Back to 2005 royalism I

With the royalists mounting yet another challenge to an elected government, the only thing that seems new for this lot is the use of the Guy Fawkes masks. Even these masks are a tired plagiarism of something done elsewhere.

Just to make everyone realize that absolutely nothing has changed for the royalists, the Thai Patriotic Front or Network has dredged up a ploy that was the strategy that marked the People’s Alliance for Democracy as a royalist instrument.

Yes, in a throwback move, the so-called Patriots have:

filed a petition seeking the Royal appointment of a new prime minister, citing what it described as failures by the current government on such issues as amnesty legislation, the rice-pledging policy and the Bt2-trillion infrastructure loans.

Chaiwat Sinsuwong and his small band anti-elected government ultra-royalists have submitted a “petition to the Royal Household Bureau seeking the Royal appointment of a new prime minister.”

We can only assume that this throwback action is a reference to Article 7 of the constitution. It states: “Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional convention in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.”

Readers may recall that Article 7 of the then 1997 charter was also used by anti-Thaksin Shinawatra protesters in 2005 and 2006. PAD pushed the use of this article very strongly. As Michael Connors explained it in his well-known Journal of Contemporary Asia article, the call for royal intervention was persistent and became a plea for the king to sack Thaksin [Shinawatra], supported by PAD and the Democrat Party. He also notes that the Democrat Party was prepared to use Article 7 in other circumstances in 2006 (p. 158). They made another call for its use in 2012.

Article 7 was introduced to the 1997 constitution by conservative royalists just before it was promulgated, and after public hearing were completed (p. 150). Connors argues that “the effect of Article 7 was to limit the reach of all … new [democratic] claims by empowering a traditionalistic and royalist interpretation should one be so required” (pp. 150-1).

While the 2005 plea was rejected by the palace, it led to the king’s call on the judiciary to intervene following the abortive 2006 election, which eventually led to the 2006 military coup and the political struggles that have continued to this day as the royalists prefer the intervention of unelected and unrepresentative powers against elected and popular political regimes. Article 7 pits the elite against the people.

Making (up) history and creating “violence”

PPT hasn’t had any direct reports from Chiang Mai, so we are relying on the media to try to understand the events of the weekend, which the pro-yellow media has described in ways that claim that red shirts have violently attacked a small group of so-called white masks in the city.

The Bangkok Post, Post Today and The Nation, amongst others, carried stories like this, with the implication that a volatile group of red shirts had gone on a bit of a rampage. And that police did nothing. Yet, when Khaosod reports it, a somewhat different picture emerges. In addition, the same newspaper reports violent white masks-yellow shirts chasing down red shirts, aimed with metal bars.

We begin to think that the process that the royalist groups are engaged in is exactly the same as seen in previous years, where violence and rumors of violence are used to provoke, curry support and destabilize.

The Bangkok Post reports small and coordinated white mask rallies in several places, in Bangkok but most notably in red shirt strongholds in the Northeast and North, where the Democrat Party has also sought to hold rallies in recent months, although with little support. These rallies mirror provocative actions in earlier years when the People’s Alliance for Democracy took supporters to rallies in places like Udorn, and managed to provoke violence from pro-Thaksin Shinawatra groups and gained much from the resulting publicity.

It is in this context that yellow shirt stalwart and “Green Politics coordinator” Suriyasai Katasila shouts his demand that “the Yingluck government rein in the red shirts…”. Readers may recall that earlier Puea Thai Party statements deriding the white shirts as provocateurs were greeted with howls of derision from the white-mask supporting and backing Democrat Party.

But Suriyasai goes a step further. Whereas most of the yellow shirt media and spokespersons think their groups are engaged in a destabilizing, coup-promoting exercise, Suriyasai has a different vision. He believes that the Yingluck Shinawatra government is seeking violence, indeed, “anarchy so that it can stage a coup against its own government.”

Yes, really, that is his reported claim.

In addition, he claims that violence and clashes is a government strategy “to divert public attention or overshadow reports of rice pledging losses. The government’s failure in its major policies and its failed administration could trigger a repeat of ‘dark power’ taking control of the country as happened in 2006…”.

Yes, really, that is his reported claim. In this, Suriyasai is rewriting history, changing his own character from a coup-supporting ideologue for “dark powers.”

He concludes this rant with this: “The government is creating the conditions for a coup because not only should it have prevented the clashes, it has actually been pulling the strings behind them.”

