Major Challengess for New Thai Prime Minister

Phuea Thai Party core members have shed their tears of joy after their party scored a clear majority victory, winning 265 MPs. But several problems, caused by factors both inside and outside the party, are lying ahead of female prime minister-designate Yinglak Chinnawat.
Several core members of the Phuea Thai realized that it is not easy for the five-party coalition government with 299 MPs to stay in office until it completes the four-year term without facing major obstacles.
War of Political Conflicts
The country is still in the war of political conflicts while major power realignment is taking place in the Thai society. In particular, the results of the election showed that the Phuea Thai won the hearts of many grassroots people in the North and Northeast but it still failed to win support of the middle-class people in the capital.
The Phuea Thai won 265 House seats but failed to seize control of the capital. It was beaten by the Democrat Party in Bangkok at the rate of 10 to 23 MPs. This should serve as a reminder that if Yinglak fails to please the middle-class people by failing to tackle economic woes and by making mistakes in her administration, the city residents could lose faith in her very fast.
To remain popular and remain in office as long as possible, the government must be able to win support from all classes, not only the grassroots. The government must also win support from the middle-class and high-class people and former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has learned this lesson bitterly.
Tough Time Ahead
Survival of Yinglak and the Phuea Thai-led government will depend on her ability to tackle so many problems, which are waiting for her. The lack of political experience is a major weak point that may cause Yinglak to fail to pilot her government ship to the shore.
Unlike Yinglak, the two previous proxy prime ministers of Thaksin - Samak Sunthorawet and Somchai Wongsawat - had experience in country administration quite a lot.
Late Samak was a veteran politician, who had a lot of experience from several election contests. He also had rhetoric but he eventually succumbed to the pressure from the opponents. His government could last for only nine months before the Constitution Court disqualified him as the prime minister for working as a TV host in a cooking program. Somchai, a brother-in-law of Thaksin, stayed in office as the prime minister for only three months before he faced a legal case for ordering the crackdown on protesters led by the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) on 7 October. Eventually, the Constitution Court dissolved the People Power Party, leading to power realignment that saw the Democrat becoming the government.
It is worth waiting to see whether inexperienced Yinglak will be able to withstand all the pressures. Will her strong points, which are her gender, her humbleness and her willingness to compromise, help her survive?
Major Adversaries
Of course, the condition in this battle for Yinglak has changed a lot. But several characters, who stand on the opposite side from Thaksin, remain unchanged. They include the PAD and the Army, which remain Thaksin's major adversaries until now. A factor that could affect the survival of the Yinglak government is amnesty for Thaksin. Although Yinglak and Thaksin have insisted that no amnesty would be given for a single person, it could be seen that an amnesty would definitely be given eventually. They likely to grant a blanket amnesty for all cases happened after the 19 September 2006 coup. A new constitution-drafting assembly may be assigned to draft a new charter with a provisional clause to grant the amnesty.
And the immediate problem Yinglak will face is to satisfactorily share benefits inside the Phuea Thai. Earlier, Thaksin has used several Phuea Thai and red-shirt leaders to fight for him in the war for power, causing several of them to face legal cases. As a result, after the war has been won, these Phuea Thai and red-shirt leaders hope to receive rewards from the big boss.
Whi le there are several persons waiting for the rewards, the Phuea Thai will have only 27 to 28 Cabinet seats for sharing after giving the others to four coalition partners. Lessons from the past showed that when a major party allocated Cabinet seats, rifts often occurred after all factions could not be satisfied. The People Power was an example, which showed that rifts from Cabinet seat sharing caused it to eventually fall during the Samak term.
But if Thaksin allows red-shirt leaders and Phuea Thai core members, who are facing legal cases, to become Cabinet members, the new Cabinet will lack public trust. The Phuea Thai scored an overwhelming victory partly because the people have high expectation in the Phuea Thai government. As a result, the Phuea Thai must rush to shore up public confidence by making its Cabinet look good. Good and capable persons must be brought into the Cabinet to tackle the economic crisis. The government must also refrain from touching sensitive issues that will bring about criticisms and conflicts in the society.
Another problem waiting for Yinglak is the ties with the Army, which remain volatile. Army Commander-in-Chief General Prayut Chan-ocha stands on the opposite side with Thaksin and Yinglak so if Yinglak rushes to put Army officers loyal to Thaksin to power inside the Army, her government could face severe resistance from the Army.
Another problem waiting for her government is related to the issue of loyalty to the King. Thaksin and Phuea Thai members have been trying to portray themselves as being loyal to the King. Yinglak has announced that she would hold a grand celebration for His Majesty the King to mark his 84th birthday anniversary. Such a grand celebration may prompt certain groups of red-shirt people to become dissatisfied against the Phuea Thai government. The groups earlier attacked the Phum Chai Thai for what they saw as wasting the money for organizing such a grand celebration.
Moreover, the ties between the red-shirt movement and the Phuea Thai could become a time bomb in the future. This is because the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship still adheres to its ideology to fight against the aristocrats. Their stand could contradict with the future stand of the Phuea Thai. And if the Phuea Thai pushes for a blanket amnesty for all sides, its policy could run against the stand of the red-shirt people.
Implementing Populist Schemes
As a result, it is not easy for Yinglak to run the country as the prime minister amid volatile rifts both inside and outside her party. Worse still, she will be also be required to honor her words to implement several populist schemes, which will require several hundreds of billions of baht.

