PAD calling the kettle black

9 03 2010

The Nation (9 March 2010) reports that the yellow-shirted People’s Alliance for Democracy has issued a statement accusing ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra and his army of red shirts of trying to incite insurrection. PAD says: “The upcoming mass rally, mobilised by Thaksin, the red-shirt leaders and the Pheu Thai Party, is a direct violation of Article 68 of the Constitution because the protests are designed to grab power via non-constitutional means….

The PAD statement continued: “Thaksin and the red shirts are not just trying to overthrow the government but judging by their preparations, aim at grabbing power and changing the political system…. PAD also warned of “mayhem due to street fight between the residents and the red shirts.” The yellow shirts also called on the “government to strictly enforce the law in order to thwart violence.” The Nation also reports something about “law-abiding citizens cooperating with the authorities in safeguarding peace.” A call for vigilante action?

The Bangkok Post (9 March 2010) has more. It reports that PAD core members Chamlong Srimuang, Somkiat Pongpaiboon, Pibhop Dhongchai and Suriyasai Katasila called a press briefing and claimed that Thaksin and the red shirts planned “to incite insurrection.

PAD leaders claimed that “the ousted premier and the 111 former executives of the dissolved Thai Rak Thai Party refused to accept the court’s ruling and decided to intensify the level of conflict from opposing the Sept 2006 coup to threatening the Privy Council and disregarding the highly respected institution.” PPT isn’t sure which court ruling PAD means; there have been quite a few. Note the reference to the monarchy.

PAD claimed that the “political movements of Thaksin, UDD leaders and the Puea Thai Party were harmful to the country’s stability as they wanted to overthrow the administrative system…”.

Wasn’t it PAD that held a record-breaking, non-stop demonstration? Wasn’t it PAD that occupied the airports? Wasn’t it PAD that called for political changes even the king rejected as unconstitutional? Wasn’t it PAD that wanted a change to political arrangements that would do away with many of the basic principles of democratic representation? Isn’t it rich that they should make such claims?



%d bloggers like this: