arson and killings. So can numerous other people who were directly and indirectly involved. The army chief and the top officers in the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation had insights. The political and street leaders of the red shirts in 2010 played key roles _ perhaps criminal as well.
If the DSI were truly holding an intensive investigation into the 2010 violence, the public would see the results. Alternatively, DSI detectives and researchers would be working behind the scenes, out of the public view. Instead, as on Monday, we get little more than the DSI's version of a photo op, well publicised weeks in advance, of making the former premier and deputy premier testify, but nothing else of note.
Other DSI actions must also be noted as pertinent. Mr Tarit has engaged in a public war of words with army commander Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha over whether the army killed red shirts, but the public has seen no serious investigation of whether red shirts killed security forces. Police, not the DSI, have brought charges against red-shirt leaders.
Bringing justice to power is a worthy goal of the DSI, indeed of any investigative force. On the other hand, unfair investigations, or even tilts that seem to favour those in power, can only damage the respect for both justice in general, and the DSI. Mr Tarit risks casting the DSI in a bad light unless he quickly expands his investigation into the 2010 events.