Deputy PM's trash talk is out of order

His remark that “Chiang Mai people also should not allow this garbage to mess around” is deemed derogatory by many.

Hannarong Yaowalers, who chairs the Foundation for Integrated Water Management, said Plodprasop’s remark proved he did not understand democracy or the concept of public participation. “We only wish to express our opinions in line with the principles of democracy,” he said, referring to activists planning a parallel forum to the Chiang Mai event, which began on Tuesday. It was beyond comprehension why Plodprasop compared people to rubbish. “I did not expect such derogatory and threatening words to come from the mouth of a deputy prime minister.”

According to Hannarong, the activists merely want to express their concern about the government’s Bt350-billion water-and-flood-management mega-project. They want the government to ensure that it will help tackle flood and drought problems in a sustainable way. He said the activists would organise a parallel forum, with no intention of obstructing the summit.

The Human Rights Lawyers’ Association, in a statement issued on Tuesday, described Plodprasop’s remark as a violation of human dignity, a threat to activists and an infringement of their basic rights. Plodprasop’s remark also became a hot topic of discussion on the social media, with many criticising him. 

It is understandable that Plodprasop wants the international conference to take place without incident. As chairman of the Water and Flood Management Commission and the Cabinet member responsible for organising the summit, the deputy premier certainly doesn’t want any protest to “spoil” the event. However, he should be aware that environmentalists, as citizens of this country, have the constitutional right to free expression and assembly. 

Plodprasop’s view is unlikely to be described as democratic. Hopefully, his view is not representative of the Cabinet or the ruling Pheu Thai Party. Other senior Cabinet members appear to be distancing themselves from his controversial remark. Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, asked to comment, said her government welcomed all opinions about the water project and she would ask Plodprasop about the intention in his remark. Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung said he did not think Plodprasop was serious about arresting protesters.

MPs – Plodprasop included – are representatives of the people. They should represent all groups of people, not just their constituents or their party’s supporters. In winning an election, MPs become the people’s representatives. And if their party wins a majority in the House of Representatives, they become part of the government and possibly the Cabinet. But that does not mean these politicians have “more rights” than ordinary eligible voters. And they have no right to prohibit other people from exercising their legal rights and freedoms, such as the right to public assembly.

Cabinet members – as the major part of the government – have a duty to work for all the people in this country, including those who did not vote for them and those who criticise them or disagree with them. It is not right that they only treat their supporters well while treating others badly. They have a duty to enforce the law fairly. If a peaceful gathering by the government’s red-shirt supporters is not against the law, a peaceful protest by environmental activists should not be prohibited either. Prime Minister Yingluck recently said the red shirts have the right to gather outside the Constitutional Court to protest against its judges, following their decision to accept for judicial review a petition against parliamentarians supporting constitutional amendment. However, she has not publicly made any supportive comment about the environmentalists’ right to public assembly at the water summit.

Politicians who claim to be democratic have to act accordingly. Start with tolerating views that differ from their own and complying with democratic principles such as the right to peaceful and unarmed public assembly. They should know that the use of threat and intimidation is undemocratic.