Discussion before a vote
Play
Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva has called on us to reject the government's public referendum on the grounds that the charter-reform proposal is designed to exempt the fugitive Thaksin from the rule of law - which may well be the case. Nevertheless, I s
PM Yingluck’s outline for the referendum sounds good – on paper. But if the public hearings are to determine what we really want out of our charter, we the people must scrutinise her every move, and that’s why the Democrats, as the opposition, should take a major role in planning and executing the hearings and referendum. For example, in choosing the three topics on how to overcome the political divide, the opposition should ensure that the topics are not only important but neutrally worded, and uphold the rule of law. A topic cannot be “How can we save a convict from prison?” We should discuss instead, “How should we ensure that verdicts are free from political influence?” Or, in choosing the panellists and chair, the opposition can help ensure that academics are chosen not only for their in-depth expertise but for their political tolerance, encouragement of opposing views, and transparency.
If the government’s conduct doesn’t support the “Seven Pillars of Sustainable Democrac” – elections, political tolerance, the rule of law, freedom of expression, accountability and transparency, decentralisation and civil society – then the Democrats will have more basis for calling on us to reject the referendum, and our response will be more enthusiastic, for the dialogue will have been proven to be a sham.
Burin Kantabutra
Bangkok
