Hitting Puea Thai, using populism

Report after report has recounted how the military dictatorship is hoovering up Puea Thai Party politicians for its own parties.

The most recent we saw told the story of former Thaksin Shinawatra-linked politicians working for the junta canvassing in the northeast trying to entice and bribe politicians to join up with the junta.

After a trip to Loei, Suriya Juangroongruangkit (same family as Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit) and Somsak Thepsutin are heading into Nakhon Ratchasima “to try to convince former Pheu Thai MPs to switch their allegiances to a party supporting [Gen]Prayut[h] Chan-o…cha to be an outside prime minister after an election.” The offers are to join the Palang Pracharath Party and are said to target “three members of the Rattanaseth clan: former [party] list-MP Wirat and two former constituency MPs, Tassineeya and Athirat.”

Suriya and Somsak “are publicly leading the campaign to woo Pheu Thai members into the new political camp.”

The other element of this pilfering of politicians is the junta’s continuing efforts to destroy the Shinawatra clan and the Puea Thai Party.

The Bangkok Post reports that former foreign minister Surapong Towijakchaikul “has been sentenced to two years in prison for issuing a passport for Thaksin Shinawatra.”

The Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions “ruled him guilty of malfeasance under Section 157 of the Criminal Code and the 2000 anti-corruption law.”

Surapong has appealed, but the message is clear: support Thaksin and we will screw you. Malfeasance is highly debatable under the law but the court decided that he was guilty because Thaksin was subject to “an arrest warrant on national security charges.” We take it that this means lese majeste. That charge is trumped up. But the yellow shirts and junta prevail over law.

The claim that Surapong’s “actions allowed Thaksin to travel freely and live abroad and the Thai government could not ask a country to expel or extradite him on the charge of not having a passport” is complete nonsense given that Thaksin has other passports.

When the court states that Surapong had “weakened the judicial procedures and court sanctions” and argues that he “tarnished the reputation of the country,” we can only point to the 2014 military coup that was illegal and caused serious damage to Thailand’s reputation (and still does). Yet the courts have always accepted that coups are retrospectively legal because the criminals make them so.

That effort to “legally” target the Shinawatra clan and Puea Thai sees more Supreme Court action against Thaksin.

While the junta pilfers politicians from Puea Thai and uses the judiciary against recalcitrants, the junta continues to pilfer political tactics from that party.

When The Dictator orders the execution of a prisoner, he captures some of the notion of populist appeal.

Gen Prayuth declared that “most people thought it [state execution] should remain in place,” he was appealing to fear. When he says:

The death penalty is legitimate. Many cases of severe crime have happened. Capital punishment exists to guarantee national peace and teach lessons. It is a necessity for us and people want it….

The Dictator is targeting the same vein of fear that had Thaksin receiving support for the reprehensible War on Drugs.

Take from Thaksin and Puea Thai while crushing them has been on the top of the junta’s agenda from the time that it planned the coup.

On 5 years

A juxtaposition of stories about “justice” in Thailand:

It is 5 years since the scion of one of the country’s richest families drove his expensive sports car over a policeman and drove off, dragging his body under the car, to a hiding place in his family’s mansion.

The Office of the Attorney-General on Thursday again postponed its decision on whether to indict Vorayudh “Boss” Yoovidhya, a Red Bull heir, in the hit-and-run case in 2012 in which a Thong Lor policeman was killed.

The indictment decision was initially scheduled for today. OAG deputy spokesman Prayuth Phetkhun said it had been further deferred until April 27.

The story is about the many ways in which the “good,” rich and well-connected are able to buy protection from the law.

It is a 5 year ban from politics for yet another Thaksin Shinawatra-related politician. Surapong Towijakchaikul might have been considered part of the elite, but of the “bad” sort.

The [junta’s puppet] National Legislative Assembly (NLA) overwhelming voted on Thursday to impeach former foreign minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul for reinstating the passports of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

The assembly voted 231-4 with three abstentions to impeach Mr Surapong. The NLA needed only 151 votes to ban him.

It wasn’t that long ago that the lapdog NLA refused to admit new evidence from Surapong. The NLA didn’t need evidence in order to “convict” Surapong. No “procedures” for him as he joined the other 300+ pro-Thaksin politicians banned since 2007.

