“Bizarre, slightly surreal, and somewhat Kafkaesque”

Lennox Samuels at The Daily Beast has his take on the charging of former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his former deputy Suthep Thaugsuban. His essential position is the most common amongst the commentariat in Bangkok at present, yet there is much in the article that is worth considering.

It is at once bizarre, slightly surreal, and somewhat Kafkaesque: The most recent ex-prime minister of Thailand, Abhisit Vejjajiva, and one of his former deputy premiers, Suthep Thaugsuban, charged with the killing of a taxi driver during the political unrest that rocked the country more than two years ago. The charges were announced the day after the 85th birthday of the nation’s beloved King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

Part of the bizarre is the response from Abhisit, Suthep and the Democrat Party. Samuels talked to academic-for-hire and former Abhisit spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn who sees the “charges as politically driven.” PPT wonders what he says about the “charges against 295 red shirts.” No, we don’t ponder this, for we know that Panitan deals in double standards and would dismiss these red shirts as “terrorists.” Panitan does make one good point: “It’s unprecedented to charge two top policymakers, including the former prime minister, like this.” That’s true and deserves to be applauded, not denigrated as when Panitan “likened the situation to charging President Obama with crimes in connection with his lawful execution of his role as commander-in-chief.” Of course, in Thailand, the king is commander-in-chief, so the comparison is flawed.* Other Democrat Party members, like The Economist, argue that the driving force behind the charges revolve around Thaksin: “Thaksin wants to come home and he’s getting desperate as his surrogates in government gain their own power and become more independent…”.

Samuels recalls Thailand’s “long-running political tug-of-war … marked by coups, deadly protests, and the ouster of prime ministers for absurdist reasons like hosting a cooking show on television. And inevitably, a bogeyman lurks in the background—or foreground, depending on who’s telling the story.” The bogeyman is not Privy Council president General Prem Tinsulanonda, the king, queen, old military duffers or someone in the military brass. Of course, it is “Thaksin Shinawatra, the populist billionaire premier ejected in a 2006 coup who has lived in comfortable exile ever since.”

We agree with Samuel that:

In essence, Thailand is divided between reformist democracy activists who want a more open process, and traditionalists who are content with the centuries-long structure dominated by elites that regard the one-man-one-vote ideal as at best premature. The elites, personified for many by Abhisit and the Democrats, have resisted “reconciliation” efforts, loath to agree to anything that would dilute the status quo.

We also agree with a diplomat cited by Samuel who declares that: “The fact is, Thaksin has been convicted of a conflict of interest,” the Western diplomat said. “Barely a misdemeanor. There are several prime ministers in the past who have committed far more egregious offenses. Frankly, it is unsustainable in the long run that the de facto prime minister be barred from his country.”

Abhisit takes a different view and in announcing his impending martyrdom, declares (at The Nation):

I hereby affirm that I will not negotiate for anybody’s interest. I insist that wrongdoers must be brought to justice and will fight the case based on facts. I will not join the process to absolve people who cheated the country. I’ll accept my fate even if the judicial process lands me in jail or gets me executed, but I will not whitewash the wrongdoings of cheaters….

Frankly, the martyrs are those protesters murdered by the state in 2010, and in 1973, 1976, 1992, at Kru Se and Tak Bai and(to mention just a few instances) where no one has been held accountable.

The problem the autocrats have is that Thaksin is electorally popular but, as Samuels explains, “the former premier is anathema to establishment Thais, who regard his populist rhetoric and policies as threats to the societal order…”. They fear and hate Thaksin so the concoct conspiracies that see anyone who is not on their side as a mortal enemy and where proposed constitutional amendments amount to “a process they allege would result in the entire political system being jettisoned, including the monarchy.” That is bizarre.

The outcome is described in the article this way:

In the short term, the political gridlock is likely to continue, as neither side has the leverage to effect change—or the will to compromise. “A lot of people are in a prolonged conflict,” said one prominent political figure. “There’s more and more hatred and anger, and things get more complicated. So it is not possible for them to say, all of a sudden, we want to reconcile.” He added that both sides are “about even,” with Red Shirts having the government on their side while the Yellow Shirts can claim the military, judiciary, and “people in the palace.” … “Reconciliation basically has a better chance when one side dominates,” he said. If so, Thailand’s in for a long slog.

Interestingly, the government also has the majority of the people on its side, but then the autocrats simply can’t accept elections or their results (unless they were to somehow conjure a win). This is one reason why Abhisit always speaks of the rule of law and seldom about issues of democracy.

