The catchy part of the defence of the prime minister by the spokesman of his political party was the dismissal of Thirayuth Boonmi as a Romantic who ``tries'' but, by implication, cannot quite grasp, the ideas of post-Modernism. But by making such distinctions, the spokesman himself shows his failure to grasp what it is to be post-Modern. For in one broad sense of the term, post-Modernism challenges borders, among them those governing time and category.

Mr Thirayuth probably would not mind being labelled a Romantic. Most idealists and seekers of change tend towards the ultimate. But is he trying to present post-Modern concepts when he advocates a post-Western approach to Thai society and literature? As those who have followed his work from his student days understand it, Mr Thirayuth is simply advocating an appreciation of Thai values for what they are, and urging restraint from blind submission to Western values.

Another, less charitable reaction argues that the university lecturer leans towards the Democrat party. This is about as misguided as the Chart Pattana party's attempt to have him speak at an upcoming party function. Political parties have tried time and again to lure the former student leader into politics. And time and again he has declined.

Mr Thirayuth might read the actions of the prime minister's underlings as meaning he has accomplished one important task, that of convincing government members of the need for introspection. Wisely, the prime minister, who was in France when Mr Thirayuth made his observations, has made no direct reference to the comments. But he was surely unhappy with the media attention to Mr Thirayuth's address on Sunday as part of the celebrations marking Pridi Day, dedicated to late statesman Pridi Banomyong.

What the critic said has long been on many minds. The cogency of the message came from its clarity, composition and delivery. This government tries to present itself as a generous provider. But it does so using the public's money by drawing on funds meant for their future. Mr Thirayuth was more forthcoming than in recent years, when he has confined himself to one in-depth analysis a year. And it can be lost on no one who has followed his work that there must be good reason.

His critics might accuse him of trying to play the hero, of reliving his role in the events of Oct 14, 1973. But only the most narrow-minded or politically myopic would not draw some parallel between the political environment today and that of 30 years ago. The only difference is today's aspiring absolute ruler wears civilian clothing. We are again in an age when challenges to authority are not tolerated. Members of the media, academia or civil society with minds of their own are unconstructive, boring or follow somebody else's agenda. Small to medium businessmen are patronised, and executives higher up the scale are increasingly disenchanted with what they see as curbs on free commerce. The war on sinister influences has a barely concealed agenda, that of eliminating figures able to challenge the authority of the political elite.

Each of these actions is having a boomerang effect. It is drawing out people who think and feel. The media, academics and civil society should encourage this movement. By no means should any caring person remain silent, not when misguided forces are on the warpath against legitimate individuals or causes. Individuals and groups can show their support in different ways. We must proclaim that no mere mortal can be allowed to decide the fate of another without a proper jury. Romantics inspire by virtue of their ideals. Those who think they are post-Modern but have missed the boat only appear ridiculous.