Thread: Divided Thailand seeks elusive 'normalcy'

Originally Posted by SteveCM

^From Twitter today:

PravitR Pravit Rojanaphruk [senior reporter at The Nation]

5 yrs ago, 2 of my anti-Sept 19 coup commentaries were not published by The Nation. Too premature & too late, d then editorial editor said.

5 hours ago


......

Too many to reproduce here, but worth clicking on Pravit's Twitter timeline (PravitR) to see some of his other references to those who supported the coup at the time but take a different stance now.

I did write a mini-novel but thought I might tell too much about myself and ditched it and now listen to house of the rising sun by animals

Originally Posted by SteveCM

Too many to reproduce here, but worth clicking on Pravit's Twitter timeline (PravitR) to see some of his other references to those who supported the coup at the time but take a different stance now.

Hardly surprising when in LOS the side of the fence you're sitting on depends so much on which side of the fence your breads buttered on, unless of course you're true to your beliefs.

Straws in the wind?

(Honestly no pun intended "pupa")

Originally Posted by The Bold Rodney

Originally Posted by SteveCM

Too many to reproduce here, but worth clicking on Pravit's Twitter timeline (PravitR) to see some of his other references to those who supported the coup at the time but take a different stance now.

Hardly surprising when in LOS the side of the fence you're sitting on depends so much on which side of the fence your breads buttered on, unless of course you're true to your beliefs.

Straws in the wind?

(Honestly no pun intended "pupa")

It seems butters and SD are quite literally hanging by the straws now... the world moving on, the truth appearing....

Originally Posted by nostromo

It seems butters and SD are quite literally hanging by the straws now... the world moving on, the truth appearing....

It's true getting off the fence is seriously difficult without getting some splinters stuck in your arse, "Seriously Dumb" might be a possibility..."pupa" never as he's a beligie who's forgotten his countries modern history (conveniently of course).

Saying that..maybe "pupa' is actually convinced in his tiny belgie mind that references to the "Congo" are simply solely to a dance?

Originally Posted by The Bold Rodney

Originally Posted by SteveCM

Too many to reproduce here, but worth clicking on Pravit's Twitter timeline (PravitR) to see some of his other references to those who supported the coup at the time but take a different stance now.

Hardly surprising when in LOS the side of the fence you're sitting on depends so much on which side of the fence your breads buttered on, unless of course you're true to your beliefs.

Straws in the wind?

(Honestly no pun intended "pupa")

pupa is hoping for more substanstial than straws to fill where the wind comes from.

From the blog world.....


5 year anniversary of the good

By Bangkok Pundit
Sep 20, 2011 1:15AM UTC

Today, was the 5th anniversary of the 2006 coup – Lily has an excellent photo essay of the red shirts remembrance of the coup here. BP has blogged about the “good” coup previously – see here, here, and here. On this subject, Chula academic Thitinan had an op-ed in the Bangkok Post on this subject “Few voiced opposition to the ‘good coup’”. Key excerpts:

Hindsight can yield distortive and corrective benefits all at once. When they hark back to Thailand’s last military coup on Sept 19, 2006, the vast majority of Thais today would shake their heads in disapproval.

The water under the bridge since the coup has been sour and bitter, nowhere near what it was set out to be. The coup-makers and their Bangkok-based coalition of supporters got rid of Thaksin Shinawatra not for a better, fairer and more progressive and competitive Thailand but for a 20th-century status quo that retained their privileges, perquisites and inherent advantages in upward mobility.

What took place five years ago was a ”good coup” that was not. But Thais have had to learn so by doing and observing.

To be sure, when the purported ”good coup” was staged, few voiced opposition. It seemed like a necessary evil. There were exceptional pockets of dissent , including a sprinkle of street protests and one towering taxi driver _ Nuamthong Praiwan _ who rammed his vehicle into an army tank and subsequently hung himself in disgust. But such acts of resistance were outnumbered by the flowers and garlands handed out to soldiers in Bangkok. Conspicuous silence emanated from civil society, the business community, and Bangkok’s middle classes. Yet no upcountry red shirts of today showed themselves then. By and large, Thais initially either supported or tolerated the putsch.

