Thailand: Statement of the Assembly for the Defense of Democracy (AFDD)

Statement of the Assembly for the Defense of Democracy (AFDD)

We Oppose the Ruling of the Constitutional Court Intended to Render the 2 February 2014 Election Unconstitutional.

The Constitutional Court has ruled on a matter forwarded to them by the Ombudsman under Article 245 (1) of the Constitution. The matter in question was whether or not the general parliamentary election held on 2 February 2014, in line with the Royal Decree on the Dissolution of Parliament (2013), was constitutional. In a statement announced by the Chief Spokesperson  of the Constitutional Court, the Court commented that there were 28 electoral districts in which there were no candidates who submitted applications to contend in the 2 February 2014 election.  The Court further commented that elections cannot be held in those districts after 2 February because the effect would be that the general election was not held simultaneously on the same day across the kingdom. Therefore, the Court ruled that the 2 February 2014 election was not one that was held simultaneously on the same day throughout the kingdom. The effect of this ruling is to make the Royal Decree on the Dissolution of Parliament (2013), particularly the setting of the date of 2 February 2014 for the election, unconstitutional and in contradiction with Article 108, paragraph two, of the Constitution. It is the view of the Assembly for the Defense of Democracy (AFDD) that this ruling of the Constitutional Court ruling contains the following problems of constitutionality and political legitimacy: 

1. Article 245 (1) of the Constitution of Thailand stipulates that the Ombudsman can propose a matter to the Constitutional Corut when he thinks that there is “any provision of law that begs the question of constitutionality.” Therefore, the substance of the case that the Ombudsman has the discretion to send to the Constitutional Court to consider must be a “provision of law.” But in this case, the clearly visible problem is that the substance of the case is “the holding of the general election.” When the substance of the case is not a “provision of law,” the Ombudsman cannot propose the case to the Constitutional Court, and if the Ombudsman forwards such a matter to the Constitutional Court, it is the duty of the Court to refuse to accept the request for examination. The acceptance of the aforementioned matter by the Constitutional Court is unconstitutional in line with Article 245 (1) and is equivalent to the Constitutional Court singlehandedly amending the Constitution and altering the substance of the permitted cases for examination under Article 245 (1). There is no provision in the Constitution that gives the Constitutional Court the authority to do so.

2. Article 108, paragraph two, of the 2007 Constitution of Thailand prescribes that, “The dissolution of the House of Representatives shall be made in the form of a Royal Decree in which the day for a new general election must be fixed within the period of not less than forty five days but not more than sixty days as from the date of the dissolution of the House of Representatives and such election day must be the same throughout the Kingdom.” The facts show that the election day was set for the same date (2 February 2014) throughout the whole kingdom in the Royal Decree on the Dissolution of Parliament (2013). The aforementioned setting of the date of the general election was therefore constitutional.

But in this case it appears that the Constitutional Court has used evidence of events that occurred after, and were unrelated to the setting of the date of the general election, as the basis of their examination. In other words, the Court used the fact of candidates not being able to register to compete in the election in 28 electoral districts to claim that if a general election was held in these districts after 2 February 2014, it would mean that the general election was not held on the same day simultaneously throughout the kingdom. The Court made this claim even though the Constitution does not mandate that the general election must occur on the same day throughout the whole kingdom. There may be acts of god or other unavoidable incidents which may make holding an election on the same day as the rest of the country impossible in some districts. The Constitution stipulates only that the election day must be “set” to be the same day simultaneously throughout the kingdom. Therefore, the setting of the date was already done constitutionally. 

3. In addition, there is also the fact that, on the whole, the 2 February 2014 election passed in an orderly fashion. The Constitutional Court’s raising of the instances of not being able to register to run for election in some districts as a result of obstruction by some individuals in order to claim that the section of the Royal Decree on the Dissolution of Parliament (2013) that set the date for the general election was unconstitutional was done with the intention to spoil the  election. In addition to having no basis in law, there is an additional problem of interpretation of this ruling. Have the ballots of those people who went to vote on 2 February 2014 been destroyed or not, and under the authority of which Constitutional or other legal provision? 