Thailand’s justice system has been not just undermined by the two military coups, but it has been disintegrated. Buy “justice”? You bet. Double standards? You bet. Politicized “justice”? Certainly.

Challenging double standards

A couple of news news stories caught PPT’s attention while we we were looking around at the very limited coverage of the rather small anti-democrat rally yesterday. Certainly, they were more interesting than rally coverage.

The first story is from a few days ago and reports:

[Phayao Akkahad], who lost her daughter on the last day of the unrest said today that it is unacceptable that Mr Tharit Pengdit, the DSI chief, is pursuing those charges against Mr. Abhisit [Vejajjiva] and Mr. Suthep [Thaugsuban]while exempting himself from the legal action, since Mr. Tharit [Pengdit] was also a member of the Centre for Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES) which oversaw the crackdown.

Readers will recall that, a few days ago, PPT posted on the impunity of military chiefs involved in giving orders that led to murderous attacks on red shirt protesters. We see no reason why Tharit shouldn’t also be investigated for his role in those days when CRES was ordering the crackdowns.

The second story is a report of an distraught daughter of a paralyzed red shirt protester against the irretrievably biased and hopeless National Human Rights Commission.

Euangfah Saelew’s 71 year-old father was shot at Laksi just before the now junked election.  She says the NHRC sent one official to see her father in hospital. She says the official made no “meaningful inquiry about the incident which left Mr. Arkaew in severe condition.”

She contrasts this lack of concern and interest:

with the its enthusiasm in other cases related to anti-government protesters, such as the NHRC’s recent announcement that they will investigate the claims that one of the alleged gunmen who participated in the gunbattle which wounded her father had been tortured by the police.

As she well knows, the “NHRC pays more attention to the perpetrators than the victims,” when the perpetrators are anti-democrats. The NHRC has become another of the “independent” agencies that work for the royalists.

The third story is an interesting contrast. It reports police arresting red shirts in Nonthaburi and seized weapons the group had. These red shirts appear to have been involved in some recent attacks, perhaps including on the office of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

Deputy Prime Minister Surapong Towijakchaikul said:

authorities will not provide any privilege to the Redshirts suspects, and insisted that the police will investigate any crimes committed by all political sides equally without prejudice….

“But whoever commits a crime must be punished,” Mr. Surapong said, “No exception”.

Now there’s an innovation that seems quite different from the double standards that characterizes “neutral” institutions.

 

Election, reform or coup

Thailand looks likely to end the year in conflict and political stalemate. The Yingluck Shinawatra government has called for an election and the major opposition party has joined street protesters and will boycott the poll, as it did in 2006.

If this election goes ahead, those who oppose the government will not consider it legitimate, and the impasse will remain. In 2006 the impasse was broken by yet another palace intervention, judicial meddling and, eventually the September 2006 military coup. With candidate registration now blocked in the south, legal cases will grow like topsy and the whole process will be called into question.

Those who oppose an election do so in the hope that they can once again change the rules of politics so that elections do not return pro-Thaksin Shinawatra governments. Following the 2006 coup a similar process was seen, in the form of the construction of the 2007 constitution. This is what the protesters mean when they use the term “reform.”

Such reform should be unacceptable for those who support democratic development and electoral representation rather than the rule by elites.

So is there a way out of the political impasse?

Of course, another military coup is now firmly back on the political agenda. And, if the media is to be believed, it has some support from an odd source. The usual source is the military itself. Army boss Prayuth Chan-ocha has, according to The Nation, “has refused to rule out the possibility of a military coup.”  The Bangkok Post reports on the interview:

Gen Prayuth said a coup could happen, but would depend on the situation and timing. He believed that at this stage nobody would listen to the military even if it did stage a putsch.

“The military does not shut or open the door to a coup, but a decision depends on the situation,” Gen Prayuth said.

“The military is now adhering to peaceful means and trying to place itself in a neutral position, not taking sides. We are not doing anything to interfere with the work of the authorities, while looking to take care of the people.”

Prayuth knows that the military can make political capital from this impasse, and while he states the military is neutral, inaction is also a politicized decision.

While Prayuth stated that the “armed forces will do what they can to prevent violence,” some of the evidence suggests not all of his subordinates agree with him. Indeed, in the report at The Nation, it appears that Prayuth is critical of police, called for investigations of shootings, and seems to suggest that agents provocateur were at work:

They might think that without violence, the country’s problems cannot be solved and they cannot succeed. I cannot be sure, but it appears their actions are similar to those used in 2010. I’m not sure if this group took part in the [anti-Abhisit Vejjajiva government] protest…”.

We do not recall Prayuth calling for the 2010 events to be “thoroughly investigated.”

In an odd turn of events, but confirming that the military could be political winners, at the Bangkok Post, Deputy Prime Minister Surapong Towijakchaikul is reported to have “admitted on Friday that some Pheu Thai Party members would prefer another military coup to a regime dictated by the agenda of the anti-government protesters.” He is reported to have said: “They would prefer seeing the military tear up the constitution” to seeing the future of the country in the hands of ”those people coming from nowhere…”. He means the anti-democracy movement. It is a strange day when the military seems politically moderate when compared with extremists. Perhaps it is “good cop/bad cop” at work?

Perhaps the most likely way out is for hurried judicial action, as in 2008. More violence would be a pretext for this intervention. Cases are piling up, and a strategic judgement or a series of them could easily bring an end to the impasse, yet based on previous decisions, this path would be a win for the anti-democrats.

Updated: Defamation

As dopey, enraged and bitter yellow shirts try to equate defamation with lese majeste – a mistake they have long made in defending lese majeste – Asia Provocateur has a useful post on Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s defamation action against Chai Ratchawatra for his nasty sexist rant.

Some time ago, PPT posted on another set of defamation cases. We said then:

PPT has criticized several court decisions as royalist politics. However, occasionally some good sense emanates from a court. The Criminal Court has made a useful decision when it “dismissed a libel case lodged by former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva against red-shirt leader and former MP Jatuporn Promphan…”. The court ruled that democratic politics meant that, “… a verbal attack cannot be regarded as defamation in accordance with the Penal Code…”. That seems to us to be a reasonable point.

Abhisit has fired off at least four defamation cases against Jatuporn and seems likely to appeal this decision. Of course, politicians on both sides of the current political sandwich are equally likely to shout defamation and head for the courts.

Thai politics is full of allegations, some of which are outrageous claims. It makes little real sense for politicians to use defamation laws against each claim yet they tend to see the courts as a political resort when they feel  injured. It is related to what, in the context of lese majeste, David Streckfuss calls the “defamation regime”: “a social and political formation that over time develops a kind of ‘defamation thinking’ and ‘impulse’ that focuses on the insult of the defamatory statement, often at the expense of the truth” (xv).

In the current circumstances, we think this account remains accurate. Frankly, we don’t recall a single yellow shirt doing anything other than cheering Abhisit’s multiple cases against Jatuporn, so we don’t see why they are howling now. However, Yingluck’s response to Chai’s tawdry bleating is a part of the now well-developed defamation regime that is reinforced by the royalist use of the courts for political purposes in recent years. Even so, we can’t help thinking that Chai’s political and chauvinist potty mouth deserves a strong political challenge rather than a legal response, even if royalist politics has joined the two.

Update:  For all their histrionics regarding defamation, the Democrat Party has rushed to accuse Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Surapong Towijakchaikul, for describing the Democrat Party-led government as a “non-elected government”. While everyone recognizes that the Abhisit government only came to power through the intervention of the royalist judiciary, the behind-the-scenes machinations of the palace and very public puppetry by the military, the rather pathetic Abhisit and his party repeatedly plead that they were “elected by parliament.” Their defamation action again indicates the embeddedness of the defamation regime and voids any yellowish complaints about Yingluck’s defamation action.

Pressuring Prayuth

In recent posts, PPT has commented on the ongoing political struggles that have seen the continuing use of the judicial weapon.

The Bangkok Post reports that one of the few attempts to make state officials and politicians responsible for murderous attacks on political opponents is pressuring not a few of those involved in the bloody events of April and May 2010.

It reports that “Foreign Ministry officials will meet state agencies on Thursday to discuss whether Thailand should accept International Criminal Court jurisdiction over clashes between red-shirt protesters and security forces in April-May 2010.” Foreign Minister Surapong Towijakchaikul is bringing together yesterday “officials from the Justice Ministry, the Council of State, Attorney-General’s Office, the National Police Office, and the Department of Special Investigation.”

Surapong says that if these agencies are receptive, a cabinet resolution for ICC jurisdiction will be proposed. That scares the pants of quite a few, including Army boss General Prayuth Chan-ocha.

Another story at the Bangkok Post refers to Prayuth’s “opposition to the possibility of the International Criminal Court (ICC) having jurisdiction over the 2010 clashes…”. Prayuth would prefer the impunity that has long reigned for state murderers, especially those claiming to act for the monarchy or in protecting “national security.”

Prayuth was clear: “Don’t seek the intervention of outside powers…. What is happening is messy.” By “messy,” he seems to mean that real justice might prevail. He raised the possibility of joining with the unDemocrat Party in arguing that going to the ICC would be unconstitutional and talked about national pride.

Prayuth also stated that if any cases in the local courts brought against the military over the 2010 protest deaths “the army would appeal…”.

The loud-mouthed general then stated that the “military was the country’s mechanism to solve its own problems.” This is a classic statement of the military’s superiority. While Prayuth adds that the “military had to perform its duty in line with the law and the constitution…” it is evident that the military considers itself above law and constitution (as evidenced by repeated coups).

ICC in Bangkok II

A couple of days ago PPT posted about officers and investigators of the International Criminal Court being in Bangkok and holding meetings regarding the possibility of investigating the events of April and May 2010 . It does seem that the local media has been pretty quiet on this story.

The Bangkok Post, however, has finally mentioned the ICC visit which red shirts hope will lead to the government extending jurisdiction to the ICC.

Foreign Minister Surapong Towijakchaikul is reported to have “urged the government to accept the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) jurisdiction over the 2010 clashes between security forces and red-shirt protesters.”

That is a huge leap forward in seeking to end state impunity.

Surapong apparently made this statement following a meeting “with ICC chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda to discuss the steps Thailand would be required to take if it is to accept ICC jurisdiction.”

Anticipating criticism from those who oppose scrutiny, Surapong “insisted that by extending the jurisdiction to the ICC, the government would not be inviting the international tribunal to interfere in the country’s internal affairs.” He argued that an ICC investigation could “deliver justice to those who died…”.

Several red shirt parliamentarians have supported granting the ICC jurisdiction.

Democrat Party Spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut indicated that he lacks even basic logic when he babbled that the 2010 Army crackdown operations in April and May “is an internal affair and it has been investigated under Thai law. The ICC can’t step in,…” before immediately blabbering that “the Thaksin Shinawatra administration’s war on drugs did” come under the ICC. His final “position” seemed to be that “the government … ratify the ICC treaty and allow it to look into all cases of ‘crimes against humanity’.”

Why? Because, and we use his quoted words because the lack of logic is breathtaking:

If we ratify the treaty, I think Thaksin will appear before the ICC before former prime minister Abhisit [Vejjajiva] and former deputy prime minister Suthep [Thaugsuban]….

Of course, the DemoPADs are hamstrung on this issue because they have taken a war on drugs case against Thaksin to the ICC, so the internal issue claim is meaningless twaddle.

The question that is paramount now is whether the red shirts can bring sufficient pressure on Yingluck Shinawatra and her timid government to push for ICC investigation.

With 4 updates: Thaksin and transnational yellow shirts

Thaksin Shinawatra’s visit to Los Angeles has been disrupted by transnational yellow shirts and a few wearing the alternate royalist color, pink. A report in the Bangkok Post says that Thaksin cancelled after after some 2,000 royalists gathered along the roads at the venue to prevent him entering. Thaksin’s meeting with red shirt/UDD supporters was scheduled for Thaitown in LA on Sunday evening.

It seems they didn’t try to blockade LAX.

A later report in The Nation refers to a “rowdy” crowd. It adds that “Thai supporters of the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) have staged protests in San Francisco, New York City and Houston, when he [Thaksin] visited red-shirt admirers.”

