Wide debate the key to Thailand's future

But I beg to disagree with Vint Chavala, who says that “preparing for the referendum is easy and not time-consuming” (“Make it sacred”, Postbag, November 12).

A thoughtless vote, or one bought, can do immense damage to the country, for a contest can swing either way based on just a few ballots. Thus, what is more important is not so much the act of voting but the thorough deliberation that should back up each individual’s choice.

Whether “aye” or “nay”, each citizen should have impartially informed themselves of the issues brought up by each side and weighed them against the national interest. Ideally, both sides would have been forced to defend themselves in face-to-face debate, much like the Obama-Hillary Clinton series of eight televised debates when they vied for the presidential nomination.

For then each candidate will ensure that his or her stand is as solid and feasible as possible, rather than risk humiliating exposure on stage. 

Had then-candidate Yingluck faced off against Abhisit instead of assiduously dodging each debate challenge, Abhisit might have exposed the enormous risk of her proposed rice scheme, and saved us losses of Bt518 billion, or Bt7,618 from you, dear reader, and every other Thai.

So, I propose that universities, professional associations, etc, engage in discussions on key reform issues, much as Chulalongkorn’s Faculty of Political Science has been doing, but in a debate format and televised and kept impartially on-topic and shedding light, not heat. 

This will take much time; preparations for voting on Scottish independence took two years so that all the issues could be thoroughly debated – and we have mere months. We need a referendum, and must start educating voters now.

Burin Kantabutra