COMMENTARY
PLOENPOTE ATTHAKOR
"The unpopular prime minister has abruptly resigned in an effort to break a political deadlock..."
A news report by a TV anchorwoman late Monday night drew my attention away from the computer screen I was working at. That was the statement the Thai public had been eagerly waiting to hear amid the long-standing political standoff.
But no. That was not the resignation of our embattled leader of the besieged Thai Khu Fah building, which has been occupied by anti-government demonstrators led by the People's Alliance for Democracy, following nearly three months of street protests. It was Yasuo Fukuda, the prime minister of Japan, who had the ability to recognise the political deadlock his country was in. Mr Fukuda, who is about the same age as Mr Samak, realised it was impossible for his government to go on under such an unfavourable situation and made the abrupt decision to resign. He was the second prime minister of Japan to step down in less than a year.
"If we are to prioritise the people's livelihoods, there cannot be a political vacuum from political bargaining, or a lapse in policies. We need a new team to carry out policies," Mr Fukuda said in his resignation statement. "I thought it would be better for someone else to do the job than me."
Many may argue that the two cases are not the same.
Mr Fukuda has struggled with a divided parliament where opposition parties controlled the Upper House and could delay legislation; while Mr Samak still has - at least until this weekend - the assurance from his coalition partners that they are "in", after seven months of administration.
Neither the Senate nor the opposition is a serious threat to his government, just as the army's sideline stance may keep him at ease that things are under control.
The prime minister has become a broken record, trying desperately to convince the people of his mandate, no matter how shattered it has become, to run the country.
With confidence, he threw cold water on Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva's suggestion during a special parliamentary session that he dissolve the House and call a general election in order to enable the country to move on.
The violence that erupted in the wee hours of yesterday during a clash between the PAD and the pro-government United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), led by some cabinet members and PPP politicians on the protest site, which resulted in one death and dozens of injuries, could not make Mr Samak see reason that he should call it quits.
The prime minister also failed to show any regret for the unbecoming incident.
Apart from issuing a state of emergency for Bangkok, which handed power to Army chief Gen Anupong Paojinda, Mr Samak has maintained his "business-as-usual" tactics. Yesterday he and his cabinet took the opportunity to approve a project to hire air-conditioned buses from a private firm, which is under heavy criticism.
But, frankly, can the prime minister - and his government, which effectively has become a vagabond cabinet for a while - fully perform under such circumstances, and for how long?
But whether to stay on or not, Mr Samak should know that it doesn't depend only on his strong determination to stay put.
Political history has shown that few political leaders, if any, have ever agreed to leave office willingly. The stubborn leaders were always forced out in disgrace, one way or another.
Probably, Mr Samak is just like any outgoing political leader, Thaksin Shinawatra among them - they tend to lose the ability to see things as they are. That prevents them from making good and timely judgements and they think - wrongly - that they can make it.The prime minister may have also forgotten that history always repeats itself.
Ploenpote Atthakor writes for Outlook, Bangkok Post.
Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Next
