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.

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.

Phuea Thai Party With Two-Face Politics

The second political machine has started and is working to its full capacity after the first political machine or the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) had completely failed in its operation to stage riots in the capital to seize power. (For the operation to stage riots or civil war, the UDD was the No 1 machine.)

That is, the Phuea Thai Party is the political machine in Parliament of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. It has started working by holding a censure debate against six Cabinet members, including the prime minister.

Not Reaching Goal
However, the goal of the censure debate was not seeking to topple the government in Parliament because it was impossible to reach that goal. But the Phuea Thai wanted at least three consequences from the debate.

First, it wanted to use the censure debate, which was broadcast live nationwide, to defend the UDD and its big-boss, Thaksin, against allegations that the UDD had committed acts of terrorism and had burned the city.

Fight Against Government
At the same time, the Phuea Thai wanted to use the censure debate to cheer the red-shirted people around the country up and to instigate them to go on fighting against the government.

The Phuea Thai assigned party-list MP Chatuphon Phromphan, who is a UDD leader, to debate about the crackdowns on protesters on 19 May. This clearly showed that the censure debate was aimed at allowing Chatuphon to whitewash himself and the UDD.

Second, the Phuea Thai (and the UDD) wanted to use the censure debate to raise an allegation against the government (and the military) inside Parliament and to point out that the government had the people's blood on its hands by killing the people. The Phuea Thai wanted to show that the government itself staged the arson attacks to create a situation and that the government did not want to have reconciliation with the red-shirt people at all.

Allegations Against Government
The Phuea Thai wanted to use these allegations to hold the government and security forces responsible for the violence so that the UDD would not be blamed for what happened.

Moreover, the use of the censure debate to raise the allegations against the government would more or less reduce the credibility of the government's efforts to give explanations to the people and foreign envoys and media.

Because of the censure debate, the government would have to try harder to defend itself and would be endlessly under the UDD's allegations. At the same time, the UDD would have more breathing space following severe charges raised against it by the government. Before the censure debate, the UDD was in a bad situation after the public had witnessed what it did on 19 May and earlier.

Third, the Phuea Thai wanted to use the censure debate to instigate resentment of red-shirt people nationwide by using the 19 May event as the main cause. The Phuea Thai hoped that resentment would lead to an underground war after the censure showdown could not topple the government inside Parliament and could not force the government to apologize to the public and show responsibility for what it has done.

UDD leaders earlier talked about an underground war. They said if the red-shirt demonstration was dispersed, an underground war would happen. Later on, Thaksin used this term when he gave interviews to foreign media after the UDD gave up and ended the Ratchaprasong rally.

As a result, the censure debate by the Phuea Thai was the sequential to the red-shirt rally. The Phuea Thai received the baton passed on by the UDD. The party simply shifted the battlefield from the Ratchaprasong Intersection to the Parliament. And the censure debate remained an attempt to push for political changes undemocratically like what the UDD attempted to.

Creating Underground War
Now, the UDD is clearly aiming at creating an underground war in the cities and rural areas after their attempt to seize power in the capital had failed.

The Phuea Thai now performed its duty in line with parliamentary way by holding the censure debate just to use a democratic form or gesture to join a (civil) political war which already started.

Before the violence happened on 19 May or after the UDD started its mass rally at the Phan Fa bridge on 12 March, the Phuea Thai declined to perform its parliamentary duty at all.

The Phuea Thai declined to perform its duty as a political party and Phuea Thai MPs declined to perform the duty of MPs. They did not carry out the strategy of launching separate attacks with the red-shirt people as they should have done. Earlier, they declined to hold a censure debate by using causes of the UDD, such as double standards, social inequality and the issue of elitist polity's influence, to attack the government.

Providing Financial Support
The Phuea Thai failed to carry out its duty but it supported the non-parliamentary politics of the UDD by mobilizing their constituents to join the rallies as well as providing items needed for the rallies. Some Phuea Thai MPs even provided financial support for the rallies. Moreover, several Phuea Thai MPs joined the rallies by speaking on the stage.

As a result, the Phuea Thai could not deny its responsibility over the loss of lives during the violence. In addition to the UDD, the government, the military, the terrorists and Thaksin, the Phuea Thai must also be held responsible.

Thai Prime Minister Announces National Reconciliation Plan

The road map for national reconciliation that Prime Minister Aphisit Vejjajiva presented during a television broadcast in the night of 2 May has been viewed by many people as an effort to come up with a 'quick political answer.' For those observers, he appears to be trying to complete the reconciliation plan within a period of time and it is obvious an agreement was reached earlier.

Aphisit's political answer has obtained mixed reactions -- both positive and negative. Some people view it as a 'win-Win' solution to the political problem that provides 'an exit' for both sides of the feud. Some people say Aphisit is taking 'too much risk' in making the move. This could be his quick solution to the problem, without taking into account possible negative consequences. Most of his proposed five points for reconciliation are not new; he already talked about them since he became the prime minister.

Real Mastermind
The story behind that happened is not a talk between representatives of Aphisit and the red shirt leaders who are only 'a proxy.' It is a talk with someone outside of the country who is the real 'mastermind'.

So, the talk had to be done in a very secret manner, through no more than two people who are close to Aphisit -- and even Chuan Likphai did not know about it. Thaksin Shinawatra was represented by two or three people in the 'politburo'. The negotiation went on for a considerable period of time.

The representatives from both sides regularly reported the progress of the negotiation to their respective bosses. The conclusion of the talk was that the government would move up House dissolution and a new election in the next five to six months. Before the next election, there will be constitutional amendment in a way the current coalition parties want. After the election, all sides must accept the election result and whichever party gets the most House seats will form the next government, which may be a coalition government. Later, there must be attempts to seek amnesty for political offences that took place after 19 September 2006.

