PRIME MINISTER Prayut Chan-o-cha yesterday defended his decision to ask voters four questions before they cast their ballots in the next election, saying he simply wanted to counter politicians who “keep discrediting” his post-coup government.

In response to politicians’ allegations that his move was intended to allow the ruling junta to stay in power, Prayut said: “If that were the case, my question would have been whether people wanted to have an election.

“My questions are not intended for politicians. It’s their business how they react to my questions. I have no interest in their reactions,” said the junta leader.

He said his questions stemmed from his concerns about politics as the head of the government and the ruling junta, the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO).

“I just wanted to know what to do in the future. I am not going to make any changes. That will depend on members of the public,” he said.

“I never said, even once, that there would not be an election. Why did they [politicians] interpret my words in such a way?

“Many of them spoke in a damaging way. Who will you call in the future when there are problems? Prayut won’t be there anymore. Also, don’t ask the military to stage a coup. No one wants to do that if you do not create problems.”

Prayut was responding to many politicians who disagreed with the four questions posed by the premier about the election, in which he encouraged people to submit their opinions to government-run complaint centres across the country.

Politicians said the premier’s questions were designed to determine if politicians were being reasonable and cajoled answers that were in line with the junta’s intentions rather than really seeking genuine opinions.

Prayut responded: “They want to discredit us because they want everything to return to the same. Same constitution, same laws. They don’t want anything new. Let me ask you: Do Thai people want any change?”

He said “some political party”, apparently referring to the Pheu Thai Party, wanted to implement another rice-pledging scheme and other populist policies.

Meanwhile, political figures and academics yesterday posed their own questions for Prayut and the ruling junta on whether the current regime would guarantee a free and fair political atmosphere.

Democrat Party deputy leader Nipit Intharasombat said he wondered if the prime minister would step down from power after the election. “If he wants to stay in power, questioning the public with such queries means that he takes political advantage,” Nipit said. “Prayut would be starting at 250 metres ahead of the rest,” he said, referring to the 250 Upper House members to be selected by the junta.

Key Chart Thai Pattana Party figure Warawut Silpa-archa asked: “What should we do if a coup produces a government without transparency and accountability?”

Warawut also wondered whether Prayut’s concerns about the post-election period reflected the inefficiency of political mechanisms designed by the junta-appointed charter drafters. “Those mechanisms are actually supposed to deal with problems the PM raised,” he said.

Key United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship figure Weng Tojirakarn said he doubted whether any coup in Thailand would bring prosperity to the country and produce good governance. “Is a coup a legitimate thing to do?” Weng asked. “Also, what should be done with the coup-makers if the post-coup government lacks governance?”

People’s Democratic Reform Foundation vice president Issara Somchai said he wondered how the junta would solve economic and security issues.

“They have absolute power in their hands now,” said Issara, who is also a former Democrat MP. “They should tackle these problems that affect people’s well-being.”

Thammasat University political science lecturer Attasit Pankaew wondered if Prayut’s questions were meant to enable people to learn about democracy on their own. “Elections are not all of the substance of democracy. But still, the process allows people to participate in national administration,” Attasit said.

He also wondered how the junta-led government and the Election Commission would set up free and fair elections.

Sirote Klampaiboon, an independent political scientist, wondered how the absence of an election would ensure a good governance with accountability and an efficient long-term strategy.

“How the government will be actually depends on the checks-and-balances system. It has nothing to do with the election.”

Meanwhile, Meechai Ruchupan, chairman of the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC), yesterday said the prime minister “did the right thing” in coming up with the four questions.

He said that Prayut’s move was in line with a constitutional clause regarding public participation in important issues in the country.

Meechai said the questions did not suggest that the prime minister wished to prolong his time in power but rather indicated his desire to receive answers directly from the people, whose opinions could be included in the new organic laws being drafted by the CDC.

In his weekly national address on Friday night, Prayut said people should answer the questions before the country goes to the polls.

The questions are:

Do you think the next election will give Thailand a government with good governance?

If that is not the case, what will you do?

Elections are an integral part of democracy but are elections without regard for the country’s future right or wrong?

Do you think bad politicians should be given the chance to return to politics, and if conflict re-emerges, who will solve it and by what means?