Thaksin Gauges International, Domestic Resentment

Former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has kept a low profile after the Phuea Thai Party won the general election to avoid creating any barrier on Yinglak Shinawatra's path toward the prime minister post and the formation of the Phuea Thai-led coalition government. Nevertheless, Thaksin could not avoid causing troubles to his sister and her government.
Lately, Ms Yinglak and the government, particularly Foreign Minister Suraphong Towichakchaikun who is facing questions from the public about his qualification and the reasons he was nominated to this position, have to handle a hot potato right after assuming their offices. It is related to Thaksin's request to travel to Japan. The Japanese Government has allowed Thaksin to enter Japan and also announced that the Thai government has asked the Japanese Government to give permission to Thaksin's entry.
Thai Government's Stance
Recently, Yinglak said that the Japanese Government has asked Suraphong about the Thai Government's stance on Thaksin's entry into Japan. She said Suraphong has informed the Japanese Government that the Thai Government had no policy to prohibit his entry. The Japanese Government could freely decide to or not to allow Thaksin's entry.
It was unveiled later that Thaksin has requested for a visa to enter Japan after receiving an invitation from a private company there. The Japanese Government was reluctant to intervene. It does not want to spoil its ties with the Yinglak administration as well. They then consulted the Thai Foreign Ministry. Suraphong consequently replied that it had no policy to prohibit Thaksin from entering Japan. Eventually, the Japanese Government has granted Thaksin the permission to enter Japan.
Nevertheless, Yinglak government was consequently questioned by the public why the government did not ask the Japanese Government to bar Thaksin, who is a fugitive, from entering its country. Instead, it has given a green light to the Japanese government to allow his entry. People also questioned why the Thai Government did not ask its Japanese counterpart to extradite Thaksin back to Thailand.
This case is, therefore, a hot potato for the Yinglak government from its first day in office. We believe that Thaksin will continue to trouble the Yinglak government as long as Thaksin is still a fugitive.
Consequences of Japan’s Visit
Has Thaksin anticipated that his entry into Japan would cause any trouble to his sister's government? Certainly, he must have foreseen that it would become an issue. However, Thaksin still traveled to Japan. He might want to test certain political consequences of his visit.
First, he might want to find out how the international community would respond to the fact that he has led the Phuea Thai Party to win the recent general election and to successfully push for the appointment of his sister as the prime minister on behalf of him.
He opted to try the stance of Japan, which is a powerful country first. It would certainly be the precedence for other countries. Thaksin would then be able to use Japan's decision to pave the way for his convenient entries into other countries.
Certainly, from now on, Thaksin would travel to more important destinations around the world to show the world community that he has already got back his liberty to travel around, as well as implying that he is the one with tru e influence over the Thai government.
Second, Thaksin wanted certain groups in the Thai public to protest against his trips to build up political pressure against his opponents. He is forcing them to make decision whether they wanted him to remain a fugitive after he has already sent out reconciliatory signs. He did not hand any cabinet seat to any red-shirt leader. He has not selected any Class 10 alumna at the Armed Forces Academies Preparatory School to be the defense minister.
He should receive some reconciliatory signs in return, particularly the signs related to legal cases that have been barriers of his normal living.
At the same time, Thaksin needs to assess the level of resentment against him in Thailand.
He might be satisfied with the outcome. Nobody paid attention to his visit to Japan apart from the opposition Democrat Party that has been adamant to bring down the Yinglak administration and Foreign Minister Suraphong, and the media that have done their job of reporting the issue.
Hostile Moves Against Thaksin
It seems several parties that were once Thaksin's opponents have already lower their guards. They might have come up with such reaction due to reconciliatory stance of Thaksin himself or other reasons.
At present, the Democrat Party is the only one that has not stopped its hostile moves against Thaksin and left no room for the development of reconciliatory atmosphere.
In fact, at this moment, the Democrat Party should ignore some issue and take a wait and see position, instead of trying to trigger conflicting sentiment for political purposes.
Has the Democrat Party's defeat in the general election lent any lesson to the party at all? Has it got any idea why the party has lost? Isn't it because the party has concentrated on its fight in political games and political issues that the public has been tired of?

