A public debate would boost understanding

If we hold with Thomas Jefferson that “We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it”, let the Nitirat and Siam Prachapiwat groups also step back and agree to an academic debate with two twists.
The first twist is that both sides would first seek to agree on what HM the King’s wishes on our lese-majeste laws are.
The second twist would be that both sides agree to apply one of Stephen Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, which says, “Seek to understand (the other side) before seeking to be understood”.
The rationale for the first is that HM has deeper knowledge of the monarchy than anybody outside of the monarchy, and will be directly affected by our collective decisions.
The reason for the second twist is that often, one side to an argument doesn’t concentrate on understanding what the other side’s saying before responding.
How often, dear reader, have you told your spouse, “You don’t listen to what I’m saying before you scold me!”
So, I suggest a series of debates, broadcast live, between Nitirat and Siam Prachapiwat. We’d start with HM’s wishes on our lese-majeste law and its application.
After Nitirat presented its argument, Siam Prachapiwat would summarise Nitirat’s points until Nitirat agreed that Siam Prachapiwat had understood Nitirat’s stand correctly.
Then, and only then, would Siam Prachapiwat be allowed to present its side. The same rules would apply, of course, to when Siam Prachapiwat made its points.
If Nitirat used 40 per cent of its time summarising the other side’s points, it would have only 60 per cent of its time left to make its own points, and vice versa. This will really focus each side on understanding the other’s points.
After both sides understand HM’s wishes, we would go to the Nitirat proposals, comparing them one by one against HM’s wishes, and thus educate viewers.
A knowledgeable, forceful person acceptable to both sides would moderate – our equivalent of, say, Walter Lippmann – to keep the debate on topic and within the allocated time.
The media, MPs, senators, Cabinet members and TU students/faculty would be given priority seating – but the moderator could eject anybody disturbing the proceedings.
Let us freely and calmly hear both sides, for “A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps, both … A people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives” (James Madison).
Burin Kantabutra
bangkok