Govt must explain why it let World Expo plan founder

Submerged in floodwaters in 2011, Ayutthaya now stands to be inundated in controversy. It was reported this week that the Bureau of International Expositions (BIE) has rejected Thailand as a contender to host the World Expo 2020 after the government failed to reaffirm its nomination of the province as a candidate.

We don’t know how much the effect of the flood disaster had on the current government’s lukewarm attitude toward its predecessor’s initiative to apply to host the event. Making Ayutthaya host of the World Expo 2020 was conceived during the tenure of the previous Democrat government, but then there was a change of political guard – and the flood crisis, in which Siam’s former capital was among the hardest-hit areas. However, the administration of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has a responsibility to respond to reports that the BIE remained in favour of the Thai bid until the last minute, when it became clear the government in Bangkok was losing interest.

The report said a BIE team visited historically and culturally rich Ayutthaya early this year and gave the government until April 5 to answer questions about the nomination in terms of financial, legislative, organisational and diplomatic aspects. When it became certain the government did not want to pursue the matter, the BIE executive committee on Tuesday unanimously rejected Thailand’s bid.

That’s a shame, particularly if the BIE’s reported “leaning toward” Thailand was concrete. It would have been a great opportunity for Ayutthaya to bounce back in style from the setback of 2011, but now the BIE will reportedly give greater consideration to the remaining candidates – Russia, Turkey, Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, and Brazil.

It’s a bigger shame if politics played a part in the country being dropped from the selection process. When Yingluck Shinawatra was sworn in as prime minister in 2011, she promised that her government would adopt and continue with good initiatives, no matter who made them. She made it clear that, if it was a good policy, her government would pursue it, even if it had been initiated by political rivals.

Can a lack of money be an excuse? Hardly, since the government has been on a gigantic spending spree from Day 1, including schemes like a big tax break for first-time car buyers. Did legislative problems threaten the application to host the event? We could hardly expect Democrat lawmakers to shoot down an initiative of their own previous government. Were there organisational problems foreseen? Thailand has hosted big, international events before – a fact recognised by the visiting BIE team.

Democracy certainly allows newly elected rulers to drop their rivals’ policies or put them on the back burner. Democracy also brings a rearrangement of priorities via the mandate given to a new government by voters. But democracy also means that the government owes the public explanations – in this case why the Ayutthaya bid has not been pursued.

The project obviously would have had positive benefits, which makes it even more imperative for the government to clarify what influenced its decision, made in the face of reportedly good impressions among the visiting BIE team on Ayutthaya and Thailand. The news report said the BIE group believed the Thai province had all the potential to host this grand event. The inquiry team reportedly was also interested in the proposed theme that would centre on His Majesty the King’s sufficiency-economy philosophy.

The public is ready to listen to the government’s reasons. As long as they are given in a sincere, non-political manner, the explanations will be accepted. A political storm is already brewing, emanating from the Democrat camp, but this is an issue that warrants no acrimonious factional politics. Ayutthaya has lost its chance, but if the government believes its decision was justified, it must share the reasons with the public. Lack of any explanation would only serve to aggravate suspicion that what Yingluck said when she was sworn in was just the usual political lip service.