Home > Opinion > Thaksin made a shrewd move in picking Samak to lead his nominee party

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Thaksin made a shrewd move in picking Samak to lead his nominee party

Re: "Samak just a pawn in Thaksin's chess game", Letters, January 30.

Published on January 31, 2008

James Groveway's cynical letter on Samak Sundaravej is fun to read but his underlined assumption that Samak is a proxy forever of Thaksin is somewhat naive.

I have followed Samak's rise and fall in politics right from the time when he was a writer for Mom Kukrit's Siam Rath, and I can assure everyone that this man, though brash and ill-mannered at times, is not in anyone's pocket. At the height of his career in 1976, he was lauded by Time magazine as a potential prime minister. He has been consistent in his beliefs and a great orator. His former party, the Democrats, must miss him. It is known that he loves his simple life and is a non-drinker and non-smoker. To sum him up, he is a man who knows what he wants in life and values his independence dearly.

Then, why did Thaksin pick him? To those who are well conversant with Thai politics, Thaksin's choice was a masterstroke and an effective counter-force against the military junta. Without an iota of doubt, he is a royalist and a rightist commanding great respect from soldiers and the establishment. He is a great debater and has a sharp tongue with an analytical mind on a par with Chuan Leekpai. Before his premiership, he was comfortable and happy in his family life.

With that knowledge, no one in his right mind would think Samak is in the pocket of Thaksin. The relationship will be mutually accommodating and the chance of conflict is minimal. Thaksin has another chance as Thailand's prime minister after the expiry of his ban from politics. That period will coincide with the end of Samak's term of four years in office as Thailand's prime minister. With Samak's current age of 72, I doubt whether he would wish to take on a renewal term at the age of 76. Therefore, Thaksin's return is almost assured while Samak is filling the gap in continuing with the populist policies. Yes, my hat is raised to Thaksin for picking Samak.

Songdej Praditsmanont

BANGKOK

....................................

A lack of courage is clearly evident

Is there any integration of professional practices in Thailand? I've been assuming there is, but recently I have seen only evidence to say professional integrity is missing. What is present is the patron-client system and the inherent corruption, cronyism and nepotism that follows - made cohesive by fear. I say this as a prelude to my comment about the election.

My comment is: shame on the Election Commission for not taking action to red-card law-breakers. Its ambiguous stance and inaction has allowed self-centred people to do whatever they want with virtual impunity.

My question is: why do people tolerate a culture based on fear? Perhaps a revolution is necessary to empower individuals to act with respect to sound principles. History shows examples of societies throwing off the old regime. Only in countries that adopt democratic principles is the individual empowered. If the People Power Party and its totally self-serving attitudes, values and motives are the core of a government that should be serving the needs of society, this writer will absolutely support legal action to shame, prosecute and jail those who break the public trust.

Representatives have a responsibility to put the public's needs above their own. Obviously, we have a crisis of professionalism here in Thailand. Long live open societies in which individuals live with no fear.

DGB

BANGKOK

....................................

Denial of freedom of opinion and assembly

The Asian Human Rights Commission has received information that 10 activists were charged with trespassing and coercion in relation to peaceful protest that was held on December 12, 2007 in Thailand. The demonstration was organised to protest against the appointed National Legislative Assembly's attempts to push through legislation that would restrict fundamental rights and freedoms.

The activists, led by Jon Ungphakorn, chair of the NGO Coordinating Committee on Development, attempted to stop the Assembly from considering legislation that would fundamentally affect civil liberties, when a new legislature with a democratic mandate was about to be elected.

Among the eight bills that the coalition objected to were the Internal Security Bill, that would entrench elements of the military regime, and the Radio and Television Bill that would perpetuate the military's and bureaucracy's monopoly over these elements of the press.

Despite the peaceful conclusion of the protest and acknowledgement by members of the NLA that the protesters' demands were reasonable, the police brought a series of charges against the protesters.

The right to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to freedom of assembly are enshrined in sections 45 and 63 respectively of the 2007 Constitution of Thailand.

However, it is often the case that when protesters attempt to make their views known through peaceful protests they get the metaphorical "book thrown at them". A similar bundle of offences have been used against protesters in the past. The cumulative penalty that can result from these charges may be up to as many as 26 years' imprisonment.

The use of punitive charges in an attempt to stifle legitimate protests and concerns by citizens is an unacceptable and worrying trend in Thailand. Other "legal" means of suppressing opinion have been employed by the state before, for example, when protesters demonstrating against the building of a gas pipeline on the border with Malaysia were accused of violence against the police.

In that case the court found that the protesters were expressing their genuine constitutional rights and we would hope that the government has learnt from the precedent set by the court.

Asian Human Rights Commission

HONG KONG

....................................

As if there isn't enough reckless driving already

I hate to say this, as a regular reader, but I think your Auto page needs to put the brakes on. A case in point: the piece about an actor who'd just put a 300-horsepower engine in his 10 year old BMW and boasting loudly that "his Beemer hits a top speed of 260kph during a test run on the expressway to Pattaya ... and could rev it up more".

