Role of Army in New Thai Government

The Thai Army chief's statement about the military's feeling has led to an understanding and sympathy for everything it has done for the nation, religion, the Monarchy and the people. It has devoted to working for public interest over its own and yet has been subject to criticisms over its tasks that involved politics since they have affected the wrangle between rival political parties. The top military leader, therefore, has had to come out to comfort his subordinates.
Decentralizing Power
The Armed Forces will have to get back to their work anyhow as they are so obliged by the Constitution. As they are seen as a main condition for the survival of the government, politicians do not trust them and have to try to rein in their power. Therefore, they have to check and balance structures of command and personnel of the Armed Forces so as to decentralize the power from the old clique of officers in charge, especially the Burapha Phayak faction which has been enjoying its dominance during the past three years.
The post of defense minister is the first mechanism that the political branch will use to counter the power of incumbent military commanders. Although the minister cannot play a significant role in preventing and prewarning a coup, he as access to high-level information from the Defense Council's meetings on the reshuffle of military top brass in key commanding posts.
Preventing Political Intervention
Despite speculations that the Phuea Thai Party is planning vengeance on certain Armed Forces commanders and kick them out of power, it will not be easy to do so. Existing mechanisms on reshuffling senior military officers at the level of general are designed to prevent political intervention. However, if the political branch manages to put its people to the top posts of the Armed Forces during a routine shake-up, they can later vote to bring in their men in future reshuffles.
It is common for Army Commander-in-Chief General Prayut Chan-ocha to spell out his stand on that the new defense minister must be versed with military affairs, including the Thai-Cambodia border conflict and the unrest situation in the southern border provinces besides being acceptable to the Armed Forces. This is like the military's recommendation to the new government for its selection of the defense minister.
It might look like the military has no choice but give in to conditions set by ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. It seems to have nothing to bargain as Thaksin's sister Yingluck Shinawatra is becoming the country's first woman prime minister after the Phuea Thai Party won a landslide victory in the recent election and is also enjoying support from other coalition parties. But opening the door for the political branch to have a say in the nomination of the defense minister could also be seen as collusion to allow the person backed by the Armed Forces to take the defense minister post so that incumbent military top brass will remain in power.
Many military figures who have slipped out of the power circle are hoping to make use of the political situation to make a comeback as they know that the political branch's need for a power balance with the Armed Forces will challenge the power hierarchy laid down by the dominant military clique.
Trading and Bargaining With Military
The military leaders' move on the new defense minister is interesting in the way that it reflects the political branch's awkward attempt to tie its dealing with the Armed Forces to national reconciliation. As a matter of fact, it is all about trading and bargaining with the military. The political branch has an advantage in terms of righteousness, image and public support while the Armed Forces will only be subject to attacks once they express their views. They are at disadvantage as they are seen by the society as having to stay out of politics since they are government officials.
Game of Politicians
Anyway, a move by the military still holds some significance as it can be used as deterrence t o politicians prone to tyrannous governing. But it has to stop and step back to an appropriate distance once the point is made.
The political branch can exploit this to slip its people in as defense minister and Armed Forces commanders. But if the military becomes the first to initiate bargaining, it will ruin its own image in addition to playing into the game of politicians who could exploit the situation for even greater bargaining.