If her government really implements the populist schemes, the fiscal status of the country could be affected. But if she declines to implement the schemes or implement them only a little, she will be regarded as failing to keep her words.
Other Major Challenges
1. Consequence of Uncertainty Related to Mps Endorsement by the Election Commission (EC): So far, the EC has not yet endorsed up to 95 per cent of MPs so that the House of Representatives could convene its first meeting within 30 days after the election. Yinglak herself and 12 red-shirt leaders, who are Phuea Thai party-list MPs-elect, have not been endorsed either.
2. Election Cases and Complaints Against Coalition MPs: These cases range from vote-buying complaints in constituency-based elections to frauds that may require the Phuea Thai to be dissolved. Moreover, a Phuea Thai candidate, Somkhit Banthaisong, who won most votes in Nong Khai's Constituency 1, has received a yellow card. The Democrat has planned to attack the Phuea Thai when it announces the policy statement to Parliament. The Democrat is expected to hit the Phuea Thai over the yellow card and over allegations that it violated Article 53 of the MPs and Senators Election Act by allegedly telling lies during election campaigns. The Democrat will also attack the Phuea Thai for allowing former prime minister Thaksin Chinnawat, who is under five-year political ban, to interfere in the management of the party.
3. A Direct Hot Potato in Yinglak's Hands: If she becomes the prime minister, her assets declaration to the National Anti-Corruption Commission will be a hot potato for her. Her assets statement will be watched and scrutinized because parts of her assets will be related to the sale of Shin Corp's shares and her stake in the SC Assets firm. Moreover, her testimony to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Office in the Bt46 billion seizure case against Thaksin may also return to haunt her in the assets declaration.
4. Rhetoric of the Professional Opposition Democrat Party: Democrats are eagerly waiting to test Yinglak's limit in a parliamentary debate. The party is rushing to elect its new executive board before the Yinglak government announces its policy statement in Parliament. The policy debate will become like a censure debate against her by the Democrats.
5. Promise of Bt300 Daily Minimum Wage: The Phuea Thai's promise to increase daily minimum wage for unskilled workers to Bt300 has not been welcomed by the private sector because it will raise the cost of the business sector. It is also in doubt as to whether the Bt300 wage policy could be implemented because the daily minimum wages will have to be approved by the tripartite Wage committee, whose members are representatives of the government, employers and employees. Moreover, the Constitution and the convention of the International Labor Organization require wages to be given equally without discrimination. This means foreign laborers in Thailand will also be entitled to the Bt300 minimum wage.
6. Promise To Guarantee New University Graduates' Salary of Bt15,000 a Month: This policy is opposed to by businessmen because it will increase the manufacturing cost. And the measure to reduce corporate income tax rate from 30 per cent to 23 per cent would not compensate the added cost caused by salary increase. Later on, some Phuea Thai members corrected themselves by saying only university graduates, who have received a special training, would be eligible for the Bt15,000 monthly salary. But the Phuea Thai failed to state this point during the election campaigns. It is also in doubt whether the plan to increase salaries of state employees to Bt15,000 for private firms to follow suit would be successful. Critics fear that this measure would instead add a budget burden on the government.
7. Rice Pledging Scheme: The pledging scheme is seen as having impact on the market mechanism and it is still unclear how to prevent massive corruptions that happened in the past.
8. Promise To Hand Out Free Tablet Computers to Students: There is a question about the budget for buying the co mputers and quality of the computers. Critics also question how to make sure that students will make most of the computers for studies and creativities.
9. Living Cost and Economic Hardship: So far, it is still unclear how Yinglak would tackle the rising prices of consumers' goods although Yinglak talked about this problem repeatedly during her election campaigns.
10. Political Time Bombs: There are several political time bombs including the reconciliation process, political amnesty and efforts to help Thaksin return home. Will these lead to another round of severe rifts in the country?
All of these challenges will come up for the Yinglak government to handle one by one. If she fails to tackle these problems or deal with these issues with satisfactory results, not only her government will have no future but Thais also will see their future dimmed.
Our words will become our master. So, no one should blink while watching Yinglak facing the challenge as Thailand's first woman prime minister.

