Cooling off period is called for

Everybody feels free to break the rules in the name of democracy, from the Pheu Thai, Gen Sondhi, PM Yingluck, etc, trying to use their Parliamentary majority to ram the bill down our throats, with our Montenegrian prime minister (who’s repeatedly foresworn politics) egging the red shirts to ignore the Constitution Court’s injunction – and the injunction itself has been called into question by the Nittirat Group. The yellow shirts act to boot our democratically-elected prime minister from office, majority rule be damned, while the Democrat MPs act like their counterparts in Pakistan or Taiwan in using brute force and the Parliamentary Speaker is anything but impartial.

A cooling-off period is obviously called for, so that we can all emulate the Greeks, who will on June 17 vote on two diametrically opposed, far-reaching alternatives, yet who have not felt compelled to break the rules of democracy in swaying voters. Instead of seeking the rule of the jungle, let us follow James Madison, who said, “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.”

On her last trip to Australia, PM Yingluck said that she was serious about reconciliation, offering as proof the fact that she’d let the Truth and Reconciliation Committee  (TRC) continue its work. Let her then act on the TRC’s conclusion that a main source of division is the highly controversial 2001 assets concealment case against her brother, where his maid, driver, etc, held billions of otherwise-taxable assets in his name. In that case, 7 of the 15 justices voted “guilty”, only 4 voted “innocent” and the rest said that Article 259 didn’t apply to the case. Let her explain why justice was served by the acquittal, and let law societies, law faculties, TV talk shows, etc, debate the same issues, so all voters may have the “power which knowledge gives” that Madison rightly gives importance to in deciding if Thaksin and his clone are worthy of our trust.

Then, having put the question of trustworthiness to rest, let the Reconciliation Bill be debated on TV and on radio by talk shows, etc. For, if voters have concluded Thaksin really didn’t know that agents for whom he was legally liable had regularly transferred millions in dividends from his staff’s accounts to his, then obviously he should be pardoned, and if not, then not.

Can Thaksin and the yellow shirts afford to give the common people they profess to love a few months’ peace to examine the issues?

Burin Kantabutra