Thai Government Sets Up New Legal Reform Commission

The 1999 edition of the Thai-language dictionary of the Royal Institute defines the "rule of law" as basic principles of the law. The Cabinet has set up the Commission on the Rule of Law, chaired by Prof Ukrit Mongkhonnawin, and assigned it to oversee that the Cabinet, the Parliament, Courts, independent organizations and government agencies would comply with the rule of law. In other words, the commission would ensure that all other agencies would comply with the basic principles of the law.
Interference in Works of Independent Organizations
However, the government's opponents came out to attack the administration immediately, alleging that it set up the commission to interfere in the works of independent organizations. Some alleged that the commission's establishment was a silent coup. Some alleged that the government set up an unlawful panel to have more power than the constitution and the panel would destroy courts.
The opponents made the allegations although the Ukrit Commission only has the authority, which is empowered by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO)'s directive on rule of law of BE 2554, to draft strategies, directions and measures, recommendations and procedures for the government to carry out to guarantee that the implementation of the laws will be fair and honest under a single standard in line with the rule of law. The Ukrit Commission will simply propose that government agencies concerned should carry out their duty under the rule of law.
To simply put, the Ukrit Panel would simply compile reports and draft proposals for the prime minister, to whom it reports, and for other government agencies concerned. But the prime minister or the government agencies may ignore the proposals and the panel can do nothing about that.
Major Reasons
In the past, an independent committee was often formed with the PMO’s directive with either of three main reasons:
1. To buy time, drag feet and avoid taking responsibility. The government often used this tactic when it encountered a problem, which was too serious and difficult to handle. For example, the government of then Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra set up the independent National Reconciliation Commission chaired by former Prime Minister Anan Panyarachun.
2. To mediate disputes for agreements. The government often used this tactic when there were political conflicts. For example, the Aphisit Wetchachiwa government set up the committee studying how to reform the Constitution, chaired by Sombat Thamrongthanyawong.
3. To propose what the government wants to do but still lacks legitimacy to do it. The government needs to appoint "non-partisan" people to propose what it wants to do. And the Ukrit commission should fit this category.
Demand of Situation
The question that needs pondering is what the Ukrit Commission would do.
Justice Minister Pracha Phromnok, who proposed the establishment of the Ukrit commission, declined to answer this question. He simply said the commission would "improve the judiciary process to do away with double standards".
Phuea Thai Party MPs and red-shirt leaders declined to clearly explain the purpose of the Ukrit commission's establishment.
On optimistic view, the Ukrit commission may follow up on the works of the independent committee to investigate and search for truths for national reconciliation, chaired by Khanit na Nakhon.
The Africa model that the Khanit panel used to try to lead the country to national reconciliation has three steps: (i) to search for truths; (ii) to remedy the affected people; (iii) to reform judicial process. If the Khanit panel is regarded as the first step in the process, the Ukrit Commission should be regarded as the last one.
And in the second step, the government may set up a committee to remedy people affected by political incidents no matter which side they belong to. It has been reported Deputy Prime Minister and Interior Minister Yongyut Wichaidit may be assigned to chair the remedy panel.
On pessimistic view, the Ukrit Commission may be a new tool in disguise designed to help the big boss.
Such suspicion remains although Ukrit has declared that he would not touch the amnesty for Thaksin or reopen his legal cases. This is because Ukrit, three-time Parliament president, is known to have very close ties with two-time Prime Minister Thaksin.
The close ties were proved with the fact that the Thaksin 1 and 2 governments always used services from lawyers from the Ukrit Mongkhonnawin law firm.
Assets Concealment Case Against Thaksin
And Phuea Thai party-list MP Watthana Mueangsuk, who was in charge of seeking bail for red-shirt suspects in 2011 and who is a key messenger of Thaksin, is a favorite student of Ukrit, who formed the Faculty of Law of Chulalongkorn University.
There used to be unconfirmed reports that Ukrit was tipped to become the Constitution Court president when the court was trying the first assets concealment case against Thaksin.
It has been reported that the Ukrit Commission's main tasks are to amend the charter enacted following the coup as well as amending the laws enacted following the 19 September 2006 coup to do away with the perception of double standard legal enforcements from the Thai society.
But several people believe that the Ukrit Commission would have something to do with Thaksin or else the government of Thaksin's sister would not have rushed to form it.
Red-Shirt Movement
The term "double standard" has become a rhetoric that the red-shirt movement used to describe the feelings of people affected by the 19 September 2006 coup.
The term has been playing key role in helping the red-shirt movement grow very fast.
Two years ago, a group of demonstrators called on the Surayut Chulanon government to allow the People's Channel or PTV satellite channel to operate like the ASTV of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) or other satellite TVs. And the PTV demonstrators transformed into red-shirt demonstrators who have grown up with both political significance and mass-support strength.
Red-shirt leaders successfully proved to their followers that the laws have been enforced with double standards. They cited several examples of double standards to incite protests by the red-shirt people.
For example, they have proved that the aristocrats could encroach on forest reserves without being taken legal actions against.
They cited the case of Surayut encroaching on the Khao Yai Thiang Mount. Eventually, public prosecutors decided to drop charges against the former prime minister on ground that he hacked intention to encroach on the forest.
Surayut's case was compared to the Ratchadaphisek land case in which the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Office convicted Thaksin and sentenced him to two years in prison.
The most successful strategy was to incite anger of the red-shirt people over double standards toward rallies of the red-shirt and yellow-shirt people.
Red-shirt leaders pointed out that yellow-shirt demonstrators were often provided convenience for their demonstrations while demonstrations of red-shirt people were cracked down on.
The first crackdown was ordered in 2007 when red-shirt protesters rallied in front of the Sisao Thewet residence of Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanon.
The red-shirt people faced the second crackdown in 2009 when they rallied on Phitsanulok Road in front of the Government House.
In the latest crackdowns in 2010, troops were deployed to crack down on red-shirt protesters on Ratchadamnoen Road and at the Ratchaprasong Intersection.
In all the crackdowns, the red-shirt leaders were arrested and faced legal actions and were detained in remand prisons.
In the worst situation, some of them were charged with having committed act of terrorism. The charges caused several of them to be remanded without bail.
These incidents became a key factor that the red-shirt leaders used to compare treatments received by PAD leaders, who once led protesters to storm into the Government House and NBT Station and to seize the Don Mueang Airport and Suwannaphum International Airport in 2008.
Although yellow-shirt people were slapped with terrorism charges like the red-shirt people, they were dealt with a different standard because yellow-shirt leaders were freed on bail and were not detained in a remand prison.
In the latest development, Sombat Bunngam-anong, the editor of the Laichut magazine, was sentenced to six months in jail for violating the emergency decree that banned rallies. He was given the sentence for rallying at the Imperial Lat Phrao shopping mall when the government declared the state of emergency in Bangkok in 2010.
Dissolution Case Against Democrat Party
However, at the same time, the multi-colored-shirt people, led by Tun Sitthisomwong, held a demonstration at the Democracy Monument without being arrested.
And the question that always troubles the mind of red-shirt people the most is why the dissolution cases against the Thai Rak Thai and People Power parties came up with different rulings from that in the dissolution case against the Democrat Party.
These are some of legal cases troubling the mind of red-shirt people waiting to be addressed by the Ukrit commission to do away with double standard.