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.

Thailand-Cambodia Conflicts

Reports of Japan's earthquakes and Tsunami as well as the southern flooding that have dominated media coverage may have made Thais temporarily forget the Thailand and Cambodia conflicts. The border conflicts between the two countries however continue to make headlines. Last week, the Thai-Cambodian Joint Boundary Commission (JBC) meeting ended without any progress or solutions to end the border dispute.

The first JBC meeting since the military clashes on the Thai-Cambodian border in February was held in a lackluster atmosphere. It was a 'purely bilateral' negotiation as required by Thailand. Indonesia, in its capacity as current chairman of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), only played a facilitator's role, providing the meeting venue and facilities for both countries. The meeting did not discuss any contentious issues that could bring about tensions.

Permanent Cease-Fire

This JBC meeting was held with much efforts from Indonesia as current ASEAN chairman after it has been assigned by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to get Thailand and Cambodia to enter a negotiation to establish a permanent cease-fire and to have Indonesian observers be stationed to monitor a cease-fire at the time that Thailand lacks unity and is marred by political infighting.

The Thai Government must face Cambodia which has unity over the border dispute while it is still struggling in conflicts with the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD). Even the Foreign Ministry and the Defence Ministry have shown differing views and stance. The military, which is tasked with responsibilities in the General Border Committee (GBC), insists it will not attend the GBC meeting if it is held in the third country and not in Thailand or Cambodia.

The fact that Parliament has not approved the previous JBC minutes makes it difficult for the government to enter negotiations with Cambodia and this also shows the lack of solidarity between the government and Parliament. The lack of unity has also led to the government's failure to help two Thais detained in Cambodia. One side believes the country should respect the Cambodian court decision and should either appeal or seek Royal pardon, and on the other, rejects the court ruling and threatened to bring the case to the world court.

Resolving Ongoing Dispute

The case of the two Thais should serve as a lesson for every party to realize that to solve the Cambodian dispute Thailand must have unity and walk the same path. Thais could trip over each other by walking a different path. The government should organize meetings to listen to opinions from different groups and find the common ground that is the country's stance and not that of any particular group.

The Thailand and Cambodian conflict is no longer just a conflict between the two countries because the UNSC and ASEAN have now become involved in certain way. We must empathize with Indonesia because not only that it is current ASEAN chairman but also a great friend of our country. We must show the world community that we respect the UN resolution.

After May 2010 Bloodbath, Thai Government Must Dare To Launch a Massive Purge

In the morning of 19 May, several people were surprised to see the soldiers brought out military tanks to destroy the bunker lines, which were erected by the red-shirted mob, in Lumphini, Sala Daeng, Bon Kai areas as well as in other areas.

The ball was in the government's court. It held the upper hand and probably enraged Thaksin Shinawatra even further. No wonder this would trigger another vengeful retaliation from Thaksin.

Game Plan After Incident
However, the government must think hard in proceeding with its game plan after this incident. The government could no longer allow the red-shirted group to call up a protest rally and torch the city every year. In 2009, there were riot in April and this year there is again a riot. If the government fails to deal with this problem definitively, the arson that takes place annually might instead take place every three months.

This issue is Prime Minister Aphisit Vejjajiva's homework. He should continue to reflect on this. However, if he wants only to last his term in office, he could just let the problem end there with the mob dispersal. This is what Aphisit must reflect on carefully. The Democrat Party does not lack the opportunity for election victory. The only hurdle is the north and northeastern voters' undiminished faith in Thaksin. The north and the northeastern zones are the key vote base for election victory. Aphisit must try to find out why the voters in these two zones continue to support Thaksin. Why people refuse to forget Thaksin.

