Stage fright on poll shows
It took quite a dressing down for members of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) to learn that entertainment is not always a laughing matter, according to observers.
The NLA has been dodging bullets of criticism sprayed at them by critics and politicians of late, mostly as a result of the organic laws it has scrutinised or is in the process of scrutinising.
In the latest rebuke, the lawmakers stand accused of fixing what the NLA was not supposed to have fixed, which is to declare in the organic bill on the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) that the nine anti-corruption commissioners were free to stay on in their posts despite some being under-qualified for the job under the new constitution.
Several legal experts agreed the NLA was mistaken in trying to tailor the organic draft law to favour the incumbent NACC members and disregard the principles of the charter, the “mother” of all Thai laws.
A few days before the NACC saga, the lawmakers were considering making a concession in the organic law on the election of MPs.
The issue relates to the NLA’s proposed lifting of the ban on entertainment shows during election campaigns. Some lawmakers said the shows are crowd-pullers and a great way to attract votes and draw attention to the parties’ policies and manifestos.
But most critics did not like the idea of parties hiring singers or stage performers as a ploy to push up turnouts at campaign rallies.
Some analysts blasted the idea as shortsighted, one that would set the country back, saying entertainment at poll rallies could be taken as a form of electoral bribery in disguise. They argue it defeats the purpose of increasing voters’ fascination in what political parties have to offer if their candidates are elected and land ministerial posts.
They say people would more likely leave the rally grounds as soon as the curtain falls than stay behind to listen to the party manifesto typically delivered after the show.
Moreover, the money that can legally be spent to organise such shows, which has reportedly been set at up to 1.5 million baht per MP candidate, could be better spent on more constructive causes, many analysts suggested.
The candidates would find a bigger budget more useful for such necessities as campaign posters and billboards outlining the parties’ campaign policies and promises, they went on to say.
Back in the days when such shows could be freely staged during election rallies, movie stars wielded tremendous influence to sway voters. Many well-to-do parties were able to afford these A-list celebrities and realised they needed to “invest” in their star power.
The analysts said the large, rich parties held clear advantages over the smaller parties. Some of the latter fought back by enlisting movie stars to run on their tickets.
The crux of the problem, according to the analysts, was that voters were more interested in how the stars looked than what their parties stood for. The celebrities appeared to have done little to help educate voters or get them interested in campaign policies.
Subsequently, the election law imposed a ban on this kind of entertainment at rallies.
Former senator Paiboon Nititawan came out this week in opposition to reversing the ban. He claimed smaller parties would have to turn to financiers to help pay for the entertainment, adding to their financial burdens.
This would put them in debt and potentially give the financiers power to fine-tune their policies if they become part of the government after the election.
Mr Paiboon said this flies in the face of political reform, the goal of which is to wean parties away from the influence of wheelerdealers and financiers who seek to pull the strings of parties that win cabinet seats.