OPINION

Troubled waters

Re: "Selling locals down the Mekong River" (Opinion, June 2).

The Thai government is not only hell-bent on destroying livelihoods of urban Thais through closing markets and food stalls but has also affected many, and will affect millions more, rural Thais if it continues on a course to allow the Mekong River to be destroyed as a resource for locals.

Paritta Wangkiat is right to say that China is not solely to blame for this situation, but its close ally Thailand is also to blame in its blind support for China and "growth at all costs" approach. It is so true that "they hardly ever listen to the marginalised", and it is because "it's a matter of power structures".

In his June 2 letter, "Four (more) questions", Burin Kantabutra implied that the purpose of PM Prayut Chan-o-cha's questions was to justify a delay of the elections. By inputting such thoughts, he gives everyone an excuse to avoid thinking about the answers. The purpose of questions is to make us think and hence develop our own thoughts and ideas.

He also put words into the mouth of former PM Yingluck Shinawatra. You should allow her to ask her own questions, and we contributors should do likewise. Seeking to frame your own questions in a constructive way is a thought-provoking challenge. Here are my four:

Why are people experiencing democracy in its various forms around the world seeing such disappointing outcomes in the form of rising inequality, deficits, anger and polarisation? What are the root causes and possible solutions?

To what extent is the design and practice of democracy driving increased polarisation and partisanship and how can that trend be reversed? How do we avoid the dictatorship of the majority syndrome? In a deeply polarised society, how can we design and operate a system of checks and balances within our democracy which is respected by all sides and immune from undue influence by narrow interests groups or those it is supposed to check?

How can we encourage and enable the general public to peacefully exert control over its elected officials (at all levels) during the course of their term of office in order to hold them to account and ensure that they serve the real needs of all sectors of society in setting priorities and balancing current desires with available resources in a fair and sustainable way?

I submit that democracy is a practical subject which is still evolving all around the world. Nobody has got the definitive answer. Thailand and its people must be allowed to experiment and find their own way to the design of a system of government and representation that works for them. It is entirely healthy to pose questions to help this search, but those questions only work if we focus on answering them thoughtfully and sincerely. Second guessing the motives for asking them immediately closes off possible answers and hence illuminating, if sometimes uncomfortable, insights.

The prime minister could have waited for the first night of Passover. Then he could have asked "The Four Questions" legitimately.

It is no surprise that the Democrat Party would eagerly take back the eight who defected to more actively collude with the anti-democratic PDRC movement led by Suthep Thaugsuban.

Under Abhisit Vejjajiva's passively feeble "leadership" seeking to win power by any means, the Democrat Party even sank to colluding with the PDRC and their other allies against democracy to thwart the election called in February 2014 to allow the Thai people to voice their preference as to how they wanted to be governed.

Democracy evolves by making mistakes and learning from them. No one would be so childish as to think that any democracy anywhere at any time has ever been perfect, but it remains morally superior to every alternative.

There has often been massive corruption in British and US politics, but that never justified a coup.

There have often been appallingly bad economic decisions made by democratically elected governments everywhere, but hey never justified a coup against the people. Nations have often been beset by civil disorder. Disorder does not justify a coup against the highest law in those nations. Thailand is no different.

Sadly, the Thai people have been repeatedly denied the opportunity to learn from mistakes that help a society evolve as a healthy democracy must. Just when it looked as though progress was being made, when Yingluck Shinawatra's Pheu Thai gave up on their sleazy amnesty bill and then called an election, the rule of law and the good morals that found democracy were again trampled underfoot by those opposed to democracy.

Protests are a healthy element of a democratic and just society, but the PDRC was never sincere in its protests. If it was, it would have stopped after the amnesty bill was halted in response to the people's outraged voices of protest.

The PDRC did no such thing but continued to push blatantly for a coup to force their selfish agenda on the Thai people. Let us hope the PDRC protesters have learned from their mistakes, that they will not next time so easily be deluded by false excuses, by false promises and by false ideals.

In his interminable speeches, Donald Trump invariably cites "the American taxpayer" in arguing his contentious policy decisions while providing scant evidence that he has contributed his fair share to the US exchequer.

In a similar vein to terrorist organisations, he craves public attention, recognition and adoration from his minority support. Perhaps it would be best to just ignore him and let him wallow in his insecurity.