The government holds power in its hands and was able to declare the emergency decree, but failed to exercise its power to the full. This is no good for the country.

Losses and Damage
When the red-shirted mob was dispersed and everyone returned home, the red-shirted leaders were incarcerated pursuant to the prescriptions in the emergency decree. After seven days, the situation has returned to normal. The red-shirted members only wait for a signal from their leaders before coming out in another rally to wreck havoc again. They will later think of how to end the rally when the time comes. If this is the case, Thailand will always suffer losses and damage in a never-ending vicious circle.

Therefore, what the government must do is to solve the problem at the root cause, not at the end as usual. The incidents that took place repeatedly should serve as expensive lessons for the government.

The evidence that shows the wrongdoings of the red-shirted leaders are clear to see -- like Natthawut Saikuea, who delivered speeches to incite the mob to torch the city; Aritsaman Phong-rueang-rong, who announced that the red-shirted mob's opponents should be caught and their blood drawn to wash the red-shirted mob's feet; and particularly Chatuphon Phromphan, Phuea Thai Party list house representative, and apparently the only red-shirted leader who hardly respects the law because he enjoys the immunity as a house representative.

Chatuphon previously moved to remove Foreign Minister Kasit Phirom. He accused Kasit of having been one of the People's Alliance for Democracy's leaders. He claimed that Kasit made inappropriate statements to the foreign media and, therefore, was not suitable to be the foreign minister. However, what Chatuphon is doing today is tantamount to swallowing his own words because Kasit, unlike Chatuphon, never led people to torch the country.

Opportunity To Correct Mistake and Misjudgment
The wrongdoings by these red-shirted leaders should serve as clear evidence for the government and relevant agencies to press charges and fully proceed in due process of the law.
This incident is providing the government with another opportunity to correct its mistake and misjudgment as to what it should do to cope with the situation -- will it allow these people to destroy the country or will it teach these thugs a lesson that will make them respect the law?

If the government continues to fear, as usual, the opposition from the common people, the entire country will have no choice but to bear with it and can only count the day when that the red-shirted group will come out the torch down the entire country.

Tough Time Ahead
Thailand should have seen peace had the two-year sentence against Thaksin Shinawatra been carried out. However, the government has been negligent on carrying out the prosecution. If it continues to allow Thaksin to be at large and fails to catch him -- the criminal who fled from justice, the international criminal -- the government can only expect to solve the problem that he will cause.

The government will only go around in circles in its works and will soon meet a dead-end. It will find no way out of the problems because this convict will become more vehement and violent in his action with the clear target to destroy his own native country.

