In legal terms, Jakrapob's English speech is still pending legal proceedings. However, in political terms, Jakrapob has much to clarify. First of all, he currently serves as the PM's Office Minister. Besides, Jakrapob previously led a rally to attack certain groups or personalities, such as Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda. Thus the exact translation of his speech and the motives behind it must be known.
In fact, the paper said that the controversy did not come from the English remarks he made in Thailand. On November 10 of last year, Jakrapob made similar statements to a group of Thais in Los Angeles in Thai. Those statements require no translation.
Matichon said that Jakrapob's remarks were a controversial issue in society and widely debated. Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva even said that Jakrapob's statements showed he had a "dangerous attitude". Abhisit recently submitted his translation to Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej. Thus, Samak, as leader of the government, should show responsibility by considering the matter and providing an answer to society by clearly stating whether he would accept Jakrapob's return following his seven-day suspension, or asking Jakrapob to consider the matter himself.
Matichon summed up that Samak is a veteran politician who has been in politics for almost 40 years. He knows how Thai society regards its long-standing institutions. At present, Thai society must deal with several conflicts, such as the question of whether the Constitution should be overhauled, higher oil prices and the conflict at Preah Vihear. Samak has to decide whether to keep Jakrapob in his Cabinet and whether doing so would lead to negative or positive consequences.
The paper summed up by saying that no one can, of course, force Samak to believe what others say. But Jakrapob's case is not Jakrapob's personal affair. The prime minister who appointed him should not make the wrong decision and should not flip-flop on his words. He has to find a way out.
Kom Chad Luek meanwhile criticised state-run media for its reports on the recent clashes between People's Alliance for Democracy protesters and supporters of the government's plan to amend the charter. It questioned why the state-run media failed to show pictures of the clashes. The lack of coverage conjured up memories of the way the state-run media avoided reporting on the bloody incidents of May, 1992.
Kom Chad Luek said that the 2007 Constitution stipulates that the employees of state-run media have the freedom to report their views and opinions. The government thus has no right to suppress their opinions or to block any information.