BP: On the silence of civil society, BP has previously blogged on this – see La Trahison des Clercs (Treason of the intellectuals) and Is Thai Civil Society Undermining Democracy?* - so agree with this and also on the silence over the coup/support for the coup of the middle classes – see here and here – but it is the statement that no upcountry red showed themselves.** How could they? The Thai media is Bangkok-centric. How would actually hear what they were thinking? Most Thai media outlets self-censored (as they supported the coup), but if they didn’t there were strict censorship restrictions imposed immediately after the coup. When the media, or more accurately the foreign media went to speak to those upcountry, many people were not happy, but as is noted there were soldiers with guns on the streets. From that link, there is this quote from a Thai academic from September 2006 is relevant:

“Thaksin’s popularity is not like it was before. The situation has changed,” said Varin Thiamwarin, a political science professor from Bangkok’s Thammasat University. Like many observers, he doubts that villagers from the countryside will mount a popular uprising to support Thaksin, fearing confrontation with the military. “Villagers will not rise up to bring Thaksin back. They know if they do, they’ll get shot,” he said.

BP: Well he is wrong on the former, but not the latter. The previous time that people had taken to the streets to protest the military was in 1992 and the military went on a shooting spree. The only way to stop this would be gather in such large numbers to overwhelm the military, but people cannot randomly just gather together. You need some organization or some means to convey details. The coup leaders shut down community radio stations and internet access was much more limited than it is today with no central site to gather – there was censorship of political posts online as ordered by the junta. Things today are so different, but back in September 2006 there were limited avenues for those who wanted to protest to get their message across…


*Of course, some civil society groups did protest against the coup.

**They wouldn’t have been known as reds thens as the reds as a movement didn’t exist although you did have Thaksin supporters.

Originally Posted by nostromo

Originally Posted by The Bold Rodney

Originally Posted by SteveCM

Too many to reproduce here, but worth clicking on Pravit's Twitter timeline (PravitR) to see some of his other references to those who supported the coup at the time but take a different stance now.

Hardly surprising when in LOS the side of the fence you're sitting on depends so much on which side of the fence your breads buttered on, unless of course you're true to your beliefs.

Straws in the wind?

(Honestly no pun intended "pupa")

It seems butters and SD are quite literally hanging by the straws now... the world moving on, the truth appearing....

The world was always going to bypass the Poof and the first virgin in Thailand.

Originally Posted by Sailing into trouble

What a task! It will take many years to over turn the privileged attitude of the elite. Many have striven all their lives to obtain the privilege they enjoy. Democratic change is a very slow process. The french had a solution in their revolution, as did Cambodia and other nations. I hope that the changes come but in a way that does not promote another coup and the unrest that will blight LOS iin its wake.

Yes. Hopefully many changes came in a democratic way already - would be a start. But many hang on to their old privileges and assumptions - this goes for Thai and Farang living here.

Good point, many faring have a vested interest in keeping things as they are, had not thought of that!

From the blog world.....


https://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordp...omes-the-coup/

September 20, 2011

Wikileaks: Abhisit welcomes the coup

Five years after the 2006 coup, this Wikileaks cable of 28 September 2006, featuring Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva seems worthy of attention. In it, U.S. Ambassador Ralph Boyce reports on a meeting he had with Abhisit, at Democrat Party headquarters, to discuss politics and the coup.

Abhisit says Sonthi not interested in power

Abhisit began by expressing confidence in coup leader General Sonthi Boonyaratglin’s “character,” saying that he “was confident Sonthi had not carried out the September 19 coup in order to put himself in a position of power.”

Abhisit claimed that he was more “worried that Thaksin loyalists would try reasserting themselves in political life…”. He believed that the activities of Thaksin [Shinawatra] loyalists would “make it difficult for the CDR to restore full civil liberties.” He claimed that Thaksin’s wife had cash ready and that Thaksin loyalists had burned rural schools a few days earlier.

Abhisit’s also wanted the junta to “prosecute corrupt Thaksin administration figures, in order to calm the situation sufficiently to allow full restoration of civil liberties.” He asked the U.S. government to supply “the CDR with further information about potential irregularities involved in the RTG’s purchase from General Electric of CTX explosives detection equipment.”

Abhisit

Abhisit was also described as “bullish” on the probability that “Privy Councilor Surayud Chulanont probably represented the best candidate for interim Prime Minister…” although he also like others, including Democrat Party stalwarts. However, he liked the idea of a former military leader as interim prime minister.