After May 2010 Bloodbath, Thai Government Must Dare To Launch a Massive Purge

In the morning of 19 May, several people were surprised to see the soldiers brought out military tanks to destroy the bunker lines, which were erected by the red-shirted mob, in Lumphini, Sala Daeng, Bon Kai areas as well as in other areas.
The ball was in the government's court. It held the upper hand and probably enraged Thaksin Shinawatra even further. No wonder this would trigger another vengeful retaliation from Thaksin.
Game Plan After Incident
However, the government must think hard in proceeding with its game plan after this incident. The government could no longer allow the red-shirted group to call up a protest rally and torch the city every year. In 2009, there were riot in April and this year there is again a riot. If the government fails to deal with this problem definitively, the arson that takes place annually might instead take place every three months.
This issue is Prime Minister Aphisit Vejjajiva's homework. He should continue to reflect on this. However, if he wants only to last his term in office, he could just let the problem end there with the mob dispersal. This is what Aphisit must reflect on carefully. The Democrat Party does not lack the opportunity for election victory. The only hurdle is the north and northeastern voters' undiminished faith in Thaksin. The north and the northeastern zones are the key vote base for election victory. Aphisit must try to find out why the voters in these two zones continue to support Thaksin. Why people refuse to forget Thaksin.
The government holds power in its hands and was able to declare the emergency decree, but failed to exercise its power to the full. This is no good for the country.
Losses and Damage
When the red-shirted mob was dispersed and everyone returned home, the red-shirted leaders were incarcerated pursuant to the prescriptions in the emergency decree. After seven days, the situation has returned to normal. The red-shirted members only wait for a signal from their leaders before coming out in another rally to wreck havoc again. They will later think of how to end the rally when the time comes. If this is the case, Thailand will always suffer losses and damage in a never-ending vicious circle.
Therefore, what the government must do is to solve the problem at the root cause, not at the end as usual. The incidents that took place repeatedly should serve as expensive lessons for the government.
The evidence that shows the wrongdoings of the red-shirted leaders are clear to see -- like Natthawut Saikuea, who delivered speeches to incite the mob to torch the city; Aritsaman Phong-rueang-rong, who announced that the red-shirted mob's opponents should be caught and their blood drawn to wash the red-shirted mob's feet; and particularly Chatuphon Phromphan, Phuea Thai Party list house representative, and apparently the only red-shirted leader who hardly respects the law because he enjoys the immunity as a house representative. Chatuphon previously moved to remove Foreign Minister Kasit Phirom. He accused Kasit of having been one of the People's Alliance for Democracy's leaders. He claimed that Kasit made inappropriate statements to the foreign media and, therefore, was not suitable to be the foreign minister. However, what Chatuphon is doing today is tantamount to swallowing his own words because Kasit, unlike Chatuphon, never led people to torch the country.
Opportunity To Correct Mistake and Misjudgment
The wrongdoings by these red-shirted leaders should serve as clear evidence for the government and relevant agencies to press charges and fully proceed in due process of the law.
This incident is providing the government with another opportunity to correct its mistake and misjudgment as to what it should do to cope with the situation -- will it allow these people to destroy the country or will it teach these thugs a lesson that will make them respect the law?
If the government continues to fear, as usual, the opposition from the common people, the entire country will have no choice but to bear with it and can only count the day when that the red-shirted group will come out the torch down the entire country.
Tough Time Ahead
Thailand should have seen peace had the two-year sentence against Thaksin Shinawatra been carried out। However, the government has been negligent on carrying out the prosecution. If it continues to allow Thaksin to be at large and fails to catch him -- the criminal who fled from justice, the international criminal -- the government can only expect to solve the problem that he will cause. The government will only go around in circles in its works and will soon meet a dead-end. It will find no way out of the problems because this convict will become more vehement and violent in his action with the clear target to destroy his own native country.

Seven Groups Suspected of Involvement in Recent M79 Attacks in Thailand

Since the Thai politics entered a period of vacuum four or five years ago, there were several protests, first by the "Yellow Shirts" People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and now by the "Red-Shirted" United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD). Political moves on Ratchadamnoen Avenue have always been under the watchful eyes of security agencies. And one worrying conclusion was agreed: Many groups of people are trying to create violence in order to effect political changes.

Waging Political War
The M79 grenade launcher has become the major weapon of choice in waging this "political war." The people on the streets have heard about this weapon for a long time. But they appear to hear about it more frequently after an attack on the Daily News' office, then other attacks on the Yellow-Shirted protesters gathering to drive out "nominee governments" at the Makkhawan Rangsan Bridge and later at Government House.

When the political power was shifted from Thaksin Shinawatra's group into the hands of the Democrat Party and the young Aphisit Wetchachiwa, there were protests by Red-Shirted. That was followed by M79-related incidents at a record number never been seen before.

Even the military became a target of attacks, including the Army chief's office and the Defense Ministry. Other targets included the Public Health Ministry and the attack took place shortly after the Cabinet completed its meeting there on 23 March. The attacks took place even at a time when Bangkok is still under the Internal Security Act.

Creating Confusion
The incidents have come under watchful eyes of intelligence and security agencies which are silently working on the cases. Information involving the groups suspected of being behind the M79 attacks is being collected. There are two main groups: those who want to pass the blame on the opposite side and those who want to create confusion in the country.

The security agencies are particularly interested in seven groups of people which also have subgroups within them.

Groups Involved
The first group is led by "Sia Piak," a former hard-line taxi driver who is close to "the old power clique." He has a good knowledge about traffic routes in Bangkok. His team is small and consists of amateurs but they are daring. Investigators are convinced this group was responsible for some incidents in which the M79 was fired and grenades were thrown. This group is connected to Sawai Yangsanthia, a 42-year-old man suspected of involvement with the grenade-throwing attack on the Bangkok Bank's Silom branch on 27 February. One "gentleman's agreement" among the group's members is that they will never implicate others when arrested.

The second group is led by "Se K," a high-ranking soldier who is a close aide to a senior politician and ex-general. He even wins the respect of the "famous Se". Security sources suspect that "Se K" had tried repeatedly to incite a coup. And when the "big boss" made his political moves, violent attacks often took place. ("Se," which is short for "senathikan", refers to military officers who pass the Command and General Staff College.)