4. Analyzed from a perspective of political struggle, it can be seen that the obstacle to the election came from the collaboration between the People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) and individuals who support the PDRC inside and outside the Parliament, and collaboration between those who are overt and covert in their actions to destroy parliamentary democracy. In addition, the Election Commission of Thailand (ECT) did not act with an intention to work in line with their framework of authority and duty in order to successfully hold elections. Therefore, an effect of the ruling of the Constitutional Court is to prop up opposition to electoral democracy and make it come to fruition. This ruling disregards and neglects the rights of the people: those who hold the authority [in the country] and can express this authority in line with the rules and regulations that are in force. 

5. This cooperation to oppose democracy will continue to create a political vacuum in order to open up the space for an extraconstitutional prime minister and government to come to power, and in order to push forward amendment of the Constitution in a direction that will weaken and devastate electoral democracy. The Assembly for the Defense of Democracy therefore condemns these attempts, those that have occurred and those that will occur in the near future, as antithetical to the basic rights and liberties of the people. 

6. It is clear that from the 2006 coup up until the present, all of the independent agencies and the judiciary have become instruments of a powerful minority group acting in opposition to democracy. This group does so simply because they wish to swiftly destroy their political opponents. This has allowed the independent organizations and the judiciary to become distorted and seized to be used in the service of the destruction of democracy and the economic development of the country for the the sole purpose of causing the nation to become stagnant in a smelly, clogged whirlpool of violent conflict without end. Therefore, it is time for the people to come together to demand that the independent organizations and the judiciary are reformed and checks and balances are established. It is time to demand that these important mechanisms of the country come to be under the supervision of organizations representive of the voice of the majority. The people must take on these important tasks and make these changes come to fruition in the near future. 

7. This method of spoiling elections has progressed for nearly a decade and may cause the nation to fall into a state of violence from which there is no exit. This state will remain until every authority and every side in Thai society comes to respect the equal voting rights of the people. 

The Assembly for the Defense of Democracy would like to assert that the only solution for Thai society at present is to accept the principles of “equality of the people,” “sovereignty belongs to the entirety of Thai people,” “legitimacy of the majority,” and “respect in the rights and liberties of minority voices.” This is necessary to carry out reforms to eradicate the mechanisms that are antithetical to democracy, and before democracy, which is barely holding on at present, is completely destroyed.

Wikileaks Reveals Human Rights Watch As Supporters of Illegal Thai Army Coup

 With the strong smell of a coup or other Thai military engagement wafting through the air in Bangkok it seems apt to remind readers of Human Rights Watch's position on the last coup in Thailand in 2006.

In October 2006 Sunai Phasuk, HRW's Thai researcher, visited the US Embassy and made a number of astonishing comments to the assembled embassy staff which they recorded for posterity and which were then later released by Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning and Wikileaks.

HRW's secret support for an illegal military coup

In the cable dated October 17th 2006 Phasuk makes clear his support for an illegal military coup which overthrew not only a democratically elected government but also abrogated Thailand's 1997 Constitution (consider the most democratic in Thailand's history) by saying 

As a staunch anti-Thaksin activist [Phasuk] was initially relieved to see the Thaksin administration forced out. 

Reading further into the cable Phasuk also engages in an astonishing and shameless piece of Thai Political Doublespeak by claiming that a military coup designed to terminate democracy was actually an attempt to "restore democracy". 

In addition Phasuk also expresses his loyalty and admiration for the Thai Army - which is extraordinary give the 17 previous coups and massacres they'd been directly involved in, and never mind the massacre at Tak Bai the Thai Army had played a huge part in and which had occurred only two years earlier.

The cable states that Phasuk

emphasized that he was close to many officers and, in fact, taught many of them in his capacity as a guest lecturer at Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy and the Royal Thai Air Force Academy.  He said that he had always held the military in high regard for their sense of honor and dedication to the country.

Of course none of Phasuk's secret fawning admiration for the Thai military, his obvious politicisation, his abandonment of the rule of law, his support for those attacking democracy and his bogus claims to being "neutral" have ever been questioned by one single member of Bangkok's international media. 