Thaksin Gauges International, Domestic Resentment

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

Thai Government Sets Up Command Center for War on Drug

Prime Minister Yinglak Shinawatra presided over the ceremony to launch the operation of a national agenda called National Command Centre for Combating Drugs (NCCD) at the Santi Maitree building in the compound of the Government House on 11 September. Yinglak said poll results from several offices state that the public wanted the government to urgently address drug problems since drug figures have increased rapidly. According to a 2007 statistic, there were then 490,000 drug abusers. The figure has tripled over the past four years. For this reason, the government has made anti-narcotic operation a national agenda as suggested by Her Majesty the Queen. It expects to reduce the prevalence of drug problems in one year. Relevant authorities need to integrate their effort to reduce the prevalence of drug problems by 80 percent.
Antinarcotic Operation
There are six factors in the antinarcotic effort during the Thaksin Shinawatra administration. First, authorities based their operation on areas with drug problems and divided jurisdiction among relevant authorities. Second, relevant authorities had been assigned to share responsibilities. Third, the database of drug traffickers and prospective traffickers and abusers at the district and provincial levels should be synchronized with the government's database. Fourth, it had identified 300,000 drug abusers that could be rehabilitated. Fifth, it set up the protocol for assignment between the government's anti-narcotic center and provincial agencies. And six, it designated clear focal points for each operation. This government will incorporate the poll results with its operation plan, which comprise six components. First, it will empower the people with the concentration on urban communities and villages. This requires cooperation from all sectors.
The government will also incorporate the suggestion of Her Majesty the Queen in its antinarcotic operation. Second, the government will address drug abuse problems by regarding abusers as patients.
Third, it will prevent the spread of drug abuse in vulnerable areas. The government will reduce the number of vulnerable areas from more than 80,000 communities to more than 60,000 communities. Fourth, the crackdown on drug traffickers and influential people will be based on the rule of law. The enforcement of legal measures must be fair for all. Fifth, the government will promote the cooperation with other countries and border authorities in preventing and suppressing the trafficking of narcotic drugs and reactants into the country. And sixth, the government will convince more than 600,000 patients to receive medical treatment.
Set Goals
The Yinglak government has set the following six goals:
First, it will curb narcotic problems and strengthen 60,000 communities to immediately reduce drug demand in the market. Second, the government has set up a national center on anti-narcotic effort, the NCCD, which is the center of the cooperation between relevant ministries, provinces, local administrative organizations and border agencies. Third, it will build up the structure of authorities and responsibilities among relevant officers, including criteria for rewards and punishment. Fourth, the government will base its operation on people in communities and the participation of all sectors. They are expected to regard this issue as an urgent issue. Fifth, the government has asked the Office of Narcotics Control Board to support the NCCD. Sixth, the Finance Ministry and the Bureau of Budget will allocate budgets to authorities at all levels to enable them to work smoothly. This is because the government has truly made its anti-narcotic effort a national agenda.

Thai Government Sets Up New Legal Reform Commission

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

Role of Army in New Thai Government

The Thai Army chief's statement about the military's feeling has led to an understanding and sympathy for everything it has done for the nation, religion, the Monarchy and the people. It has devoted to working for public interest over its own and yet has been subject to criticisms over its tasks that involved politics since they have affected the wrangle between rival political parties. The top military leader, therefore, has had to come out to comfort his subordinates.
Decentralizing Power
The Armed Forces will have to get back to their work anyhow as they are so obliged by the Constitution. As they are seen as a main condition for the survival of the government, politicians do not trust them and have to try to rein in their power. Therefore, they have to check and balance structures of command and personnel of the Armed Forces so as to decentralize the power from the old clique of officers in charge, especially the Burapha Phayak faction which has been enjoying its dominance during the past three years.
The post of defense minister is the first mechanism that the political branch will use to counter the power of incumbent military commanders. Although the minister cannot play a significant role in preventing and prewarning a coup, he as access to high-level information from the Defense Council's meetings on the reshuffle of military top brass in key commanding posts.
Preventing Political Intervention
Despite speculations that the Phuea Thai Party is planning vengeance on certain Armed Forces commanders and kick them out of power, it will not be easy to do so. Existing mechanisms on reshuffling senior military officers at the level of general are designed to prevent political intervention. However, if the political branch manages to put its people to the top posts of the Armed Forces during a routine shake-up, they can later vote to bring in their men in future reshuffles.
It is common for Army Commander-in-Chief General Prayut Chan-ocha to spell out his stand on that the new defense minister must be versed with military affairs, including the Thai-Cambodia border conflict and the unrest situation in the southern border provinces besides being acceptable to the Armed Forces. This is like the military's recommendation to the new government for its selection of the defense minister.
It might look like the military has no choice but give in to conditions set by ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. It seems to have nothing to bargain as Thaksin's sister Yingluck Shinawatra is becoming the country's first woman prime minister after the Phuea Thai Party won a landslide victory in the recent election and is also enjoying support from other coalition parties. But opening the door for the political branch to have a say in the nomination of the defense minister could also be seen as collusion to allow the person backed by the Armed Forces to take the defense minister post so that incumbent military top brass will remain in power.
Many military figures who have slipped out of the power circle are hoping to make use of the political situation to make a comeback as they know that the political branch's need for a power balance with the Armed Forces will challenge the power hierarchy laid down by the dominant military clique.
Trading and Bargaining With Military
The military leaders' move on the new defense minister is interesting in the way that it reflects the political branch's awkward attempt to tie its dealing with the Armed Forces to national reconciliation. As a matter of fact, it is all about trading and bargaining with the military. The political branch has an advantage in terms of righteousness, image and public support while the Armed Forces will only be subject to attacks once they express their views. They are at disadvantage as they are seen by the society as having to stay out of politics since they are government officials.
Game of Politicians
Anyway, a move by the military still holds some significance as it can be used as deterrence t o politicians prone to tyrannous governing. But it has to stop and step back to an appropriate distance once the point is made.
The political branch can exploit this to slip its people in as defense minister and Armed Forces commanders. But if the military becomes the first to initiate bargaining, it will ruin its own image in addition to playing into the game of politicians who could exploit the situation for even greater bargaining.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Crisis in Thailand Could Jeopardize Regional Stability