The ambassador and Abhisit apparently agreed on the” importance of the CDR transitioning to a civilian-led government as soon as possible, and doing so in a way that would reassure the international community that the CDR members were not intent on remaining in power.” In other words, hoisting Surayud into position, backed by the junta.

One of Abhisit’s main concerns was the fact that the ousted Thai Rak Thai Party might remain a political force and he worried that “TRT would be tempted to use the referendum on the next constitution to try to demonstrate popular opposition to the September 19 coup, thereby regaining some political momentum…”.

Abhisit seemed to feel that his party had been making ground on TRT, claiming there had been “a ‘massive shift’ in public perception of the Democrats, who were increasingly seen as having meaningful policies and ideas, caring for the poor, and being responsive to the people’s needs.” He went on to claim the party could make gains in the north and central region and might even be able to split the vote in the northeast. PPT wonders if he had the exact same thoughts in 2011?

The ambassador commented that:

Abhisit appears to be among the many in Bangkok who see the September 19 coup as a necessary step to rid the country of Thaksin. He did not appear particularly troubled by the current limitations on civil liberties and political party activities, but he clearly anticipated that these would be relaxed in the near future, especially if the CDR were to install an interim Prime Minister capable of controlling the security environment and containing the lingering influence of Thaksin’s loyalists.


More significantly, it is clear that Abhisit welcomed the coup as a convenient means to get himself a step closer to the prime ministership by weakening, perhaps destroying his rivals.

None of this is particularly surprising, for if readers go back to media comments Abhisit made at the time of the coup, this account pretty well matches it. Abhisit has shown over a long period that he is no democrat.

Originally Posted by SteveCM

Abhisit has shown over a long period that he is no democrat.

really ? what about your hero Khun T ?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by SteveCM

Abhisit has shown over a long period that he is no democrat.

really ? what about your hero Khun T ?

And you stand firmly in anti-democratic ground. What is that you fear?

Thai-ASEAN News Network



The Big Picture

UPDATE : 20 September 2011

Following over half a decade of conflict, violence and loss across the Kingdom, present day Thai society's prevailing desire is for reconciliation and healing. With last year's major upheaval illustrating just how detrimental the nation's strife has become, a number of committees and panels have been established to both study the roots of Thailand's disunity and decipher the best practices for reparation. The task is a great one, with all sides of the deeply divided country closely looking to make sure that they are not left with the short end of the stick.

It may be a fault of Thailand's laid back attitude that its people seldom consider the big picture. In trying to understand the Kingdom's very complex problems, there have been those too quick to simply pick the simplest answer and urge all others to address it. The September 2006 military coup that ousted Thaksin Shinawatra from power is a prime example, with many analysts and commentators voicing certainty that it was the beginning of the nation's woes. Detractors of the event say that it was a telling sign of the “aristocracy's” grip on Thai development.

Of course, these accusations come in total disregard of all the events that preceded the coup d'etat and the circumstances that surrounded it.

While the most recent general election has proven to a certain degree that there are those that agreed with and supported the practices of the Thaksin Shinawatra's administration, that there was a bloodless coup organized and carried out by the military means that those who felt strongly averted to his leadership were definitely more than a minority. Even to accept now that those people who viewed Thaksin's regime as unfit to govern are a minority does not mean that their experiences and efforts should be discounted.

Though the dust of open strife has settled, Thailand continues to suffer from a complicated conflict that is not one political ideals and economic class. Within Thai society's own longing for unity it is conflicted as to how to reconcile differences while preserving every last remnant of each individual's identity. Few seem to realize that they need to lose some ground to gain commonality and fewer still understand that their uncompromisable ideals can only be achieved at the price of others. That is the big picture being missed by seemingly all Thais.

Kom Chad Luek, September 20, 2011

Translated and Rewritten by Itiporn Lakarnchua

Is it time to move on five years after the coup?

Is it time to move on five years after the coup?

By Pravit Rojanaphruk
The Nation
Published on September 21, 2011

What did you do five years ago when you heard that another military coup was being staged? Did you support it or were you against it? Or did you just sit by idly?