In that report, Suriyasai Katasila “coordinator of the Green Politics Group and a key figure in the yellow-shirt movement” is said to have “praised the protesters yesterday, saying they served not only to enact ‘social punishment’ on the wanted ex-leader but also to humiliate the US authorities for slighting their extradition treaty with Thailand.” He promised that more yellow shirts would engage in this “social punishment measures until Thaksin enters the judicial process.” He thanked the PAD supporters in the U.S. for “showing their power so that the world will know the truth…”.

Another Bangkok Post report adds that Suriyasai claims:

his group will lodge a petition with the National Anti-Corruption Commission this week against a number of individuals and agencies for dereliction of duty for failing to seek the extradition of Thaksin while in the US to stand trial in Thailand. On the list are Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, Foreign Minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul, the Office of the Attorney General and police.

It is not new for there to be competing red and yellow shirts in the U.S. Both groups have strong followings there. Yellow shirt leader Sondhi Limthongkul spent considerable energy in developing PAD groups, particularly in LA. This was partly about selling some television and partly about fundraising for PAD.

Update 1: A reader tells us that Thaksin spoke at “a university in Los Angeles went without incident. … [T]he students and faculty heard him speak and then engaged in a lively discussion give and take which was informative for all involved.”

Update 2: The Nation reports that U.S. Ambassador Kristie Kenney has responded to the controversy whipped up by yellow shirts denouncing the United States for granting Thaksin a visa. If reported accurately, its a kind of non-answer that  is likely to further incite the royalist ones. She reportedly said that “every year some 50,000 Thai citizens receive visas granted in strict compliance with existing laws and regulations.” Kenney added that the “US was honoured to have bilateral cooperation with Thailand on extradition and criminal assistance. She noted that the US had always responded to Thai government requests made under the two legal agreements, hinting that there had been no extradition request in Thaksin’s case.” That latter statement may encourage the Democrat Party and fellow yellow shirts to further legal action. Finally, she reportedly “ruled out any adverse implications, saying the visa granted to Thaksin was not a political issue.”

Update 3: The Nation reports that “Multi-coloured shirt group leader Tul Sithisomwong led some 25 protesters in a rally in front of the US Embassy to voice opposition to Thaksin being allowed to enter the US. Tul said he wanted an explanation for why the US allowed the fugitive Thaksin to enter despite signing an extradition treaty in 1990.” That’s twenty-five. Is Thaksin losing his drawing power for the yellow shirts? We realise that Tul has never had any and that his crowds were mostly rounded up by others.

Update 4: A reader sent us this video, made by the yellow shirts of their protest in LA. Seems more like a couple of hundred rather than 2,000:

Not telling it like it is

At The Nation it was recently reported that Foreign Minister Surapong Towijakchaikul has “told the United Nations Human Rights Commission that his government had made progress in reconciling the deep colour-coded political divide in Thailand.”

We at PPT have serious doubts that the divide is any less now than it was before this government, especially as it is incapable of dealing with monarchy and lese majeste.

When Surpong adds that: “Human rights lie not only at the heart of Thailand’s domestic policies, but also our foreign policy,” we know that he is dissembling. According to the report, Surapong didn’t even mention lese majeste in his speech. With no attention to lese majeste and the position of the monarchy, real progress on democratization and human rights remains a pipe dream.

 

 

Bringing down the Puea Thai government

Thaksin wanted?

In an earlier post, PPT referred to an emerging pattern being used by the broad array of anti-Thaksin Shinawatra groups, including the Democrat Party and its supporters, to challenge and eventually bring down the government led by Yingluck Shinawatra. In this post we will outline that strategy. It is no earth-shattering revelation, for the opponents haven’t really changed much since 2005-06 and their strategies remain pretty much the same as before. It’s looking a bit like Groundhog Day Thailand.

Essentially, the strategy is to reignite the anti-Thaksin opposition in a fight with Thaksin, viewing the Yingluck government as a proxy regime. In other words, the strategy is pretty much the same as that following the shocking loss by the Democrat Party in the 2007 election following all the work done by royalists and the military to discredit Thaksin and his supporters.

There are already plenty of signs that this strategy – and that word may give it more coherence than it currently has – is for the Democrat Party to put on its pious royalist hat and attack the government in parliament, while giving support to all groups that oppose Thaksin outside parliament. This includes the yellow/no/multi color shirts and the military. Behind the scenes, the palace and business leaders will be supporting and sniping.

