Democrat Party MPs Turn Violent
We’ve also always contended that Mark’s real intention in April/May 2010 was actually to protect his own subversion of the rule of law and prevent an entirely legitimate protest holding him to account for the democratically unmandated prime ministership he’d “acquired” in 2008 after he’d received backing from the Thai Army and allied himself with violent actions of the extreme rightwing yellow-shirted PAD movement.
After losing the 2011 election in such humiliating circumstances, being roundly demolished at the ballot box by the completely novice but capable Yingluck Shinawatra, the Thai people probably hoped they’d sent Mark as clear a message it was possible to send – “We don’t want you or your party in government”. Delivering the kind of electoral mandate that the Thai electorate gave Yingluck’s Pheu Thai Party would, in a fully-functioning democracy, usually result in a period of stability and would cause the losing party to retreat to figure out where they went wrong. Somehow this simple lesson in democracy seems to have gone straight over the Eton and Oxford educated Mark Abhisit’s head.
Over the last two days the Democrat Party have acted, once again, with an almost complete disregard for democracy, parliamentary process and the direct wishes of the Thai people. Once again they’ve chosen to form an alliance with the tiny yet violent neo-fascist extremists in the PAD – a group who seem hell-bent on staging a bloody reckoning with the democratically elected government.
It began yesterday (May 30th), with a Democrat Party-backed PAD protest of a couple of thousand fanatics gathering nearby the parliament and in scenes reminiscent of a bar-room brawl, Democrat Party MPs, miming Nazi-salutes, surrounded the Speaker of the Thai Parliament, Somsak Kiatsuranont, physically jostling and attempting to intimidate him. One clearly unhinged Democrat MP, Rangsema Rodrassamee, actually grabbed the Speaker’s chair, dragging it away in a fit of anger. Later Rangsema spoke on a Thai TV cable programme and encouraged the PAD to “storm parliament.” All the while leading figures of the Democrat Party, Mark Abhisit and former finance minister Korn Chatikavanij MP, cheered on from the side-lines, offering vocal support to the neo-fascist PAD and the threatening actions of their MPs in parliament.
Then, today (May 31st), in an escalation of the previous day’s events Democrat MPs ran amok in parliament once again, throwing papers and attacking government MPs. In one shocking and outrageous incident, Democrat Party MP Tani Thaugsuban (the brother of former Deputy PM Suthep) grabbed Pheu Thai MP Jirayu Huangsup by the throat, in what can only be described as a dangerous physical assault. Once again senior Democrat Party figures such as Mark Abhisit, Korn Chatikavanij and Sirichoke Sopha cheered on this unseemly and intimidating behaviour as well as making the kind of false and baseless accusations the Democrat Party has become famous for.
Whilst Democrat MPs were engaging in intimidation inside parliament, their allies in the PAD were outside threatening, once again, to storm the legislature. This time they backed down but have stated they will return tomorrow (1st June) at 6am to take part in what they’ve described as their “final battle.”
All these PAD/Democrat Party actions were undertaken to prevent a proper parliamentary debate being undertaken regarding the proposed Reconciliation Act. One could posit that if the Democrat Party wish to have their views heard on the matter it would be more democratic to take part in a peaceful and reasonable discussion. Of course the Democrat Party, if they actually believed in democracy, would realise, that they have no mandate to block the legislative process for this or any other parliamentary act. As the official “opposition” it is the Democrat’s duty to “oppose” the government of the day using democratic and parliamentary means. However, the use of violence, threats and intimidation, whilst forging alliances with the likes of the PAD, is no substitute for decent policies and behaviour attractive enough to the Thai population to win their vote.
Given all this it is therefore somewhat strange that operating according to the “rule of law” is one of the touchstones of Abhisit’s “image” and a theme he returns to repeatedly. In July 2009, just after he’d sent 10,000 troops onto Bangkok’s streets to crush the first wave of Red Shirt protests, Mark told the Thomas White global investing website this – “I can assure you that my government will be guided by the principles of democracy, good governance, transparency and respect for justice and the rule of law.”
Only a few months prior to making this statement, a member of Abhisit’s government, the Foreign Minister, Kasit Piromya, had personally attended a violent PAD protest which had blockaded Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi Airport. According to the UK’s Daily Telegraph – “Mr Kasit told an audience of astonished diplomats and foreign journalists on Friday that the protests were “a lot of fun”. “The food was excellent, the music was excellent,” he explained.”
So much for Mark’s fervent belief in the “rule of law” something, apparently, he doesn’t seem to believe applies to himself or those associated with him or his party.
It also seems as though Mark Abhisit and his party just can’t get over the fact the Thai people rejected them at the ballot box in 2011 and that it is slowly dawning on them that their aristocratic mind-set is set to become an historical anomaly.
Unfortunately, Mark Abhisit and his alliance of extremists, neo-fascists and other anti-democratic elements appear increasingly desperate and more than ready to use violence to achieve their ends. We hope it doesn’t come to that and that the present rise in temperature is proceeded by cooler heads, hearts and an understanding that even privileged, British-born, Eton-educated appointees have to follow the rules.”