______

*While there are U.S. politicians who should be held responsible for atrocious acts internationally – think drones and Indochina bombing – we can’t think of a case of post-Civil War mass state killings in the U.S. that haven’t gone to the courts. The Kent State killings come to mind as a case that did go to courts, but maybe readers can remind us of others as we know little about U.S. history.

Updated: Rally called off

The Nation reports that the Pitak Siam rally has been called off at 5:18 p.m. Numbers were low and heavy rain seemed to impact as well. It remains to be seen if the hotheads amongst the crowd will stand down.

Update:  ChannelNewsAsia reports that police were injured when Pitak Siam protesters drove a 6-wheel truck into police lines. A live news report PPT saw included a telephone interview where the mendacious “academic-for-hire” Panitan Wattanayagorn was interviewed as if he was a disinterested observer rather than a partisan and complicit member of the opposition seeking to bring down the government. As would be expected, he complained about the use of the ISA and supported the extremist royalists.

Wikileaks: Panitan on the South and Thaksin

As regular readers well know, PPT has little time with academic-for-hire Panitan Wattanayagorn. In this Wikileaks cable dated 6 January 2006and referring to a meeting on 28 December 2005, the U.S. Embassy details discussions with Panitan on events in the south under the Thaksin Shinawatra administration.

Panitan and army buddy working on a “story.”

The cable introduces Panitan as “a well-regarded academic.” We are not sure who held Panitan in high regard at this time. For a start, his academic work was (and is) thin, so he has little of the usual credibility that comes with being an academic. Perhaps it was only in “the military and the palace,” with whom the cable says Panitan has “close ties to.”

The cable states that a coterie of political counselors and political officers from the Embassy met with Chulalongkorn University’s Panitan “to discuss the South.”

Panitan, who is described as “a longtime Embassy contact” is also said to be an “adviser to both the military and the palace.” Moreover, he is introduced as having landed a “a visiting fellowship at the Johns Hopkins University School for Advanced International Studies in Washington,” usually reserved for those considered somehow “influential” in Thailand and/or with whom the U.S. government wants to curry favor.

Panitan began by criticizing the National Reconciliation Commission (NRC) set up by Thaksin Shinawatra and chaired by Anand Panyarachun. He reckoned that “its members remain overly fixated on a ‘utopian’ solution, and need to develop alternatives grounded in the ‘reality’ of the South.”

Of the Thaksin government, it was said to be “bedeviled by overly intense and erratic attention from the leadership in Bangkok. Efforts by the PM and his top advisers to micro-manage government operations in the South lead to new, big overarching plans to solve the violence but there is rarely any follow-through.” The problem seemed to be not with the government, although it was undoubtedly “erratic,” but with the fact that Panitan’s buddies in the military didn’t trust the government.

Of course, Panitan big-noted the then military boss (and future coup leader General Sonthi Boonyaratglin for political acumen. That’s not something usually associated with the rather dull-witted Sonthi.

Much of the strategic and tactical stuff that Panitan advocates is all water under the bridge now, but it is interesting to see a junior “academic” being so knowledgeable (or at least claiming to be) about military operations. One point he makes is revealing:

Panitan believes that the military also needs to undertake more aggressive jungle operations against the separatists, but such operations require more trust between officers and enlisted personnel. Many junior officers do not have the experience yet to inspire their men to take the needed tactical risks.

Panitan also commented on the “suspicion and lack of trust between the army and police on the ground.” Interestingly, while many had criticized Thaksin’s decision to “give the police the lead role in the South,” he “admitted that local police are more effective than sometimes given credit for…”.

The Embassy’s final comment is that “Panitan is one of our most thoughtful and well-connected interlocutors on the South. That said, his influence lies with the army and palace–two institutions which do not always see eye-to-eye with Thaksin’s southern policy.” The links between Panitan and the U.S. Embassy deserve more scrutiny.

Academic-for-hire to face DSI

PPT is very pleased to be able to report that, according to the Bangkok Post, academic-for-hire Panitan Wattanayagorn, who was one of former premier Abhisit Vejjajiva mouthpieces, always “acting” government spokesman, deputy spokesman of the horrid Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES), and a man who was paid to lie, is to soon to appear before the Department of Special Investigation.

