In a sign that some people would rather forget than learn, this writer saw three photographs being taken down from the "Return the Smiles to Siam" photo exhibition at Siam Paragon last week.

The first picture depicts a red-shirt boy held with care by a soldier in what appeared to be in the aftermath of the May 19 military crackdown. In another photograph, a young boy, all smiles, sports a yellow headband with the message "Save the country".

A pretty PR lady removed it after they found it too risky politically.

Some Thais would rather forget and move on. They claim forgetting is a talent most Thais are adept at. But there will be no moving on unless people reflect and learn the hard lessons.

While some people who oppose the red shirts, the government included, now say that addressing the economic disparity between Bangkok and rural areas is necessary, none seems to recognise how big a factor their patronising attitude played in fanning the red shirts' rage.

Very few, if any, who supported the September 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin Shinawatra have ever admitted that they are partially responsible for stoking the reds' anger. They don't recognise that much was humiliating, like giving the red shirts a big slap in the face and saying "you're stupid to have voted for Thaksin" again and again.

Then in the weeks prior to May 19, anti-red protesters flashed placards like "uneducated people go home" in Silom, and compared the reds to "stupid" water buffaloes.

It is as if to be poor and less formally educated is to become politically invalid, treated with disdain and a condescending attitude.

The sense of political alienation has never really been addressed as one of the biggest catalysts of the May riots. Now, after 90 deaths, some still have the audacity to suggest that it would be better for the reds to dump Thaksin.

So what will these "enlightened" Bangkokians tell the reds next - shut up and vote for the Democrat Party?

The last thing they would admit is that the red shirts have developed their own unique political consciousness.

All this reminds me of a leaflet I picked up at the Rajprasong protest site a month and a half ago.

Part of it reads: "You people have been enriching yourselves for so long but have never paid attention to us. That the economy will be in ruins is not something we are afraid of. It will be ruined because you bullied us first. Don't worry, we can survive. But if you people can't, then that's your problem� We are poor and so we are stepped on� so come what may."

The recently concluded anti-foreign journalists fiasco was another manifestation of the mostly Bangkok elite's patronising attitude. These people who hardly venture outside Bangkok for anything but rest and recreation were upset over the foreign correspondents' continuing portrayal of the Thai political crisis in a way not reflecting their pro-government viewpoint. The government shut down most local opposition media and thought it was over until they saw CNN, BBC, The Economist, ABC, and so on.

Ironically, many foreign correspondents spent more time talking to poor Thais upcountry than most of the Thai media. Also, it's well known that they practice much less self-censorship when it comes to reporting sensitive Thai political issues. In effect, some of their reports such as those from CNN, The Economist and Australian Broadcasting Corp, which have been blocked and banned in Thailand, are sought after by many doubtful Thais.

Some reports are certainly not that impartial or may even be sensationalised, but this is no justification for making people like CNN's Dan Rivers a hate figure. And what about the hopelessly pro-government local television and newspapers?

-Only approval, I'm afraid.