Yet that same media are more than happy to continue quoting Phasuk as though he is some credible, impartial source rather than the pro-coup phoney that he appears to be.

I guess Bangkok's international media corps prefer an easy life to actually pursuing the truth. Penthouse flats, maids and swimming pools to maintain.

We can only speculate on the latter.

The Insidious and Dangerous "Neutrality" of Thailand's Foreign Correspondent Club

"When a Western journalist interviews us, however, it is seldom done to render us service. In the war in Algeria, for example, the most liberal-minded French reporters make constant use of ambiguous epithets to portray our struggle. When we reproach them for it, they reply in all sincerity they are being objective. For the colonized subject, objectivity is always directed against him." - Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth

There’s something insidious about Bangkok’s Foreign Correspondent Club Thailand. With its bogus claims of “neutrality/objectivity” and its tacit support of the worst excesses of the Thai establishment it attempts to create a “consensus” of what is “acceptable” and “bonafide” journalism.

The FCCT’s “bonafide” “neutral” journalism, in short, accepted the imprisonment of Thai journalists and activists Somyot Prusakasemsuk and Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul under Thailand’s draconian lese majeste law without so much as raising its voice. This acceptance of one of the most brutal forms of repression in the Thai establishment’s arsenal is, of course, very very far from neutral. It does, in fact, support this repression and sides with the powerful forces that  implement this law’s vicious outcomes. 

Yet, whilst the FCCT’s neutrality is both bogus and ethically suspect its reasoning for doing so is dangerous and actually a direct attack on Thai press and media freedoms.

The reason Somyot and Daranee were abandoned by the FCCT was because they were not considered “bonafide” or “neutral” journalists. They were not considered “neutral” because they held views that were anti-establishment and therefore, according to the FCCT, they were no longer considered “bonafide” journalists.

The FCCT’s faux neutral position is NOTHING to do with journalism or a free press. 

A free press champions a diverse and pluralistic range of opinions, positions and politics.

A free press holds the powerful to account and challenges dominance.

It does not hide behind “neutrality” when press freedoms are threatened in the draconian fashion they are in Thailand. It takes a principled position.

As for “political neutrality” being a requisite for "bonafide journalism" - what on earth does that mean?

One of the greatest journalists and writers of the 20th Century, George Orwell, was very far from “politically neutral” and took up weapons to fight the fascists in Spain.

If Orwell was working in Thailand today and had the misfortune of being imprisoned the “neutral” journalists of the FCCT would abandon him to his fate and, no doubt, claim Mr Orwell wasn’t “bonafide” because he dared to express his political convictions.

According to the FCCT holding and expressing a political view means you are no longer a “bonafide” journalist and, therefore, the establishment is free to do what it wants with you.  

And it gets worse. These days the journalists and members of the FCCT spend their time attacking those bloggers, writers and commentators who suggest that the Thai establishment be held to account. Well-known FCCT members, right up to the executive, have openly embraced expat racists connected to the Thai Army on social media, refusing, point-blank to condemn activities which have included stalking family members of non-FCCT "approved" journalists and commentators. 

The campaign of intimidation and harassment that FCCT members engage in on social media against dissenting voices and the closing down of the debate to a narrow set of “approved” and “bonafide” views shows how little the members and the executive of the FCCT understand what freedom of expression actually means.

There is no pluralism or alternative at the FCCT. There is only “neutrality” which, in the face of some of the worst censorship laws on earth, can only ever be taken as connivance.

Asia Provocateur on the Keiser Report

I was invited onto RT's Keiser Report this week to talk about the protests in Thailand.

Watch the following video from about 12mins 45secs to see me. 

Gone Missing – the failures of Western media reporting of the 2013 Thai Crisis

As some of my readers know I’ve long been critical of the Western media’s reporting of the ongoing Thai political crisis. Yesterday I blogged a piece outlining some of the Doublespeak terms usually produced by Abhisit Vejjajiva and the other elements of the “Democrat” Party-led anti-democracy movement. It’s my view that the Western media use some of these terms without investigation, analysis or critique thereby presenting and distributing a codified form of language that gravitates towards a Democrat Party-led narrative on some of the key issues affecting Thailand’s political crisis.