Yes, really, that is his reported claim.

The idea that the government is seeking a coup is bizarre, but diverts attention from the real coup lovers. Meanwhile, the destabilization by the coalition of PAD, Democrat Party, white masks, no colors, multi colors and aged royalists will continue.

A coup in the making?

The yellow-tinged 2Bangkok.com doesn’t make long editorial comments all that often. However, its 14 June outline of the path to a military coup is interesting for the way it constructs the narrative for another anti-Thaksin Shinawatra coup. Its frustration with the elected government and its sigh of relief that the opposition to Thaksin is finally getting the anti-democratic troops marshaled are palpable.

Its all-inclusive account begins with the murder of Akeyuth Anchanbutr, a former ponzi scheme operator, self-promoting and personally arrogant crook  and self-styled Thaksin critic, who was fond of creating political scandals, both real and fabricated. The yellow lot are all convinced that a man with hundreds of enemies must have been killed by the Thaksin side, who hated him. It is possible that this was a political murder, but there’s simply no evidence for this yet and no one amongst the yellow shirts is prepared to let the investigation get too far, but that seems to matter little as the yellow shirts try to create a political crisis.

2Bangkok.com then goes on to explain the movement towards a military or judicial coup (that would require the backing of the military’s guns).

It begins with “academics and the heightened rhetoric of the ‘white mask’ anti-government demonstrations…”.  In fact, the “academics” are seldom deserving of this title for they are self-styled “public intellectuals,” attached to the royalist elite, who never do any research but pass judgements and peddle opinion, often for a fee or position. The editorial observes:

In Thai culture in general, it is expected that the elite and educated pass judgment on others [PPT: this is wrong. It is the elite that decide they have this position; the cultural bit is that years of military terror means that it is grudgingly accepted by the populace]. The city dweller (assumed to be the elite and educated) passes judgment on the hoards of country people who bring regional tycoons to power. In politics these elite are one of the unelected and informal checks that are expected to temper the activities of the elected [PPT: again, this is a result of the great wealth and power of the elite who abhor electoral politics and self-allocate this position. In any case, the era of the regional political and economic tycoons ended in 2000, only to be brought back to political life by the 2007 military-tutored constitution]. The elected are held with some suspicion, as it assumed that they will inevitably seek to benefit themselves and their status by harnessing the supposedly uneducated voter [as Thongchai Winichakul has shown, this is a royalist construction. For the royalist genesis of this line of argument, His useful academic piece can be located with bit of searching that will link a reader to the original article at several sites].

But here’s the point for 2Bangkok.com:

When seminars begin again that include academics passing judgment on a sitting government, it means the classic Thai cycle in the lead up to a coup is starting. It will later include the “Chula doctor’s letter” where, again, elite physicians from Thailand’s most prestigious university present a letter to the government saying it has engaged in overreach. This trend includes expressions of disapproval and concern from military figures, those in the state bureaucracy, and elder statesmen (like Anand Panyarachun who this week spoke out against the government).

This is combined with a “a ramping up of media scrutiny (this time being conducted on the internet as the mainstream Thai papers are considered, rightly or wrongly, to be already co-opted by the Pheu Thai) and regular ongoing protests.”

Of course, the “ramping up” is of  a more politicized reporting and editorializing that is often little more than the repeating of concoctions found on social media. In fact, the media is divided, and there has never been a “ramping down” of anti-Thaksin, anti-red shirt, anti-Puea Thai editorializing.

But the social media stuff is said to have “significance” in the “sudden regular white mask protests” – a handful of yellow activists and Democrat Party supporters trying to “create either a genuine groundswell of public opinion or at least the appearance of it.” Not sure how the word “genuine” got into this sentence, but the idea of creating an appearance of public protest is certainly important for the coup makers.

It is noteworthy that 2Bangkok.com specifically mentions that the “English-language press has joined in as the government is referred to as a ‘regime’ and even the Nation has decided to begin referring to Thaksin as the ‘defacto leader’ of the government.” Of course, neither the Bangkok Post nor The Nation have ever hidden their yellow, royalist, Democrat Party credentials, so the change is simply these media “ramping up” their anti-government activism to give the appearance of an anti-government groundswell.

