We need a forum to scrutinise parties’ election promises
It’s excellent that parties are setting out their visions to Thai voters, but are they theoretically sound and feasible – or are they just mirages?
For example, had Pheu Thai been forced to defend its rice scheme of buying rice at a price substantially higher than the market rate in hopes of selling it later, it would have been shown to be neither sound in principle nor sustainable in practice. Pheu Thai and the country might thereby have been saved from a fiasco.
To subject visions to intense scrutiny, I suggest a round-robin series of debates, pitting one major party against one other, giving each side equal opportunity to set forth and defend its vision in a given area, showing how its plan is superior to that of its opponent in both principle and feasibility.
Such debates, broadcast over public TV during prime time, would be between the four parties with the most registered members. Each session would cover vision in one area, eg, “Why the Palang Pracharath’s reconciliation policy is superior to that of the Democrats.” The moderator would be forceful, neutral, and acceptable to both sides, charged with keeping the debate on-topic and preventing any debater from avoiding inconvenient truths or questions.
Although parties may send experts to debate the specific topic, in the final round each party would have to send its prime ministerial candidate to defend the party’s platform as a whole.
For an example of this process, readers might check out the Swiss debate series “Arena”, available on YouTube.
Let’s have informed voters for a change, and make our elections meaningful.
Burin Kantabutra