Thai Election Results Reflect Resentment Against Special Power

What are factors that have led to certain drawbacks in the formation of the Aphisit Vejjajiva government in December 2008, and have drawn criticism against it from both domestic and international critics.
Major Factors
The first factor which is the basic fact is that during the general election in December 2007, the People Power Party won 233 House seats and the Democrat Party won 165 House seats. The margin was as high as 68 seats.
However, some have exercised the ‘special power’ through the protest led by the People's Alliance for Democracy from May to December 2008. The protest had turned aggressive enough to lead to the seizure of the Government House and Bangkok airports.
At the same time, the judicial system had become an instrument used to oust Samak Suntharawet, the then prime minister, and dissolve the ruling People Power Party. The ''special power'' had been exercised to create a group of traitors in the People Power Party as well. The group had later on defected from the People Power Party to support the Democrat Party.
These are factors that led to an incident that is later on called the formation of a government in the ‘barrack.’
One factor which is no longer ''confidential'' is the existence of the Vejjajiva government with the support of ‘special power.’ It is the special power that had helped the Democrat Party survive the party dissolution ruling. This special power had also enabled Vejjajiva to remain in the prime minister's office without feeling any pinch from the fact that 92 people were killed, 2,000 people were injured, and 300 other have been continuously detained.
Double-Standard Situations
The government led by Field Marshal Thanom Kittikhachon had to show responsibility after a number of protesters were killed in October 1973. The government led by General Suchinda Khraprayoon was held responsible for the bloodshed uprising in May 1992. Those governments had shown their political responsibility by resigning from office. The Aphisit Vejjajiva government, on the contrary, had fully enjoyed the privilege to remain in power.
The process to exercise ‘special power'' is a process that exists in Thai society. It is a process that has clearly lent fairness to the people. It is a process that has clearly led to injustice. It is a process leading to double-standard situations.
Moreover, it is a process leading to the question on who has ordered protester killing. None could actually come up with fair and comprehensive answer.
Reconciliation Process
Although the House has been dissolved and the general election was called, the special power has continued to stir up turmoil and distort the election and election results. Consequently, the reconciliation process that the people have yearned for could not take place. A lot of conflicts and rifts will then continue to exist in Thai society.

Possible Formulas of Government Formation After Election in Thailand

In the next 19 days, the results of the general election will dictate the direction of Thai politics. Each political party has adjusted its strategy in the last phase of the run-up to the general election, while poll agencies have released their survey results to incite psychological effect on supporters of each political camp.
Choices of 'partnership formulas' for the government formation have been unveiled to the public to test public sentiment, while some political parties have hinted that they have loosely formed their alliances before making final decision when learning the results of the coming general election.
Key Factor
The key factor is the election results. They will indicate that all political parties will end up in which of the government formation formulas that have been envisioned at the moment. In the first formula, the Phuea Thai Party, could lead the formation of the next government in the case that the party won more than half of the House seats, or more than 250 seats. If the Phuea Thai could win up to 270 seats as it has boasted, there would be no problem in their effort to form a government.
The partnership formula of the Phuea Thai, the Chatphatthana Phuea Phaendin and the Chat Thai Phatthana could be a combination of around 300 House seats. They would be able to form a rather stable government.
However, there is a key condition. The Phuea Thai must win more than half of the House seats. This is not easy for the party even though survey results from several poll agencies have affirmed that that the party was more popular than the Democrat Party in several constituencies. At the same time, key members of the Democrat have insisted that their information showed that the Democrat still enjoyed about the same level of popularity as the Phuea Thai Party.
Other Formula
