Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha has unwittingly opened up the old wounds between him and former Deputy Agriculture Minister Thamanat Prompow, currently secretary-general of the core government party, Palang Pracharath (PPRP).
Last week he held the latter responsible for signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) over the Chana industrial estate megaproject in Chana district of Songkhla province with the protesters rallying against the project without the consent of the cabinet.
Defending himself, Capt Thamanat released a set of documents on social media, including an order from the Prime Minister's Office and signed by the prime minister on Jan 27, appointing Capt Thamanat, then deputy agriculture minister, to head a committee to probe the megaproject and related activities overseen by the Southern Border Provinces Administrative Centre.
Three months later, Capt Thamanat's panel sent its findings to the Prime Minister's Office.
In summation, the panel reported both the Industry Ministry and the National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDC) have never been approached by the Southern Border Provinces Administrative Centre (SBPAC) to conduct a feasibility survey of the project or the Chana industrial city model for the future.
The report also shows the project does not correspond with the way of life and identity of communities in the area and that the project will fuel conflict among locals.
According to the report, the Department of Public Works, Town and Country Planning said it received the feasibility report, undertaken by the project leader, from SBPAC to be used to change the "Green Zone" in Chana district into a "Purple Zone" to pave the way for implementation of the megaproject.
It encompasses two deep-sea ports, a zone for light and tech industries, a zone for heavy industry, a zone for logistics and products distribution, and a housing zone.
Given Capt Thamanat's side of the story, Prime Minister Prayut should have been fully aware of the content of the MoU and the irregularities in the SBPAC dating back to April if he had read Capt Thamanat's report.
Hence, his claim that the MoU signed by Capt Thamanat with the Chana protest leaders had not been endorsed by the cabinet, to spare himself any accountability, rings hollow.
And in his capacity as leader of the government, he just can't deny responsibility for the performance of his minister assigned to do a job on behalf of the government.
Lately, the prime minister has appointed Energy Minister Supattanapong Punmee‑ chaow to head a committee on the Chana project replacing Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon whom Capt Thamanat holds in high respect.
Not everyone in Chana district is against the project. Clearly, the people are divided into supporters and opponents.
Deputy Interior Minister Niphon Bunyamanee of the Democrat Party claims that up to 80% of locals support the megaproject, believing that they will stand to benefit and their children will have jobs in their hometown without the need to leave home to find jobs.
Many who own big plots of land also benefit because of increased land prices as brokers bought up land for sale to the developers, IRPC and TPI.
A native of Chana district, Mr Niphon claims that most of the land in Na Tap, Sakom and Talingchan subdistricts is sandy and not suitable for cultivation, except watermelon.
He also doubts rubber trees grown in the area will give much latex.
Opposition parties, the BRN separatist group and even exiled former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra have capitalised on the Chana protest to slam the government for the police's alleged heavy-handed response to the protest in front of Government House when 37 Chana protesters gathered on Monday.
It appears all have their own hidden agendas.
On Friday, the BRN spokesman supported the protesters and condemned the government over the arrest of the protesters who were eventually released without any bail demand.
His statement also says Patani, a term used to refer to Yala, Pattani, Narathiwat and parts of Songkhla, is rich with natural resources but is being exploited by the Siamese government.
Thaksin said the SBPAC should not have been involved in the project, noting that he disbanded the organisation as he found it useless and a waste of money, but it was later revived.
Solving this contentious issue in a way that will appease all stakeholders is near impossible.
The most rational solution is a middle path where both sides benefit with some tradeoffs with the majority being the main beneficiary. Those directly affected must be fairly compensated.
To begin with, the SBPAC should not be the overseer because of its unfortunate history in handling the project as pointed out in Capt Thamanat's report.
The EIA and SEA studies must be carried by credible organisations followed by public hearings for all stakeholders. If the project does not pass both the EIA and SEA studies, it must be scrapped.
As far as the prime minister is concerned, his admonishing of Capt Thamanat to spare his own skin is unnecessary and unwise.
His silence on the MoU for many months speaks volume of his approval of it.
Veera Prateepchaikul is former editor, Bangkok Post.