Aphisit's Election Defeat Serves as Lesson for Thai Regional Leaders

The use of violence, social injustice, and suppression of freedom of expression may protect the politicians' power only for a short time frame. But this power will eventually be from society in which the people are increasingly participating in politics. This is what is manifested in the latest Thai elections, which should serve as a good lesson for political leaders in the neighboring countries and the world so as to make them govern in a way that increasingly serves the people's interests.
Impact of Red-Shirt Movement
Aphisit Vejjajiva took office as the Thailand's prime minister in 2008 with the support from the yellow-shirt group, military, and people at the powerful royal palace. His power was threatened many times because of the huge demonstrations by the red-shirt group close to Thaksin Shinawatra. Bloody crackdown was the choice of the military and government that was then led by Aphisit. The crackdown enabled him to be in power until now.
Although this allowed him to hold the prime ministerial position for two years, it did not make his position long lasting. Thai people have taught him about the importance of democracy; reminding him that they need a leader with more broadmindedness than him in terms of freedom and economic policies.
Disgraceful Political Record
The 3 July elections in Thailand have booted Aphisit out of his controversial prime ministerial position. The election results show that Pheu Thai Party has won 265 seats, which is more than enough to set up a government led by the first female prime minister, Yinglak, Thaksin's youngest sister, in the history of Thailand. Aphisit has conceded the defeat in the elections. He will leave his prime ministerial office with his disgraceful political record. Aphisit will remember that as a prime minister he has caused bloodshed in Thailand and endangered democracy.
People will remember him in a bad way rather than a good one. To be fair for him, he will at least not be remembered as a person who clings on to power as he was willing to have the elections on 3 July.
Responsibility and Transparency
Aphisit will not be able to meet the leaders of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) members and other countries' leaders. But he has left behind a good lesson for leaders in both the region and the world. Leaders should remember that in democracy it requires to have a leader who takes utmost care of their people and pay attention to their freedom. Crackdown, suppression of freedom of expression, and oppression of all types are not a good way to govern a country or maintain their power for a long time. Instead, they should lead a country with responsibility and transparency by designing pro-poor policies, which is a good choice for leading the country with full support from the people. Any failure to do so will lead to political defeat.

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.

Significance of Rallies in Thailand

Coup rumors persisted although Prime Minister Aphisit Vejjajiva sent out a clear message, which known on 11 March as to when the House will be dissolved. The rumors persisted although the event of fund raising by the Democrat Party at the Queen Sirikit National Convention Center was held grandly. The function was held in amicable atmosphere of coalition partners. All leaders of Democrat's partners joined the event.

People's Grievances
This kind of grand event was like an announcement by the Democrat that it has potential to return as the leader of the next coalition government. The message was directed to politicians and groups of funders. All of these messages failed to become a magic, which was powerful enough to quash rumors, bad news and coup smell.

And these messages could not stop groups of people, who are suffering from economic hardship, from coming out to hold demonstrations to demand the government to help them. These groups of people with grievances have been rallying along with various groups of protesters, which have been protesting throughout the past month.

In the latest move on 7 March, about 400 farmers, who belong to the Land Reform Network for Thailand, the Assembly of the Poor, the Network of the People for Social and Political Reform, gathered in front of the Government House to call on Aphisit to help them regarding to the issuance of community land deeds. They also called on the prime minister to open the hydroelectric Pak Mun Dam.

Earlier, about 30 people, who are members of the Federation of Communities in Thailand and the Thai Phophiang (Sufficiency) Party, came to the Government House to ask the prime minister to help them about high-interest non-banking loans. They called for help after they used to file a complaint to the government in early 2009.

Several groups of people came out to air their grievances and called for help from the government while the government and the prime minister were seen as being on the downtrend.

Economic Hardship
The protests have been going on while the people were having economic hardship and facing rising prices of consumers' goods. This situation apparently affected the popularity of Aphisit and his Democrat Party.

However, the rallies and protests by several groups of people under grievances were not new things as they happened during all governments' terms. But what is special for the Aphisit government now is that the rallies by various groups in grievances and the civil sector are happening while the Aphisit government is facing protests from yellow-shirt and red-shirt people, who want to bring down the government due to political conflicts and problems.