The significance of this is explained:

It is important to note that the military cannot take open action without feeling confident that there will not be widespread protest or dissent. They must be able to claim that they have support for any action. The pro-Thaksin camp can rest assured that they can make things sufficiently painful for the military. The military has always been inept at governing and their humiliating outing after the coup in 2006 means there is little real stomach to act against Thaksin amnesty [sic.] with tanks on the street–even if it were assured a Red Shirt siege threatening Bangkok would not happen again.

If the military needs convincing, there is an alternative:

The courts are a much better weapon to use against the government. Warnings about a “judicial coup” have not aroused the same alarm as when there are actual tanks on the streets. Government and Red Shirt calls for the court to be abolished or judges resign to make way for those friendly to Thaksin simply do not play the same way to the public as when the military is abrogating a constitution.

The editorial reckons that the trouble now is all to do with “amnesty bills,” the desire by some to “bring Thaksin home” and “constitutional reform.” PPT thinks this is all a beat-up and that if one looks at the period since the 2011 election, that the yellow shirts have been seeking and testing openings from day 1, and this is simply a more coordinated effort by them, probably because the funders of yellow shirt action, with their coffers recharged by a strong economy under the Yingluck Shinawatra government, are feeling that they are able to maintain an anti-government activism for a longer period.
As the editorial has it:

Now Thaksin foes think they have the government significantly weakened. PM Yingluck was drawn into the fray in April with her speech praising the Red Shirts and Thaksin and the courts successfully weathered attempts at intimidation while wracking up an impressive list of cases that can be used to shake up the government if necessary.

It adds, perhaps hopefully, that the red shirt movement is seen as weakened. Yet the editorial says that more time is needed as the red shirts and government need to be further weakened and the elite more convinced that the military or judiciary needs to act.

The rejection of an elected government – seen as no democracy at all by the yellow lot, who anyway prefer elite rule by hierarchical institutions – is part and parcel of the anti-Thaksin agenda, but it is a stance that requires considerable undermining of the government before the stamp of the military boot can be accepted. After all, the undermining of electoral politics has been tried and it was rejected, repeatedly, so the digging out of the foundations of “electoralism” will take considerable time and money before the tanks can roll:

The opposition, having experienced the Thai Rak Thai years when the media and business became political pawns of one-man and one-family rule [sic.], fears this future. It works against it by again starting the cycle of academic disapproval, weekly protests, and the threat of judicial sanctions to bring the elected government to its knees.

That’s how the military coup can be put back on the agenda.

Darunee’s lese majeste appeal fails

The Appeals Court has upheld the 15-year lese majeste prison term for Darunee Charnchoensilpakul. Da Torpedo is being punished for comments deemed insulting of the king and queen in a political speech in 2008. She was a strong critic of the 2006 military coup.

It was the so-called People’s Alliance for Democracy and its supporters who originally brought media attention to her speech at an anti-coup rally, baying for Darunee’s incarceration on lese majeste charges. Repeatedly refused bail and dragged through secret trials and a series of appeals, the royalist courts have repeatedly made it clear that Darunee is to be punished. Readers can see the details of royal and royalist retribution here.

It is worth noting that the charges were laid – under huge political pressure – by the pro-Thaksin Shinawatra government led by the late Samak Sundaravej.

The Appeals Court ruled that her conviction and long sentence on three counts of lese majeste and agreed with prosecutors that her speech “expressed her malicious intent against Their Majesties the King and the Queen.” The prosecutors say that the speeches “led to misunderstanding and caused DAAD [UDD] demonstrators to hate Their Majesties…”. YouTube has four excerpts from one of her offending speeches, in Thai, with limited English titling. Search for “Da Torpedo” at YouTube and the speeches come up.

The Appeals Court judges reportedly “saw that Daranee’s behaviour had caused damage to the reputation of Their Majesties and she deserved to be punished to warn others not to follow her example.”

PPT has made this point several times in the past – Darunee’s case is important for the royals and royalists as an example. Of course, the things that she said are widely known and, today, are all over social media. Yet she was one of the first to use these items as parts of political speeches in the post-coup era and is thus punished many times over in sham trials and repeated violations of her constitutional and other legal rights.

Darunee is a political martyr for free expression and in establishing a debate on the political role of the monarchy. Her case was one of the first to gain media attention – albeit tepid – in the massive increase of lese majeste charges hurled at political opponents following the coup.

Useless

We missed an important article a few days ago, at Asia Sentinel, authored by human rights activist Pokpong Lawansiri, that details the sorry tale of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRC).

