Fair elections?
A few days ago a Bangkok Post editorial called for "intelligent debate" during the election campaign. Of course, they don't apply the need for intelligent and critical thought when considering their own editorials. Take, for example, theeditorial that has decided and states (several times) that the much-debated and apparently soon-to-be-finally-announced-election is going to be free and fair.
The Post states: "The campaigning looks to be a rough seven weeks or so. But no matter – as it is vital to carry through with a free and democratic election."
PPT considers this statement politically-motivated and deliberately misleading. It is misleading and an intervention in favor of the current regime. PPT has stated several times why this election is fixed (see our most recent post on this).Ji Ungpakorn has a different take, but also insists that the election cannot be free or fair.
The Post is essentially campaigning. The campaign is to whitewash an already tainted electoral process. In an earlier post PPT commented on the newspaper's first foray into this process.
The Post repeats several times that a "clean, spirited election campaign and an honest vote" is expected or hoped for. It stresses the need for lawful campaigning and civilized and tolerant behavior and calls on the public to "reward good candidates…".
All well and good, except that Abhisit, his coalition partners and the party's powerful elite backers have already engaged in massive electoral manipulation. PPT won't rehearse all the actions again, but we urge readers to look again at our posts on "fixing the election," here, here and here. These actions, ranging from huge budget handouts to salary increases for officials and murder and repression, do not even include throwing out throwing out a constitution and writing another, so-called policy corruption, dispatching a couple of governments, a coup and manipulation of the courts.
What the Post is doing is influence international perspectives on the election – after all, the Post is still seen as a reliable source of information on Thailand.
So when it looks at "problems" associated with the election, these are "that all candidates must have full freedom to travel, to campaign and to speak anywhere in the country." Here they are already suggesting that angry red shirts are a problem for a "free and fair" election.
Second "election night and the following day. Unless all parties – political, civil and social – agree to abide by vote counts, there will almost certainly be trouble."
No mention of coups, military and judicial interventions, killings, imprisonments, policy corruption-vote-buying, and so on. Has the mainstream media no shame? Apparently not, for the editorial continues, seemingly even-handedly, asserting that the "party with the highest number of MPs will get the first chance to form a government. Any interference with this long-accepted procedure must be exposed as the anti-democratic action it surely will be."
That's true. But why is it only true for the Post now. Why wasn't it equally true when elections were boycotted, results overturned, governments tossed out in hastily-organized judicial proceedings and when military power is exerted? Are those reprehensible displays of undemocratic nonsense somehow acceptable? Where's the intelligent debate?
Could it be that the Post editorialists are simply acting as propagandists for the regime?
No comments:
Post a Comment