The anti-government protest at three main locations in Bangkok on Saturday, namely Lat Phrao intersection, the BTS station near the mouth of Soi Udomsuk or Sukhumvit Soi 103 and Wong Wian Yai was different from earlier protests in at least two aspects.
One aspect was the majority of the protesters were young people or students with barely any old faces who could be assumed to be red-shirt followers.
This may stem from the fact that the protest coordinator, the United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration, did not announce the exact locations or time of the protests until a few hours before the deadline, making it possible only for those who are loyal Twitter followers to respond to the call in time. Hence, most red-shirt followers who belong to the outdated analogue era were left out.
The other aspect is there are no protest leaders left. Most of them like human rights lawyer Arnon Nampa, Parit "Penguin" Chivarak and Panusaya Sitthijirawattanakul have been locked up in prison. The protests at each of the three sites drew large crowds.
They were also peaceful and orderly. It appears that most of the young people joined the protest with a strong spirit of brotherhood and sisterhood which resulted in shared anger against its forceful breakup by the police at Pathumwan intersection on Friday.
The split-up of the protest into three locations in three corners of the Bangkok metropolis appears to be a new model for future protests by the student-led movement, whatever its name.
It looks as if the protesters are playing a cat and mouse game. But in this game there are several mice running around, making it difficult for the cat to catch them.
Thanks to the police for not attempting to break up the protests at the three main sites. Also, the protests were peaceful and orderly and they lasted just a few hours. Obviously, both opposing sides have shown restraint which should be a healthy sign.
The best the government could do to disrupt the gatherings was the suspension of the services of the MRT, BTS and Airport Link systems. But the measure has its side effects too -- the main one being extreme inconvenience to innocent commuters.
If this measure is applied on weekdays when many thousands of commuters rely on the services, it will backfire badly on the government.
So, what's next? How will the government deal with this so-called scattering-star model of protests? Forceful clampdowns like the one at Pathumwan will not work, but will only worsen the situation, especially the economic fallout from businesses affected by the protests which will plunge the weak economy into a deeper crisis.
The only reasonable option is to push for peace talks. One of the channels is through parliament.
The opposition parties have already proposed a special parliamentary session to discuss the political conflict.
The issue that can be discussed in parliament is constitutional amendments. Six drafts for constitutional reform are pending, waiting for a vote when parliament reopens for its new session on Nov 1. But waiting that long may result in the loss of a golden opportunity.
The protesters also want to reform the monarchy. This is a very sensitive issue and must be approached with caution.
My particular concern is the unfortunate incident involving the royal motorcade of HM the Queen and HRH Prince Dipangkorn Rasmijoti on Oct 14.
The government, together with right-wing elements, alleged that demonstrators blocked the royal motorcade, while clips that were widely shared in social media countered that claim.
The government used the incident to justify the state of emergency. However, the chosen royal route did expose a serious security lapse on the part of the police which requires investigation, particularly with regard to how the motorcade got into such a potentially dangerous situation in the first place.
There is wide speculation that those making the decision had ulterior motives.
I should mention the ugly and demeaning conduct of a very small number of protesters who hurled verbal abuse at the royal family in the motorcade and flashed a rude, provocative sign at them.
This is deplorable and totally unacceptable.
Verbal abuse is a form of violence similar to the use of force to break up a peaceful protest. They may not hurt physically but, in this case, it hurts the feelings of pro-monarchy and fair-minded people who may not express their feelings explicitly via Twitter the way new-generation people do.
The rude gesture, by just a small number of protesters, while the majority remained peaceful, has cast a negative light on the movement and its leaders.
It's not a demand for reform, but an expression of hate and hostility.
Nonetheless, it is a pity none of the protest leaders offered an apology for the incident which I believe could have eased the situation.
Instead, Mr Arnon chose to put the blame on police, suggesting it might have been a ploy of police to blame the protesters.
What is more ironic and unthinkable is the attitude of the opposition parties toward the incident.
What occurred is unprecedented, but they kept silent about it as if it didn't happen, apparently for fear that they might lose votes from young people the next time an election comes.
Even human rights advocates ignored the incident as if they, too, approved the verbal abuse against the revered institution.
So they only condemned the government for the forceful dispersal of the protesters. What a pity!
Hence, the issue of reform of the monarchy needs to be discussed in a constructive manner in a proper environment, not on the streets or at protest sites.
How it can best be approached should be worked out by all stakeholders.
If we Thais love this country, as most say they do, please give peace and sensibility a chance to work out a peaceful solution that benefits the country and people as a whole.
The alternative will be a loss-loss for both the people and the country.
Veera Prateepchaikul is former editor, Bangkok Post.