During a recent visit to Cambodia’s Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum, the former ‘S21’ prison of the Khmer Rouge, I found myself constantly muttering to myself about the madness of it all. The hundreds of photographs, the torture implements, the school rooms transformed into cells, and the stories of survivors and guards alike, provide a brutal reminder of the limitless potential for hate in society. And one story of a prison guard living in a small community, still not reconciled with this past, reminded me that reconciliation is no fait accompli after conflict. That this visit took place at the same time that the Ratchaprasong standoff in Bangkok was at its height reminded me both that the reconciliation in Thailand is still a relatively accessible goal but that the wounds of the recent conflict in Bangkok could also spread further. I often talk about conflict being a slippery slope. So perhaps we need to ask, is genuine reconciliation a mountain to difficult to climb?
Weeks on, the question now being asked is “What happens next?” The dead have been cremated. The injured are in recovery. The burnt buildings are vacant shells and rubble. The red shirt leaders are under arrest or in hiding. The parliamentarians are back in the house. And everything is uncertain.
In the aftermath, the political contest has converged on the notion of truth. In the hands of the media, the spin doctors, and the propagandists, truth has become a malleable tool. It is often said that histories are written by the ‘winners’. There is an apparent struggle to claim victory in this conflict, and with it the ‘right’ to define the historical truths. However, as the debate revolves around who fired the bullet that killed, of which I can only repeat the importance of an independent inquiry into deaths and other violent acts, there is a bigger picture behind the conflict, the frame through which reconciliation should be addressed.
For me, there are several underlying ‘truths’ at play. Firstly, we must be clear that this is a national conflict. Directly, it has affected many, but indirectly it affects all. People have died and been injured. Some have spilt blood and many have spilt tears. Many openly wear colours. Some are missing. Others are in hiding. Several are in custody. Even more join in online debates, often in the form of hate fests. Some argue with friends and family. Some have lost jobs and business. Almost all consider their vote more seriously. All have an opinion.
Secondly, Thailand has changed. Whether for good or not is unclear, but there is clearly a schism in Thai society. Yes, it is about class, even taking into account the diversity of the UDD membership. Yes, it is between city and country, in spite of the majority of Ratchaprasong protestors being Bangkok residents and the strong Lanna/Isaan regional identity. Yes, it is between rich and poor, in spite of the relative wealth of many of the UDD leadership. And yes, it is between pro-Thaksin and anti-Thaksin supporters. None of these divisions are absolute, but they are real. They are evident. They have always been there. But now they are being contested.
At the heart of the contest are the words ‘democracy’ and ‘corruption’. They mark the principles upon which the popular mobilizations were built. And they mark the ideological lines of division between Yellow and Red. The emergence of Thaksin as Prime Minister was on the back of the people’s ‘democratic’ constitutional reforms amidst clouds of corrupt politics. The support for Thaksin was built on populism and the opposition to Thaksin grew on the back of the excesses. Fast money, personal greed, and a legacy of political elitism and opportunism derailed the democracy train. The military coup occurred on the back of this legacy, a culture of elite rule, corrupted democracy and a militarized politic. The slide began. Appointed government… Constitutional reform… Court action… Electoral fraud… Party annulment… People’s power… Colour shirts… Civil disobedience… Street violence… State of emergency… Death… Arson… Calls of double standards… Claims of war crimes… Charges of terrorism… Conflict is a slippery slope. And noticeably, the themes of ‘democracy’ and ‘corruption’ fade into the background as the conflict deepens.
In decades of observing conflicts in different settings, different contexts, different nations, I hold the belief that peace is a precious commodity. So I am an advocate for peace. But I also hold that peace without justice is not a lasting peace. So let’s start with the discussion on reconciliation through the lens of fairness and justice. Reconciliation has become the new currency in the political debate, but has already become a tool of distortion. Actually, reconciliation needs that element that has been missing from the political landscape throughout the conflict – sincerity. Where truth is a contested word, sincerity is a missing word. Name a sincere political leader and perhaps there exists a path to reconciliation. Show me a sincere public and certainly there is a path to reconciliation. But let’s not fool ourselves. It is a distant vision.