This may lead to complicated situation caused by political conflicts and people's grievances. The complications may provide an opportunity for some people to use in their quest for perfect political victory.

Some observers see that the rallies by civic groups to demand the government to tackle the public grievances while the government's term is ending may not pose as the real trouble for the government.

But the current protests by various groups may be only the prelude to the real trouble, which will happen after the no-confidence debate. After the censure showdown, protesters of the civic groups and political groups will step up their demonstrations to pressure the government.

In particular, certain civic groups are waiting for a right moment to join rallies to try to oust the government. These groups may join rallies of both the yellow-shirt and red-shirt people if these civic groups see that Aphisit and his Democrat are severely bruised by the censure debate. The opposition plans to attack the government over palm oil shortage and allegation that someone in the government had interfere in a legal case to help a cigarette importer.

Thai-Cambodian Border Dispute
And the longer the government remains in office, the problem related to Thai-Cambodian border dispute may reach its climax and the situation may prompt the armed forces to decide to use harsh measures against Cambodia. The military may resort to military measures if talks in major venues fail to become successful. Such a situation may provide justification for the People's Alliance for Democracy to attack the government and their campaign for the ouster of the administration may have more weight.

By that time, it is highly possible that all groups of protesters will become stronger, in particular groups that are related to political leaders and the yellow-shirt and red-shirt groups as well as demonstrators, who are close to the Phuea Thai Party, and even demonstrators who are close to certain coalition partners.

Aphisit may not be completely cornered by protests of various groups, whose members were suffering because of the country's administration. The government could not give in to the demands of the groups or else more groups of protesters would come out to demand the government to help them.

In fact, the Democrat and Aphisit could read through the game and realize the relations between politicians and groups of protesters. As a result, no one should be surprised that the prime minister always came up with clearer date for House dissolution when calls and criticisms against his administration grew louder.

Assessment of Situation
This is because the Democrat and Aphisit have assessed the situation and believe that House dissolution and new election will be worthwhile for their "investment". They see that House dissolution can cool down the political heat both inside and outside Parliament and calm down protesters from both political groups and civic groups.

Aphisit definitely realizes that some groups of protesters have special agenda for their campaigns. They are waiting for a right chance to step up pressure on the government when the situation permits them. And some groups of protesters, which have been established by the opposite side, will never be satisfied with the Democrat anyway.So, giving in to conditions of groups of protesters will be futile and will not boost the Democrat's popularity before the election day.

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.

Thai Red-Shirted Leaders Seek UN Help

One question that often comes to people's mind is: "Who have turned Thailand into its today's sad condition?" But that is not as depressing as that the people who are hurting Thailand have been asking "outsiders" like the United Nations to intervene their home country's internal affairs. In fact, the situation that is as bad as a civil war could be ended earlier if leaders of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) accepted the national reconciliation road map proposed by Prime Minister Aphisit Vejjajiva.

Protecting Human Rights
The United Nations or UN is known to be an independent organization with an aim to promote peace in the world. Its key roles are to host dialogues to end disputes, to promote peace and security, to protect human rights and to offer humanitarian assistance to member countries around the world, including other countries. For this reason, it is not surprising or irregular to hear reports that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has expressed his concern about violent situation in Thailand.

But it is rather shameful that Thais, both leaders of the UDD and members of the parliament from Puea Thai Party, have demanded the United Nations to help mediate problems in their own home despite the fact that it was red-shirted leaders' fickleness that has caused violence, the scenarios that fully armed military troops paraded to surround Ratchaprasong Road, and utilities cut off in areas around red shirt protest sites. They did not keep their promise by ending the protests after Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban has surrendered to the police in the investigation team of the Department of Special Investigation.

Deteriorating Situation
Violent situation in Thailand was triggered by riots in Bangkok, and it has been intensified, prompting 25 people to be killed and over 200 people injured since May 15. But for people who are neutral and who have followed the development of the situation, they would have seen red shirt people began their protests at Phan Fa Road in March and later on moved to Ratchaprasong Road in April. The situation has turned violence after terrorist attacks on Silom Road and Saladaeng.

Protesters have troubled doctors, nurses, and service users at Chulalongkorn Hospital. Eventually, Major General Khattiya Sawatdiphon, or Se Daeng, has been shot in the head and has been in coma. It is hard to deny that UDD leaders who have been irresponsible towards their own action over the past two months have caused all the violence.

