Respecting The Majority Vote - Not Only In Bangkok

[chevykanteve]

ANCHORMAN [bangkok Post: partial copy]

Respecting the majority vote - not only in Bangkok

ML NATTAKORN DEVAKULA

Now that I have your full attention, let me first say that a lot of the blogging activities that went on after my scathing critique of Bangkok-elected Senator Rosana Tositrakul and the "Bangkok Vote", were out of context.

Be that as it may, I accept the comments, either positive or negative, for what they are. They are commentaries on the opposing views taken, and attitudes expressed, in passionately written articles that should be more - and not less - frequently available to readers every day........

............................

The stance I take when it comes to the too-wide economic policy spectrum that is allowable in this country, on this I stand firm. The stance I take, in as far as being in favour of the privatisation of state-owned enterprises, on this I stand firm.

The stance I take, in as far as being a staunch enemy of gratuitous inspections of all activities - public and private - of politicians, on this I stand firm.

And, most definitely, the stance I take as being a representative of the investment community and the business and development-minded segments in society, instead of the consumer-minded with an NGO bias, on this I stand firm.

Let's not rehash last week's arguments but extend the point further, concerning the process of convincing oneself in coming to terms with election results.

For me not to have dignified 50% of the voter turnout in Bangkok which went in favour of Senator Rosana is indeed the equivalent of the recurring phenomenon of Bangkokians not dignifying the results of the votes of regularly-held general elections of the North and Northeast. How dare a 32-year-old man who did not even mature here in the kingdom, but rather grew up abroad, assume that he is more informed than urban voters? That was never the assumed premise, nor the intellectual underpinning, for the argument of why the consumer rights activist should not have been chosen as representative in the Upper House. The aim, as it has always been, was to provoke and anger the embedded rational reasoning aspect of the more development-oriented - rather than digression-oriented and anti-corruption-oriented - side of the individual's preferences...................................

Living in the city, we often come to accept - or believe to accept - the idea that the urban dweller has a legitimate claim to successively veto the mandate of the lesser-educated rural voting base.

This has been reflected in the periodic tearing down of the North and Northeast-represented political parties ever since we transformed into a modern-day functioning democracy. Not that many of these politicians do not deserve it, because it is a fact that many of them do deserve it very much. Yet, what has become commonplace is Bangkok citizens denouncing the results of the general election by claiming to over-rule that which is the provincial support base of "corrupt" politicians. This is normally rationalised by the argument that these bases come to exist either because of vote-buying or the inability of the country folk to grasp the concept of the ideal kind of representative that is needed when it comes to running the country.

Just as Bangkok is apparently proud of having someone like Ms Rosana in the Senate to monitor the workings of those "corrupt" dirty dealers, the poorer marginalised Thais living in the tambons and villages out there where technological advances are still not readily available are concerned about progress and growth even at the expense of the tedious monitoring of politicians. Folks will say the hel_l with it, let these guys run things and if they have a small slice of the cake then that's okay.

This is not acceptable. Yet, we living in Bangkok - English-speaking as we are for those who are reading this untranslated piece before the Thai papers trample on the nuanced verbiage selected here - can never ignore the mandate of the "less informed" vote. We must never ignore the desire of the masses, while the masses must deal with this periodic ignorance. The provinces must listen to the minority voices of the capital, while the capital must listen to the majority voices of the country.

The upcoming test on March 28 is a monumental one for us Bangkokians. Living in the capital, we have the responsibility of upholding, not rejecting, the desire of the silent majority. The silent majority, of Bangkok and 75 other provinces, voted for peace and prosperity. They voted for growth - uncorrupted if that is the preference that can be made.

It is my honest belief that allowing a gathering of individuals, whose leader is a man already convicted in the courts of law and sentenced already to more than 6 years in prison, is nothing if not a major mistake. Why open the floor to the same voice, proven in a court of law as having defamed others, to repeat the crime?