So what can bring about the dream of reconciliation? Well a bit of self reflection instead of the constant criticism only of the other would be a good start. Despite talk of reconciliation, there is still a winner-takes-all sense to the conflict. This simply feeds into that slippery slope – of increased violence, of security state control, of civil conflict. We have already slipped down too far and it will take some effort to find our way off the slope. There needs to be recognition that this is a moment of political transformation. Some parties may not want to acknowledge this, but it is clear that the recent status quo is no longer a sustainable option.
For the wealthy elite and many of the Bangkok middle class, not only should the notion of the ‘right to rule’ be questioned, but the question of wealth should be part of the equation. The issue of income gap is not simply an exercise in statistics. There are philosophical and ethical questions. Do you often ask yourself, how much do you actually need? How much do you actually deserve? Is it fair that you are always being served but never serve yourself? These are legitimate questions that become more prominent amidst images of people weeping over burnt shopping centres instead of for the victims of the political violence.
There are some discriminations in Thai society that have gradually morphed into anti-Red/pro-Red profiles – the beauty of light skin versus the ugliness of dark skin, the privilege of the rich versus the suffering of the poor, the honour of the educated versus the shame of the uneducated, the aspiration of the office job versus the desperation of the farming life. Every soap opera, every advertisement, even national school curricula perpetuate these discriminations. If you accept this, you perpetuate this. And at the heart of these stereotypes are grievances that are clearly an element of the current conflict. Addressing them is part of the reconciliation process.
Likewise, for the farmers, merchants, taxi drivers, workers, activists, and business people that make up the diverse mix of the Red Shirts, there is an imperative to take democracy seriously to continue to advocate it. As has already been evident, democracy cannot function as a token gesture – an election doesn’t make for a democratic society. Corruption may be perceived as the dirt on everyone’s shoe in Thailand, but there are scales, levels, limits. The end of corruption is clearly fanciful, but there do need to be standards built on a social ethic. As leader, Thaksin’s greed was excessive and should never have been tolerated in a Prime Minister. Likewise, abuses of power at provincial, district, and village levels need to be kept in check. The words ‘Democracy’ and ‘Against Dictatorship’ need to be taken seriously as the old systems of patronage are closer to dictatorship than democracy. Leaders need to be held to account. A democratic movement needs democratic leaders. And wouldn’t it be refreshing to see women leaders take the stage at this point.
For supporters of Thaksin, the return to the status quo of a Thaksin administration is also not possible, irrespective of the broader legal play. There is simply too much water under the bridge for Thaksin to re-emerge as a democratic leader. Similarly, the Abhisit government lacks the political legitimacy to reconcile the nation. While the question of the government’s legal status is debated, it is the bloodied hands and reputation that undermine its standing as representative of the Thai society as a whole. And beyond this is the issue of democracy in Thailand. Can a legitimate form of democracy emerge?
To bring about political legitimacy, the return to electoral democracy is a necessity. As a minority-led government, the third to be installed since the last election, and coming on the back of a military-led government and constitutional reform, the ‘popular’ credentials of the Abhisit government are questionable. And regardless of legalistic arguments, public perception remains a measuring stick as to political legitimacy. As a result, at the very least, Abhisit must understand that his government has from the outset been viewed as transitional, even tolerated by many in opposition, but with the expectation that the nation will return to the ballot box in a reasonable time. Not only has he overstretched that timeframe, but he is also now recognized as a party to the conflict rather than a mediator of national reconciliation. He should certainly step back from this role, and in the current context, his resignation as Prime Minister would be the genuine reconciliatory act.
It is currently impossible to view the Thai state without wondering about the balance of power between the government and the military. As observers look nervously across the border to the military junta of Burma, we can see that military dictatorship represents the base of some of those slippery slopes. At the same time, we can see to the south the critical process of demilitarization in the rebirth of democracy in Indonesia, where the call of ‘back to the barracks’ became has been a key part of the political transformation. It is time to ask ‘how long does a State of Emergency need to go on before it becomes a state of control’? Let us not pretend that the army is a pacifying force in Thai society, as evident in the long running conflict in the Deep South of Thailand. We often hear reports of the reluctance of military leaders to become too active on the political stage, so should there not be a consensus for the soldiers to return to the barracks?
