The current debate over whether the party with the largest number of MPs should take the lead in forming the government, rather than the party with the largest number of votes, is misguided and does not take into account the new electoral system which a majority of Thai voters approved in a 2016 referendum.
It is true that in countries with different political systems such as the US, the presidency would be awarded to the candidate who manages to garner the most votes from the Electoral College, rather than the candidate with the most number of popular votes. The same is true in countries with a parliamentary system such as the UK, where the party with the highest number of seats in the House of Commons is given first choice in forming the government.
Under Thailand's new electoral system, the utmost importance is attached to ensuring that "every vote counts" and that the voices of all the voters are heard. Therefore, if voters choose a certain party but the candidates of such parties are not elected, the votes cast still count towards determining the number of party-list MPs for those parties.
Political parties stand to lose or gain from this system on an impartial basis based on their own election strategy of fielding candidates in constituencies. There is no bias against any single party and it is notable that parties such as the Future Forward Party, which won the fewest number of constituency MPs among the top five parties, was able to gain the largest number of party-list MPs by a large margin. All the votes for the Future Forward Party counted, even though the party's candidates may have fallen short in many constituencies.
Observant Citizen
Election tsunami
I agree with Soonruth Bunyamanee on his assessment of the Democrat Party and Mr Abhisit Vejjajiva, whom I appreciate as a great personality, and perhaps one of the few academically minded politicians in Thailand today (Opinion, March 27). The recent election was like the proverbial tsunami with new political waves, and new political forces that eroded the coastlines of the electoral battlegrounds, but for sure will not have long-term ramifications on the political future of the country. Money politics, glib-tongued politicians, and shenanigans, which fooled some voters, have cost the country a far more responsible leadership in politics.
In Thailand today, to use the all too familiar metaphorical turn of phrase which my good friend, the late Samak Sundaravej was wont to use, Thailand is now witnessing a regressive political climate change, driven by the greed of a few with illimitable unmitigated impacts on the body politic.
One only hopes that with Thai optimism, with the "good-heart efforts" and the will for the long-term sustenance of democracy and its growth in Thailand, politicians, be they like Mr Abhisit or not, will be encouraged to engage in rightful political activities and agendas for the well being of all Thais, in a healthy democracy.
Glen CHATELIER
Planet Prayut
Re: "Friday night TV loses 'PM monologues'", (BP, March 27).
I never watch Prayut's show, which for nearly five years has encouraged people nationwide to turn off their TVs for 30 minutes every Friday evening. I don't know how many gigawatts of power we have saved, but the electricity authorities should be able to figure it out.
Somsak Pola
CONTACT: BANGKOK POST BUILDING
136 Na Ranong Road Klong Toey, Bangkok 10110
Fax: +02 6164000 email: postbag@bangkokpost.co.th
All letter writers must provide full name and address.
All published correspondence is subject to editing at our discretion.