The latest political crisis in Thailand in these few days has plunged into a worse state since its eruption in April. The figure of casualties has reached 35 in the past four days of clashes and is expected to increase if the military is given the green light to attack the fortress of the pro-former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra Red Shirts.

Abhisit Vejjajiva administration should give due attention and immediately resolve the bloodshed conflict. If the conflict prolongs, there will be a huge potential or tendency towards a more severe conflict.

Current Turbulent Situation
In fact, some predict that a civil war may erupt in Thailand if the crisis is not resolved immediately. We have seen traces toward that direction when the government spokeperson Panitan Watanayagorn said the authorities would continue to attack the Red Shirts' fortress because the military wanted to crush the 'armed terrorists' among the Red Shirts. Like the conflict took place about 1,000 km away, which involved the Malays in the provinces of southern Thailand since 2004, it is said that some 'third party' has taken advantage of the current turbulent situation in Bangkok as well.

If this happens, Thailand is certainly on the verge of a civil war as predicted by security and strategic experts lately. Therefore, Abhisit should utilize all the strengths and wisdom to immediately restore the situation and bring Bangkok back to order and economic activities as it used to be. If Abhisit fails to restore the situation, it will expose his administration to new opposition from the business community who have been badly affected for almost two months already.

Political Stability and Economic Strength
Bangkok is the center of administration, tourism and trade, as well as the main entrance and exit for Thailand to connect with the outside world. Thailand is also one of the main cities in Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). The domestic conflict may also undermine the performance and image of the organization of Southeast Asian countries in the eyes of the international community. ASEAN has a bigger goal to create a developed and prosperous community, and in turn become an active economic player on the global stage.

All these will be influenced by political stability and economic strength of every member states. Assuming a civil war erupts in Thailand, it will increase the burden to the current government which has not managed to bring the conflict in the southern region of the country to an end yet. When this happens, it is worried that foreign countries or superpowers which have their interest in this region may have concrete reasons to interfere into the country. If this happens, Southeast Asia, a region declared as independent and neutral, may eventually be forced to accept interference of foreign powers which purportedly want to restore political stability and peace in this region.

Command of Foreign Power
The concern about 'third party' taking advantage of the situation in Bangkok is well-founded, especially if the group is linked with the label of 'Islamic extremists' or Al-Qa'ida. This will instantly beckon certain foreign power to 'help' eradicate the group and this will become the starting point when Southeast Asia will no longer be a peace, independent and neutral region.

