Updated: Lies and hopeless liars

The Bangkok Post’s geriatric writer Veera Prateepchaikul reckons that being perceived as anti-military will harm the People’s Party at the ballot box. He’s pushing an ultra-nationalist line that supports anti-reform parties.

His view is that Thailand’s unnecessary war with Cambodia over now seized disputed border land made the country’s electorate forget the military’s continuous interference in politics, its political repression, its numerous military coups, its corruption, and its murder of its own citizens.

Initially ignoring the People’s Party’s renunciation of 112 reform, he feels the urge to describe the party as anti-monarchy. Then acknowledging this, Veera writes a scurrilous sentence alleging that the party has “fuelled suspicion among its critics that it may seek to rewrite Chapter One of the charter and Chapter Two concerning the monarchy.” This deliberate and detestable repeating of a lie is akin to creating and publishing fake news. He means it to be a political assassination.

Meanwhile, The Nation has an article on other detestable fakers of the truth: Abhisit Vejjajiva and his Democrat Party.

This article states that Abhisit has stated that the Democrat Party will not tolerate “grey capital” and will only join a coalition government that is serious about cracking down on it. Seriously? Presumably that should rule out parties that have already been shown to have a connection with scams. That would presumably include Puea Thai, Bhum Jai Thai, and Kla Tham, and a few of the smaller parties. The Democrats have previously been linked with corrupt activities, especially in the south.

But here’s the big lie: Abhisit stated that “his party will not use sensitive issues to create division and will refuse to partner with political parties that fuel conflict.” The party’s political history is as a royalist party and it has repeatedly used the monarchy against elected governments and against political activists. The party and Abhisit have also limked with divisive reactionary political movements.

Of course, it was Abhisit’s government that joined with the military to shoot down red shirt protesters, killing scores and injuring thousands.

He’s reprehensible.

(We can’t think of a party other than the People’s Party that has not willingly used the monarchy and the military for creating political division.)

Update: In a report at Thai PBS, Abhisit is said to have opened “the door on working with the Pheu Thai Party after the election, but only on the condition that it is not dictated to by jailed Thaksin Shinawatra, de facto leader of Pheu Thai…”, while also suggesting that Bhum Jai Thai and the People’s Party might “join hands to form the next government,” despite both parties ruling this out. Given that the outcome of the election will likely require a coalition bargain, we guess nothing can be ruled out.

But what of a Democrat Party-Puea Thai alliance? Despite Abhisit’s claim, our reading is that this would depend entirely on Thaksin agreeing to such a deal. Thaksin is chameleon-like in doing deals, but he isn’t that good at keeping to them. Abhisit might think about the grand deal done with the palace and the military back in 2023. It is assumed that that deal was based on a quite Thaksin. Yet he was anything but: interventionist, outspoken and more.

We can but wonder at the backroom deals and machinations going on right now amongst establishment figures.