In the next formula is the partnership between the Phuea Thai, Chatphatthana Phuea Phaendin, other smaller parties and Chatthai Phatthana Party. We might see this formula if the Phuea Thai won the majority of the House seats, but failed to win 250 seats. The Phuea Thai then would have to work hard. Apart from the Chatphatthana Phuea Phaendin Party that is ready to join the Phuea Thai-led coalition, the Phuea Thai would have to secure its ties with as many smaller parties as possible. Those smaller parties are, for example, the Phalang Chon, Matuphum, Kitsangkhom and Rak Santi Party.
If the Phuea Thai could secure its control over 250 House seats, it would have the leverage to attract the Chatthai Phatthana to join its coalition government and help boost the stability of its coalition. Otherwise, the Democrat would get the chance to form the government even though it could win less House seats. We have already seen that in the past the Democrat Party had managed to gather enough votes in the House to form a coalition government amid crisis and to remain in power until the recent House dissolution.The scenario has continued to haunt the Phuea Thai, prompting the party to demand the Democrat Party to promise not to try to form a coalition government at the same time as the Phuea Thai in the case that it won lesser House seats. The Phuea Thai has also recited criticism against the Democrat that is related to the 'invisible hand' or 'the formation of a government in a military barrack.' Another formula that people have kept an eye on is the partnership between the Democrat Party, the Phumchai Thai, the Chatthai Phatthana and the Ruam Chatphatthana Phuea Phaendin Party.
Stable Coalition Government Likely
Certainly, in this formula, the Democrat Party needs to win enough House seats. If it did not win more House seats than the Phuea Thai, the margin between the two parties' House seats must be small. Then, the Democrat would have enough leverage to secure its partnership with other political parties and to form a stable coalition government.
However, if the Democrat Party could win higher House seats than the Phuea Thai and control the majority of seats in the House, it could easily convince its former coalition parties, that are the Phumchai Thai, the Chatthai Phatthana and the Ruam Chatphatthana Phuea Phaendin Party, to join its coalition government, and would not need to partner with smaller parties.
Nevertheless, in this formula, there are problems about medium-sized parties that might want to get cabinet seats of the same ministries that they had got in the previous coalition government. But the Democrat may not agree on such condition. As Aphisit Vejjajiva has said earlier, the Democrat wants to control the Interior and the Commerce Ministry itself. The negotiation in this formula would take quite some time.
Feasible Government Formula
After all, if all major parties failed to win significant portions of House seats as many have anticipated and medium and small-sized parties won enough seats to gain leverage over the direction of the government formation, the formula that the next prime minister could be a reconciliatory or alternative prime minister who is not from the two major parties as Newin Chitchop has mentioned earlier could be another feasible government formula that should not be ignored.
The reconciliatory prime minister formula could comprise the Chatthai Phatthana Party with Major General Sanan Khachonprasat, the party's chief advisor, as the prime minister, the Phumchai Thai Party, the Chatphatthana Phuea Phaendin Party and the Phuea Thai Party.
Certainly, whether or not we would see the reconciliatory prime minister formula depends on the Phuea Thai's decision to sacrifice the prime minister seat. In the case that it is not the only party that win the majority of House seats and it could not let the Democrat Party have a free hand in garnering support from other parties and form a government, it is certainly better for the Phuea Thai to be a ruling party with the majority of House seats while its candidate will not be the prime minister. It is better than allowing the Democrat to become the ruling party again. For this reason, the formula of conciliator or reconciliatory prime minister will certainly not include the Democrat Party. This is because the Democrat Party will only support Aphisit to be the next prime minister.
For the last formula which has been pushed forward by the Chatthai Phatthana, the Democrat Party and the Phuea Thai Party may together form a government. However, due to the total difference in political approaches and ideologies between the two parties, this formula is not feasible from the beginning.
Last, on what formula of the government formation would be used, we would have to first wait for the results of the July 3 election, which will be the most important factor.

