Army had no choice but to intervene
Each time I read his response to my letter I find the contents out of context. Grant does not address all the points raised by me. Instead he talks about the issues dear to his heart. He continues to criticise, as if he has nothing better to do other than
Sheer character assassination by accusing the PRDC of being behind the fatal shooting of an elderly man in a crowd of red shirts at Laksi. Whilst I understand where his sympathy lies and why he continues to defend one party to the conflict, such accusations, without justification or facts, can be seen as having some ulterior motive.
In the judgement passed on this case, there was no mention of the PRDC being involved, nor any reference to Grant’s accusation that the gunman was hired and acted under the direction of the PRDC. Whilst condemning the shooting, I admire the man for having the conviction to stand trial.
Unlike some of those involved with one knows not which group, who having committed a crime find faults with the judiciary, absconds into thin air or finds refuge overseas.
Grant further talks about a more mature, reasoned and tolerant style of debate if some form of democracy is to be established. Sure, as long as the views are objective and not one-sided. Democracy does not begin and end with balloting. The people’s mandate did not give the previous government carte blanche to act by using its parliamentary majority without keeping the country’s interests in mind. There has to be accountability. There must have been reasons why millions turned out in force to protest against a regime. The Armed Forces had no choice but to intervene, bring peace to Thailand and start the process of reformation before calling for new elections that are fair and free from influence and money politics. The elections will take place when the time is right.
Satish Sehgal
