Perhaps it shouldn't surprise me that Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra would get so much grief from Bangkok's elites, when _ for once in her short political career _ she decided to utter some words (albeit not her own) of actual substance in the so-called "Mongolia Speech".
Soon after, true to form, Ms Yingluck was verbally harassed by Abhisit of Nazareth and his Sermon from the Mount, and harangued by his feeble flock of dedicated disciples.
A Thai Rath cartoonist derided her in social media. Other writers begged her to stay home to stop embarrassing Thailand by airing our dirty laundry in front of the international community.
Should I remind the print media and Democrats that the platform at which she made her speech was the 7th Ministerial Conference of the Community of Democracies. Note the keyword: "democracies".
What's so embarrassing about sending Thailand's first female prime minister, who was elected by the people, to an international conference aimed at promoting democracy?
If you want to label something as embarrassing then consider when Abhisit Vejjajiva masqueraded at similar international conferences as prime minister, trying to pass himself off as Thailand's democratically elected leader.
Just imagine if we had to send an army-backed, coup-appeasing, proxy of the establishment like Mr Abhisit to this conference to represent Thailand.
The Democrat Party and the usual suspects detested the Mongolian speech because most of what Ms Yingluck said really hurt.
Yes, her speech writer conveniently forgot to mention the bit where the red shirts shamelessly inundated prime minister Abhisit's house in blood and attempted to burn down half of Bangkok _ but apart from that, it made a lot of sense.
Ms Yingluck didn't go far enough in her speech. She should have honoured her election promises by renewing her intention to abolish Section 112 on lese majeste. The law is an affront to our democracy and has resulted in the monarchy being despicably employed as a political weapon of mass destruction.
Along with Ms Yingluck, our so-called senior statesmen have for decades also failed to show moral fortitude or political courage to speak out against Section 112.
For these "old men of the hill", transparency, which some of them often harp about, seems to be like a reflective glass window. It's designed specifically for those inside the establishment to look outward but prevents the plebs from looking in.
Apart from the sob story section of her speech that lamented how her brother Thaksin was unjustly toppled by a military coup and persecuted thereafter, Ms Yingluck demonstrated her proficiency in an art the Democrats have made their own _ character assassinations.
In her usual high-pitched monotone and heavily accented English, the prime minister chastised the Democrats' religious dedication to undemocratic processes and Mr Abhisit's alleged complicity in the deaths of 91 people.
But the cleverest part was yet to come. "More importantly, if any country took the wrong turn against the principle of democracy, all of us here need to unite to pressure for change and return freedom to the people," she said, and thus occupied the political high ground.
That particular statement puts the international community on alert for any future cloak and dagger schemes such as another round of party disbandments by our Constitution Court.
Something has been bugging me. I'm frequently approached by acquaintances and even family members who accuse me of betraying my own "class". People always expect all English public school boys like Mr Abhisit and myself to be staunchly conservative and supporters of the Democrats. Even my own uncle has branded me at our dinner table me as Thaksin's "useful idiot".
But what is my crime exactly? I've only once voted for a Thaksin-affiliated party. In fact I used to vote Democrat and did so in the last Bangkok gubernatorial elections.
I am, however, pro-democracy and I wear that badge proudly. I strongly believe that people with privilege are morally obligated to take care of the less fortunate, but not by handouts and populist schemes.
We can help the less fortunate by creating a participatory democracy and levelling the playing field for hard workers to have a chance at success and prosperity.
The Democrat Party has strayed so far from this path I now find it immoral to even consider voting for them in their present sorry state.
Thaksin-affiliated parties have been anything but perfect but they're the only ones that seem to be willing to submit themselves to a democracy. I realise that elections are not a license to run roughshod over other pillars of our democracy, but on the other hand, you can't have a democracy without free and fair elections.
I'm not ecstatic over Ms Yingluck's premiership, and let's be brutally honest, she's certainly not in danger of being invited to join Mensa anytime soon, but whether I like it or not, she is the prime minister because the people chose her. Isn't that democracy? Isn't that what we all signed up for? And more importantly, isn't it better than living under an unelected and unaccountable tyrant?
Make no mistake, we have now entered the Facebook era which has made it much more difficult for a small group of elites to deny the will of the people. A small minority including Alongkorn Ponlaboot, seem to have grasped this new reality, but for those politicians who haven't, I have this to say: there's only one thing worse than a "useful idiot"and that's "a clueless idiot".
Songkran Grachangnetara is an entrepreneur. He graduated from The London School of Economics and Columbia University. He can be reached at Twitter: @SongkranTalk