The third group belongs to the "famous Se." On many occasions, his warnings that initially appeared to be nonsense turned out to become true. Many members of this group have come under the attention of intelligence and security agencies, such as "Sergeant M," the group leader's trusted aide who often is seen going places with him. The man was charged with murder and it was found that he provided weapons for other group members to carry out attacks.

Other group members include "Sergeant R," who is the chief bodyguard and another trusted aide to the group leader, followers Daeng, Nat, Sut and Rin. There are also "Wan," who is believed by investigators to hurt a lawyer of former police chief General Seriphisut Temiyawet while going to a court, and "Sek," who is believed to be responsible for many M79 attacks. Moreover, there are many other people who agree to join the group but make their moves independently.

The fourth group is led by a "famous general." Recent reports say he has been at odds with the old power clique and his role has been shunted aside. But behind the scenes, he is still making his moves secretly, albeit not as actively as before.

The fifth is a group of hardliners led by a violence-prone former singer. This group has now got special attention from the intelligence and security agencies since they created disturbances last year. They have been suspiciously inactive over the last few days, which led to suspicion among intelligence officials that they are preparing for something.

The sixth group is led by an MP in the Northeast. It has many members but most of them are grassroots people. Although they are not viewed as posing a severe threat, the group remains under a watchful eye of the authorities.

The seventh group is loyal to the former leader. They are active in northeastern provinces and are viewed as hardliners. This group made it clear they are against the Aphisit government and they are now under a close watch by the authorities. Many of their threats of violent incidents turned out to become true.

All of the groups are now politically active. The intelligence and security authorities are merely monitoring their activities and gathering information. There has been no sufficient evidence to positively link them to any of the recent attacks.

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!

Red-Shirted Rally Unlikely To Oust Thai Government

The red-shirted group scheduled a big rally on 14 March in Bangkok, the capital of Thailand, saying there would be hundreds of thousand protesters. I believe that the group will be able to gather that many protesters, but I do not think that it will be able to oust the government.

Meanwhile, the red-shirted group can hardly back down at this stage. If it fails to stage the demonstration, it will lose its credit in the long run. The government will not back down either. It invokes the Internal Security Act. It uses the media to stir up antagonism against the red-shirted group, wages a psychological warfare, and spreading rumors that the red-shirted would resort to violence. Its continuous mudslinging campaign is annoying.

Antibureaucratic Polity
The situation hangs precariously in the balance, no one knows how it will turn out and today no one can deter its development. I cannot say that I am neutral because I am antibureaucratic polity (antiestablishment) and I reject any illegitimate government, but I do diverge from the red-shirted group in certain issues. For days, I have wanted to write my comment on the current situation, but I had a mental block.

Today, I want to say that the red-shirted move this time is very risky. It might be suppressed and devastatingly defeated. Its objective to achieve "full democracy" for Thailand seems unachievable and a long struggle seems to lie ahead.

It would be unfair to tell the red-shirted group not to do anything and suffer the harassment and blatant injustice. It must be admitted that the red-shirted group has its democratic right to its "expression of sentiment" in the same vein as the middle class people from the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD).

Be that as it may, what will this rally bring about? This is a worrying issue. My friend who is a PAD member (in the progressive wing of the civil sector, not the bureaucratic elites' hangers-on) told me by the telephone of his (or her) concern for the protesters. He did not want to see a bloodbath. He heard that the northern people (Police Lieutenant Colonel Thaksin's stronghold) raised fund for the trip to Bangkok, although contributions. He said that they seemed to be truly angry and hot-headed, and they would come in their hordes.

What one can hardly trust is the state machinery, bureaucratic elites, and some red-shirted members, including Thaksin Shinawatra. The bureaucratic elites are atrociously barbaric and used to say that four of five deaths in a mob of one hundred thousand mean nothing. However, the stake is higher for the precious Aphisit Vejjajiva administration. It must also win on the political front. It must find a pretext to justify the use of force, like it did during the Songkran [Thai New Year] incident in 2009, otherwise it might have to dissolve the House, or might even trigger a coup, and its hand would be stained with blood for nothing.

Question of House Dissolution
What does the red-shirted group want from the demonstration? It calls for House dissolution, while some members might hope to trigger a coup, which will speed up their movement to topple the bureaucratic polity, but to trigger a coup, violence must take place.