Thailand's Local Election

In the latest Bangkok-district-councilor election, held on 6 June, the Democrat Party has scored a landslide victory over its key rival, the Phuea Thai.

From this election, the Democrat has snatched up to 79 Bangkok-district-councilor seats from 10 electorates. The Phuea Thai, meanwhile, has grasped just 26 seats from three electorates.

Defeat for Phuea Thai
With such results, even the Phuea Thai has to concede its political defeat in this local election. The Phuea Thai, in fact, used to dominate the scene. Before 6 June, Phuea Thai members had served as Bangkok district councilors in up to 10 electorates. The Democrat, back then, had held the Bangkok-district-councilor seats in three electorates only. Today, the tides have clearly changed.

The Democrat Party's victory over the latest local election has received just little news coverage, though. Perhaps, this is because the Bangkok-district-councilor polling is just a local election.
Still, many groups of people have pointed out that the Phuea Thai Party has suffered the defeat in the latest Bangkok-district-councilor election mainly because of the recent red shirts' riot in Bangkok. The red shirts have been active under the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) banner. (UDD and Phuea Thai are closely linked).

War Against Red-Shirts Movement
Another key element in the Phuea Thai's defeat is perhaps the Center for the Resolution of the Emergency (CRES) orders that bar the 111 executives of the now-defunct Thai Rak Thai Party and people with close links to the old power bloc from making financial transactions. (Phuea Thai is a reincarnation of the Thai Rak Thai).

Some Phuea Thai key members, who oversee the party's affairs in Bangkok, believe the government's propaganda war against the red-shirt movement has also contributed to the Phuea Thai's failure to fly high at the Bangkok-district-councilor election. During the past few months, the government has communicated a lot with people and such communications have the power to influence Bangkok residents to favor the ruling party's candidates in the Bangkok-district-councilor election.

