• 
• 

Based on his phone-in remarks on Saturday, fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra has made it clear he sees the monarchy as the lifeline to rescue him from his political and legal difficulties.

Thaksin's infamous speech does not bode well for the forging of political reconciliation. On the contrary, society is plunging into a deeper polarisation.

By saying that he pins his hopes on royal kindness for his early return from exile in London, he has not committed an offence against the country's revered institution, as many have feared.

There is, however, a sense of mockery in his loyalty. As a loyal subject, he is supposed to uphold the King beyond reproach. Instead he is trying to sway the crowds to petition for royal involvement in the political muddle.

Isn't mockery the worst kind of insult?

Thaksin and his sidekicks, who were organisers of the "Truth Today" rally, are making a risky gambit, which will likely lead to perilous consequences for society regardless of whether or not they can achieve what they want.

On Saturday, rally organisers set up a desk for a signature campaign to solicit support for a petition to grant a royal pardon for former prime minister Samak Sundaravej.

The crowds signed their names without realising the true implications of their hasty action.

Samak's conviction on defamation is still under the final appellate review by the Supreme Court. Organisers know full well that their signature campaign on Samak's behalf will be futile.

Under relevant provisions and legal traditions, a convicted felon is entitled to apply for a royal pardon following the completion of the judicial review. And the petition must be initiated by the convict and not a third party.

The libel charge is not a serious crime and there is no precedent to seek amnesty for such a conviction.

At first glance the signature campaign for Samak might appear to be an innocuous mistake of well-intentioned supporters who happen to be unfamiliar with legal niceties.

But a devious scheme might lie underneath the appearance of innocence.

Even though the signature campaign might not make headway to save Samak from his litigation, it has already worked to benefit Thaksin in at least two ways.

First, it paves the way for a new precedent for the rousing of the crowds to apply direct pressure on the judiciary. This is tantamount to invoking one's popularity to elude the law.

Second, the Samak case sets the stage for a similar campaign for Thaksin. Any royal reaction to the petition, be it favourable, unfavourable or inaction, can be construed by the Thaksin camp as His Majesty's political leaning.

Thaksin and his sidekicks should carefully review their options or else risk inflicting irreparable damage. If they are truly royalists, then they should absolutely refrain from politicising the monarchy.

The submitting of a royal petition with political overtones may not break any law but it will end up as an inexcusable failure to show proper reverence to the monarch, seen as the country's heart and soul.

It is evident that the People's Alliance for Democracy has been trumpeting its royalist stand. But there is no reason for Thaksin to fight a foul with a bigger foul.

When the PAD condoned the 2006 coup, the Thaksin camp engineered a comeback through the election victory.

Playing by the rule has proved a viable way to overcome adversity. If Thaksin's goal is to seek amnesty, then the legislative process to bring about this has not even been explored.

Society is already suffocating from the sea of red vs yellow colours. Let us not complicate the matter by trying to colour the monarchy with political prejudice.