Justice Process
Thaksin promised to wash his hands off politics and said he was ready to enter the justice process. He reserved his right to appeal the court ruling in his asset seizure case.

Both Thaksin and the government have arrived at a dead end and they cannot make any further moves। For Thaksin and the UDD (United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship), the longer their rally, the less the legitimacy they have. The majority of the country does not support their rally because it has caused damage to the country estimated at several billions of baht.

Moreover, the government appears to be serious about use of force in dispersing the protest. It seems the 'politburo' provided Thaksin with analysis and report, with advice that going further will bring more harm than good for them. Although Thaksin has invested almost a billion of baht in this protest, he eventually has to admit the fact that he is unable to achieve his goal, now. So, it is good for him to accept the offer now and to make up for his failure later.

Aphisit has been under heavy pressure from society. Bangkok residents, particularly the people of multi-colored shirts, want the government to enforce the law strictly and swiftly. The longer he waits the more pressure he gets. There is also pressure from certain superpower countries that want to see both sides sitting down for a talk. So, Aphisit needs to find a fast exit urgently before he has no choices left other than using military force to disperse the protest.

Aphisit regards his offer as the 'lowest threshold' he could yield to Thaksin and the UDD. And he would not step back any further. If Thaksin and the UDD do not agree to it, the government will go ahead with the dispersal plan. The reconciliation offer is proposed as 'an exit' or 'a way to climb down' for Thaksin and the UDD, and this is their last chance.

Disadvantage for Coalition Parties
The tentative election date of 14 November, has been proposed. If Thaksin does not agree to it, the government will go ahead taking action against the UDD. Some people may view that the proposed date will put the Democrat and other coalition parties at a disadvantage. But on the contrary, the coalition parties have no fear about it. It is because the Phuea Thai Party still has an image of being connected to the UDD and the armed men in black, which may put them in a disadvantage. It is not easy to shake off that image and their perceived connection with the hooligans. Moreover, people still remember the behavior of Phuea Thai MPs who went onto the UDD stage and made improper remarks about the monarchy.

Aphisit is well-aware about the concern of his supporters who are worried that the government may offer amnesty to UDD leaders who committed offences and are wanted by police with arrest warrants. To allay that concern, Aphisit stressed that definitely there will be no amnesty to those who committed 'criminal offences'. He said the government would adhere to the rule of law and the legal principle in running the country. But Aphisit did not say whether there would be amnesty for political offences.

Tough Time Ahead
Nevertheless, members of the general public are looking to see how serious the government will be about the acts through the Red media in contempt of the monarchy.

Initial reactions to the road map are generally positive. And if Aphisit insists there will be no amnesty for criminal offenders and there will be serious action against people who are undermining the country's highest institution, the general public will be able to accept this road map.

Thai Political Violence Becoming Unavoidable

Now Thailand has become a failed state so anything could happen. It was frightening to hear reports that businessmen pooled their money to try to deal with the situation because they could no longer depend on the government to protect their life and properties anymore.

In several countries, people had to take up guns to fight one another because their government could not protect them, and thus causing civil wars. In the three southern border provinces, some groups of people had to build their own armed force to protect their employees so that their workers could work in rubber plantations. Such a situation is now happening in the capital or Bangkok.

Deteriorating Situation
Now all sides share the same feeling that if troops are deployed to reclaim traffic space from protesters or to break up the rally again, casualties will be higher than what happened on 10 April 2010 by several folds because all sides are now ready to use violence to the full extent. Each side cited justification from different ground to use force.

At the same time, conflicts do not exist only between the government and the demonstrators. But the conflicts are setting stage for a major change of the structure of power. So, this is the transitional period of the current structure, which is being challenged.

And there is a need to build a new order like what happened after the 6 October 1976 massacre of student activists. So, if the red-shirted leaders still hope to earn a victory with help from an invisible hand or a special power, they should have a second thought. This kind of thought will cause them to be overconfident and prompt them to risk the people's life by leading them to their death again.

After the 14 October 1973 uprising by student activists, the democracy was enhanced and student activists earned a special status. They earned a status to become like a mechanism of the state because of the power they earned after the 14 October 1973 uprising. The increase of the power of the pro-democracy students after the 14 October caused certain groups to be dissatisfied, leading to the student massacre on 6 October 1976.

Demand for Immediate House Dissolution
Had the conflicts existed only between the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) and the government, the problems would not have had escalated to this level. The UDD insisted on its demand for immediate House dissolution while the government wants to wait for nine months. Had the two sides agreed to negotiate, they should have compromised on the six-month timeframe.

But one side wants the House to be dissolved in 15 days while the other side wants to wait for nine months. This clearly showed that the two sides did not aim to reach a compromise from the negotiation. Instead, they aimed to use the negotiation to create justification for themselves. This caused the conflicts to have reached the point where no more negotiations could be made.

So, some groups started thinking about using a shortcut. And such a shortcut will cause a great loss of life. However, the new order after such bloodshed will lack stability and the country will not be peaceful like what happened after the 6 October 1976 event.

This is because the situation in 2010 has changed much from 1976. A great information revolution has happened and the people have greater access to information - both true and false. So, the belief that "everything could be put under control" is no longer true in today world.

At the same time, rifts exist in several organizations which are state mechanisms, such as the military, police and civil servants. They are divided into groups and their rifts have been amplified, prompting them to be ready to use violence against one another.

Current Power Structure
Since there is no stability in the current power structure, the general people could not depend on the government to protect their life and properties so the country has already become a failed state.

So, it was not unexpected that some private groups took their own actions. Under this kind of situation, a civil war is already knocking on our door. Only a miracle by the great force of pro-peace members in the society can stop this frightening event from happening.