Panitan when the Abhisit government relocated to a military base in 2010

That said, he has reportedly “deferred his appointment with the Department of Special Investigation for his role in the April-May 2010 bloody crackdown until Sept 24.” We can’t wait for this affront to all that an academic should be – principled, conducting research, and fearless in revealing truth – is to be made to account for his activities with military and the Abhisit regime.

This “professor” is now back with Chulalongkorn University’s Faculty of Political Science used that job to his own advantage – as he has done all along – claiming he couldn’t appear at DSI because “the faculty was holding examinations for its students.” That kind of pathetic excuse is Panitan’s chief characteristic.

Panitan says DSI “wanted to ask him about detailed information on how he performed his duties when he served as Mr Abhisit’s deputy secretary-general , which oversaw military operations against the red-shirt protesters. The agency also wanted to know where he obtained information used during the CRES’s operations.” We’d all like to know more about Panitan’s activities.

In his usual slithering style, Panitan has already made the claim that the DSI investigation of the 2010 political violence would only be useful if conducted “in a straightforward manner, without discrimination,” which has also been Abhisit’s claim. He also made claims about “justice,”  a term that Panitan has not demonstrated any understanding when working for military and Abhisit’s regime.

Monarchists and royalists on lese majeste

PPT has finally had the time to compose a comment on two recent discussions of lese majeste. We think both efforts, while useful in keeping the issue on the international agenda, were problematic.

At Siam Voices, Lisa Gardner has a bit of detail on the “Rhetoric and Dissent: Where to next for Thailand’s lèse majesté law?” discussion from a week or so ago. The discussion involved two of the respected and aged gentlemen of Thai studies, Sulak Sivaraksa and Benedict Anderson along with two younger generation journalists,  Pravit Rojanaphruk and Andrew MacGregor Marshall.

Frankly, we found the discussion rambling and not particularly revealing of anything new. Still, that probably shows how far things have moved on monarchy and lese majeste in recent years. The comments we felt were most problematic were from the outspoken Sulak. While he has been on the receiving end of lese majeste charges in the past, this doesn’t mean that everything he says on the topic makes sense.

We agree with Sulak that: “If journalists had more guts, if they can speak critically, openly, things would change enormously – but they all avoid the issues…”. He’s certainly right when he observes:

I think, on the whole, people don’t take the monarchy as that sacred, that wonderful, as they try to tell you in the media. As they try to tell you in educational institutes.

His comment on the greed of the Crown Property Bureau is also worth repeating:

I think if the monarch (keeps) clear from the greed that is the Crown Property Bureau – if they’re clear from the army, which represent power – I think the monarchy will become less powerful. Like it used to be….

But we stop agreeing there. His next claim is that: “I think the King made it very clear. The case of LM – each case – harms him personally and undermines the monarchy. He made that very clear…”. PPT thinks, and we’ve said it several times, this is a patently false claim. In fact, Sulak knows it. In one of his own cases, the Royal Household Bureau was crucial in determining that he should be “taught a lesson.” Following the king’s statement on lese majeste, nothing changed except that cases have increased. Not only was the king’s statement far from clear, but we find it astounding that anyone can think that if the king wanted the law changed that it wouldn’t be done.

Sulak then asks:

But why [d]oes this government not carry out the King’s wishes? Because Thaksin [Shinawatra] wants more and more cases of lese-majeste, to undermine the King and to harm him personally…

For PPT, this is utter nonsense. It is clear that the Thaksin-Yingluck position is defined by their belief that the lese majeste law is non-negotiable. The Army, other ultra-royalists and the palace have made this plain.

It is not just the current government that has kept the law. The government led by privy counselor Surayud Chulanont was perfectly placed to implement the king’s supposed will. It didn’t. Perhaps the biggest user of the law against political opponents – the Abhisit Vejjajiva government – was less likely to do the king’s alleged will yet we don’t Abhisit and his lot thought they were doing the king’s will by throwing red shirts in jail.

Sulak’s claim is largely driven by his anti-Thaksin politics. He claimed his most recent lese majeste case was a result of Thaksin trying to get him. Frankly, we doubt this for several reasons, not least being that Sulak is simply not as politically significant as he thinks he is.

We now turn to the recent Al Jazeera program on lese majeste. We posted the link a couple of days ago, and have just had a chance to watch the show. There was much of interest in the first half of the story and quite a lot of it  very sensible.

