bangkok dave

Published in The Nation, June 24, 2011

A little over a year ago, groups of men associated with the red shirt protest, set fire to nearly 40 major building in Bangkok, including the city’s premier shopping complex, Central World, as well as several government buildings in the provinces. Today, core red-shirt leaders including Natthawut Saikua, who has been charged with terrorism and had openly called for mass arson if his demands were not met by the Thai government, is one of the top names on the opposition Pheu Thai party list.

He dines in sophisticated restaurants and orders expensive wine while the nanny looks after the kids. Meanwhile the damage from the arson has been estimated to be in the billions of baht, as hundreds have lost their livelihoods, thousands have lost their jobs, millions have suffered the economic consequences.

Where is the outrage?

The UDD is calling for PM Abhisit’s government to account for the 92 who died during last years’ protests. Fair enough – until you consider that on April 10, 2010, pro-red militants fired the first shots that started the chain of violence. The responsibility for the first victims –soldiers, who were unarmed – can be laid squarely at the feet of the red-shirt leaders; yet, to date, in a perfect example of the double standards they love to decry, no one among them has accepted it. In fact, these are the same people about to enter parliament as MPs with immunity from prosecution.

Where is the disgust?

Yingluck Shinawatra has been hand-picked by her older brother and former PM Thaksin, to lead the opposition. She has no political experience, her male handlers and PR operatives control everything she says and does; she is not allowed to participate in a political debate, something that other democracies consider an essential part of an election campaign. She has been branded a ‘clone’ by Thaksin himself. Yet Thais are told her candidacy is a triumph for feminism and progress.

Where is the derision?

Yingluck has also concealed shares for Thaksin, a fugitive from justice, and allegedly lied on the stand – 3 times – to protect him. Her party deflects these uncomfortable accusations, but the bottom line is that a very wealthy and connected woman who may already have lied repeatedly to protect her family riches in a celebrated corruption case is well on her way to becoming Thailand’s new leader.

Where is the scrutiny?

Have Thais, particularly the residents of the capital, forgotten how and why their city burned? Do they accept it as normal that men who instigated those and other violent acts are about to walk into their parliament? Are they genuinely so smitten with Yingluck’s smile that they don’t see the privilege, corruption and blatant cynicism behind it? Worse yet, do they not see the violence that lurks behind this placid, affable but ultimately powerless woman?

Why do Thais seem ready to choose Pheu Thai?

There are many answers to this question, from the opposition’s superior use of PR and the Democrats’ inexcusably lame campaign posters to Thaksin’s enduring popularity and Abhisit’s questionable leadership skills. One can even posit that the government has been a little too successful at creating the illusion of normalcy, allowing the public to ignore the dangers of extremist elements within the Pheu Thai gaining power.

But PR and perception issues aside, if willingness to resort to murder and arson are in and of themselves not enough to stir enduring outrage, what is? What will it take for the majority of Thais who are neither red nor yellow to reject those who embrace extremism?

And finally, for PM Abhisit and the Democrats: there is so much you can debunk, ridicule, expose and attack – so, what are you waiting for? Have you no ability or will to fight an election?