Some Thais might find these questions trivial. However, those who did support the September 19, 2006 coup - whether openly or not - now want their role in it to be remembered differently. This writer chanced upon a number of people who now say that they never really supported the coup even though they were appointed to the National Legislative Assembly, which replaced the House of Representatives under the military junta. Others, who did literally nothing to oppose or condemn the coup, now vocally reject the idea they were ever "coup fodder" and like to repeat this new version of their personal history at every opportunity.

These people include academics, intellectuals and human rights activists, some of whom, ironically, been trying to free the people of Burma from the yoke of ruthless generals.

There are too many to name here, but in keeping with the Thai media's practice of naming just the initials of some controversial figures, I can think of Prof S W, activists Mr S H and Mr B T, well-known intellectual Dr G A among others.

The mainstream media has also overwhelmingly supported the 2006 coup - reason being that they hated the-then premier Thaksin Shinawatra and were at the receiving end of control and interference.

Citing from a paper on the Thai media's political bias, that I jointly wrote with Jiranan Hanthamrongwit, which was included in "Legitimacy Crisis in Thailand" as part of King Prajadhipok's Institute Yearbook No 5 (2008/2009), here's what we found papers were reporting five years ago:

Khom Chad Luek, a Thai-language sister paper of The Nation, dubbed the military action as a "Coup for the Nation" in its September 22, 2006, editorial.

Thai Rath, one of the Kingdom's most-read newspapers, explained to its readers in its September 22, 2006, editorial as to how this coup d'etat was different from others.

The Nation's editorial of September 21, 2006, stated: "the coup must… restore the confidence of democracy-loving Thais…

Furthermore, [the coup-makers] must show that this time democratic development will be sustainable and the democratic system that will result will come equipped with in-built self-correcting mechanisms so that military coups can be put to rest for good".

Also on the same day, Matichon, a leading Thai-language newspaper, explained in its editorial why there was "a need" for a coup and even suggested what the coup-makers should do.

Today most of these papers would rather forget what they published five years ago and some even claim they never supported the coup.

Most editorials on Monday, September 19, did not touch upon the 2006 coup as the mainstream media continued to perpetuate belief in their role as the guardians of Thai democracy.

Though one paper did try to take things a step further. Yesterday, Matichon opened its editorial by stating: "Nobody supports staging a coup, but at the same time, most of the people will not put up with a selfish, corrupt government either…"

The red shirts, meanwhile, spent very little time reflecting on the abuses Thaksin committed during his time, because their leader, Pheu Thai MP Weng Tojirakarn, declared loudly at a gathering marking the fifth anniversary of the coup, that Thai people were "the most democracy-loving people in the world".

We should perhaps forgive people who can, upon reflection, admit that they were wrong or had made a mistake. The country can then learn and move on.

Is that asking for too much?

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Is it time to move on five years after the coup?

Is it time to move on five years after the coup?

By Pravit Rojanaphruk
The Nation
Published on September 21, 2011

What did you do five years ago when you heard that another military coup was being staged? Did you support it or were you against it? Or did you just sit by idly?

Some Thais might find these questions trivial. However, those who did support the September 19, 2006 coup - whether openly or not - now want their role in it to be remembered differently. This writer chanced upon a number of people who now say that they never really supported the coup even though they were appointed to the National Legislative Assembly, which replaced the House of Representatives under the military junta. Others, who did literally nothing to oppose or condemn the coup, now vocally reject the idea they were ever "coup fodder" and like to repeat this new version of their personal history at every opportunity.

These people include academics, intellectuals and human rights activists, some of whom, ironically, been trying to free the people of Burma from the yoke of ruthless generals.

There are too many to name here, but in keeping with the Thai media's practice of naming just the initials of some controversial figures, I can think of Prof S W, activists Mr S H and Mr B T, well-known intellectual Dr G A among others.

The mainstream media has also overwhelmingly supported the 2006 coup - reason being that they hated the-then premier Thaksin Shinawatra and were at the receiving end of control and interference.

Citing from a paper on the Thai media's political bias, that I jointly wrote with Jiranan Hanthamrongwit, which was included in "Legitimacy Crisis in Thailand" as part of King Prajadhipok's Institute Yearbook No 5 (2008/2009), here's what we found papers were reporting five years ago:

Khom Chad Luek, a Thai-language sister paper of The Nation, dubbed the military action as a "Coup for the Nation" in its September 22, 2006, editorial.

