• 
• 

It said: "This is an example of how political parties or the politicians act to serve their self-interest."

Khao Sod said that over the past few months, there has been a power struggle within the government and stories have circulated about benefits people close to the politicians have gained.

The politicians have tended to serve their own interests, leaving questions as to what will be left for the people.

The latest example is the nomination of Chai.

"How the People Power Party would explain to the public that the nomination was not aimed to reward Newin Chidchob, Chai's son, for his loyalty in serving former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra."

Does Chai's nomination, which received the support from the "hawkish" side of the party, send a signal to accelerate the amendment of the Constitution?

There is also a question whether the coalition parties have taken into account the integrity of the House.

The coalition parties should explain to the public the reasons behind this decision and the consequences for political and social tensions. A couple of right decisions can score a popularity vote for the government. A wrong decision can do the opposite.

The PPP and the government still have to choose what path they intend to take and whose interest they will serve.

Another daily, Thai Rath, ran an article criticising the recent announcement from the six-party coalition which said that the government has nothing to do with the amendment to the Constitution.  The government will concentrate on solving problems of the nation. However, such a statement was not convincing. The House monitors the performance of the government but in reality the government has to screen every law drafted.

Thai Rath cited the example of Chai's nomination, saying that although the nomination is the business of the House, the PPP had the final say in the nomination. The PPP's decision came from the Prime Minister and some executive members. Some PPP members who were not intending to vote for Chai were faced with the threat of being expelled from the party.

In spite of the House having the responsibility, the Cabinet controls the majority vote because most Cabinet members are also leaders of the political parties. Financial contributors and executive members of the parties play a role in selecting MP candidates, providing financial support and appointing advisors or the Cabinet secretary, naming ministers or even selecting the prime minister.

Thai Rath said: "Don't claim that the Constitution amendment was only the House's business and the amendment was not to avoid the House dissolution or to help the "big boss" and 111 MPs whose rights to participate in politics were suspended. An Abac poll showed that 63.9 per cent of respondents thought the amendment was to serve a certain group of people.

In fact, if PPP wants to help the 111 MPs, it should wait for the right time before proposing any amnesty law. People would be more sympathetic with the PPP rather than proposing to overhaul the entire Constitution for the big boss. The

decision is seen as an invention by the

legal system.

Thai Post's editorial also featured the related political story. It questioned in its title: "Why has good government fears of a coup?" It criticised Prime Minister's Office Minister Jakrapob Penkair's attempt to control the state-run media by banning it from reporting coup-related stories.

Thai Post said that if the government ran the country fairly, it would not have to fear a coup. People would naturally support the government's efforts to lead the country and to achieve sustainable development.

However, over the past three months, the government has faced a number of criticisms due to its decision to interfere with civil servants, help people with connections and support the "big boss".

The media has a duty to report and serve the public by reporting the truth to the people. It cannot distort the information.

Thai Post ended with the statement: "We want to confirm that the government [demonstrating fair]governance would not be negatively affected by the media. On the contrary, the media would be shamed by its failure to serve the public interest as we have seen from a number of "artificial media", which have been temporarily set up with a hidden political agenda.