Let’s look at some recent examples of this strategy being rolled out:

The various groups are best brought together by directly targeting the hated Thaksin with nationalist zeal. At Thai-ASEAN News Network, we read of an editorial in Khom Chat Luek newspaper, referring to Foreign Minister Surapong Towijakchaikul:

However, the faith of the country is now in the hands of a politician who is inexperienced in international affairs yet tasked with daunting responsibilities in the maelstrom of international politics. Many cannot help but be wonder whether Thailand’s foreign policy could sink even lower than where it is at the moment from this lack of experience. Thailand is in imminent danger of falling prey to crafty foreigners.

The international community may have already realized that it would not take much work to exploit Thailand which is currently ruled by a puppet government who came to power on the false pretense of democracy in order to benefit only a certain group of people.

… In the time when the Foreign Ministry is headed by a politician who is subservient to only a certain group of people, the bureaucrats are the only hope of installing the ministry back to its glorious days.

In this, the language mimics that of the People’s Alliance for Democracy and also reflects its concerns. Perhaps the claims by the Network that: “Despite the same broadcasting entity, TAN Network is absolutely independent from ASTV” need revision to match reality.

Surapong’s decision to respond to Japanese questions about Thaksin created an opportunity for the Democrat Party to get pious on rule of law and parliament. For example, the Bangkok Post states:

The opposition Democrat Party is seeking to take legal action against Foreign Minister Surapong Towijakchaikul for helping ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra to enter Japan.

Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday said it was wrong for the government to arrange for Thaksin, who is on the run from justice, to get special permission to visit Japan between Aug 22-28.

… Mr Abhisit said the Yingluck government is obliged to comply with the verdict and enforce the law by bringing Thaksin back to face justice.

Government officials who are found to help a fugitive could also face prosecution, Mr Abhisit said.

He said the Democrats’ lawyers are looking at legal steps to be taken against Mr Surapong and other government officials who may be involved.

Thaksin not wanted?

Abhisit has said that he sees a real opportunity to attach the new government on this issue and will push it in the courts and in parliament. Forget all the stuff about charges against PAD supporter, speaker and booster Kasit Piromya who was foreign minister for the entire period of the Democrat Party-led coalition. The Democrat Party is seeking nothing less than the impeachment of the foreign minister, and as The Nation has it, will ” take the case to the National Anti-Corruption Commission for an investigation into whether there was any individual behind the foreign minister’s moves and whether Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra – who is Thaksin’s sister – was involved with this matter.”

Abhisit has maintained his “rage,” with the Bangkok Post stating that:

Abhisit also warned that Yingluck government should not do anything considered as a double standard. He was apparently referring to Yingluck’s brother, Thaksin Shinawatra, who is behind the victory of Pheu Thai in the July election and the appointment of Yingluck to the premiership.

It is quite a surprise to hear the master of double standards making such a statement. We imagine that Abhisit was simply being a smart-ass.Of course, the anti-Thaksin media does it part, keeping Thaksin on the front page as “a fugitive”” day after day. And just to make it feel more like a re-run (this time of 2005-06), Surapong has responded by lodging “a complaint with Phaya Thai police against Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva and three other Democrats for defamation and filing a complaint with false accusations against him.”

A related Democrat Party approach is to target Yingluck as a political beginner, but also to “show” her puppet status vis-a-vis Thaksin:

Former PM’s office minister Ongart Klampaiboon challenged Yingluck to clarify her party’s position and answer the questions on government policies herself to prove her leadership.

Ongart added that the premier had said her party has working groups on policy and that she had selected her cabinet by herself, so she should answer the questions herself to show that she was really involved in policy drafting.

Tul at the Japanese embassy

The re-mobilization of the yellow shirts as an anti-Thaksin movement is also beginning. This time led by Chulalongkorn University medical doctor Tul Sitthisomwong, who has “submitted a letter at the Japanese Embassy in Bangkok this morning, opposing the special entry permit given to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.” He also led a protest by yellow multi-color shirts at the Japanese Embassy.

And just to round things out, even relations with the military, which some think is a part of a palace-Thaksin deal, is suggesting that tensions are bubbling up in a way that will see the royalist military plotting and scheming.

PPT assumes that this is just the beginning….