Thai Rath, one of the Kingdom's most-read newspapers, explained to its readers in its September 22, 2006, editorial as to how this coup d'etat was different from others.

The Nation's editorial of September 21, 2006, stated: "the coup must… restore the confidence of democracy-loving Thais…

Furthermore, [the coup-makers] must show that this time democratic development will be sustainable and the democratic system that will result will come equipped with in-built self-correcting mechanisms so that military coups can be put to rest for good".

Also on the same day, Matichon, a leading Thai-language newspaper, explained in its editorial why there was "a need" for a coup and even suggested what the coup-makers should do.

Today most of these papers would rather forget what they published five years ago and some even claim they never supported the coup.

Most editorials on Monday, September 19, did not touch upon the 2006 coup as the mainstream media continued to perpetuate belief in their role as the guardians of Thai democracy.

Though one paper did try to take things a step further. Yesterday, Matichon opened its editorial by stating: "Nobody supports staging a coup, but at the same time, most of the people will not put up with a selfish, corrupt government either…"

The red shirts, meanwhile, spent very little time reflecting on the abuses Thaksin committed during his time, because their leader, Pheu Thai MP Weng Tojirakarn, declared loudly at a gathering marking the fifth anniversary of the coup, that Thai people were "the most democracy-loving people in the world".

We should perhaps forgive people who can, upon reflection, admit that they were wrong or had made a mistake. The country can then learn and move on.

Is that asking for too much?

Party polical broadcast. Fucker.

Originally Posted by SteveCM

Wikileaks: Megalomaniac welcomes the coup

Abhisit claimed that he was more “worried that Thaksin loyalists would try reasserting themselves in political life…”.

Mark is scared that a ligitmate government may rule Thailand rather then his small dick Democrats.....

Abhisit - Tinci Dick Thai or absolute Bum Chum.......

^ Wanted " Dead or Alive"

WPR Article | The Seeds of Thailand's Future Unrest: Part I

The Seeds of Thailand's Future Unrest: Part I

By Dan Waites 20 Sep 2011

Editor's note: This is the first of a two-part series examining the policies and political challenges facing the new government of Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. Part I examines domestic issues. Part II will examine foreign policy and the implications for regional stability.

CHIANG MAI -- Weeks into Yingluck Shinawatra's term as Thailand's first female prime minister, the streets of Bangkok are so far free of the protests that have indelibly marked recent years of Thai political life. But that could change. Yingluck's government faces formidable challenges in implementing the ambitious platform that brought her Pheu Thai Party a sweeping victory in July's general elections. It must mend soured relations with neighboring Cambodia, which deteriorated to the point of deadly armed conflict several times under the watch of Yingluck's predecessor, Abhisit Vejjajiva. And it is becoming increasingly clear that Pheu Thai means business on securing what would be a highly controversial amnesty for Yingluck's older brother Thaksin, a former prime minister ousted by the military in 2006. As a result, the contours of Thailand's future strife are taking shape.

The July 3 elections saw Pheu Thai sweep 265 of the 500 seats in Thailand's House of Representatives. By contrast, Abhisit's ruling Democrat Party mustered just 159, a humiliating showing that led to Abhisit's resignation as party leader. Pheu Thai's astonishing performance exceeded the expectations of most observers, with the notable exception of the ever-bullish Thaksin, who had predicted a 270-seat landslide with uncanny accuracy.

The precise reasons for the victory are debatable, but a few seem clear. A political novice, Yingluck's every move was carefully choreographed by her experienced handlers. And despite her less-than-humble background, she managed to project a common touch that Eton and Oxford-educated Abhisit lacked. His government had failed to control the rising cost of living, with less-affluent voters hit hard by soaring prices on everything from gasoline to palm oil to eggs. The Abhisit government was also blamed by many for its handling of last year's "Red Shirt" protests, which resulted in a heavy handed army crackdown that left 92 dead. The killings may have been partly provoked by armed elements among the protesters, but that didn't change perceptions of the government's responsibility for the violence.