Pokpong begins by noting:

NHRC head Amara Pongsapich and friend: opposing human rights

During the administration of the then-Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, was dubbed the most helpful and most relevant independent agency in the eyes of ordinary Thais. That is no longer true.

While Pokpong notes that, under Yingluck Shinawatra, the NHRC has become irrelevant, the process of de-fanging the NHRC has been a post-2006 coup phenomenon. This is because the military junta and the Abhisit Vejjajiva regime that gave the NHRC extra powers, they used it as a political tool and stacked it with political flunkies:

This explains why the former civil servants from the Royal Thai Police, Ministry of Social Development and Human Security, Drink Don’t Drive Foundation campaigner, and a businessman were selected instead of veteran human rights activists….

While the Constitution stresses explicitly that the commissioners need to have knowledge and experience in the field of human rights, the current batch do not know what are and what are not human rights….

The NHRC has repeatedly delayed the “publication of its fact-finding report on the April–May 2010 crackdown after 37 months have passed,” although no one expects such a report to be sincere or comprehensive.

Pokpong calls for “the Pheu Thai Party … to seriously consider the need to reform the NHRC.”

If the government did consider reform for the NHRC, it would need to demonstrate a serious concern for human rights. While Abhisit and the military royalists might have neutered it, a useless the Commission may well suit the current government.

 

Yellow-green-multicolor-no color-white masks

While some of the media seems to want to maintain the facade that the small group of people who have taken to wearing Guy Fawkes masks are some kind of new ginger group on the royalist side of politics, the fact is that each report on them shows they little more than a new political gimmick being tried by the same people who were the People’s Alliance for Democracy, the multicolors/no colors and so on.

The Bangkok Post reports on the white masks as “faceless men and women” who “are making a bold showing on social media and trying to rally support on the streets.” Some political pundits – almost all of them from the royalist/anti-Thaksin Shinawatra coalition, reckon this is a “new style of political activism.”

For example, veteran People’s Alliance for Democracy activist Suriyasai Katasila, now coordinator of the Green Politics group “predicted it [the white mask group] would be a more powerful social movement than the multi-coloured group formed in 2010 to counter the red shirt supporters of Thaksin.” That isn’t too difficult as the multicolors were a fringe group of ultra-royalists. Suriyasai is then reported to have had this tautological “insight”: “if the movement gained popularity the government would not be able to remain in power.”

The claims for white masks being “new” or using “new” political technologies are simply wrong and mostly intent on propagandizing for the anti-Thaksin cause. In fact, both red shirts and yellow shirts have used social media for some time, and various political events have been organized via social media. Even the use of the white masks isn’t new. Think of flash mobs, the facelessness masks of some months ago in support of free expression or the flash dancing of February:

The more that is published about the “new” group, the more they appear to be recycled yellow shirts and support, in the words of the Post, “has been modest.” Those who speak as members of the group sound very PAD-like. For example, one says they aim to ”encourage the silent majority to rise up and be aware how evil the Thaksin system is.” That core member acknowledged the membership “came from previous and current incarnations of anti-Thaksin groups such as the multi-coloured shirt group, the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and supporters of the Democrat Party.” Another member “said he was also a member of the multi-coloured shirt group that opposed Thaksin in 2010.”

And the reason for trying a new political gimmick is crustily old: “We love our nation and we love our royal institution.”

 

With a major update: Anti-Thaksinism

Perhaps the least  surprising news of the past few days has been the announcement that a self-proclaimed “anti-Thaksin Shinawatra group that uses the Guy Fawkes mask as a symbol is planning to join up with Thai Spring, another anti-government group.”

PPT hasn’t commented previously on this yellow splinter group as it seemed a bit silly for several reasons. However, now they are teaming up with the newly-formed Thai Spring, which is actually just an evolution of long-standing ultra-royalist groups using different monikers such as People’s Alliance for Democracy, Pitak Siam, multi-colors, and so on. In this sense, “new” is not an apt description of the group but rather a comment on their strategy and the gimmickry associated with the masks and anonymity.

On the latter, they state:

Whatever our future activity is, safety comes first as we emerge from cyberspace and into the real world. We’re trying to check the number of people willing to join and are waiting to decide on a date to rally for people’s right [PPT: we assume they mean rights rather than the political right]. We also want to demonstrate our refusal to accept parliamentary dictatorship that puts the benefits of corrupt politicians above the interest of the nation and its people….