It will instead become a region that is forced to follow the command of foreign power forever.

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.

Thai Problems Solving Must Be Based on Democratic Means

Recently, the Newsweek published an interesting article entitled How Democracy Dies by Joshua Kurlantzick, an expert on Southeast Asia affairs of the Council of Foreign Relations. The article talked about political phenomena worldwide, saying the situation for democracy was worrying.

Reason for Regression
The article analyzed that democracy in several country had regressed and this happened in Africa, Latin America, Middle East, Russia and Asia. The main reason for the regression was the middle class people who used to fight for freedom and democracy by toppling dictatorial regimes. The article said the middle class people were seeing that it was hard to create true democracy so they became disappointed in the system.

The main reason that prompted the middle class people to feel so was the fact that leaders of several new democratic countries regarded elections as only a way to power. And after they won an election, they abused the administrative power and practiced nepotism. Their interpretation of democracy that way was distortion of democracy, and thus causing the public to lose faith in the democratic system.

Kurlantzick also analyzed that the economic crisis also affected democracy in certain countries because the middle class regarded that democracy and freedom came with the adoption of globalization and capitalism. After their income dropped because of the economic crisis, they blamed the democracy for the economic crisis.

Implementing Policies
The article cited examples from several countries, including the Philippines, Venezuela, Russia and Cambodia. Kurlantzick highlighted the case of Thailand as a graphic example. In the example, Kurlantzick talked about former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, saying he got the power through democratic means and implemented policies as promised during the election campaigns and helping the poor. But Thaksin eventually abused the authority. Kurlantzick also talked about the summary killings of drug suspects during Thaksin's war on drug and the disappearance of lawyer Somchai Nilaphaichit.

This is the view of a westerner who still remembers the administrative style of Thaksin. Kurlantzick also talked about the phenomenon of the middle class people in Bangkok becoming disappointed and calling for the use of special power and a coup instead of using democratic means to bring about changes by supporting the opposition or by pushing for changes via newspapers.

Kurlantzick recounted that the middle class reasoned that the coup needed to be staged to preserve democracy. And eventually, the middle class people got what they wanted - they could topple the Thaksin regime and destroy democracy at the same time.

Kurlantzick did not conclude who was right or wrong. He simply presented an analysis in a view of a foreigner. But he added that after the middle class caused the democracy to regress by a coup and other undemocratic means, the lower class people became dissatisfied, leading to protests. Kurlantzick said this did not happen only in Thailand but also in Bolivia and the Philippines.

His last observation in the article was that kind of fight destroyed system and mechanisms of the country administration as well as the people's rights and freedom. He said it would take a long time to rebuild these democratic elements and there is no guarantee that the rebuilding would be successful.

Solving National Crisis
So, I am sharing this article so that Thai people would know how other people are viewing our situation. Sometimes, all Thais are like being caught in the middle of a bout in which fighters are fiercely fighting with no indication that they would stop. When we see how our "audience" analyze and think about our situation, we may be able to see it through and find a way-out for solving our national crisis.

The principle that we need to adhere to and need to have a common stand is that democracy is the best system for providing equal political and economic chances to the people and for guaranteeing the rights and freedom of the people. All problem solving efforts must be based on democracy. What happened in the past should be regarded as a painful lesson and we should never choose a coup as a way-out again.

Check-and-Balance Mechanisms
Most of all, there must be mechanisms for sharing power so that all sides and all classes in the society will take part in the ruling with the feelings that they are all owners of the country. All interests must be equally distributed instead of being concentrated to only a group of people no matter whether they are old or neo fenders. And when someone has money and power, that person must use the power with justice instead of abusing it to benefit himself and associates. To achieve this, the check-and-balance mechanisms of the public and private sectors must be strengthened as soon as possible.

We are all humans no matter whether we are elites or ordinary people. We need to respect each other because if we fail to see each other's face and respect each other, we will end up fighting against each other.

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.

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!