Arguably most important was Yingluck's campaign promises of policies shrewdly calculated to appeal to working-class and lower-middle-class voters: measures to reduce the cost of living; 40-90 percent increases in the minimum daily wage, to a blanket $9.90 nationwide; minimum starting salaries for new graduates of $500 a month; free tablet computers for schoolchildren; and a rice-pledging scheme that would hike prices paid to farmers. All were decried by the opposition and a largely hostile press as shameless populism that would bankrupt the nation, but much of the public, it seemed, was sold.

Now, at the head of a six-party coalition commanding 300 members of parliament, Pheu Thai must make good on those promises, and there are already signs the party may have bitten off more than it can chew. Wage increases, in particular, have been the subject of vociferous opposition from the likes of the Federation of Thai Industries and the Thai Chamber of Commerce. Claims that the policy will result in mass layoffs, a slump in foreign investment and an influx of migrant workers appear to have had their desired effect, as the government is backtracking on its plans. The minimum wage increase has been postponed until Jan. 1, 2012, when it will be tried out in the country's seven most affluent provinces before being rolled out elsewhere -- much to the dismay of labor groups.

But the government will likely stand or fall over how it deals with the most controversial item on its agenda: the fate of Thaksin. Pheu Thai has made little secret of its desire to resurrect the former telecom billionaire and de facto leader of the party, who currently resides in Dubai to evade a two-year graft sentence from 2008. Thaksin's supporters claim the conviction was politically motivated, and, with the former prime minister apparently unwilling to spend a day in jail, they demand nothing less than an amnesty that would clear him of all wrongdoing.

Leading the calls for a clean slate for Thaksin has been Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung, a veteran member of parliament with a combative style and a penchant for controversy. Long a devout Thaksin loyalist, Chalerm has been extremely vocal about his government's aim to clear his former boss' name. Chalerm says the government is mulling various methods of clearing Thaksin, including a request for a royal pardon and asking the Supreme Court to throw out its ruling against him.

It is unlikely that Thaksin's enemies will tolerate his return to the country if his destination is anything other than a jail cell. In mid-2008, mass protests by the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) -- a royalist pressure group mainly comprised of middle-class Bangkok residents, southerners and state enterprise unionists -- led to the downfall of the government of then-Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, a Thaksin ally. The "Yellow Shirt" protesters had occupied Government House for weeks, demanding Samak's resignation and claiming he was merely a proxy for the loathed Thaksin. A sympathetic Thai army backed the protesters' calls. In recent weeks, Sondhi Limthongkul, a key PAD leader, has used his ASTV satellite station to warn the government that if it attempts to absolve Thaksin of his conviction, the PAD will take to the streets again.

<snipped a chunk, forum rules>

Pavin Chachavalpongpun, a fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore, told World Politics Review that the establishment is waiting for the right moment to strike back. "This game is not about power sharing. It is a zero-sum game as far as power interests are concerned," he said. The question is how much Yingluck can achieve, both at home and in regional diplomacy, before the opposition plays its hand.

Dan Waites is a freelance journalist based in Chiang Mai, Thailand.

WPR Article | The Seeds of Thailand's Future Unrest: Part II


The Seeds of Thailand's Future Unrest: Part II

By Dan Waites | 21 Sep 2011

This is the second of a two-part series examining the policies and political challenges facing the new government of Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. Part I examined domestic issues. Part II examines foreign policy and the implications for regional stability.

With its domestic opponents watching closely for missteps, the government of Thailand's recently elected prime minister, Yingluck Shinawatra, will have to tread extremely carefully in matters of foreign policy. The mishandling of relations with Cambodia by the administration of Yingluck's predecessor, former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, had resulted in border skirmishes that killed 28 people this year alone. Yingluck's Pheu Thai party seized on the issue by including among its campaign pledges a promise to "mend relations with neighboring countries." But while a potential rapprochement with Cambodia appears to present an opportunity for the Yingluck government, it also poses a significant threat at a time when the administration's legitimacy is already being questioned.

It was never very likely that the Abhisit administration would enjoy a good relationship with Cambodia. Abhisit took office following anti-government protests by the nationalist People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), protests he had tacitly backed. The resulting appointment as foreign minister of Kasit Piromya, a PAD leader who had called Cambodian Premier Hun Sen "crazy" and a "slave," set the tone for what was to come -- deadly border conflict centered around the 11th-century Preah Vihear temple, which stands on disputed territory.