Reading one of the court's verdicts against the Manager newspaper founder-cum-People's Assembly for Democracy impresario, one finds himself or herself unable to comprehend why anyone would support such a movement. In the wording of a conviction verdict dated March 29, 2007, the Criminal Court found that Sondhi Limthongkul acted inappropriately in using the institution of the monarch as a tool in defaming former Thai Rak Thai party member Poomtham Vejayachai. In another one of these Criminal Court verdicts, ruling numbers I'. (Or) 1065/ 2549 and I'. (Or) 1875/2549 dated Dec 25, 2007 in cases filed by a lawyer of Thaksin Shinawatra, Sondhi was described to have inappropriately represented his status, as an activist, using yellow attire and phraseology that misled the public to believe in the idea that his actions were aligned with the objectives and interests of the palace.

The PAD, as a result, came to be viewed falsely as having palace backing, when in fact the palace has, and always will be, above politics.

The same opinion of the court on that day also pointed to the negative fallout of the societal divisiveness created via the vehicle that was the yellow-shirt wearing demonstrators, all part of the action of a single group led only by several men.

The test is upon all of us to safeguard the remaining remnants of the democratic image the country still possesses and to lower the noise of the self-proclaimed purveyors of democracy. This is a cry out to us - the influential city dwellers - that the time has come again when two choices are available. One is a road of regularly held elections with politicians' games and power plays manoeuvred inside parliament and confined to the courts of law. The other is a road where loud and interruptive street protests, the initial one already tentatively scheduled for May, lead us on a path towards uncontrollable chaos.

Unable to win what they seek through the polls, the PAD once again seeks victory through post-poll tactics.

M L Nattakorn Devakula never sought to reject the Bangkok vote for Ms Rosana. Acting as the sacrificial lamb, the author simply wanted all readers to beware of the dangers that may arrive when we head down a course of rejecting the idea of the majority vote - for the capital and for the country.

The last time the PAD gathered, activities almost inevitably led to a development-defeating coup d'etat. We should ask ourselves who is to blame for that putsch, if not the divisive individuals who paved the way for such "legitimacy"?

The next question then becomes: Do we really want the same things to unfold again? If offending some people to achieve a "no" on this question is the price the author must pay, then so be it.....................

[steveromagnino]

ANCHORMAN [bangkok Post: partial copy]

Respecting the majority vote - not only in Bangkok

ML NATTAKORN DEVAKULA

he should go back to selling cars (Nissan Tiedas) as he is inept at understanding or analysing any news. Total sell out.

I've read his drivel for a year, and he is so staunchly pro Thaksin/PPP that there is little point in calling him an analyst, he should be called a PR agent. And the rumour is he isn't writing for free either.

Ah well, maybe next government he can be a minister too. But I doubt it, as he really doesn't have an original thought, just knows how to package it well enough that it almost reads ok.

Mind you, these days I expect nothing less from the good folk at Bangkok Post. Bunch of suck ups.

Edited March 20, 2008 by steveromagnino

[jdinasia]

the author of that tripe needs a healthy dose of <deleted>!

[chevykanteve]

ANCHORMAN [bangkok Post: partial copy]

Respecting the majority vote - not only in Bangkok

ML NATTAKORN DEVAKULA

he should go back to selling cars (Nissan Tiedas) as he is inept at understanding or analysing any news.

I've read his drivel for a year, and he is so staunchly pro Thaksin/PPP that there is little point in calling him an analyst, he should be called a PR agent. And the rumour is he isn't writing for free either.

Ah well, maybe next government he can be a minister too. But I doubt it, as he really doesn't have an original thought, just knows how to package it well enough that it almost reads ok.

Your response is so typical of the name-calling/platitude-based drivel of the pro-dictatorship advocates (I didn't say you were a facist, nor of course am I implying it).

[steveromagnino]

Your response is so typical of the name-calling/platitude-based drivel of the pro-dictatorship advocates (I didn't say you were a facist, nor of course am I implying it).

That may indeed be true, but most logical people would not actually spout off our ill thought out opinions, then pretend we were trying to stir up controversy when it all backfires (and it has...spectacularly).

So I guess he is at least more innovative than the rest of us.

Thanks for your kind observation regarding my pro-dictatorship view:-)

At a guess, have you met with Jakapop since he earned his new title? Did you take a glance at the picture in full view?

People get rewarded for their support, I do not doubt that Bleum will get his too.

Edited March 20, 2008 by steveromagnino

[samran]

fine. lets respect the election result. Just wished that the PPP respected freedom of the press so that the opposition doesn't have to resort to street protests.

have very good first hand reports that Jakapop is calling media types in to lay out there pro-PPP/TRT bonafides. If you didn't cheer loud enough in the past (both pre and post coup) for PPP, then you are out.