In fact, when the UDD kicked off their latest rally in mid-March, it expected to campaign for the 'class war'. The UDD leaders successfully mobilized a large number of rural people to the capital and they expected 'the middle class' in Bangkok to jump into the bandwagon. The UDD leaders no longer intended to attract just grass-root people.

Cope With Public Suspicion
However, when the red-shirt rally dragged on, the UDD 'stepped up the pressure' on the government through various techniques. In the end, the red activities against the elites adversely affected the 'normal life' of Bangkok residents in general. To Bangkok people, they felt the 'risks' every time the red shirts paraded around the capital and clashed with security officials. The bloody confrontations took place in many parts of Bangkok, and even in nearby provinces.

The red-shirt rally and the bloody incidents on 10 April, 22 April, and 19 May becomes Bangkok residents' nightmare.

Of course, it remains unclear who have commanded the 'men in black' or the 'unidentified armed unit'. But quite a large number of Bangkok people can't help suspecting the red-shirted leaders and their leaders. Not just the government has to cope with the public suspicion.

The government and the red-shirted leaders are the parties in the conflict. To Bangkok people, both parties have played a role in their 'nightmare'.

Do the results of the Bangkok-district-councilor election foretell what will be coming in the general election? Will the Democrat Party snatch most of Bangkok-MP seats? No one can say anything about this at this point of time. Bangkok voters have a unique mindset. The conditions and factors that have influenced their choices at the polling stations are always clearly different from people in other regions.

Power Bloc
Still, one cannot ignore the fact that the Democrat Party's performance has improved hugely in the Bangkok-district-councilor election. And such result reflects to an extent how Bangkok voters 'feel' about the red-shirted leaders. For the time being, it is quite clear whether Bangkok residents 'embrace' or 'reject' the old power bloc.

But the Bangkok-district-councilor election already passed. The government must now think about how to capitalize on 'its good opportunity'. The government, after all, has just defeated the red-shirted leaders outside the Parliament and has just sailed though the censure debate in the Parliament.

Establishment of New Political Party
The government, particularly the Democrat Party, must think about how to keep its huge popularity among people for a long, long time. At the very least, the Democrat Party must make sure that it remains popular among Bangkok residents when the Bangkok Councilor election is held in August.

If the Democrat candidates can snatch most of the Bangkok-councilor seats in the 50 electorates, the Phuea Thai will face a really tough time. Moreover, the Democrat Party's landslide victory in the Bangkok Councilor election -- if takes place -- looks set to send the chill down the spine of Khunying Sudarat Keyuraphan. Banned from officially engaging in political activities for five years alongside other former executives of the Thai Rak Thai, Sudarat has reportedly been trying to establish a new political party for Bangkok people. If the Democrat Party can score landslide victory in local Bangkok elections time and again, Sudarat will of course have the need to think twice.

Politics Hinders Investigation of Bangkok Explosion Incidents

Since before the massive rally of the red shirt people until today, more than 30 bombing incidents took place in Bangkok and its surrounding areas. The first bomb exploded in front of the Bangkok Bank's Silom branch. Although the society has become acquainted with the reports on daily blasts, the intimidating methodologies, particularly the use of M79 grenade launcher, employed by the perpetrators is quite worrisome from the perspective of national security.

Major Causes
The horrifying characteristics of the destructive incidents recorded by specialized officials can be analyzed as follows:

1. The perpetrators had no intention of killing or causing extensive violence. The resounding blasts were aimed at achieving a political result one way or another.

2. The attacks were well and thoroughly planned with each step carried out be different individuals. Hence, it is rather difficult to trace the path back to the mastermind.

3. The recruitment of perpetrators and procurement of weapons and vehicles for crime commitment were systematically made. The perpetrators were probably kept in safe houses before being sent out to commit their crimes.

4. The perpetrators must have teams for surveying routes, especially the expressways and ramp roads on which the traffic flows nonstop. Ironically, no evidence of crime has been made available from the close circuit cameras installed along such special roads

5. The perpetrators must possess high skills in using firearms. In most cases, it is believed that the M79 grenade launchers were fired from driving vehicles. Clear examples can be seen from the M79 grenade attacks at the 1st Infantry Regiment and head office of the Democrat Party on its founding anniversary on 6 April.