If the red-shirted group is seen as divided into two factions, it will be clear that the faction that fights for democracy does not need violence since it sees this rally as a part of a long struggle with many battles ahead, while no one knows what the Thaksin associates and cronies think. No one knows their hidden agenda. Therefore, it is of grave concern. If I were Thaksin, I would certainly want to risk an all-out war.

Democratic Perspective
If one looks at the situation from the perspective of a democracy advocate, one must admit that there is no light at the end of the tunnel, yet for the political conflict in Thailand. No complete victory for one camp or the other is possible. To be defeated in this round of fight would only constitute a tactical defeat.

Suppose the red-shirted is defeated, it might stagger and falter for a while before it will return for another round of fight in the same move as it is about to do now after its defeat during Songkran in 2009. Suppose the red-shirted group is able to bring about House dissolution and fresh general elections and the Phuea Thai Party wins a majority and forms the government, it will fail to govern because it will be hurdled by the PAD, the military, the judiciary and the independent agencies.

The cronies and politicians in Thaksin's camp might think that winning in this way is better than being defeated, but a democracy advocate views that one must not trade people's lives for political victory.

Red-Shirt Massive Rally May Lead to Civil War

The red-shirt people have not changed their plan to hold a massive rally on 14 March. The red-shirt movement has not changed the plan although it has been attacked so severely that it had to be on defensive.

The red-shirt movement has been attacked with reports released by the government leaders. The reports prompted the society to fear possible violence that may break out because of the rally. But what happened could not become obstacles to prevent the red-shirt movement from holding the massive demonstration. In particular, the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) will go ahead with its plan to hold the rally.

Planned Rally
The information warfare by the government might become successful up to a point because the government managed to prompt the middleclass and Bangkok residents to fear or have concern about the planned rally by the red-shirt people. The information warfare became successful because Bangkokians are normally sensitive and would not tolerate any demonstration that would cause trouble and turmoil.

This is because the past demonstrations by either the yellow-shirt and red-shirt movements against the government often caused some Bangkok residents to become fed up. The Bangkokians could not accept the fact that these protesters caused traffic congestions and caused misery to their daily life. Most of all, the demonstrations affected the image and economy of the country.

Opportunity for Government
As a result, if the red-shirt movement provides more opportunity for the government to create more legitimacy and to win support from more middleclass people, the red-shirt people will stand to lose much further. The movement will further lose ground if it remains on defensive.

The weakest point of the red-shirt people is that they could not win support form the middleclass people for their campaign to topple the government like what the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) could do in the past. The red-shirt movement could not win support from middleclass in Bangkok although some Bangkokians became infuriated when the PAD-led protesters besieged the Government House to try to topple the nominee government of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

But it was undeniable that many Bangkokians have declared themselves as yellow-shirt people by joining the protests against cabinet members of then Prime Minister Samak Sunthorawet and Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat. This fact was also reflected when a vendor on Soi Lalaisap off Silom Road shouted at then prime minister Thaksin. The incident became the talk of the town.

Major Disadvantage
Although the red-shirt movement is on disadvantage because it does not have as many supporters among the middleclass as what the PAD has, the red-shirt movement also has a strong point. We must not forget that the red-shirt movement's strong point is its strong support among the grassroots people in northern and northeastern provinces as well as provinces around Bangkok. These grassroots people can move in to join the UDD protesters in Bangkok once their leaders blow the whistle.

The strategy that allows the red-shirt movement to have the biggest advantage over the opponents is the strategy of "besieging the capital with wilderness". That is, they will mobilize provincial people to Bangkok to join the protests against the government. This game may give the red-shirt movement an advantage, prompting the government to be unable to handle the situation as planned.

In particular, the announcement to move its protesters to Bangkok by road and water apparently caused the government to be worried a lot. The security situation monitoring committee failed to reach a decision during a meeting on 4 March as to whether to enforce the Internal Security Act to control the situation during the mass rally on 14 March. Despite the indecision, what happened indicated that the security agencies became very nervous.

Tough Task for Government
What the government and security agencies should do with extreme caution is to assess the situation to find out what could be an incident that would trigger violence or increase the political temperature, which could allow the red-shirt movement to become successful.

The government should monitor the networks of politicians and their canvassers in all levels in all provinces as the MPs and canvassers will coordinate will UDD leaders to mobilize the people. The monitoring should be done through state mechanisms and underground tactics. The government should do this because if the UDD leaders go ahead with the plan of using provincial people to besiege the capital to try to topple the government and the elitist polity, a civil war could happen.

