The question asks
"The year is 2040. There have been riots in the streets of London after Britain has run out of petrol because of an oil crisis in the Middle East. Protesters have attacked public buildings. Several policemen have died. Consequently, the Government has deployed the Army to curb the protests. After two days the protests have been stopped but twenty-five protesters have been killed by the Army. You are the Prime Minister. Write the script for a speech to be broadcast to the nation in which you explain why employing the Army against violent protesters was the only option available to you and one which was both necessary and moral."Of course this question sounds like a replica of the situation Abhisit faced just after the Kok Wua massacre of April 10th 2010. As anyone who follows recent events in Thai politics knows that was the day Abhisit's troops ran amok and killed 20+ unarmed Thai pro-democracy protesters.
Abhisit has since repeatedly tried to make the case his actions - which led to a total of 100 dead by mid-May 2010 - were justified, necessary and "moral".
There's little doubt he has failed. The Thai people loathe him, reducing his Democrat Party's vote share in the 2011 elections, he has been charged with murder on two occasions, once for the death of a 14year old boy and was eviscerated by a BBC news presenter when he was interviewed during his ill-fated trip to London in December 2012.
The simple truth is that Abhisit's actions were never justified, necessary or moral. In fact, Abhisit should never have been in power as he had no democratic mandate to govern and to take such decisions.
But what this Eton question reveals is the kind of preparation that Abhisit's schooling gave him - the ground rules of how to justify a massacre.
What Eton probably haven't prepared Abhisit for is a long stint in a Thai prison - a place where many people think Abhisit belongs.