COMMENTARY
PATTARA KAMPITAK
Prime Minister Samak and his ministers proudly unveiled to the nation their "six measures, six months" relief package early last week.
Academics, economists and the general public have debated the virtues of the handouts, among them free water, free electricity and free rides in third-class compartments of trains and on non-airconditioned buses.
For me, what is as noteworthy as the contents of the package but not mentioned anywhere, is the way Mr Samak chose to treat his questioners.
The very first person to put questions to the ministerial panel was Banyong Amporntrakul, chairman of the privately-owned buses operating under contract from the Bangkok Mass Transit Authority (BMTA).
Those who had the chance to watch the live broadcast of the event would have seen that Mr Banyong exercised extreme caution in his standing up and questioning the prime minister. One could almost feel the man's apprehension through the TV screen. It was clear Mr Banyong must have gone through an excruciating decision-making moment. He must have asked himself over and over again whether he should raise his hand, whether the act would be worth it. The PM's sharp tongue and combativeness are not well-known for nothing. Between the risk of being the subject of Mr Samak's tirade and the benefit of fulfilling his duty as representative of the private bus operators (who may be affected by the free bus offer), Mr Banyong evidently chose to do his duty. And so he stood up.
If you watched the broadcast, you would see how nervous - nerve-wracked - Mr Banyong appeared and how extremely careful he was in framing his questions.
But his utmost attempts were obviously not enough. When he mentioned that the measures could be construed as an attempt to garner popularity before an election, PM Samak, whose fixed stare was always upon the poor man, hit back brutally.
"Withdraw your words immediately," the PM commanded. And the visibly recoiling Mr Banyong complied instantly.
The incident gave me a few points to ponder.
For Mr Samak, I wish someone would give him some honest advice. Mr Banyong is but an ordinary citizen. He is not a member of the opposition which the PM has accused of showing unhealthy eagerness to take on the premiership. Mr Samak should not have treated Mr Banyong as if he were an enemy in parliament.
As an ordinary citizen as well, I am saddened by the incident. As a voter, I can't help but feel completely baffled that the prime minister, who has always insists that he gets to be the chief because people voted for him, can't seem to tolerate even a single question or any kind of criticism from a voter.
If Mr Banyong were a member of the anti-government People's Alliance for Democracy in disguise who intended to cause the PM and his ministers shame and humiliation, Mr Samak's overly harsh treatment might have been justified. But the truth is that Mr Banyong is but one citizen, one entrepreneur trying to inform Mr Samak and his co-workers of the impact their decisions could produce on the profession he and his fellow bus operators rely on to make a living.
Mr Banyong conveyed his concern politely, even timidly. Moreover, he tried to propose some alternatives which he believed might be better for the government.
Regrettably, the stern treatment Mr Samak gave Mr Banyong has probably robbed the PM of one beneficial friend willing to offer him honest opinion and advice.
Worse, the gesture put Mr Samak in a bad light. The impression of him as a ruthless leader who shows no care for other people will alienate him from those who could have been his friends.
People who watched the exchange of words would inevitably have the impression that there is no point, nor is there any use, in arguing with the prime minister because you would be ordered to withdraw your words anyway.
And if you are so unlucky as to provoke his anger with your question or argument, then nobody knows what terrible fate you could end up with.
When a leader does not want to listen to people who disagree with him, no one would dare to speak the truth.
Eventually, that leader would only hear what he wants to hear, which is not what is right or useful.
And he will end up in disaster.
Mr Samak has shown an alarming preference for one-way communication lately. If he does not like the opinions of the PAD or members of the media, I think he has the right to strike back.
But when it comes to the unbiased opinions of ordinary people trying to make a living, the PM must listen. There is no excuse.
Mr Samak's coming down so strongly against Mr Banyong, who actually represents bus operators, raised a few other questions in my mind. Why is the PM's treatment of bus operators so different from that of rice farmers or merchants? Mr Samak seemed very concerned about the hardship of the latter group and was willing to come up with assistance measures in no time.
Also, Mr Samak has come to his job by winning the election. Why did he get so upset when someone asked whether his policy was aimed at garnering votes? Is it shameful to try to please voters?
I wonder if it is more shameful to say something one day and then backtrack on it later? To say one day that constitutional change is a matter for parliament to decide, then go back on his statement and insist that the government must amend the charter at all costs?
Pattara Kampitak is News Editor, Post Today.
Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Next
