Having previously refrained from providing any comment on these incidents, Thaksin, the man at the centre of the controversy, finally broke his silence yesterday, blaming the police for failing to maintain law and order. He did not express any concern for the victims of this senseless violence or make any statement regarding the need for authorities to investigate these incidents and bring the wrongdoers to justice. Most democratically elected leaders would at least try to show magnanimity toward political adversaries who had been physically assaulted simply because they happened to hold differing political views. As the nation's leader, Thaksin has the responsibility to guarantee the rule of law in general and public safety in particular, which makes it possible for citizens to enjoy unfettered rights regarding freedom of speech and freedom of political assembly.

It must not be forgotten that citizens in a democracy have the right either individually or collectively to voice their political views or stage demonstrations in support of politicians or in opposition to them, as long as they do so peacefully and do not infringe on the rights of others.

At the very least, a leader in a democratic society should prove capable of tolerating dissenting voices and even hecklers on occasion with good grace. Obviously that was too much to ask of Thaksin, whose credibility as a national leader has plummeted exactly because of his total disregard for the rule of law in his pursuit of selfish gain at the expense of the public interest. His small-minded vengefulness toward his critics and political opponents is well established. And now to this list of shortcomings Thaksin has added extreme paranoia: every act of public protest against him by individuals or groups is now seen as part of a conspiracy to hasten his political demise.

There are disturbing questions that remain unanswered. One is whether Thaksin had knowingly allowed or encouraged his bodyguards and unruly supporters to make an example out of protesters and hecklers by using physical assault as a means of deterring other anti-Thaksin demonstrators. The other is whether Thaksin intended to escalate the confrontation between his supporters and opponents.

Of course, Thaksin would be wise to provide the public with a plausible denial of his role in all of this.

Beleaguered Thaksin, faced with growing opposition to his leadership and widely perceived to be extremely corrupt, has beaten a retreat in a desperate attempt at self-preservation by alluding to the supremacy of the ballot box. According to him, all political differences that led to the ongoing political crisis should be settled peacefully by the outcome of the upcoming general election scheduled for October 15. Thaksin should know that setting a date for a general election does not take away a citizen's right to protest publicly or pester him with embarrassing anti-Thaksin slogans.

Thaksin may now be showing that he either does not care enough about violence against his opponents or that he has something to hide.

Be that as it may, victims of the recent violence must be encouraged to press criminal charges against their assailants. Police likewise have the responsibility to investigate and get to the bottom of the matter to bring to justice not only those violence-prone bodyguards of the prime minister and accompanying hooligans but also the masterminds of these attacks, if there are any, no matter how high up they are among Thaksin's henchmen.