(In Hindsight 39/May 11-16, 2010)
In Thailand the Red Shirts and Yellow Shirts were facing off till this week. But I’ll bet you didn’t know the colour of their pants.
For those who haven’t heard of this conflict, it’s not a sporting encounter. The Red Shirts aren’t Manchester United FC but supporters of former Thai leader Thaksin Shinawatra. The Yellow Shirts aren’t the Samba Kings of Brazil (or Lance Armstrong) but detractors of the former: theirs is also the Thai king’s colour because he was born on a Monday which is represented by that hue. Meanwhile the hue and cry continued.
We’ll assume they are brave warriors who don’t get yellow pants when it’s time for battle. Actually there wasn’t much fighting but mainly mutual name-calling. The government did crack down on protestors blockading central Bangkok, though in a rather inept way whereby a soldier was apparently shot by his own men. Since then the present prime minister has offered elections and concessions. By the time you read this there might have been a peaceful dispersion; if not a friendly-fire version of Tiananmen; but if you’re a tourist then the worst thing is that the shopping district was affected (and massage parlours shut as well).
A number of other groups jumped in, including the White Shirts or ordinary Thais calling for peace, besides Muticoloured Shirts and Pink Shirts who opposed the Red Shirts, and were accused of being closet Yellow Shirts. There were also the Tomatoes, or policemen sympathetic to the Red Shirts, and Watermelons, or soldiers green on the outside but secretly red on the inside.
There were no Brown Shirts or Nazi storm troopers (otherwise the rest of the world might have got brown pants). Yet it’s slightly frightening when political people start wearing uniforms. Can’t they learn to live with each other? Can’t there be love between the Thais (pun unintended)? Otherwise instead of white shirts, will everyone end up wearing white robes like the KKK?
One robed Thai guy unthreatened by all this is King Bhumibol. Although he is said to have silently supported Thaksin’s ouster in 2006, both sides profess allegiance to him. Anyone who says a word against him might soon be wearing a prison shirt. The king has stated that criticism of his royal self should be permitted; but people are still being jailed for it.
That’s basically the way things work in countries which seem very free and democratic when people open their big mouths: in truth they’re only criticizing what they’re allowed to. Even when threatening to die (if not dye their shirts) for democracy, the Red Shirts praised the king. And it can happen in the most ‘liberal’ countries. In the Netherlands in 2007, a man was fined for, among other things, calling Queen Beatrix a nasty name.
We selectively criticize some nations, or religions, or rulers, or rock stars, because we’re allowed to. In fact, often the harshest criticism is reserved for leaders who favour liberty and democracy. Why is this so? I wonder if it stems from innate disgust at their not seizing more power as the critics surely would if they weren’t mere critics but could hurl the sword instead of the pen. They seem to be saying, “Fools! If you allow idiots like us to say what we want, we’ll make sure you regret it!”