This post is an attempt to further unpack some of the other assumed “neutral” positions of the Western media and also some of the events and news items editorialised out by the journalists and reporters working for the Western media in Bangkok.

As this is just a first draft and I’m quite busy I’ll be adding in weblinks later on that relate to each matter listed here. I should also add that if people have sources that contradict my comments please let me know.

This is about Thaksin versus the Bangkok elites.

Such an oversimplified analysis that fails to take into account decades of political struggle, a pro-democracy movement stretching back to the 1930s and its subsequent brutal suppression supported, almost without equivocation, by the USA and other foreign governments. Thaksin’s rise is a very recent phenomena yet the ever-present are the Bangkok elites/networks and their allies in the Thai Army. This simplistic analysis also avoids recognising and evaluating the agency of ordinary Thai people.

This is just about anti-government protesters versus pro-government supporters.

I find this analysis not only simplistic but an insidious use of language that is encoded with a subtext of “resistance” to authority that is not really present in this instance. The better description would be, in my view, anti-democracy agitators or rioters versus pro-democracy activists. Whilst the Red Shirts – the group clumsily termed “pro-government” by the Western media – are broadly supportive of the democratically elected Pheu Thai government and Thaksin Shinawatra that support is very clearly conditional. For example the amnesty bill that supposedly sparked the recent Democrat Party-led riots was widely attacked and derided by the Red Shirts including many of their leading figures.

Yingluck’s 11year old son being harassed by Democrat Partysupporters.

As far as I’m aware not one single Western media source has given this any attention. It’s hard to fathom out why this isn’t newsworthy as it has been widely covered in the Thai language media and confirmed by the school itself. Very poor.

The disappearance of Thai fascist leader Suthep Thagsuban’s past.

Some reports, most notably by the Guardian’s Kate Hodal, appeared to conveniently forget that Suthep has been implicated in several corruption scandals, was disbarred from being an MP and has been charged with the murder of unarmed pro-democracy Red Shirt protesters in 2010. I found it simply astonishing that Hodal wasn’t able to avail herself of the most rudimentary facts regarding Suthep’s past and it appeared that the omission of these prominent facts was an effort to mislead the Guardian’s readership.

Almost complete failure to report very violent night-timeattack on 2nd December by Democrat Party supporters and Thai Blackshirts on Government House.

Our monitoring on that evening seemed to suggest there was not ONE Western journalist during this night-time attack which was possibly the most violent riot instigated by the Democrat Party Blackshirts since the protest began. [After receiving an email from Swedish journalist, Michael Topffer, it transpires he was there during these riots but he also appears to confirm that no other major international media outlet had a presence there - see Addendum below.] Also our monitoring revealed that there was a strong likelihood that Democrat Party activists were on the ground organising the riots. A complete failure by the Western media on this occasion.

That of the 5 reported deaths so far 4 are at the hands of the Democrat’s violent and fascistic Blackshirts and include 3 pro-democracy activists and one completely innocent 17year old burned to death in a bus.

The lack of reporting of this seems wilful and deliberately misleading. It’s simply astonishing the Western media have failed to report this adequately.

In the run up to the riots over the weekend of the 30th November/1^st December  there were a number of well-documented and very violent attacks on single pro-democracy Red Shirt activists by gangs of Democrat Party Blackshirts.

We monitored the reports being put out by the Western media up to the weekend of the 30th November/1^st December and could find no reference to ANY of the attacks by gangs of Democrat Party Blackshirts on pro-democracy activists despite there being more than enough evidence to warrant an investigation by journalists and reporters. These attacks included stabbings, beatings and very sinister cases of vigilantism where Democrat Party fanatics intimidated and threatened ordinary Red Shirts making them strip their clothing off and swear allegiance to certain persons. This is all missing from Western media reports.

The “students” attacking the pro-democracy activists were clearly infiltrated and mobilised by Democrat Party Blackshirt thugs with many of the “students” openly aligning themselves with the Blackshirts.

There was an attempt to portray the “students” as some de-politicised force inadvertently caught up in the protest. That was and is a complete fabrication. 