Suspected Locations
Experts assumed that the M79 grenade that hit the Democrat Party's head office was fired from two locations. The first suspected location is the parking lot on the building of Wichaiyut Hospital. However, the distance is too short for the grenade to spiral enough to explode. Therefore, the possibility is that the grenade was fired from the nearby expressway.

It was amazing to find out that if the grenade was fired from the elevated expressway, it must fly to the target through an empty space of only one block of building and over a few obstacles including a sound absorption wall. This shows that the grenade firer must be excellently skillful.

Moreover, the culprits must have known about the operational limitations of the close circuit cameras installed on the expressway which are used mainly for traffic monitoring, not for crime suppression.

According to the report from a security unit on the investigation into the M79 grenade attack the First Infantry Regiment, police authorities had to check the photos from the close circuit cameras of as many as 40 vehicles suspected to be used by the culprits. The vehicles were legally registered and have no crime records.

Assessment
The conclusion at this moment is that the perpetrators must have intelligence and are associated with 'people in uniforms,' both military and police, because they know and have information about the police security management and investigation systems. Important to note is that the people pull the strings behind the curtain must have power and work from a war room with considerable amount of financial resource because each operation is quite costly.

Who Have Undermined Thai Monarchy?

First of all, I would like to make clear that Thais across the country love and revere their king. This is because the monarchy and the country have been well-intertwined throughout Thailand's history. Of course, I don't have to elaborate on this. To me, I think there are only "some groups of people" who so far want to turn Thailand into a republic.

These groups are:
* The powers-that-be such as top military men and high-ranking bureaucrats or councilors
* The super-rich families in Thailand

Erupting Serious Conflict
Unlike farmers, these groups of people have been in direct contact with the Royal Family. They do not dare to show their true color even though they want to change Thailand's political system. Therefore, these groups of people have plotted to blame and use "others". Their plot began with a blame game. They have accused this and that person of being disloyal to the Royal Family. Finally, a serious conflict erupted in Thai society and it has dragged on for years now. "Yellow-clad people" are now described as the king-loving Thais while the red shirts are labeled as someone trying to overthrow the monarch.

"Sonthi Limthongkun" has ganged up with "Major General Chamlong Srimueang" and unorthodox monk "Rak Rakphong" or "Phothirak" - who heads the Santi Asok Religious Center. Although Phothirak has covered himself with saffron robe like monks, he is a cruel man. He led his Dhamma army to surround the Government House and airports. (Which monk could ever do such things?). With their gang, a proxy war has been fought via the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD).

This gang has adopted a "boomerang strategy". It has brainwashed its yellow-clad supporters to a point that these people believe people donning another color is the disloyal. When a yellow-clad woman died of her own bomb, she was praised for sacrificing her life to "protect the monarchy". That woman, known as Nong Bo, was cremated with the royally-granted fire.

Cloaked With False Loyalty
The bad people cloaked with false loyalty have now brought the country to a two-pronged crossroad.
* Heading toward one direction and a civil war will erupt.
* Heading toward the other direction and Thai society will be critically divided.

Such a crossroad will finally bring Thailand backward, turning it into an underdeveloped country. The people across the land will suffer physically and emotionally. When the living conditions go so bad, people will stage protest all around.

By then, Thais in general will seriously question whether the current political system is good. They will be badly disappointed with the constitutional monarchy. Then, the malicious plotters will have a really good excuse to make a "change."

Ongoing Conflicts
The ongoing "conflicts" among people will also be used to deepen the social divide. Today, the malicious plotters are having the upper hand, victimizing Thaksin Shinawatra along with million of his red-shirt supporters. The plotters have deliberately tried to make people burn with anger and resentment. That's why so many people fall into the trap and thus the number of lese-majesty defendants jump significantly.

Why do the plotters talk about disloyalty in the first place despite the fact that such thing had never existed before in Thailand? The answer is that they are "slandering" some people for their goal. They have embarked on the "boomerang strategy", using others to overthrow the monarchy. You should know who these plotters are by now. They have shown their faces in the public. These plotters are the Democrat Party members, PAD members and many prominent figures in the society. It is deplorable that they have tried to blame others while in fact they are the ones who undermine the monarchy.

I write this for you to read...So, please read it and think whether my opinion is correct!