[Plus]

Well, the future is shaping up - big business wants it all to themselves without any attempts at public scrutiny.

Somehow Nattakorn refuses to acknowledge, let alone answer any questions regarding their sincerety or even goals. What is their vision for the country in the first place?

[pete_r]

Ok the PPP may not respect freedom of the press, but who in Thailand does when they are in power? The military?

[samran]

Ok the PPP may not respect freedom of the press, but who in Thailand does when they are in power? The military?

While I'm all for democracy - a proper one - and not an elected dicatorship, lets do compare press freedom during the coup.

I'd argue the Thai press was much freer. The military was critised - frequently. And they didn't do anything to stop it. They could have, but didn't.

[pete_r]

Ok the PPP may not respect freedom of the press, but who in Thailand does when they are in power? The military?

While I'm all for democracy - a proper one - and not an elected dicatorship, lets do compare press freedom during the coup.

I'd argue the Thai press was much freer. The military was critised - frequently. And they didn't do anything to stop it. They could have, but didn't.

You have a point. On the other hand rumor has it that they kept soldiers stationed in the TV stations. Or was it just a rumor ? (I have no first hand info on that)

Internet websites critical of the coup were also under close scrutiny and blocked from time to time, particularly on fridays-saturdays when protests against the coup were organized in Bangkok.

Of course my examples refer to the media in general, not specifically the printed press.

[pete_r]

Well, the future is shaping up - big business wants it all to themselves without any attempts at public scrutiny.

Somehow Nattakorn refuses to acknowledge, let alone answer any questions regarding their sincerety or even goals. What is their vision for the country in the first place?

I'd say same as TRT: Give an image of a stable, safe country to attract foreign investors. Hence the mega-projects and the war on drugs.

Talking about vision for the country, I'd argue that other political parties (Democrats...) don't offer much either.

Edited March 20, 2008 by pete_r

[Plus]

Well, the future is shaping up - big business wants it all to themselves without any attempts at public scrutiny.

Somehow Nattakorn refuses to acknowledge, let alone answer any questions regarding their sincerety or even goals. What is their vision for the country in the first place?

I'd say same as TRT: Give an image of a stable, safe country to attract foreign investors. Hence the mega-projects and the war on drugs.

Talking about vision for the country, I'd argue that other political parties (Democrats...) don't offer much either.

Thaksin's vision was building essentially a fascist state, a perfect system for the rich to have the country all to themselves while being backed up by population at large at the same time.

That kind of stability comes at the expense of freedoms and rights and tolerates no opposition. It might work, it might even last for a long time, relatively speaking, but, unforunately for Thailand, the pesky opposition comprises nearly half the country, Thaksin can't build his authoritarian, one party=state=nation system without provoking civil war.

Big business can, and will, sacrifice Thaksin to avoid that kind of conflict, but they won't give up on their agenda, as Nattakorn so aptly demonstrates.

>>>

Democrats' vision is European style liberal social democracy. They also look at the country as a whole, they don't hitch its fate to the well being of one particular group, as Nattakorn does with his believe in big business being the sole carrier of nation's destiny that deserves a special place above the law and public scrutiny. As Thaksin believed his TRT would eventually become, and he got very close to achieving that goal.

[steveromagnino]

fine. lets respect the election result. Just wished that the PPP respected freedom of the press so that the opposition doesn't have to resort to street protests.

have very good first hand reports that Jakapop is calling media types in to lay out there pro-PPP/TRT bonafides. If you didn't cheer loud enough in the past (both pre and post coup) for PPP, then you are out.

I heard that too.

Under TRT I particularly enjoyed one journalist's comment after writing that Shin Sat's latest sattellite was too little too late; the wrong technology. This became an issue worthy of the PM's attention issue and he was contacted via the PM's office with a call to the newpaper's chairman that the newspaper should cease writing things that might affect the negotiations with India at the time regarding sattellites.

But of course.....as we see now with the expected announcements of the new Channel 11 line up starting 1 April (guess how many ITV faces we will expect to see) under democracy the PM's office would never interfere with both the detail and the content of what is on TV would they???!

IMHO censorship at least in TV is significantly more tightly controlled as of today compared to 6 months ago.