The rejection of elections and parliamentary democracy is pretty much de rigueur for these royalist groups.

What strikes PPT as ironic in all of this is the Guy Fawkes mask gimmick. While the mask has been widely used by various political groups, the Wikipedia explanation is worthy of consideration:

A stylised portrayal of a white face with a subtle smile and red cheeks, a wide moustache upturned at both ends, and a thin vertical pointed beard, designed by illustrator David Lloyd, came to represent broader protest after it was used as a major plot element in V for Vendetta, published in 1982, and its 2006 film adaptation. After appearing in Internet forums, the mask became a well-known symbol for the online hacktivist group Anonymous. Time Warner owns the rights to the image and is paid a licensing fee for the sale of each mask.

It is ironic that this group seems blissfully (or wilfully) unaware of the Guy Fawkes story. As Wikipedia presents it,

The Gunpowder Plot was a failed assassination attempt against King James VI of Scotland and I of England by a group of provincial English Catholics led by Robert Catesby. Their aim was to blow up the House of Lords on 5 November 1605, while the king and the entire Protestant aristocracy and nobility were inside. The conspirator who became most closely associated with the plot in the popular imagination was Guy Fawkes, who had been assigned the task of lighting the fuse to the explosives.

We can’t help wondering why a royalist group chooses the symbolism of a plot to kill a king and much of his nobility and aristocracy.

Update:  A reader points out that Guy Fawkes wanted to assassinate the king and replace him with a queen. That may also interest the apparently political plagiarists of Thailand.

Interestingly, The Nation reports an interview with a self-proclaimed and anonymous initiator of this group.  It is a revealing statement of political positions that are no different from those of the Democrat Party and other yellow-hued anti-Thaksin activists, reproducing positions that go back to 2005.

On the beginning of this particular version of anti-Thaksinism, the interviewee shows the same lack of political and historical knowledge that marks these groups:

We want to cajole people to be aware and create a Thai version of the “Arab Spring” and educate people who do not know about the mask as to the meaning of the mask and why it is being used to oppose parliamentary dictatorship and corruption. It’s a universal symbol known all over the world.

They seem unaware that the Arab Spring was a movement opposing dictatorial and monarchical absolutism rather than popularly-elected governments.

Their knowledge of the origins of the mask are also revealed. They claim that “Guy Fawkes is a symbol of opposition to parliamentary dictatorship, who manipulate the media and shut the ears and eyes of the people.” Maybe they should do a bit more research.

The group’s statement of opposition to the elected government are exactly the same as those of the Democrat Party and all other royalists. There is not an inch of difference. Their alliance with these groups is specified in the interview.

Their call for “people” not to “be afraid of the government” is just another way of expressing a political distaste for the elected government. Their “refusal to accept parliamentary dictatorship that works for the benefit of corrupt politicians above the interest of the nation and the people,” is a claim that PAD has made since its formation and simply ignores all election results since 2000. They clearly state this when they say: “Our group thinks that Thai politics is in a most sham state and it’s just about electoral voice and benefits politicians and big businesses.”

Their Democrat Party political position is clearly expressed:

What we can’t accept is the burning of cities in 2010…. As long as the culprits are still at large and amnesty bill is being pushed and taxpayers’ money being paid to “heal” red shirts, we won’t accept it and a civil-war-like violent retaliation will be difficult to avoid.

This group is just old wine in a new, rather small bottle.

Unelected and unrepresentative

As the constitutional amendment debate heats up once again, the yellow-shirted allies including the Democrat Party and a range of ultra-royalists are coming together to parrot their opposition. This is an alliance that has remained largely unchanged since 2005 and which has not changed its stance on the junta-initiated constitution since 2007.

Interestingly, one of the key yellow groups has been the mainly unelected “Group of 40 Senators.” Outspoken, ultra-royalists aligned with the most right-wing groups  and the military, this group is critical in opposing constitutional change and maintaining anti-democratic political positions.

In doing this, they protect themselves. At The Nation, it is reported that the unelected junta spawn senators oppose “efforts to amend the Constitution to require all senators to be elected…”.  Elections are anathema for this group as they know that elections reject royalists like themselves.

While “checks and balances are required, this undemocratic lot have shown little tolerance for elections or for the parties elected. In fact, they have repeatedly denigrated the electorate as “buffaloes” and “uneducated.” Far from being “independent,” these senators have acted as if they are nothing more than the extremist wing of the Democrat Party.

