The difference between duty and 'face'

The idea of “neglecting one’s duty” is an interesting one in the context. At the time, Thaksin had only just been returned to power with an overwhelming mandate, and dominated both houses of Parliament with ease. He was faced with no issues that he couldn’t deal with through executive power alone, and indeed rarely bothered to appear in Parliament. 

But there was one detail that did bug him, a lot, and it was a very personal one and, as subsequent events have proven, a highly embarrassing one too. He had just sold his own personal business, a communications monopoly, no less, to a foreign country at a huge profit, and the Opposition felt obliged to examine the probity of the sale. Indeed, it is the duty of any Opposition in a parliamentary democracy anywhere in the world to look at such deals, just as it is the duty of any Prime Minister to answer complaints in Parliament about them whether or not the money goes into the public coffers or his or her own pocket.

Needless to say, Thaksin also had a duty to ensure any snap election he did call was a) of genuine benefit to the people, b) timely, and c) properly conducted. None of the above was observed at the time – just his ‘face’.

Which is how he lost it.

Lung Kip

Chiang Mai