Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra will find a different country altogether when he returns home. It is a new Thailand that he no longer has control over, as it has been sanitised and stamped "under judicial review", thanks to His Majesty the King's wise words on the sanctity of the rule of law, which were timed with precision.

When Thaksin set off on his weeklong world tour, he thought self-indulgently but wrongly that he held all the cards. After all, the April 2 polls and April 23 by-elections had been muddled through and a third round of voting for the few remaining vacant seats was scheduled for the weekend. But then a lightning bolt struck.

On Friday, the Central Administrative Court ruled that a lawsuit filed by Dr Poepong Banluewongse and nine other people had grounds and agreed to suspend the by-election temporarily. That was a big shock to the caretaker premier and his Thai Rak Thai Party.

Obviously, the court's decision signals the beginning of a new turn in Thai politics that Thaksin was not prepared for. Judicial review, which is practised among Western democracies, is a form of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision. It is a challenge to the way in which the decision was made. It is not surprising that the King earlier in the week asked the Supreme Court, Administrative Court and Constitutional Court to jointly find a way out of the political impasse following the April 2 snap election.

The country's top judges have started to examine all aspects of the controversial polls and will pass down their verdicts very soon. This judicial process, a first in Thailand, is not really concerned with the results of the electoral process and whether they were "right", as long as the right procedures were followed. In this case, the 30-day issue is still a red herring.

Thaksin successfully fooled rural Thais in the North and Northeast regions - and some global leaders, unfortunately - into believing that he was making a sacrifice for the good of the country by declining to become premier in the next government. As he pointed out, he was doing this even though he won 15 million votes compared with 10 million abstention votes. But he has shown in many ways that he intended to return to politics and lead the country again in the near future.

Indeed, Thaksin was so confident of his political comeback that he proceeded to touch bases with French President Jacques Chirac, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. Before leaving, he told the media he was travelling to meet old friends and would brief them on the situation in Thailand following the House dissolution and the elections. He did in fact have 30-minute meetings with Chirac, Blair and Putin. No photographs were taken of the French and British meetings as they were informal, although a photo of Thaksin with Putin was distributed to the Thai media.

It was interesting that during his meeting with Koizumi in Tokyo on Thursday, Thaksin deliberately skipped over a most important political development in Thailand two days before - HM the King's comments on the undemocratic nature of a one-party election. No details of his trip to China have been released so far.

For an interim national leader to seek meetings with his counterparts puts them in a very awkward position. There are three kinds of meetings recognised in international diplomacy: state visits, which are the highest level of meeting, official visits and working visits. This is the accepted norm. Not many leaders have behaved liked Thaksin, who sought to meet leaders he described as "friends" during a transitional period between governments.

Of course, it was a wonderful spin for the Thai audience back home, showing Thaksin's standing among the top Western leaders. But they are definitely not his friends, by any measure. Meeting them once or twice or even thrice at summits or conferences does not make these world leaders Thaksin's friends. It was presumptuous of him to say that.

Once Thaksin returns to Thailand, the people will see for themselves which way his inclinations lie. At the moment, nobody knows what role, if any, Thaksin will play in the upcoming celebrations of His Majesty the King's 60 years on the throne from June 9 to 13. For the time being, it is hard to say because the organising committee is keeping such arrangements confidential.

It is an open secret though that Thaksin is obsessed with official positions, something his Cabinet members fully understood and fought for. When UN Secretary General Kofi Annan visits later this month to present His Majesty an award for his lifelong work on the practice of sufficiency economy, the Cabinet made Thaksin the chairman of the organising committee.

Nobody knows what Thaksin's next move will be. Is he willing to face the consequences of his actions? The judicial review has already opened a Pandora's box concerning his own political future.

Things are a mess. The royal intervention last week may help us move forward and hopefully out of the current crisis, but we cannot deny that this is a huge mess that we have created.

What do we do? Should we forget it and act as if it never happened?

This is not about pointing fingers, but sweeping the mess under the rug is not the proper way to deal with it and would be the worst response to the royal speech.

Those scholars, especially top legal scholars, who led the calls for a royally-appointed government should consider what was wrong in their thinking or understanding of the law. Were they misguided by a political agenda? If any of them still believe that their understanding of the law is based on solid academic knowledge, with intellectual honesty and integrity, they should still be respected. The fact that they have now agreed to discontinue their advocacy is understandable, but they should not be disrespected for it. They should not be silenced, despite the royal speech, because silencing honest academic ideas is the worst response to the royal speeches and not beneficial to society in the long run.

Leaders and supporters of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) should look at themselves carefully. Why did they refuse to listen, and even retaliated with scolding and accusations, to the dissenting voices that were not pro-Thaksin? Had many of the pro-PAD outlets not used censorship to silence their critics, would the PAD have been misdirected as it was? But, as with the scholars, if they still believe in what they did, but agree to discontinue their advocacy, it is understandable. They should be listened to with respect, and should not be silenced.

Another important question to these two groups is whether they exhausted the judicial channels to solve the conflict. Apparently they did not. Why not? Even many legal scholars and senators seemed to prefer street politics to putting trust in the judiciary. Given the regime's manipulation and interference with various accountability mechanisms, the deep distrust is understandable. Yet it is unfortunate. The anti-Thaksin movement resorted to confrontational mass rallies too much and too soon, with deadline after deadline. They should have made more effort to try judicial channels.

