EDITORIAL
It is mildly refreshing to turn on a national television station and see politicians arguing their cases in parliament. After a one-day interpellation of the government by mostly opposition senators yesterday, the "action" moves today to the Lower House and the main event. Yet it is far too early to say that our legislators and the public have suddenly caught a heavy dose of parliamentary procedure.
Some may be tempted to think that things may be starting to look up. That is far too optimistic, so long as the government continues to do what is right for its survival instead of what is good for the country. That is much too hopeful so long as thousands of People's Alliance for Democracy protesters besiege Government House.
It is encouraging that the opposition Democrat party sought a proper censure debate. The government may have been in office for less than five months, but its performance has been dismal and its leadership almost absent. The main duty of the opposition party is to call the government to account for its performance. The nation should hope for a strong and coordinated demand today and tomorrow for the government to reveal its plans to direct and lead the country out of the worst threat to prosperity in a decade.
All Thais should also watch to see if Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej and his cabinet can explain their way out of a dismal lack of policy planning since their election victory a full six months ago today.
But of course the sub-plot is more important than the televised show today and tomorrow. It began last week when Mr Samak angrily rejected the call for a censure debate with the laughable excuse that the cabinet ministers were too busy preparing the fiscal 2009 budget. He also vowed that the PAD march would not be allowed to reach Government House. Of course the march easily breached police lines, Mr Samak conducted yet another policy flip-flop, and agreed to submit to the censure debates, yesterday in the Senate, and today and tomorrow in the House.
There is some credit to spread around. The PAD marchers did technically break the law on a few occasions of breaching police lines, but were mostly good-natured and at no time threatened violence. They have made no attempt to block the government from its offices, or to stop, say, today's cabinet meeting. Police showed great restraint, even while suffering a few injured officers in minor scuffles with the demonstrators. Mr Samak made no attempt to order violence to stop the march; he could have claimed the protesters were illegally blocking traffic and commerce. And finally, the armed forces stood by without so much as a hint of intervention.
The harsh truth is that the government is responsible for easing and ending the conflict in the streets. One important mark of a democracy is that it treats minority opinion reasonably. Mr Samak cannot simply continue to claim that an elected government has the right to do as it pleases.
The PAD must consider carefully how long it can continue to cause disturbances when it has gained all of its original goals. It is still up to Mr Samak and his ministers to try to bring the nation together. That specifically includes the strong-willed opponents in the PAD. The polls indicate that public opinion generally thinks the government should get a longer trial period to solve economic problems and heal the huge rift in society. That sounds right, but Mr Samak must know that he has to produce results on the economic and political fronts almost immediately, or his days as premier are numbered.
Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Next