Addendum 

I received this email from Michael Topffer, a Bangkok-based Swedish reporter. I thought it was important to add his comments. I'll happily add any other response from any other Western journalist is they email me at asiaprovocateur@gmail.com

Hi, I saw your blogpost about failures of Western Media on Thai crisis
If you include Sweden in your view of the Western media I can say this:
Regarding the night of Dec 2nd, I was there, covering this for my paper Expressen. As far as I know, I was the only Western reporter there. BBC was there until around 10pm, I was there until 1am. It was exteremly violent. I gave a live report for our web-tv at 00:30 and had an article about the attack in the next day's paper.
Regarding Suthep's dubious past, I have reported it on many occasions, both for Expressen and for Swedish Public Radio, to which I contribute.
Regarding the whistleblowers at Yingluck's son, there were many conflicting reports as to what had happened, and by the time it was confiremd it was - in my view - already old. Besides, this was just a very small detail. I probably wouldn't have reported it anyway. After all, they were just blowing whistles.
I can't recall ever simplifying the crisis down to claiming that this is about Thaksin vs Elite.
Cheers,
Michael TopfferCorrespondent, ExpressenBangkok

Abhisit Vejjajiva - proving once again he leads the political wing of the Thai Army

Abhisit Vejjajiva recently gave a rambling, bizarre interview to the Bangkok Post. His interviewer, the incomprehensible arch-Democrat Party stooge, Voranai Vanijaka - a writer who opined during the violence of 2010 that "this rebellion" must be put "crushed" and who has voiced support for Thailand's lese majeste laws - fails to ask too much of his hero and fails to question Abhisit's obvious lies, mis-truths and obfuscations. If you read the interview you would think Abhisit wasn't even in Bangkok when he gave the orders for the Thai Army to open fire on unarmed civilians, such is his abdication of any kind of responsibility. 

But the pick of the bunch of Abhisit's very obvious lies was this 

The military has always acted according to the rulings of the court and under the constitution, just as they did in all actions carried out in 2010.

 Does Abhisit take everyone for idiots? Has he forgotten that the Thai Army has engaged in several massacres over the years, that they've done so with complete impunity, that they've abrogated constitution after constitution and expelled Thailand's democratically chosen leaders via illegal coup d'etats time after time? Has he also forgotten the big pile of dead Thai civilians in 2010, including unarmed women, children and medical staff like Nurse Kade, most of whom were almost certainly shot by the Thai Army, and all entirely innocent? 

Maybe Abhisit lives on a different planet to the rest of us. Maybe he has become so confused and bewildered by his own concoction of lies that he no longer has any meaningful grip of reality. And maybe stooge journalists like Voranai and the rag he writes for - the Democrat Party/Abhisit-family-linked Bangkok Post - are still bewitched by the fading good looks of the Butcher of Bangkok and the tales he tells. 

Luckily the Thai people have enough good sense to see through Abhisit's lies. That's why they will continue to reject him and his party at the ballot box no matter how much PR Voranai and the Bangkok Post engage in. 

Coup talk update as Thai fascists launch the “Thai Spring” to overthrow democracy

In the days since Thai PM Yingluck made her impressive commitment to democracy in her recent speech at the Ministerial Conference of the Community of Democracies in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia the reaction of the Thai extreme-rightwing and neo-fascists has reached new heights of hysterical absurdity. 

Led by prominent Thai fascist, Vasit Dejkunjorn - a man noted for his violent opposition to democracy – a new group has emerged calling themselves “Thai Spring”. Thai Spring's "position" is that the massively popular PM Yingluck, who won a huge landslide general election victory in 2011 is "not a responsible representative of the Thai people at all". It’s not certain what the group will amount to but they have launched an online petition that, so far, has attracted support from 0.028% of the Thai population. If they can’t even get people to turn out online it’s hard to view them as any other than a farcical joke. 

That’s not to say Vasit’s group don’t represent dangerous anti-democratic undercurrents in Thailand. Of that we can be certain. 

