EDITORIAL
No doubt there are several good reasons behind army chief Gen Anupong Paojinda's announcement that the military fully supports the government's plan to build a new parliament in Dusit district's Kiakkai area.
Optimism that it would lead to a more efficient and productive legislative body could have been one of them; familiarity with the long-time army stronghold as being a suitable location, could have been another.
In any case, a radical shake-up is necessary with priority going to changing attitudes deep within the legislative and executive branches of government.
The democratic process is suffering because certain elements in the Samak administration behave as though the elected members of parliament simply do not exist. Instead, we see a revival of the old Thai Rak Thai practice of using cabinet decrees in place of the slower but more proper referral through the pipeline to parliament. It is the kind of attitude that led to the negative ruling from the Constitution Court that cost the former foreign minister his job.
We also know that the House of Representatives spent its first session doing next to nothing - unless we count the persistent political wrangling and success in capturing international headlines when one member assaulted another. Even the opposition Democrats are complaining that vital legislation is being ignored.
The irony here lies in the contrast with the truckloads of legislation sent to, debated and then passed into law by the appointed National Legislative Assembly which preceded the present elected House. What is damning is that the administration of Surayud Chulanont and its hyperactive lawmakers were installed through a military coup, while the bulk of the present House of Representatives came from ballots cast in the Dec 23, 2007 election. This poll marked the welcome restoration of democracy and the departure of the coup-makers and their appointees. We have the right to expect a lot better from the true representatives of the people.
This prompts the question of why our present MPs feel their pathetic performance justifies the diversion of huge amounts of taxpayers' money away from public welfare and into creating a magnificent new parliament to replace the superb one they already have? And why the government thinks this is such a good idea that it has already pledged a sizable down payment?
The answer might lie in our obsession with appearances and the outward trappings of democracy. It is only when we actually get down to practising the democratic ideal, rather than throwing money at it, that we seem to get unstuck and stumble into a maze of problems. Too often we lose track of the goal because we get bogged down in obscure detail, trivia, over-reliance on constitutional interpretations and past precedent, to the exclusion of logic, transparency and common sense.
This has been evident in the clumsy efforts made over the past six months to radically alter and amend a constitution that has yet to celebrate its first birthday.
The spirit, or essence of what democracy is all about, can so easily get lost in all this ritualistic buck-passing, dithering and delay. It is an elusive concept at the best of times, but when politicians pay more attention to their vested interests than to the democratic principles they are sworn to uphold, then it does not really matter how grand or large their debating chamber is.
The splendour of a parliament is not as important as the performance of its members. Surely the time has come for our work-shy MPs to stop representing themselves and to start representing the interests of the people who elected them and who pay their salaries.
Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Next