For these reasons, if the UDD want to see peace being restored in our country and do not want to see more local residents, pro red shirt communities and other innocent people being at risk of injuries and losing their loved ones, they may solve the problems themselves. They do not need assistance from the UN, or use it as a way to survive the government's stringent operation, in spite of the fact that the UN was once being demeaned by the UDD (big boss) with the sentence: "The UN....not my father," when he was leading the government.

Facing Immediate Threat
We affirm that UDD's request for assistance from the UN would only cause damage. For the first damage, it is the same as handing out our country into the hands of other peoples. Should outsiders be invited to manage our country's internal affairs? For the second damage, the move underlines the fact that UDD leaders did everything for their own interest. They protect themselves with human shields.

Once facing immediate threat of danger, they reached out for assistance from other people and did not care that they have once severely criticized those people. They are real evils

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.

Red-Shirted Leaders Stage Armed Rebellion Against Government, Military

Before the capital of Thailand would be deafened by bomb blasts and the noise of guns and during operation of our brave soldiers to ask the red shirts for the return of the area in the vicinity of Phanfa Bridge on Ratchadamnoen Avenue, Kopsak Suphawasu, secretary-general to the prime minister, received a long distance call from someone in Dubai who proposed that Prime Minister Aphisit Vejjajiva resign, appoint Suthep Thuaksuban as caretaker prime minister to amend the Constitution without holding a referendum, and allow an outsider to be the prime minister.

All of these are intended for the setting up of a national government with General Chawalit Yongchaiyut as the prime minister.

Nonviolent and Peaceful Struggle
Of course, the proposals of Thaksin Shinawatra, the fugitive on the run who has been resorting to violence to threaten the Thai society, were not accepted. A few hours after that, a full-fledged war was declared by Aritsaman Phongruangrong on the rally stage at Ratchaprasong intersection, and the fighting broke out at Khok Wua intersection less than 10 minutes later.

Another fact that has been overlooked is that on the afternoon of 10 April, red shirt guards were seen climbing up the poles to cover all the close circuit cameras in the area of Ratchaprasong intersection with black plastic bags -- an act of bad intention. In a nonviolent and peaceful struggle, close circuit cameras must be used to record the fighting between unarmed people and soldiers.

The "red armed group" who mingled with the crowd on that day was certainly not "an unidentified force." They are the red shirt supporters who have been well trained together with ranger soldiers and former communist terrorists. They are on a mission of death which is aimed at killing and waging a civil war with the Thai armed forces at the expense of the lives of the "red shirt protesters."

Second Thaksin Plan
A question that has arisen now is: How could they evade the state authorities' detection in transporting heavy weapons to the rally site?

The easy answer lies with the failure of the intelligence network or the "fifth column" working inside the intelligence apparatuses of the government. These people produce deceptive assessment of the situation to fool the policy makers.

It may be recalled that this tactics is incorporated in the "Second Thaksin Plan." Slave spies embedded in intelligence agencies will feed wrong information to the government so as to cause it to wrongly assess the situation, which will eventually lead to a defeat.

Insurgency Tactics
It may be recalled that the red chief of staff (Major General Khattiya Sawatdiphon, an army specialist) once boastfully said that there would be a people's army fighting against the military with support from the invisible top brass in the armed forces who oppose the power of the 'Eastern Tiger Group.'

It may be recalled that the US intelligence has earlier warned the Thai security community against "Thaksin, the betrayer of the nation." This bad man has been using telephone to supervise subversive activities in Thailand since before the outbreak of the red shirt protest rallies in parallel with the implementation of their daily insurgency tactics, which eventually led to the tragic carnage at Khok Wua intersection.

Mayhem in Thailand, Government Under Pressure

The mayhem during the night of 10 April on Ratcha Damnoen Avenue left an image that is hard to explain. The casualties and loss from the clashes between the military officers and the red-shirted protesters are too terrible -- very high a price for victory for any camp.

All parties are flooded by questions - those who were directly and indirectly involved in causing this nightmare for everyone in the Thai society, not only the Bangkok people who live near the scenes of the incidents.

Messages From Media
Certainly, those who consumed the messages from all forms of the media, which broadcast the violent incidents, and who later learned that people were killed on that fateful night, are trying to find the culprit. They are trapped in that frame of mind. Was it the government's fault, as the administration has the responsibility to supervise the policy implementation and take care of the nation's peace and order?