The first scene that caught our attention was when self-described ultra-royalist Taweesak Suthakavatin explained why the monarchy is so important for him and Thais in general. He states that Thais are not suited to “Western” democracy because they are not rational in politics! Because they are prone to patronage, Thais are best off with the supposedly benevolent king at the head of the patronage system. Thus  Taweesak manages to denigrate Thais as incapable of engaging in politics and in need of a stern and loving father.

Remarkably, half of the Al Jazeera show is handed over to an interview with a monarchist (Sulak, again) and two royalists (Tul Sitthisomwong and Panitan Wattanayagorn). We’re not sure why the producers decided on these three, but having Sulak as the “opposed to lese majeste” speaker against an academic who has sold his soul and services to the military and the so-called Democrat Party and the clown royalist Tul is a strange combination.

Sulak says pretty much the same as he does in the above-mentioned discussion. In this program, though, he comes across as sensible and reliable when compared with the dolts Tul and Panitan.

Panitan is the most annoying because he seems to want to reinvent himself as a disinterested academic. For example, when asked why there are calls for the lese majeste law to be amended, his first point is that the law has been vigorously used in recent years. He doesn’t mention that he was the spokesman for the government that most abused this law, and that he wholly supported throwing political opponents in jail. When he adds that “several divisive groups have tried to use the law to their own advantage,” he is demonstrating a remarkable degree of arrogance.

His arrogance is meant to mask his deliberate deceptions. When asked about the misuse of the law, he does not mention the government he served and their repeated use of the law against political opponents. When he says anything about the Abhisit government it is to claim that its committee on lese majeste, which oversaw the biggest rise ever in cases charged, dropped a case against BBC journalist Jonathan Head. PPT has seen no independent evidence for this claim, and when we heard Panitan earlier on lese majeste at the FCCT, he made no mention of this. When he speaks of prosecutions he makes it sound like those charged are somewhere other than in jail.

Does he really believe that he will not be seen as a dissembler and a charlatan? Panitan can’t help himself as he arrogantly lies and conjures fantasies with no hint of shame.

He’s more real when he speaks of the lese majeste law as important for national security and when he babbles about the king being vital for everything Thai and for the “well-being” of the country. That’s the line that allows the law to be endlessly abused.

Panitan supports the law, and Sulak makes him look rather silly when he declares the law “antiquated, old-fashioned, useless.”

Having Tul on the program is pretty much a waste of space. He’s indisputably vacuous and has a single line: don’t change the law. He simply can’t explain why in any cogent way.  When listening to him rail against red shirts and that 3-15 years in jail for offenders is a reasonable sentence, he demonstrates a breathtaking ignorance.

There’s much more from Tul and Panitan that is bizarre, fatuous and untruthful. We could say that they come across as the Laurel and Hardy of lese majeste, but that would be insulting to the great comedy duo.

Updated: Al Jazeera on lese majeste

PPT hasn’t watched the whole story yet. However, we felt that readers would want to see this Al Jazeera documentary. It is about 25 minutes and interviews a few persons of considerable interest, not least interviews with lese majeste ideologues like the remarkably dopey Tul Sitthisomwong and academic toady for the military and royalists, Panitan Wattanayagorn. The blurb states:

The case of Ampon Tangnoppakul, 61, who was sentenced to 20 years in jail for sending 4 text messages deemed offensive to the Thai royal family has reignited debate over the country’s strict lese majeste law. On May 8, Ampon died of liver cancer in prison, still claiming he was innocent of all charges. 101 East explores Thailand’s lese majeste law and asks just who it really protects.

Update: Some readers tell us they are unable to view the embedded video. This is the link to it.

Men in black and DSI

PPT reckons that it is very difficult to believe anything that slithers out from the Department of Special Investigation. Even so, we have to say that a report at the Bangkok Post generates some interest.

The report states that DSI “has found scant evidence to support a theory that ‘men in black’ killed Col Romklao Thuwatham at a [red shirt] rally in 2010.”

Romklao’s death became a cause celebre for the Abhisit Vejjajiva government and especially for royalists as they claimed that he had been targeted and murdered by black shirts. There were all kinds of claims that soldiers were “attacked” by black shirts and that soldiers were the victims in this action. The Abhisit government’s odious acting spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn, even lied that no troops had fired at protesters. The royalists cheered when the queen and crown prince showed up and presided at his funeral.

Tharit

Apparently Romklao’s wife has complained of “a lack of progress in the case.” The eel-like DSI chief Tharit Pengdit said “officials have been unable to find evidence which points to any new suspects.” Apparently Tharit “has no further details” about the identity of any black shirts or of their whereabouts.

