Govt cautions against 'red' campaign in support of Yingluck

THE GOVERNMENT has warned the public to exercise proper judgement over whether to stage a symbolic protest by wearing red on November 1 in support of former premier Yingluck Shinawatra.

The government yesterday called on the public to decide for themselves whether it was right for supporters of the embattled former prime minister to wear red in order to show their backing for her.

Government Spokesman Maj-General Sansern Kaewkamnerd said yesterday that Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha has been aware of the ongoing online campaign for Yingluck’s supporters to wear red on that particular day.

The government called on the people to judge whether it was proper to “divide people with political colours again”, according to the spokesman.

“By asking people to wear a particular colour of dress, will this cause social division again?” Sansern asked. “The government will focus on justice procedures and not on verbal arguments and attacks.’’

Red is the colour of United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, which supports Yingluck’s Pheu Thai Party.

Yingluck is facing a civil liability action in relation to her government’s corruption-plagued rice pledging scheme. She is countering the government’s move to seek damages from her for losses of more than Bt500 billion suffered by the state as a result of the project.

Key red-shirt leaders and Pheu Thai politicians yesterday denied they were behind or involved with the campaign for symbolic protest.

The Pheu Thai Party has not initiated or heard of the campaign, the party’s caretaker deputy spokesperson Anusorn Iamsa-ard said. The party would also not join the campaign, if it happens, as the NCPO has prohibited citizens from mass political gatherings, he said.

UDD spokesman Thanawut Wichaidit denied that the front was behind the campaign to wear red on November 1.

“We have not reached such a decision. We believe the move stems from groups in social media,’’ he said. 

Worachai Hema, a UDD leader and Pheu Thai politician, yesterday said he had learned about this campaign from social media and the UDD had nothing to do with it. “We did not start this campaign,” he said. 

However, he added that there was nothing wrong with wearing red to offer moral support to Yingluck.

He said that prohibiting people from wearing red would be “too much restriction” on people’s rights. “If they want to, the prime minister may exercise his power under Article 44 by banning people from wearing red on November 1. Let’s see red not worn anywhere in this country,” he said.

Thida Thavornseth, former chairperson of the UDD, also said yesterday that the group has not initiated a campaign asking people to wear red on November 1, in support of Yingluck.

The UDD has not heard of the matter, Thida added, nor discussed whether to join the campaign.

Yingluck’s lawyer, Norrawit Larlaeng, said he has not been able to consider any legal consequences from the campaign, if it happens, as he has not heard of such a thing before.

Despite the comment by the PM, National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) spokesman Colonel Winthai Suvari yesterday said there has not been any order or report within the NCPO regarding the matter.

Weng Tojirakarn, a Pheu Thai politician and key UDD figure, said yesterday he had not heard of the campaign to wear red in support of Yingluck. He said he was unlikely to join the campaign.

UDD president Jatuporn Prompan insisted that the group had made no moves. “I did not call a meeting of the UDD. I assure you that the UDD has no appointment at this time,” he said.

Most other red-shirt figures reached by The Nation yesterday said they were unaware of the campaign.

In a related development, Yingluck yesterday visited several temples in Ratchaburi under close monitoring and surveillance by plainclothes and uniformed military personnel. Yingluck’s close aides said the ex-PM was also under military surveillance while she attended religious rites in Udon Thani and Nong Khai on Tuesday. Military men also informed her that she was not allowed to carry out such activities.