• 
• 

Published on January 31, 2008

 "To my friends and foes," he declared in his first statement as premier, "I am entitled to being given a chance."

Do the governed get a chance to know where Samak Sundaravej is taking the country? 

The stock market plunged 15 points on the day the House voted him as the new prime minister.

"Some people have looked down upon me, indicating that I am not up to the standard of being prime minister. But I have a long record in politics. I am an experienced driver. The car may be new. But I can learn where the devices are. The road may be bumpy. But I don't come to the job alone. I have a Cabinet with me. I seek your cooperation."

Business leaders don't seem to think he can fix the economy despite the promise of an enthusiastic return to a populist platform. That will probably be the hardest nut to crack. Astrologers say his term will be brief. Political commentators are quick to point out that he won't have the luxury of a honeymoon period - and that his tenure will be turbulent and his government fragile. But then, that shouldn't come as a surprise to him. Samak himself has even been quoted as having told his People Power Party members that he won't stay long in the post.

Cynics are also having a field day. One particularly sarcastic commentator said that those who don't like Samak should pray for longevity for his government. One seasoned critic had this to say: "Why am I proposing that Samak should stay on as prime minister for as long as possible? Well, if he leaves the post too soon (say, in less than one year), then the Thai people won't get the full effect of his disastrous administration. In that case, he might still be popular. Let the PPP-led government stay the full term of four years - so that the whole country can truly experience the real Samak and the populist policies ... we Thais can then appreciate that hell does exist in the political world."

Samak, a few minutes after being voted as the country's new prime minister, said: "It's no fun being prime minister. But I like it." His fondness for political polemics may, however, turn out to be his Achilles heel.

In fact, his liking for politics is perhaps what has some business leaders worried. Pramon Sutivong, chairman of the Thai Chamber of Commerce, was quick to point out: "Mr Samak loves politics more than economics. Therefore, we hope that he will name a competent team of Cabinet members well versed in economics."

But when all is said and done, how Samak manages the public's expectations, or the lack of them, may eventually be less crucial than how he manages his relationship with the "invisible hand" who holds the remote-control devices from London and Hong Kong.

Of course, the first and most obvious challenge for the new prime minister boils down to this: can he prove that he is the "real" prime minister? Thaksin Shinawatra's long shadow over the new Cabinet has prompted political observers here to predict possible conflict between the two. But didn't Samak declare during the election campaign: "What's wrong with being a nominee?" That will inevitably come back to haunt him. It's not only his own credibility as the government's leader that is at stake. That admission could provide the very proof of legal violation for the Election Commission in considering whether there are grounds to dissolve the PPP.

But then, those who know this veteran politician well enough won't rule out the possibility of, to put it kindly, a gap developing between him and Thaksin. Both will find the task of "managing" each other a litmus test. It won't be long before the question of who's exploiting whom will surface - and, depending on how the political scenarios develop from now on, how their relationship will affect the stability of the coalition government.

Whether the new PM likes it or not, there will be tough questions to answer, and serious doubts to address - and the premier can't avoid them by shouting down reporters or telling them to shut up. 

Samak is right: the constitution doesn't forbid the prime minister from talking about food or even hosting a TV cookery programme. But the constitution does insist that the prime minister knows how to get his priorities right - and to answer questions, no matter how stupid he thinks they are. Unfortunately, the constitution cannot protect a clever PM from "stupid" questions. Or vice versa.

The Nation