Security and military affairs expert Assoc Prof Panitan Wattanayagorn was named as government speaker and deputy secretary to Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.

The Nation's Pravit Rojanaphruk caught up with him to talk politics just hours before the appointments. Excerpts.

The Abhisit administration has been accused of being a proxy of the military, given the role of Army chief General Anupong Paochinda in making the coalition possible. What do you think of such a charge?

Well, I think it's an observation from those in the camp that have a duty to scrutinise the work of this government. The opposition has been able to work and scrutinise quickly. The assumption requires that the government provide a satisfactory answer to the public... But whether the general public will believe [in the answer] or not depends on their understanding and belief.

Secondly, our constitution leaves room for various groups to mobilise. It's a beginning of new social forces which direct the government into ways that they want - even the armed forces.

But all these must be in accordance with the constitution... Whether it's appropriate or not is up to society to criticise. The military has made a political move... but they insist it's under the framework of the charter.

Prime Minister Abhisit insists from day one that he wished to achieve political reconciliation. Why then do you think he chose a hard-core PAD supporter like Kasit Piromya as foreign minister?

The Democrat Party explained the choice was made according to their party's procedure. My understanding is that Kasit has been working for the party for a while. But his role in the PAD is one that many other academics and even media professional have held too.

The foreign minister must clarify his stance, but whether people can accept it or not, the matter will be considered by [party] executives afterward.

Foreign countries will certainly not understand... this must be clarified.

Is there any way to put an end to the current political division into yellow and red camps?

The first task is to solve the economic impact which is widespread. It's a good opportunity for the government to seriously campaign to those who didn't vote for them. If the government can't solve the economic problem then it will not win these people's acceptance.

Secondly, the government may need measures especially geared for the people who didn't vote for them and elevate their importance. 

Should the Abhisit administration prosecute those within the PAD who forced closure of the two Bangkok airports?

I think it's up to the judiciary process. It must be fair and just. But to do nothing and let the law cease to function will also lead to trouble. We must allow the judiciary process to take its course... but the charges [against PAD leaders] must not be exaggerated.

Has the political power of Thaksin Shinawatra evaporated? Does he stand a chance of staging a political comeback?

There are two important points. Thaksin's personal popularity may be waning because he's not in Thailand and has no chance to administer the country; but many still personally like him. These people won't change their minds but his popularity may not be increasing.

The second point is that many of Thaksin's ideas and thinking are still around and will remain whether Thaksin is around or not. Some populist policies cannot be abandoned but must be built upon and made better.

You have been accused by your critics as being "hawkish", "pro-military", "pro-PAD" and "hardcore". How true are these descriptions and, if so, would they be appropriate for a government speaker?

Everyone has the right to his own thinking and view. My work [at Chulalongkorn University's Department of International Relations] mostly deals with defence policy. I stress the need for the military to work under a transparent system and under the oversight of civilian government.

As for the PAD, they are a contemporary political force which is beyond the expectation of many people. Many academics look into them, their studies and debate. So some of my positive appraisal may make people think that I'm with the PAD while those negative remarks make people think I'm on the opposite side [of the PAD]. It will take a long time before I can conclude academically whether the PAD or its opponents are contributing more to the country.