In February, troops on the border began exchanging artillery fire, killing eight soldiers and civilians. Each side claimed the other had fired first. The fighting led the U.N. Security Council to call for a cease-fire and to entrust the negotiation of a more permanent peace to the Association of South East Asian Nations. Soon after, the two sides reached a deal in Jakarta that called for dispatching Indonesian observers to the border area to monitor a cease-fire. But resistance from the Thai army -- and protests by the PAD -- kept the observers from being deployed. In late-April, 18 were killed when fighting resumed around the Ta Moan and Ta Karbey temples, about 90 miles west of Preah Vihear.

Yingluck's government now has an opportunity to show that Thailand can co-exist peacefully with its neighbors. She will be helped by the close personal relationship her brother, exiled former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, enjoys with Hun Sen, who appointed Thaksin in 2009 as an economic adviser to the Cambodian government, much to the Abhisit administration's chagrin. Yet the two men's friendship is as much a potential vulnerability as a strength, as Yingluck's political opponents will exploit any deal perceived as compromising Thai sovereignty. In 2008, pressure from Abhisit's Democrat Party forced then-Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama to resign for supporting Cambodia's efforts to have Preah Vihear listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Pavin Chachavalpongpun, a fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore, told WPR, "Getting too close to Hun Sen may open the door for [the PAD] to continue to politicize the issue. As long as Thailand cannot solve its domestic problems, the relationship with Cambodia will remain unstable."

Equally fraught is the fate of disputed oil and gas deposits in the Gulf of Thailand. A 10,000-square-mile swathe of offshore territory, known as the overlapping claims area, is estimated to contain some 11 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and a sizable quantity of oil. With billions of dollars at stake, several major extraction companies are already eyeing the prize, but the two sides have been unable to agree on a revenue-sharing agreement. Now, warmer relations make a deal more likely. At the same time, Thaksin's relations with Hun Sen will put the government at high risk of accusations of selling out.

Meanwhile, the government looks just as vulnerable in Thailand's deep south, which has been plagued by separatist violence that has at times poisoned relations with Malaysia. Thaksin's heavy handed treatment of the problem in 2004 brought the simmering conflict to a boil. Two massacres, at Tak Bai and at Krue Se mosque, remain emblematic of his gross mishandling of the insurgency. The military cited the rapid deterioration of the situation on Thaksin's watch as one reason for the coup that ousted him in September 2006.

Nevertheless, subsequent administrations -- not least the junta that ruled Thailand for a year following Thaksin's overthrow -- have scarcely proved better at handling the conflict. More than 4,700 people have been killed since 2004, and the past six months have seen a dramatic upsurge in violence. The credibility of the Democrats' oft-repeated claim that only they understand the south has been severely tested.

During a campaign visit to the region, Yingluck proposed granting autonomy to Pattani, Narathiwat and Yala provinces, an idea long favored in some corners of academia. Yet in other quarters, most notably the Royal Thai Army and the Interior Ministry, such a solution remains unthinkable, constituting a break from the idea of a unified Thai state under the constitutional monarchy. Once again, the government runs the risk of being accused of betraying Thai sovereignty.

Perhaps inevitably, the Thaksin issue has already infected the Foreign Ministry. The appointment of Surapong Towijakchaikul as foreign minister had already raised eyebrows, given his lack of experience and relation by marriage to the Shinawatras -- his aunt is married to Thaksin's uncle. When it emerged that Surapong had made a personal request through the Japanese Embassy for Thaksin to be issued a special entry permit to visit Japan, he became a target. Claiming that Thailand's foreign minister was facilitating the travel of a convicted criminal, rather than seeking his extradition, the Democrat Party filed a police complaint against Surapong and launched a petition to have him impeached. The embattled minister filed countercharges, but the political damage was already done.

Many observers had expected the Yingluck government to work longer and harder to earn the public's trust before making its inevitable move to rehabilitate its exiled patron. Instead, the suspicion is growing that Thaksin's return is seen as a pressing priority. But with the wounds of the past five years still far from healed, it seems unlikely his enemies will stay passive for long. The seeds of Thailand's future unrest have been sown.

^ Sounds like these PAD yellow nutter monkey arses are doing their darndest to get themselves shot up on the streets of the capital.

They are angling at giving the elected government no option than to declare live fire zones and let the Blackshirts loose on em.

The PAD looneys are setting their monkey following up for it