There were several media outlets that overtly or subtly took sides in the conflict. Several of them now pretend to stand on the moral high ground, pointing fingers at everyone except themselves. They should be honest with themselves as well and do some deep soul-searching.

Had the Thai Rak Thai regime not manipulated and interfered with the accountability mechanisms, had they cared for democracy in the long term and stopped playing only for short-term political gain, this crisis would never have occurred. But if they see nothing wrong in their actions then, like all the above, they should not be silenced.

For the opposition parties, the nightmare is partly of their own making. It is time to get away from the horror story.

For the judiciary, which is performing a heroic task right now, the question is whether they should have acted sooner, without having to be told, and independently, with no outside influence whatsoever. In the wake of the royal speech, as they are heaped with praise and respect, they too should ask themselves how they could have done better.

The list goes on. This is not a blame game, but we should learn some lessons while moving on. More importantly, honest ideas, academic knowledge and differences of opinion should be accorded respect.

Whoever suddenly changes their stance without learning any lessons is a political opportunist with no backbone. Unfortunately, it seems that there are many of them around these days.

It is ironic that the whole society needed a royal intervention to tell us that a royal intervention should not have been necessary if we had done our jobs properly and not created such a mess.

There is a children's poem in English called "Sarah Cynthia Sylvia Stout Would Not Take the Garbage Out". The girl creates a mess but never takes the garbage out until it piles up so high it breaks through the walls and roof.

"And finally Sarah Cynthia Sylvia Stout said,
OK, I'll take the garbage out!
But then, of course, it was too late."

Even after the royal speech, the mess is still there. And it stinks. Please don't forget to clean it up.

"Remember Sarah Stout
And always take the garbage out!"

Those who love the royal speeches should realise how much of a mess there was to warrant the royal intervention, and how troubling an intervention is to all, including to His Majesty himself. We should have behaved better. It is time for all of us to grow up.

TRT source says PM will run again; Democrat, senators warn conflict could escalate

The country could suffer another, more dangerous, round of civil unrest if caretaker Premier Thaksin Shinawatra backtracks on his pledge to take "a break" from politics, the ruling party was warned yesterday.

Nipit Intarasombat, a key Demo-crat Party figure, warned of dire consequences after several key members of Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai Party suggested their boss would no longer have to take a break from politics if courts nullified the April 2 election.

Nipit's comments were echoed by several outgoing senators.

But, a leading member of the Thai Rak Thai Party, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Thaksin would definitely stand for a new election as the party's number one party-list candidate.

"Several key figures in [the party] have come to the conclusion that Thaksin would have to return if the party is going to be successful in the new polls," the party member said.

On April 4, Thaksin announced on national television that he would remove himself from the political scene for nine to 15 months to allow a successor oversee political reform.

However, the Supreme, Adminis-trative and Constitution Courts are now considering whether to nullify the April 2 election, and subsequent by-elections, on grounds that they were "undemocratic" and "unconstitutional". This would open the way for a new election.

The Thai Rak Thai source said: "If we don't have Thaksin as the top party-list candidate, how can we be effective in campaigning for votes? People, especially in provincial and rural areas, still want Thaksin as premier.

"And if we didn't have Thaksin in the new race, the party would be torn apart due to infighting among several factions."

He said the party expected the new election to take place in July after the completion of celebrations to mark HM the King's 60 years on the throne. And the new government would be formed in August, he claimed.

Another Thai Rak Thai source said Thaksin should not be barred from entering a new poll and it should be left up to voters to decide whether he should return to power.

However, Nipit warned: "If Thaksin tries to regain power now, confusion will return and it will inevitably widen the rift in society and conflict will escalate."

The Democrat went so far as to say: "The conflict might eventually lead to a civil war.

"In the end, Thaksin wouldn't be able to stay in power for long. We'd like Thaksin to do the best for the country. If Thaksin returns prematurely, his party will benefit only in the short term but the country will suffer,'' Nipit said.

Several outgoing senators also warned that Thai Rak Thai would face a widespread public backlash and further legal action if it challenged the courts' judgement.

Senator Karun Saingam warned Thai Rak Thai MPs to be careful to avoid triggering a backlash.

"They are stubborn and blind for making political moves that can only benefit themselves. What they have done challenges the public protests," he said, referring to a group of Thai Rak Thai MPs-elect who accused Administrative Court judges of siding with the opposition and threatened to impeach judges who nullified their election.

The MPs-elect are also pushing for Parliament to be convened now, despite the fact it lacks a quorum.

Outgoing Senator Seri Suwanpanon accused the MPs of contempt of court for publicly expressing dissatisfaction on cases the courts are considering.

Outgoing Senator Chirmsak Pinthong said the Thai Rak Thai MPs were struggling to survive at a dead-end.

"They are acting like people who do not accept the country's laws and HM the King's address, which instructed the courts to ease the political crisis. The public will not let them continue in contempt of court,'' he said.

"Watch out. Don't think that you can get away with it," he warned.

People's Alliance for Democracy spokesman Suriyasai Katasila warned Thai Rak Thai MPs pushing for Thaksin's return that their efforts will backfire and bring about Thaksin's political demise if he returns to power.

"It is more than an uphill battle to push Thaksin back to power. If Thai Rak Thai Party MPs believe that their party is a political institution, just present another candidate for prime minister,'' he said.