Is that Tharit’s political sliminess at work as he slinks to the Puea Thai side, attached to Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung like a limpet, were the black shirts just ghosts, were they operating for the military or is there really no evidence?

Panitan rehabilitated

A reader has pointed PPT to a story at the Financial Times. We suspect the reader knows that PPT has been highly critical of the former and always acting Abhisit Vejjajiva government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn.

It seems that Panitan has now morphed back into his academic guise. We can’t help wondering if he is acting in this position.

Back then. You say, I say....

In a story pointing to a process of “rehabilitation” that the FT claims has begun for former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, there are some quotes from a very thick-skinned/thick-faced Panitan. We won’t comment on the Thaksin rehabilitation angle – that’s getting plenty of media coverage. We are more interested in Panitan’s own rehabilitation as an academic.

Less than a week after leaving office, Thailand’s ex-acting government spokesman has apparently been rehabilitated as an academic back at his bolthole at the rather royalist Chulalongkorn University. Despite his very recent rehabilitation Panitan felt that he could use his academic gown to make comments that seem no different to those he made as acting government spokesman.

Panitan – the “academic” one – claims that the new “foreign minister is trying to create a new understanding that Thaksin is not a criminal…. Puea Thai wants to send a new political message that Mr Thaksin is no longer a fugitive…”. The FT continues, noting that “Thaksin has said that he has no intention to return immediately, but Mr Panitan warns that the new foreign minister will have to be careful how he proceeds.” Panitan says: “He will get in trouble if he tries to push it too far…”.

Nothing seems to have changed now that he is back as an academic. Panitan seems unable to comprehend that he is no longer acting government spokesman. We wonder if his academic career is no more than a sinecure where he awaits a glorious return to politics, supporting the same elite people who murdered, maimed and repressed.

Sympathy for the royalists

In one of those generally useless throwaway inserts that the Bangkok Post seems to have plenty of, there is one item of royal interest that caught the eye.

In Sunday 24 July’s Brunch “magazine,” which is apparently aimed at the elite, the last page is “In the Limelight.” This page is full of photos regarding an event at the “Thailand Cultural Centre [which] saw a full house in attendance last week when Her Majesty the Queen, accompanied by HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn, graced the premiere of the khon masked dance performance, Episode of Suek Maiyarap.” It can be found electronically here.

What struck PPT about the event is that, going by the photos, it was a kind of show of support for the good lads of the outgoing Abhisit Vejjajiva government. Maybe it was an event where royals and royalists were able to share thoughts and commiserations regarding their thumping defeat at the hands of the Puea Thai Party (or as the elite prefers, the red buffalos).

The story tells us that “The event was organised by the Support Foundation to celebrate HM the King’s 84th birthday anniversary in December this year.” There are a million of these events, but this one was obviously special. Do go and look at the photos.

The alleged “high profile personalities” who showed up to support royals and royalists were “Thanpuying Charungjit Teekara, ML Piyapas and Jutinan Bhirombhakdi, Thanpuying Supornpen Luangthepnimit, Prince Chatri Chalerm and Mom Kamala Yukol, MR Chatumongol and Khunying Boonvipa Sonakul, Prime Minister Abhisit and Dr Pimpen Vejjajiva, Dr Panitan Wattanayagorn, Vinai and Gunnigar Virojanavat, Pol Lt Gen Prakard and Khunying Pa-obthip Satamarn, Vapee and Thanpuying Muanchit Bhirombhakdi.”

For some reason, the southern godfather Suthep Thaugsuban isn’t mentioned. He was there, but doesn’t really fit the model of Bangkok-based, Sino-Thai royalists in this black-tie and diamonds affair. Also there were 2006 coup co-conspirator General Anupong Paojinda, responsible for the bloody crackdowns on red shirts in 2009 and 2010 and Abhisit’s chief of the corrupt police force, Wichien Potposri, and Crown Property Bureau boss Chirayu Isarangkun.

If readers are wondering why academic-for-sale Panitan gets a mention – he’s from the south too – it is probably his Privy Council connection.

We wonder if the queen was rallying this lot for the fight ahead?

German government on debt, planes and Thailand’s response

This a long post updating the seized plane saga.

The Nation has a report on the German Embassy in Bangkok unexpectedly entering the fray on the Thai government’s 30 million Euro debt owed to Walter Bau, a now insolvent German construction firm that was involved in the Don Muang tollway. The big news remains the seizure of a Boeing 737 decked out in royal livery in Munich and the threat of a second seizure.