Thailand Government Faces Strong Opposition Against Charter Amendments

The politicians proposed charter amendments on ground that the enforcement of the 2007 Constitution led to problems and conflicts that could cause severe damages to the country. The parliamentarians said some of the problems were caused by some articles and their enforcement so they set up the reconciliation panel to study how to improve the charter. The reconciliation committee in return proposed that the some articles of the Constitution should be amended urgently to reduce the atmosphere of rifts so that reconciliation and political reform could be done in the long run.

Pros and Cons of Proposed Charter Amendments
However, several sides studied the pros and cons of the proposed charter amendments and saw that the Constitution has been enforced for only two years and several articles have not yet been enforced to achieve the full benefits for the public yet. So, they saw that the Constitution should not be amended now. And they saw that the abolition of the second paragraph of Article 237, which requires a party to be dissolved if its executive buys votes, will worsen the vote-buying. The opponents of charter amendments believe that the abolition of the party-dissolution penalty would prompt political parties and executives to blatantly buy votes.

Inerference of Parliamentarians
And the abolition of Articles 265 and 266 would allow parliamentarians to interfere in permanent officials' administration of the country's affairs. This will allow corruption at the policy level and conflicts of interest to happen. And the plan to elect all senators like in the previous charter would turn the Senate into a chamber of slaves of politicians or change it to be chamber of spouses of MPs.

There were also disputes on the need to amend Article 190 of the Constitution. Critics question the need to amend it because the article does not require all types of contracts to be subjected to Parliament for approval. However, the article states that the types of contracts required to be approved by Parliament must be stated in the organic law. And the government and Parliament can change the organic law without having to amend Article 190 as a result the proposal to amend this article was seen as a pretext to have other articles amended.

So far, there are no impartial persons to consider the reasons of the proponents and opponents of charter amendments. But the charter amendments have become a political tool for bargaining between the government and the opposition as well as bargaining inside the Phuea Thai Party itself.

Now that Phuea Thai MP Chaloem Yubamrung has received an order from former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to withdraw the Phuea Thai's support for the charter amendments, it led to a doubt as to how achieve reconciliation.

Charter amendments were initially seen as a door that would open to political reconciliation. But now this last door to lead the country out of the political crisis has been nail shut.

The stand of the Phuea Thai to be opposed to the six charter amendments appears to support the stand of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD). The PAD announced that it would hold a mass rally if MPs and senators amend the Constitution.

The PAD definitely planned systematic moves against the charter amendments. Earlier, it sent Dr Tun Sitthisomwong, a lecturer of Chulalongkorn University, to file a complaint with the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to take legal action against MPs and senators who signed their name in support of a charter amendment motion.

The PAD also has a contingency measure. If the NACC is too slow to act against the MPs and senators, the PAD will file a complaint to the full bench of Supreme Court judges to investigate the MPs and senators. In this case, the MPs and senators will be charged in the Supreme Court's Criminal Division of Holders of Political Office.

Fast-Track Measure
Filing a suit in the Supreme Court's Criminal Division of Holders of Political Office would be a fast-track measure against those who trade their interests with charter amendments on ground that they violate Article 122 of the Constitution.

After the situation changed, the PAD-led yellow-shirt people and the Phuea Thai, which supports the red-shirt people, have found a common stand after the two sides have been fiercely fighting against each other. But the two sides may have different motives for their opposition to the charter amendments. It has yet to be seen how the two enemies will find a way to cooperate their fights against the amendments.

After the situation has changed, only the coalition partners are left to make a decision whether to proceed with the charter amendments.

Now, the question is not whether a public referendum should be held or not but the question is whether the coalition partners will really go ahead with the amendments.

The Phuea Thai demanded that the 1997 charter be reinstated to replace the 2007 Constitution. The demand is backed up by the call of the red-shirt people who seek amnesty for all political offences following the 2006 coup. The red-shirt people also call on the government to return the ruling mandate to the people by holding a new election. They have been making campaigns outside Parliament for all of these demands.

Now that the situation has changed, it is worrying that the campaigns outside Parliament will grow more violent to try to push for a change to the political power. The concern came up after the red-shirt people announced that they will hold another mass rally in October and this rally will be a prolonged one.

As a result, the government could only wait and see how the situation will unfold regarding to the charter amendments because it will definitely face strong opposition to the amendments.