In 2012, the question most often put to me is not "Voranai, how are you?" Or, "Hey there, may I have your pin number?" Nope, it's "Will there be violence?" I'm not clairvoyant but I do know that fate is inexorable, so let's consider this.
Present day Thailand breathes under a culture of fear and paranoia. This is a nation struggling with its identity. The population suffers from multiple uncertainties, all of which are governed by manipulative controls.
The saga of the Nitirat group has been up and down like the waves of an unstable sea. Journalists who have been close to Nitirat leader Worajet Pakheerat said a month ago that he was full of bravado, confident of victory. Talk to him this week, the spirit is still there, if somewhat subdued; a certain bravado can be found, if somewhat quelled.
When Nitirat (a group of seven law professors from Thammasat University) proposed to amend the lese majeste law _ Article 112 of the Criminal Code _ they were met with fanfare.
A faction of the red shirts supported them. A segment of the general public supported them. Certain prominent figures in society, such as elderly statesman Anand Panyarachun, gave them the thumbs up. Even a group of eight people with royal ''blue blood'' agreed and signed their names to a petition to amend the law.
The issue is simple enough. For the past several years, politicians and individuals have abused the law to serve their purposes, crucifying freedom of speech and victimising their opposition and ordinary citizens arbitrarily.
The consensus seemed to be that it was a good idea to amend the law and plug the loopholes to defend and preserve the democratic and human rights of Thai citizens. As to how exactly the law should be amended, that would be up to lawyers to determine.
But suddenly Nitirat has become society's most scorned and reviled group. Their support has waned. Their ever-growing list of opponents scream and shout. The red shirts have officially distanced themselves. Add to that list every political party, the military, the police, many academics, civic leaders, the public in general and the 1958 Law Alumni Club of Thammasat University.
Even Thammasat University itself stands against Nitirat, along with the school's faculty of journalism, a study and profession based on freedom of speech. ''There's liberty in every square inch of Thammasat,'' or so it has often been said. Rector Somkit Lertpaithoon recently spoke those words in regards to the school's decision to admit 19-year-old Abhinya ''Joss Stick'' Sawatvarakorn, who has been accused of lese majeste.
But when Mr Somkit decided to ban Nitirat's activities from his university's campus, we knew something serious was brewing. When the university that stood up for democracy in 1973 and 1976 self censors, we know the brew is piping hot.
Mr Somkit's reasoning is that the issue is so sensitive and so polarising that it might implode. He doesn't want chaos and bloodshed on campus.
The question then becomes, how could an effort to amend a law to protect human rights lead to fears of chaos and bloodshed?
It is because just about everyone is missing the point, and it is usually the art of missing the point that leads to chaos and bloodshed. When the point is missed, rumours are started, followed by fear and paranoia, with knee-jerk reactions close behind.
Suddenly rumour has it that Nitirat is backed by Thaksin Shinawatra and aims at toppling the monarchy. Whether the rumours are true, I don't know. I don't have psychic abilities. But this I do know: emboldened by a good start, Nitirat began to say the wrong things. I don't necessarily think they were the wrong things to say, but this is definitely how they were perceived in society.
The issue has grown bigger than the lese majeste law, as members of Nitirat started talking about also amending Chapter 2 of the constitution, which concerns the status of the monarchy.
Nitirat proposed that the King should swear an oath to defend the constitution, and hence to defend the people. This would be to prevent future military coups in a country prone to tanks in the streets. To those who are not Thai, this may seem right and reasonable, as there is a similar practice in most constitutional monarchies around the word.
But to a Thai who has been taught to love and revere the King and the monarchy for all of his or her life, or at least the past 60 years, it is ingrained in the cultural mentality that ''we the people'' defend the King, not the other way around.
Our collective love, worship and reverence for the King is a part of the Thai national identity. When the military sings their oath, it is first and foremost to defend the monarchy - the constitution and the people are somewhere far behind. The majority of the Thai people do not question this logic.
This is not to say that such a cultural mentality is right or wrong. It is what it is. As such, the Nitirat proposal is viewed as lowering the status of the monarchy, and thereby confusing what has been ingrained in our national psyche since before most of us were born.
Even more damning was when one Nitirat member proposed that the King should not give speeches on his birthday. Imagine the effect of such words on the Thai identity.
Such words have nothing to do with lese majeste and frankly, asked for trouble _ and trouble they've brought.
But going from that to suggesting a Thaksin-inspired plot to topple the monarchy is a far stretch, no doubt. Then again no stretch is too far when you submit to the culture of fear and paranoia.
Timing is everything, especially in a nation facing an identity crisis. What Nitirat proposed is in line with most constitutional monarchies, and in the present context the proposal to amend the lese majeste law is needed. However, in the same context everything else Nitirat has done shows poor judgement and bad timing.
Put a microphone in front of someone long enough and eventually he or she will say the wrong thing. Nitirat has undermined itself.
As I stated in last week's column, given the present realities in Thailand it is inevitable that Nitirat's proposal will lose. But at least it might have put up a good fight and garnered more support for the next round.
It was a strategic blunder, but will this issue become so contentious that it implodes into chaos and bloodshed, as happened at Thammasat in October 1976? Mr Somkit certainly fears it might.
Other academics and experts, however, reason that's not likely as we are no longer in the Cold War era as we were in 1976. The modern world offers different conditions, and economic demands plus the fragile status of the Pheu Thai government will ensure that no one will rock the boat too drastically.
But add to lese majeste and the status of the monarchy all the other contentious issues of the day, such as charter amendments and compensation for those who've suffered from political violence, not to mention economic hardships in general, and underline all of this with the ongoing battle for power and control between the old elites and the new elites, and I'm not so sure.
I would rather propose the George Friedman school of thought _ that logic and reason tend to fly out the window when predicting the behaviour of the state. Man is an erratic creature. The chaos and bloodshed over the past five years in Thailand is testament to that.
There are several options: push ahead in the name of freedom and democracy, thereby flirting with chaos and bloodshed; sacrifice basic human rights and democratic advancements, in the interests of safety, as Mr Somkit did for Thammasat; or we can simply be wiser in what we do.
Fate is inexorable, so in order to progress men should make better use of strategies. The issue at hand is to protect the innocents from the overzealous use of the lese majeste law, while keeping the law in place for those who genuinely abuse the monarchy.
Stick to this. Everything else must be done one step at a time.
Contact Voranai Vanijaka via email at voranaiv@bangkokpost.co.th