A well-placed government source recently told this blog that serious elements in the Thai Army have made substantial coup-preparations. However, these preparations have stalled on two counts. The first is a failure to identify credible political leadership within the military who could lead a post-coup junta government. The second is that the army are also concerned that they will meet serious resistance from the Thai population – something that could easily escalate very quickly. 

The generals are also concerned by the likely reaction of the international community. Abhisit, who is clearly chomping at the bit to be “returned” to his previous undemocratically assumed position of Thai PM, is now a busted flush internationally with most media commentators seeing through the Butcher of Bangkok’s carefully contrived act. The military leadership would likely maintain other concerns regarding the International Criminal Court and the fact that their counterparts in places like Argentina are now dying in prison. 

With the army likely to remain in the barracks for now my sources tell me that the government are more worried about an attempt to stage a "judicial coup" wherein the Constitutional Court dissolve the democratically elected party of government and ban its leaders. Such a strategy by the Thai elite is likely to be met with very stiff resistance from the Thai population equal to that which might be staged should the military attempt a take-over.

So, in summary, no Army coup for now but the military still view themselves as beyond normal democratic control. The rule of law isn’t staying their hand but the simple fact that this time they might actually lose. And badly. They may, however, attempt to enforce the decisions of the Constitutional Court should the democratically elected government choose to ignore them. Such a situation would be tantamount to a military coup in all but name. 

With Thai Army tanks on night-time manoeuvres coup rumours persist in Bangkok

As photos emerge of Thai Army tanks rumbling around Bangkok on unannounced night-time manoeuvres, members of the democratically-elected Thai government appear to be getting very jittery.

"Psychological games" is how one senior government member described these tanks appearing on the streets of the Bangkok capital to me and sources close to other senior figures are saying that "warnings" have already been passed along regarding their safety should "anything happen". Only last week Thailand's most important best-selling newspaper, Thai Rath, also published reports of "coup rumours".

Whether the talk of a coup is just the usual Bangkok rumour mongering - something that seems to be a constant and well-founded worry whenever Thailand's political situation reaches a crisis point, with these crises usually arriving when the Thai Army and other shadowy elements in the Thai elites fail to recognise the legitimacy of a democratically elected government - is hard to tell.

But with 18 coups and several massacres of unarmed civilians under their belt the Thai Army, a military force which has an extraordinarily close relationship with the USA, can never be fully counted out of attempting to subvert Thai democracy once more.

And who is waiting in the wings, desperate for power once again? One Abhisit Vejjajiva.

Misogyny, defamation and Yingluck - Thailand's "liberals" show their true colours again

The debate about Thai Prime Minister Yingluck filing a case against the Thai Rath cartoonist, Chai Rachawa, after he made what can only be termed a misogynistic and clearly malicious defamation against her, is reaching absurd proportions.

First of all, let me be clear, I think she would’ve been better laughing it off with a joke about this obvious little squirt being scared of strong women – “maybe his grandmother used to spank him when he was a boy, who knows?” – something like that.

However, I also understand her need to protect herself from smears, libels and defamations. And let’s be frank – the extreme rightwing and anti-democracy movements that make up the opposition to Yingluck’s democratically elected and popular government are filled with racists, misogynists and fascists.

Yingluck herself has had to endure almost two years of malicious smear after malicious smear, defamation upon defamation, libel after libel and the worst kind of misogynistic abuse.

So, she finally had enough and used the defamation law to protect herself.

Let’s be clear – Thailand’s defamation law is open to ALL Thais. Yes, it is used far too often to shut up critics (how many cases have the Democrats and Constitutional Court now filed against Pheu Thai and the Red Shirts? Must be in the dozens and isn’t it weird how Thailand’s fake “liberals” have ignored all that?) but it doesn’t come close to 112 as a law suited only to political purposes. Only an idiot or someone with an agenda would claim that Yingluck’s use of the defamation law is equal to 112. In fact, it’s such an absurd claim it actually denigrates the lese majeste prisoners who are rotting in Thai prisons, serving real jail time.

I should also add that defamation is criminalised throughout Europe and in 17 US states. In many other countries where libel and defamation is settled via civil law the kind of malicious defamations and smears that have been used to denigrate Yingluck would get many newspapers sued out of existence. This notion that democracies can only function when we allow all defamation, hate speech etc is complete and total garbage and the argument of a delusional teenager.

