Tolerance should be at the heart of a free society

Thais tend to look at their politicians as being a bunch of hypocrites whose skins are by necessity thick: If they weren't, they wouldn't be able to withstand the criticism from the public. But with all the lawsuits and insinuations flying around, it appears their hides are not as thick as we thought.

The trend is somewhat disturbing. One can safely argue that Thailand took the wrong turn during the first Thaksin Shinawatra administration because of his all-or-nothing approach to everything, intimidation of the media and those who think differently, and dismantling of the built-in checks-and-balances safeguards, which let him enrich himself.

In response to Thaksin's abusive behaviour, the yellow-shirt movement congealed with members who also adopted abusive methods to make their point. The rise of the yellow shirts aroused a counter-reaction in the form of the red-shirt movement and the rest is history.

Along the way, the yellow shirts ransacked Bangkok's airports and Government House, while the red shirts burned down shopping malls in the capital and state buildings in various cities in the Northeast.

Eventually, the Army came out and pulled the plug, shooting scores of people along the way.

Thuggish behaviour was employed by all camps in spite of their claims to be fighting against political thuggery, or in the cause of restoring stability.

There was hope that with a new election shooing in a new government, Thailand would finally get some breathing space. There was a desire to move on.

Unfortunately, the thuggish behaviour remains.

Intimidation, not to mention assault and battery, carried out by political interest groups against people with opposing views, continues unabated.

This past Thursday, a Bangkok criminal court dismissed a suit filed by Pheu Thai deputy leader Plodprasop Suraswadi against a Democrat MP, Thepthai Senpong, citing freedom of speech for what the accused had said.

The following day, in a separate incident, the Broadcast Journalist Association issued a statement calling for an end to what it called a challenge to press freedom.

The declaration was issued after many media members received a chain note showing the picture and giving the name of the Channel 7 reporter who had asked a question that upset Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

It was about whether her government was planning to push through a new charter to whitewash her fugitive brother Thaksin.

"Remember her face and do something if you see her anywhere," the note said about the TV reporter.

Just recently, a group of red shirts hanging around Parliament beat up a university graduate and his friend for placing a wreath in front of Parliament to protest House Speaker Somsak Kiartsuranont's alleged bias towards coalition MPs.

Prior to that, a Democrat MP's Jeep was vandalised by alleged red shirts while it was parked outside the Parliament compound.

Also, the private car of the Democrat Party's chief adviser, Chuan Leekpai, was attacked last Wednesday night while he was inside the vehicle.

Chuan was leaving Parliament in his car after the collapse of a debate on government policies due to the lack of a quorum when a group of red shirts, who had gathered at the compound's gate, tried to surround his vehicle.

The ruling Pheu Thai Party can't pretend that the behaviour of its red-shirt supporters is not its concern. Wasn't it the then-opposition Pheu Thai who encouraged its red-shirt supporters to turn Bangkok into a sea of flames, and torch city halls across the country with Molotov cocktails if things didn't go their way?

Many of us don't like politicians and the spin they dish out. We have limited ways of getting back at them, although we don't do a good enough job of holding them accountable for their words and actions.

And while we may not like what they say, we like the idea that we can make that decision for ourselves and not have to worry about being beaten up.

We tell ourselves that we are living in a free society, but what kind of freedom is it when we are not willing to sacrifice for it?

The price for this liberty is not so difficult to comprehend - it's the fact that we have to tolerate things we don't necessary like, namely views that are different from ours.