Much has been said regarding the February 2 election's annulment. The wrong person asked the wrong question. The court should not or did not answer the question that was asked. Was the annulment of the election the right thing to do?
The election was supposed to take place on one day. Clearly it did not. Okay, there were extenuating circumstances. The triumphal proclamation that Pheu Thai had won, along with forecasts of 300 seats for Pheu Thai, was inappropriate halfway through an election. The coalition formed during the election was inappropriate. People who thought they had voted against Pheu Thai found out they had voted for them. There were no announcements after the abysmal turnout for the second round on March 2. The outstanding voting had little chance of success.
Meanwhile the cat was out of the bag regarding the rice scheme – selective payments to Chiang Mai, no payments at all for many others and no legal means of paying farmers. This should have alerted people to the fact that not one of the “democratically elected” MPs in the government ever voiced opposition to the programme.
With the burden of paying for the Bt2-trillion mega-projects handed on to future governments, it was little surprise that the bill was shown the door. This is added to the list of Yingluck government achievements that also includes failures to pass the amnesty bill, the treaties bill and the senate bill.
What successes have the Pheu Thai government achieved that might suggest to any voter with an open mind that it should be re-elected?
Democracy in action is not the same as democracy inaction.