Of course having an argument about whether Thailand should have criminal defamation laws is another debate completely. What I would say is that in countries with civil defamation laws the only people who end up able to sue are the very rich.

So please – less hyperbole, less self-promoting, more reasoned debate and lets stick to the facts.

Letting the snipers and dogs loose, Democrat Party style

An air of desperation seems to be creeping into the Democrat Party leadership of late.

Not only are Abhisit and Suthep facing a possible criminal investigation regarding the death of an unarmed Red Shirt taxi driver in 2010, it's also been revealed, once again, that their brutality is matched only by their incompetence.

Amid looney accusations from Democrat Party deputy leader, Korn, that Yingluck's government is like "Hitler" and off the back of this weekend's Pitak Siam protest debacle, when protesters drove trucks into police lines and threw tear gas, Abhisit's party is foolishly attempting to take some kind of moral high ground.

However, no-one is fooled by the Democrat's silly posturing. Least of all a group of elderly peaceful cassava farmers who had the temerity to protest against the then Chuan Leekpai Democrat Party-led government on October 27th 1999. Back then the Democrats sent these farmers a message they'd never forget - they set a pack of German Shepherds on them.

Of course the Abhisit regime's appalling and brutal handling of protesters in 2010 overshadows this event by some margin. In 2010 the Democrat Party set the snipers loose and shot unarmed civilians just like 17year Samaphan "Cher" Srithep in the video below, who was left to bleed to death on a Bangkok street.

Korn compares Thai government to Hitler: has he lost his mind?

About 18months ago I interviewed Thailand's then Finance Minister, Democrat Party Deputy Leader Korn Chatikavanij - my interviews with him can be found here and here.

On the two occasions that I met Korn I found him to be erudite, articulate and willing to engage on a number of subjects and policy details.

A dual-British/Thai national, the UK-born Korn attended Winchester College and later studied politics, philosophy and economics at Oxford. Urbane, well-educated and with a cosmopolitan air, it's hard not to be impressed by Korn, not least because at roughly 6ft 4inches tall he has quite an imposing physical presence as well. While I disagreed with him on a number of subjects I found him personally charming and certainly likeable.

So, his comments on his Facebook page today (see screen grab in Thai just below) come as a complete shock.

In a rambling monologue Korn complains about the government's handling of this weekend's Pitak Siam protests. Utilising that tried and tested logical fallacy - the false equivalence  - he states that the government used the police to assault the protesters and that the Red Shirts abandoned their own principles by supporting such actions.

Of course the simple facts that Pitak Siam's publicly stated aims were to destroy democracy and create conditions for a military coup are oddly missing from Korn's narrative. Also the fact that the Pitak Siam protesters drove a large truck directly into police lines and attacked them with sticks and other weapons. Then there's the tiny inconvenient detail that the present ruling government party, Pheu Thai, has an overwhelming parliamentary majority, something his party has not achieved in its 66years of existence. Absent too is that when the government he served in were faced with Red Shirt protesters in 2010 they sent Army snipers onto the streets and shot nurses and school children.

But it was the final part of Korn's rambling comment that raises questions about his mental state.

Using an arcane Adolf Hitler quote (is it only me who finds it odd Korn could quote Hitler so readily?) Korn states that

"The Red Shirt government thinks and behaves like this [like Hitler] - therefore they will end up the same as/not different from Hitler."

To make this bizarre claim is straight out of the nuttiest Thai extremist handbook. The Second World War killed almost 70million people, unleashing unspeakable horrors and crimes on the world. Hitler committed the worst of these crimes, including the terrible slaughter of 6million Jewish men, women and children and 12million Soviet civilians.

It is an utter obscenity for Korn to make a comparison between firing a dozen or so tear gas grenades at violent protesters and Hitler's genocidal slaughter of millions. He should not only be widely ridiculed for making this comparison but condemned as well.

I am quite right to question his sanity in such circumstances and can only hope he sees the error of his ways and offers an immediate retraction and apology.