Was it the fault of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), which incited the mob to become oblivious of death risks and attack the military in each location, which led to the use of force and clashes and war weapon? Was it the fault of Police Lieutenant Colonel Thaksin Shinawatra a person who incited the red-shirted mob -- the 'rear guard' -- to fight for him with all their hearts to restore his power?

Growing Casualties
The latest record of the number of casualties from the clashes on 10 April rose to over 800 injured, who are receiving treatment in various hospitals, while the latest death toll is 21.

Police Lt Col Thaksin twittered the announcement of his deep condolences. He called for Prime Minister Aphisit Vejjajiva to show accountability for ordering the military to use force in mob dispersal, which led to the loss of live and casualties. He said that Aphisit should show responsibility by agreeing to dissolve the House and return the power to the people.

However, this will not in the least redress the wrong that was done -- nor are the apologies from the government leaders who continue to insist on using 'the law' to maintain what is right, in the hope that the society will finally and truly return to peace and order. After the mayhem, it seemed that the loss and casualties still fail to return peace and normalcy to the society. What looms large is a 'war of attrition.'

The (red-shirted leaders) assesses, and believes, that they will be able to use these incidents to their advantage in fanning the flame of discontent. Therefore, they would not tone down, but immediately launched their retaliation and continued with their offensive.

Mounting Pressure
The government is under heavy pressure from all directions, such as from the army, particularly the former high-ranking soldiers who expressed increasingly negative attitude toward the political sector and the government's indecisiveness and lack of determination, which caused the military to be 'trampled on,' suffered casualties and loss.

Another source of high pressure came from the ruling coalition parties. Deputy Prime Minister for Security Affairs Suthep Thueaksuban was forced to lobby the leaders of the ruling coalition parties in an effort to prevent the Democrat Party from being isolated, as the ruling coalition arties did not want to accept the joint accountability for the casualty and loss in the incident on 10 April.

Several parties look back to find the weak spots that led to the violent incidents. They suspect that the weak spots might have been caused by the same old problem that has plagued the government all along: The lack of unity between the government and the army. They wonder whether it was this lack of unity that led to the red-shirted force being able to defeat the army.

Some parties think that the defeat was caused by the weakness of the government leaders, who were unable to lead the army to victory in this battle and 'free the occupied zone' effectively without loss or casualty. The government leaders allowed the golden opportunity during the early stage of the rally to pass by without any decisive action.

Drastic Step Required
Until this very moment, after the violent incident and the heavy casualties, the government is still unable to find its feet and restore the public faith and confidence in it. Meanwhile the red-shirted group continues to announce its victory, since it believes that the government will eventually be defeated.

The best and cleverest approach to fighting a battle is to minimize or avoid the casualties and loss -- whether the loss of fund, supplies and particularly manpower. What is clear here is that both parties suffered losses in these incidents and therefore both are defeated -- they are both losers.

Red-Shirted Movement Challenges Thai Government

Political conflicts over the past four years have prompted the society to learn and see that the root of the conflicts is not only about former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra or about different levels of intelligence and accesses to information as claimed by some people. The actual root of the problem is "the disparity" in the society.

Prime Minister Aphisit Vejjajiva has told the media "The disparity problem is a fact that has been in Thai society for a long time. We shouldn't raise this issue to be the condition for stirring up hatred in the society. During the Thaksin government, the proportion of debt per households among Thais has increased more than one fold. Thaksin's wealth also increased more than one fold. This is also a kind of disparity."

Social Disparity Through Class System
Red-shirted leaders have been trying to explain social disparity through class system, "amataya-commoners." It could be concluded that the "amataya system" is "the cultural structure of power that lends power to a group of people that are the minority in the society without going through a democratic process which is an election. However, the group can exercise their power by intervening politics and public administration system without being accountable to the public. And they are not held responsible to the exercising of their authority politically or legally."

Amataya's power has been sometime dubbed "non-constitutional power." However, its meaning according to the norm is "influence." It is a kind of power in the conventional cultural structure of power, which accepts the existence of some "special power." The society believes that such power is the representative of morality, or the power of morality.