One of these extremists, Rosana Tositakul, explains that:

…  the Group of 40 Senators … was formed in 2008 when senators, who were opposed to charter amendments, held a meeting. That day, 40 senators joined the meeting so the group took the name of the Group of 40 Senators…. Since the group was formed, their members have had luncheon meetings every month by using birthdays of group members for the dates for get-togethers. They often discuss current issues. Senator Paibul Nititawan coordinated and scheduled the meetings.

Rosana, who has a middle-class NGO background, embraces the royalist-military perspective on the Senate:

Senators should come from several professions. Since critics say appointed senators were selected by only a seven-member panel, I would like each profession to nominate a representative qualified to be a senator to be elected by the people, so that they will not be attacked as not being accountable to the community….

These critics should not neglect the experience of  elected upper houses in other countries. Elected senators can be critical. This was demonstrated for Thailand when an elected Senate provided a base for a critical group that repeatedly challenged the then Thaksin Shinawatra government.

Thaksin, law and sincerity

It is sometimes difficult for PPT to take the Abhisit Vejjajiva-dominated Democrat Party seriously. Sincerity is in short supply amongst many political leaders in Thailand, but seems in especially short supply when Abhisit is involved in justifying its use of the military to suppress political opposition in 2009 and 2010.

Abhisit’s political elasticity

On 2010,  The Nation reports that:

The ruling Pheu Thai Party yesterday demanded that opposition and Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva and Democrat MP Suthep Thaugsuban apologise to the families of those killed and injured in the 2010 red-shirt riots….

Pheu Thai Party deputy leader Anusorn Iamsa-ard said Abhisit and Suthep owed the red shirts a long-overdue apology because they had ordered security officials to use real bullets to shoot at the protesters during the crowd-control operation.

We think hell will freeze over before either man would admit any responsibility.

Indeed,  also at The Nation, it is reported that far from apologizing or admitting any missteps, Abhisit’s party blames Thaksin Shinawatra for everything! Their call is for:

… former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra … to admit to his alleged wrongdoings and respect the courts – to uphold the rule of law in Thailand.

They said Thaksin had been a major source of political conflict in recent years.

Not the Army, not the Democrat Party, not the palace’s old men scheming, not the royalist courts, not the military junta, not the dirty backroom deals, but Thaksin.

Their comments were prompted by Thaksin’s remarks on the “post-coup Assets Examination Committee (AEC)’s investigation against him were unfair.” There is nodoubt that they were contrived and unfair. This isn’t to say that Thaksin is squeaky clean; he isn’t. But the assets case was a fix and the cases where Thaksin should have been pursued were dropped or ignored for reasons that implicate those on the royalist side.

Abhisit is reported as stating that “he was saddened by the fact Thaksin could not admit his wrongdoings.”

Abhisit also claimed that Thaksin “should declare that he does not support a draft amnesty law proposed by Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung.”

On this latter point, Abhisit must have prepared his statement in advance for the the Bangkok Post reports that:

Deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra appeared to beat a tactical retreat on Sunday night when he told his red-shirt followers he favours an amnesty bill that excludes not only protest leaders and those responsible for the crackdowns, but also himself.

The report adds:

Thaksin’s announcement ran counter to a proposal by Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung in a bill he plans to file with the House of Representatives tomorrow.

The amnesty issue is certainly not finished, but Thaksin seems to have again demonstrated Abhisit’s failures.

All Abhisit can do is accuse Thaksin and the red-shirt leaders of telling lies.

Adding to the remarkable ingenuousness  demonstrated by the Democrat Party when they demand Thaksin accept laws, another report at The Nation has this eye-opener:

Democrat heavyweights have threatened to sue Department of Special Investigation director-general Tarit Pengdith if he refuses to review his agency’s decision to press charges against Democrats over donations to the party.

Laws for Thaksin seem acceptable for the Democrat Party but not for them.

Red shirts remember

An AFP report says there were some “12,000 Red Shirt protesters” on Sunday marking the third anniversary of a crackdown in May 2010.

Other reports are of 26,000 with some of up to 40,000 red shirts.

Roads were blocked for the red shirts as Thaksin Shinawatra phoned in and commented that “the government’s amnesty efforts must focus on absolving red shirts facing legal action in connection with the 2010 political violence rather than protest leaders or even himself.”

Police said the protest was peaceful.