Waves of Violence

By Pandora Poikilos

Almost half a decade after the devastating Tsunami, Thailand’s waves of destruction are far from over. At a first glance, it almost appeared as if Thailand, although one of the worst hit at the time, was relatively fast in making a recovery.

While Mother Nature took a backseat, political indifferences waged on. Admittedly, waves of violence are nothing new to Thailand. Despite having the longest reigning monarch in the world, each prime minister for decades has had problems with protests and attempts at being driven out of office.

It seems almost habitual that when a new prime minister enters, a group of people see it as their given right to gather and attempt to drive out the prime minister irrelevant of his capabilities to perform his duties.

In recent months, this duel took a very different time compared to previous times. They were finally faced with someone who was listening (but not necessarily giving in) to their demands. As Bangkok became close to a ghost town in a matter of four weeks amidst the Red Shirt protests, Abhisit Vejjajiva had media, peers and general public criticizing him for not putting a stop to their protests. When interviewed, he always bore these criticisms with grace despite the obvious invisible weight that had kept loading itself on his shoulders.

Ironically, the Red Shirts demanded that they be given a compromise for themselves but made very little effort to offer compromise from themselves. They kept insisting for immediate elections. The government proposed elections for November or September but were turned down. They stormed a hospital. They barricaded themselves (woman and children included) creating a worldwide sensation as countries around the world started issuing travel advisories for Thailand. As the dead and injured piled up, Abhisit regained ground while the Red Shirts lost theirs.

What stirred me most about this entire episode, despite the unfortunate death toll, was that Abhisit stood his ground, patiently. Beware the fury of a patient man, indeed. He accepted the criticism, first – for allowing the protests and then for knocking down the protest site.

We have never been of the opinion that democracy is about going against your government in a violent protest because you are angry, unhappy and frustrated. Those are sentiments we feel everyday. Think Martin Luther King Jr, Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela. They dealt with issues of segregation, slavery, apartheid. They came from a time when the generation of today probably wouldn’t survive in. They fought for what they believed in not because they expected a majority following or to rise against a running government in a violent manner but because as individuals, they wanted change, for the better.

Perhaps we are merely ignorant but here’s a change of logic that makes me clueless as to why people act the way they do. In Thailand, buildings such a shopping mall was torched. Who benefits from this?

The government would probably need to rebuild it, compensations might need to be given out, all likely scenarios. Here’s another. The building is torched. The public loses jobs. Tourists shun Bangkok = Less revenue = less income for people of Bangkok. And somehow, it’s the people that are complaining that the government is causing destruction to their lives. Sometimes, I really wonder.