Big issues should be debated with public

So, he sees the judiciary as meddlers, because they can force him to act within the law – but the way around that is to change the law, as he’s evidently trying to do, eg, declaring an amnesty for the sniper who killed Seh Daeng, the armed men in black who flitted in and out of red-shirt lines unhindered, and the men who killed the nurse tending the wounded at Wat Pratum plus the Japanese cameraman – as well as for himself.

If the judiciary are meddlers, then so are the independent organisations, because the presidents of the various courts appoint the independent agencies’ members and many senators – and it’s far too difficult to sway so many judges, who consistently are among the most highly respected in opinion polls for their integrity.

But, cynical me, I suggest that opinion polls are right when respondents consistently place politicians at the bottom in terms of trustworthiness. Can you believe Thaksin when he insists that the government will not interfere with changing the charter? Can you believe him when he says that he will retire from politics – again and again? Can you believe him when he says he didn’t know that his driver, maid, etc, were billionaires, receiving millions in dividends/capital gains and not spending a satang? Can you believe Thaksin, or, for that matter, the Democrats when they say that they have your best interests at heart but let the military kill your fellow Thais without accountability, as at Krue Se, Tak Bai, and now Nong Chik – and pre-legalise and encourage such killings by extending the Emergency Decree (for the far South) 27 times?

I suggest that the charter is too important to amend without rigorous examination of the pros and cons of each proposed amendment, one by one. I hold with Louis Brandeis that “freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the .…government.”

Majority rule is essential to a democracy – but so is an informed electorate, and we reach that by deliberate, reasoned discussion of issues of the day – not by cramming motions down our throats. Debate the options proposed by the KPI report, not only in Parliament but on talk shows throughout the length and breadth of our country, and reach a consensus that will last hundreds of years, as the American constitution has.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok