Last week alone, we were treated to public comments over at least three cases of clear political criminality against integrity and ethics, and flagrant conflict-of-interest violations. This basically means corruption - political, economic or otherwise - was clearly involved, at the national level, and committed under the previous government. With a typical "it-can't-be-helped" shrug, those who are supposed to be in charge told us: "Perhaps it's ethically wrong but there is nothing legally we can do about it."

Obviously there is something seriously wrong if all we can do while the house is on fire is to shrug our shoulders and say there isn't anything we can do to stop it.

A senior central banker told reporters last week there was nothing legally questionable about Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra's clinching of the bid to buy a huge piece of land in central Bangkok from the Financial Institutions Development Fund run by the central bank. The normal bidding process had been followed, he claimed. But then, almost casually, he added: "It may not be ethical, however, for the wife of a sitting prime minister to enter into an official contract with the government."

In another case of "failed populist policy", a deputy premier disclosed that the Thaksin government had incurred a loss of more than Bt18 billion the previous year in its much-heralded but highly risky paddy price support scheme. The government's purchase price had been set at 20 to 30 per cent above the market average at the time, resulting in an unexpectedly huge inventory of 3.7 million tonnes of paddy. The unrealistically high state-funded paddy price also put a dent into Thailand's competitiveness in the export market, cutting the country's paddy exports that year by 10 million tonnes.

Is anybody going to be punished? "No, it was simply a failure in policy. There were no illegalities involved. No dishonesty was suspected. The ministers involved perhaps were to blame. But there is nothing we could do to the culprits," the new Cabinet member in the present government said.

Then, as if it were just an afterthought, he did admit that in this whole process of paddy price support under the Thaksin regime, one major rice exporter had won about 70 per cent of all the contracts from the government. Only one big player stood to benefit from this "failed policy".

Isn't there anything that can be done for the sake of political accountability? No, not really. The official explanation from the Cabinet member in charge today is: "Since there was no apparent illegal activity involved, we can't do anything. It's only a matter of a policy blunder. Perhaps the press can come up with some criticism about the way it was done. That's all."

Is it disturbing that good governance and accountability don't seem to be an issue? How do you reconcile the fact that only one major business concern reaped most of the benefits from a "failed policy"?

Another intriguing case of ethics taking a back seat in major business deals in this country: a well-known Thai banker last week had a similar take on Singapore's Temasek Holdings' Shin Corp shareholding.

"I think when Temasek first bought Shin Corp's shares from the Shinawatra family, everything was still within the legal limit. But when it had to make the tender offer, Temasek used Thai nominees in Cedar Holdings to take up to another 40 per cent of the remaining equity. So, when all the stocks, both held directly and indirectly, are taken together, they represent a huge proportion."

His highly enlightening conclusion: "It's not illegal under the Thai law. It only goes against good ethical principles."

He didn't say whether such an audacious circumvention of the law would have been attempted had the deal not been carried out with the family of an incumbent prime minister. He didn't say whether a similarly dubious practice would have been tolerated in the buyer's own country.

If we are serious about tackling all the forms of corruption that made the Thaksin regime so repugnant, we will have to make sure that good governance in politics isn't just lip service. And that means violations of ethics and good governance must not just be a "regrettable" thing. They must be made punishable by law.

Good governance is more than just a "nice thing to include" in the book of rules. It must be the golden standard, the violation of which is a crime against every taxpayer. As defined by the World Bank, good governance is "epitomised by predictable, open and enlightened policy making, a bureaucracy imbued with a professional ethos acting in furtherance of the public good, the Rule of Law, transparent processes, and a strong civil society participating in public affairs".

By contrast, bad governance is characterised by arbitrary policy making, unaccountable bureaucracies, unenforced or unjust legal systems, the abuse of executive power, a civil society unengaged in public life and widespread corruption. We see "bad governance" all around us - and we are being told ethics and law are two different things? It's like saying: "Yes, of course we know we have been robbed, but the thieves were so good at their crime that the police can't lay their hands on them."

Do we just shrug our shoulders and hand the country over to thugs, or should we fire the police?

Suthichai Yoon