OPINION

Come to the party, PM

Many of the 40 plus new political parties want Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha to continue as PM, post-election. But some newbies want the post-election inter-party negotiations to be deadlocked to the point where the junta-selected and elected MPs can join to choose Gen Prayut as an "outsider" PM.

Such a scenario would be in accordance with the junta-written letter of the law, but not the spirit of "government of the people, for the people, and by the people" (Abraham Lincoln) -- for at least some of the winning parties would be negotiating in bad faith, seeking a breakdown in talks. Also, the resulting outsider PM might not be who the people would have preferred.

I suggest, then, that if Gen Prayut is open to resuming the helm after an election, he accept the invitation of the party of his choice to be their candidate now, and firmly declare that he will not be available as an outsider PM.

More than 40 new political parties on the block, and none of them linked to Thaksin Shinawatra in the Bangkok Post's reporting from the opening days of the registering of new parties? But the Bangkok Post was able to trace a couple of the parties as supporters of Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha as next (unelected) prime minister.

Is the Bangkok Post here showing bias or are there simply no new parties linked to Thaksin/Pheu Thai openly, or concealed?

And does the Bangkok Post really think Thaksin sit idle seeing others grabbing the power? Could it be Thaksin himself through proxies is starting a new party to catch votes Pheu Thai can't catch with it's "ideology" and history, to later sluice this power over to a coalition with Pheu Thai to get him back to Thailand?

Your report was one sided and of course negative to Prayut-friendly new parties and totally without any reflections or assumptions about the activity of the other side, the Thaksin/Pheu Thai side.

There are two popular and highly emotive subjects regularly in the news getting lots of attention from the international public. The first is the alarming number of road deaths in Thailand and the other the frightening number of gun massacres in the United States. I feel that these two items share common factors which result in both going overlooked and unchecked.

A British comedian working in America did a terrific short programme in which he compared the actions of the Australian government after a mass shooting at Port Arthur with the inaction of the US and one of the striking reasons why "no one would vote for gun control in the US" fuelled the fear of never getting re-elected. Just the fact that it could prove unpopular with citizens, even if still a minority, was enough to back off.

Which brings us to Thai road deaths, a staggering number in most people's opinion but something that would need massive and maybe unpopular rule changes to improve. No one, not even a man wielding the mighty Section 44, wishes to interfere.

Another feature for both countries is that dubious human trait of pride. Americans brought up with a history of the goodies shooting the badies, characterised by so many Hollywood stars, refuse to take a lesson from any advanced countries who don't share this problem. Thailand likewise would never look to another country for a lesson on how to minimise road fatalities. The knowledge is out there, it just needs harvesting.

So, can our dear PM or the finance minister tell me how many million baht the goverment spends every month for corrupt people to be sent to inactive posts. In my country (Switzerland) these people are immediately sacked and lose their salaries.

Contact: Bangkok Post Building 136 Na Ranong Road Klong Toey, Bangkok 10110 fax: +02 6164000 Email: postbag@bangkokpost.co.th All letter writers must provide full name and address.All published correspondence is subject to editing at our discretion.