Death threats, no-go zones and the rule of law

But it was soon clear that he had probably got wind of more than the rumour of just another move by the opposition to pressure him into calling a new election.

He and his Democrat "war room" members sensed that the protestors weren't simply mouthing political rhetoric. They were talking about the real danger of threatening his life.

The death threat wasn't a joke. On Monday it was aired on a community radio programme in Chiang Mai that is supportive of fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra, ahead of Abhisit's visit to the northern province this Sunday to preside over the Northern Chamber of Commerce Forum.

Publicly, two red-shirt radio hosts have denied the existence of an assassination plot. Phetchawat Wattanapongsirikul, a broadcaster for the "Sapha Kafae" programme, who was accused along with his unidentified co-host of encouraging the audience to "protest violently" against Abhisit, and talked about an assassination attempt, said he had no intention of carrying out a bomb attack.

His broadcasting colleague Kanyapak Maneejak said Phetchawat's talk about an assassination attempt was only an "incitement". She claimed there was no real assassination plot. The two, not coincidentally, are members of the red-shirt Love Chiang Mai 51 group.

Police immediately sought court permission to arrest Phetchawat, but the request was initially turned down on the grounds that the "taped discussion" on the incitement of violence against the premier during his upcoming visit to Chiang Mai was insufficient to warrant an arrest.

The next day, on Tuesday, however, the court found additional evidence that was convincing enough to allow the police to take the alleged agent provocateur into custody, pending formal charges.

What has become of the rule of law in this land when anyone can go on the radio to instigate members of the public to physically harm another person, let alone the country's prime minister?

 Strange words are being spoken these days from all quarters and all parties concerned in the political quagmire. Even the interior minister, who is supposed to be in charge of the nation's law and order, has publicly "warned" Prime Minister Abhisit to reconsider his plan to visit Chiang Mai - simply because a local radio station has had the audacity to broadcast a threat to the premier's life.

Another "well-wisher" in the Cabinet suggested that the premier should avoid possible "confrontation" in the northern city by addressing the Chamber of Commerce via a video link.

Does the fact that the premier insists on performing his duties - which had been scheduled earlier - constitute a "confrontation" when protestors threaten to disrupt the event?

Thing are becoming even more bizarre when the premier is branded as "defiant" and "naughty" after he says he is going ahead with his trip to discuss the future of the nation's economy with the country's top business leaders in the north.

Questions that will have to be asked now include such basic points as:

Does this mean that the Interior Ministry cannot guarantee the personal safety of the country's leader's anymore?

Does this mean that any group of anti-government protestors can intimidate the prime minister into succumbing to their demands, however absurd and preposterous?

Does this mean that there are certain areas in this country that are off-limits to the country's chief executive just because a group of Thaksin Shinawatra's supporters so declare?

Since when have lawlessness and "mobocracy" been identified with democracy?