Surely your writer ought to know better. This is tantamount to promoting speeding and reckless driving. And it's against the law.

With over 1.2 million deaths due to traffic accidents worldwide, I think we all need to be more careful on what we write or say. And I think the press should set a good example by being more sensible.

Vichit Phanumphai

BANGKOK

Send us your views in an instant

E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to

the Editor' in the subject box, to:

letters@nationgroup.com

The Nation


Rules and Conditions
1.The Nation reserves the right to delete any inappropriate comments.
2.Our users are not allowed to republicise or use any information except for your own personal use. And The Nation web team is not responsible for any illegal comments.

Other comment

D Brooks 31/01/2008 10:07 IP: 161.200.255.162 In response to my own opinions published January 31st (DGB, A lack of courage is clearly evident), I would like to follow up with some constructive approaches to critical dialogue from which everyone wins. In my comments on January 31st I said I would support shaming and prosecuting individuals who take positions of trust who then break the inherent social contract of being a representative by serving their own interests, not those of the people whom they represent. (A reminder to everyone: a government represents all people in the country, not just the ones who voted for that government.) I still believe a legal system must rule justly on principle and precedent, blind to the social position of the individuals who are being tried, i.e., be a truly fair system of justice. Thailand’s legal system is sadly immature in this regard from what I have seen. Outside of a legal system, though, I want the focus of reason and responsibility to not be on prosecuting individuals’ breaking trust and rules, but rather on working collectively to find insights in ideas. I don’t want any public debate to be about people any more—we get no where with that; I want it to be related to learning as a community. Here is my suggestion for all people with responsibility (all of us). First and foremost, use reason in dialogue. Reason implies each individual has an opinion, based on some kind of beliefs coming from intuition and critical reflections of direct, observation, and referential experiences, and this opinion/conclusion is the best that any one person can see at that moment. This describes us all, right now, at this moment: aware, opinionated, but not finished learning new things. Learning is life-long, and, of course, every person is unaware of many points of view and ideas, so a reasonable person is open to hear other opinions and wants them with a hunger. A dialogue in which every person is a little skeptical of his/her own opinions is reasonable and exciting, and everyone wins when the collective vision is greater. This takes listening skills and time. (Are our professional meetings full of listening and time?) Skeptical readers of this first suggestion may say, “Right, how Utopian. People are not reasonable. Descartes was in error thinking people use algebra to make decisions. People are emotional. Get real. Thai life and thought is uncritical; it follows authority, is personality based, not idea based. People don’t listen. This won’t work here.” My second suggestion is to actively follow the basic critical thinking dispositions of which the most important for the Thai context seems to be this: don’t say things for which there is no support. This means people who are making plans in meetings should be able to explain their decisions and be open-minded to other ideas—see first suggestion again—which are based on examples. Of course this requires experienced people to be part of the planning committees and for these people to actually speak up during meetings. Ideally, public policy planners can use multiple analogies and examples to explain their decisions. Collectively, this is possible by listening to many opinions from experienced people, not just by a top-down single individual. Avoiding ambiguity in public planning is another way of seeing this suggestion. This suggestion also means that possibly slanderous gossip should never be used to form opinions of people and their ideas. Skeptics again: “Gossip not being used to make judgments about people and their ideas? Get real… Authorities explaining without ambiguities? Listening to opinions? Get real…” The other most important critical thinking disposition to use for learning and progress is to value the dignity and worth of every individual. We all must remember to do this daily because Thai society—from the ‘lakorn’ (soap-operas on TV) examples to our more real-life interactions on the street and in our offices—is traditionally caste with unequal human dignity/value categories and we seem to tolerate this unequal system. I say we all must look at every person with respect and allow equal opportunities for learning and the sharing of ideas. My (open to further dialogue) conclusion is this: from the need to assure quality in public policy plans, for us all to stop being fearful of sharing opinions, for our many problems to be reduced, let us all try to be active in constructive dialogue where we all have equal dignity and value and our ideas are supported by our many experiences and we use our literary mind ability to value and predict outcomes of plans. Let’s all use John Dewey’s reflective approaches to life-long learning, David Bohm’s suggestions to talk about dialogue and see how we all win from it when it is critical, and my own suggestions to use critical thinking principles. I think we choose reality by the way we think and act. To the skeptics who say, “Get real…”, I say, “I am, and I like my version of reality.” Let’s not make things personal. Let’s make them principled. Try it, you may like it.	Delete

Stop drooling over Samak 31/01/2008 09:19 IP: 125.27.166.189 there is simply no way Thaksin will wait four years to come back, Songdej. Give him enough time, say 6 months, to finalise his current negociations with the junta, and we shall all rejoice in the return of the Great Leader.	Delete

Thaksin made a shrewd move in picking Samak to lead his nominee party

Re: "Samak just a pawn in Thaksin's chess game", Letters, January 30.

Related Stories

Top Stories