It seems that, several days ago, the Embassy issued a statement “demanding that the Thai government repay the debt…”. The statement, in Thai and German, “said that the embassy truly hoped that the Thai government would make a quick decision to repay the debt, otherwise the matter would affect German investment in Thailand.”

The Embassy pointed out that the “international arbitration tribunal’s decision in 2009, which issued an award against Thailand to compensate damages to Walter Bau in the amount of around 30 million Euros plus interest and legal costs of around two million Euros.” The Embassy concluded that “the Thai government should immediately follow the tribunal’s decision…”.

In other words, pay up. The issue is getting out of hand because no government, and especially not the outgoing Abhisit Vejjajiva government, is ever able to roll back royal power and prerogative. As to paying debts and international obligations. Cluster bombs, human rights abuses, state murder, abuse of migrants, forced repatriation… (we could go on and on). The Thai state has a poor track record.

A later story has the Thai government’s response, which appears to threaten a deterioration of bilateral relations.

Putting bilateral relations at risk

When acting government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn decides to weigh-in on the increasingly bizarre case of the alleged royal jet, you sense that things are going to get testy.

As an aside, we really have to ask how long one can act as an acting spokesman. Yes, we know it was a deal to allow the “academic” Panitan to keep his bolthole at Chulalongkorn University, but isn’t two years and more a bit over the top in the manipulation of the system? Panitan should have given up his position at Chulalongkorn long ago and returned the keys for his office and apartment. His case shows just how petty the elite gets when they wish to protect their privileges – every last one of them, no matter how trivial.

But back to Panitan’s intervention, no doubt reflecting Abhisit Vejjajiva’s position. In the Bangkok Post it is reported that the “Thai government spokesman has warned the German Foreign Ministry to be cautious in demanding that Thailand compensate a German company that invested in the Don Muang Tollway.” He also lambasted it for getting its facts wrong – although the report doesn’t say what facts were wrong. In any case, facts have never really bothered Panitan. Look at all the stuff he made up about red shirts over the past couple of years.

Panitan was responding to the German Foreign Ministry’s statement through the German Embassy in Bangkok that the Thai government should pay up on its debt to the Walter Bau company administrator.

Panitan sounded Abhisit-like when he said that the German Foreign Ministry was not recognizing the “separation of the executive and the judiciary, and he was surprised that the German Foreign Ministry that seen fit to comment on the justice system.” That sounds suspiciously like the pot calling the kettle black. But let’s get it right: the Germans were making a point about damage to the bilateral relationship.

Panitan “insisted that the legal dispute between the Thai government and Walter Bau was in the process of an appeal and many legal aspects of the case had yet to be considered.” Is he sure? The Attorney General and others have said that the Thai side has (belatedly) mounted an appeal, and this sounds suspiciously like it was after the seizure of one of the two Boeing 737s that the government now claims it gifted Prince Vajiralongkorn for his personal use.

 

It seems the Thai Foreign Ministry is “about to explain the issue to its German counterpart right away.” Gee whiz, if that’s true, maybe they can explain it all to the rest of the world in terms that aren’t simply silly contradictions and fabricated responses.

Panitan added a warning: “Bilateral relations had been good at the levels of their governments and their people, the present issue was sensitive and the German Foreign Ministry had to be careful and ensure it has the correct information…”. He means information that accords with the Thai government’s view.

Then, for some reason that is not immediately clear, Panitan went the Thaksin Shinawatra route. He claimed that Thailand “expected good cooperation from the German government in relation to the expected extradition of deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra as it was reported that Germany already granted entry to Thaksin. Mr Panitan said Thaksin had to face justice in Thailand.” That all makes sense, doesn’t it? Maybe not. Panitan and his lot had more than two years where they first tracked Thaksin and then decided they didn’t want him. Now that they are heading out the door following their electoral trouncing, the Thaksin hunt is suddenly resurrected again. Why?

We think it is a threat that says to the Germans that Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya and Prime Minister Abhisit are prepared to Cambodianize this issue. Watch out Germany, and watch out Puea Thai. the Democrat Party is saying it wants a time bomb to use against the new government and expose their alleged anti-monarchism. Hand them this no-win situation, created by the outgoing government (just like the ICJ and Preah Vihear) and watch the fireworks. Bilateral relations can be and have been used by this unscrupulous mob to attack Thaksin and other opponents. They seem set to do it again.