Blocking Democratic Consolidation
Although Thailand's administration system has been changed to democracy almost 80 years ago, some are still ''yearning for" the power of morality. The trace of nostalgia has been clearly reflected during the early phase of the "New Politics" proposal. It was proposed "If the government were corrupt of disloyal to the monarchy, the military may stage a coup d'etat. The monarch, on the capacity of the supreme commander of Thai armed forces, may freely appoint armed force commanders without waiting for the nomination by the prime minister."

The amataya system is hinged on the special power. In fact, there are two perspectives on the amataya system. One group views that the system is a unique attribute with historical value related to national development. At present, the system is still worthful because it could balance the power of corrupt politicians. (For example, it has helped get rid of a corrupt government.) However, another group says such special power is the root of problems that block democracy consolidation and cause social disparity.

This is because 1. Amataya power is not hinged on people power because amataya or elite bureaucrats are not elected; 2. amataya has intervened politics and public administration system. As a result, the power has undermined the importance of election because the government elected by the people has been dominated or regulated by another power. The government then may not implement policies according to the wills of the people. Amataya power could even overwrite the importance of election because the power has staged a coup to topple the government elected by the people.

This kind of disparity is the root of inequality problem in the "one man = one vote" system. It causes the minority to have "privilege" over the allocation of power and social and political interests beyond the majority in the society. It leads to law issuance and law enforcement with "double standards." The law that is contradicted to the equality of human beings and that violates the freedom of expression or other rights have been issued. And the law has been unequally enforced against people from different classes or different groups.

For this reason, "amataya" is viewed as a "privilege class." For "commoners", they are people in the class that has been exploited by privilege people or has been branded by the latter as being stupid, poor, sick and being used as corrupt politicians' tools. The latter thought they were not free people who understand "democracy" and they are not capable of exercising the rights to govern themselves with free judgment. Therefore, "commoners" should not have the rights to fully govern themselves. The power should be centralized for unity and security of the state.

However, the picture of disparity reflected through the "amataya-commoners" discourse is merely the reflection of disparity in only one direction. There are several more other directions of disparity. An example that could be easily seen is the disparity in educational opportunities. Farmers, papaya salad sellers, motorbike, taxi drivers or daily wage earners in general cannot or have any bargaining power to ask any educational institution to admit their children without going through the official admission system. At the same time, the number of "students admitted through special channels" from civil servants and generals might not be as high as the number of "students admitted through special channels" from business people, local politicians and national politicians who often have long lists of students that they have to place in various educational institutions.

Problems Between Conflicting Parties
University lecturers also have privilege over university officials, security guards and cleaners. Thaksin and retired generals that became Phuea Thai Party members, politicians, business people, and academics in Phuea Thai Party and in the red shirted movement, or those supporting the red shirted movement also have life styles and economic and social statuses that are different from those of exploited "commoners" in red shirted rallies, most of whom are from northeastern and northern provinces.

Generally speaking, there are several directions of disparity in the society. But even though political conflicts right now have made disparity more visible for us, the debating issues and negotiation conditions that could end conflicts still focus on individuals or conflicting parties.

Each party still talks about General Prem-Thaksin-Aphisit, or government– red-shirted people, amataya-commoners or yellow-shirted-red shirted. As a result, the negotiation to compromise or to save faces of certain individual or party has gained priority over a talk to find solution together to end social disparity problems.

Demand of Situation
Hence, the attempt to prolong conflicts is rather about ''winning or losing" a political game. If the parliament were not dissolved, no one could see a way out of the conflicts. If the parliament were dissolved, we might see the changing hands of power. But we might not see a way to solve "structural problems" that would concretely reduce disparity in different directions.

If we all insisted that ongoing political conflicts have developed to the point that people are clearly aware of disparity problems beyond problems of an individual or problems between conflicting parties, a question that should be raised during the negotiation between red shirted people and the government is how the decision to dissolve or not to dissolve the parliament could be a condition leading to the attempt to solve social disparity.

Each party should talk about the solution of disparity problem, which has been the root cause of conflicts. They should show the public their suggestions on how to solve disparity problems, to drive the society to move forward.

Otherwise, the attempt to end social disparity should be a key issue that political parties, civic groups or people in all sectors should campaign during the next canvassing campaigns or during the design of constitution or political reform in the future.

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.