Likewise, in the opposition corner, Thaksin’s pre-eminent position in the conflict is integral to its resolution. As I suggested earlier, the ‘glory days’ of his majority government have been overwhelmed by the weight of divisiveness within Thai society. As an individual, he is not greater than the United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) or Red-Shirt movement, but his influence is too great to be healthy. Again, the perception of Thaksin’s role is an obstacle to the Red Shirt’s political legitimacy, and the stated separation of movement and figurehead, a consensual divorce, would be a powerful reconciliatory action.
In the same breath, the UDD or Red Shirt movement needs to clarify itself. The disputes between leaders, the formation of splinter groups, protestor anger over the surrender, the divergence between peaceful pretenses and hate speech, and the implicit and explicit roles in the Bangkok violence, have all undermined the credibility of the Red Shirts. Too many people died for the cause, and too many others lied for the cause, but it is the lack of consensus about the true cause, irrespective of campaign slogans, that has hurt the Red Shirt movement. It may seem odd to suggest, in light of the current defensive or regrouping stance of the movement, but the priority of the UDD or Red Shirts is to reconcile with itself, to become a genuine people’s movement.
This brings us to today’s popular ideological word – ‘terrorism’. Our great teacher, history, also reminds us that governments that use the term ‘terrorist’ against their own citizens are showing the symptoms of hard-line, repressive control, even ruling through terror. To see images of unarmed middle aged women with arms in the air under the threat of a soldier’s rifle, can anyone in their right mind contemplate the notion of the terrorism in this image? This is the implication, in spite of talk of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Reds. Let’s be clear. 9-11 was terrorism. Central World Plaza was arson. The term ‘terrorist’ is a dangerous term in that has been usurped by governments to justify the repression of resistance movements. In the hands of the security apparatus, yesterday’s freedom fighter can become today’s terrorist. And through the lens of reconciliation, this can do little more than breed rather than pacify violence. The language of terror must be removed from the picture or reconciliation is truly a futile exercise.
Similarly, censorship inevitably proves to be more dangerous that the information it seeks to stifle. Hindsight shows us that had the closure of the Thaicom satellite fomented the anger of the Red Shirt movement. Not only is it an attack on one of our fundamental freedoms – the freedom of speech, but it is also a futile exercise in the era of global communications, where facebook, twitter, and the mobile phone easily outpace the vigilant eye of the censor and international media agencies report outside the government line. Reconciliation demands an open, free and fair debate, and Thailand’s current and historical censorship laws, severely constrain this.
The term ‘double standard’ is another key term that has emerged within the lexicon of conflict. In light of the recent charges of terrorism, the perception of different treatment of Yellow Shirt and Red Shirt protestors and leaders remains ever present. If security laws are to be used, they must be used fairly and justly. And while both ASTV and PTV engage in propaganda and hate speech, neither should be closed down. Alternatively, we should ask, how one can be closed and not the other. Double standards, real or perceived, are a significant obstacle to any process of reconciliation.
There is no rulebook on reconciliation. Nor does a roadmap for peace ensure that we will take the best path. And whilst my suggestions for reconciliation may appear idealistic, the alternatives to a peaceful resolution of this national conflict are a divided society, perhaps in the form of a repressive security state (ie. Burma), or in the form of a parliamentary dictatorship (ie. Singapore), or in the form of ongoing civil violence (ie. East Timor), or in the form of low intensity conflict (ie. Deep South of Thailand). Any victory in the current conflict can only be a hollow victory if it doesn’t address the fundamental divisions. It is easy to hate the other. But it is also impossible to live together peacefully in this situation. National reconciliation requires a sincere process of political transformation. The question is now whether Thai society has the will to reconcile in the name of a peaceful, just democracy.
An Alternative Roadmap for Reconciliation
Highway 1: Sincerity
Basically this means cooling down on the propaganda, the lies, the win-at-all-costs agendas, the hate fests, the double standards, and even starting to use a bit of honesty, before anyone even dares use the term reconciliation
Major Intersection National Conflict
This is not about a handful of Red Shirts, a handful of Yellow Shirts, some soldiers, politicians, media, and a man overseas, it is a conflict that affects all in Thailand, and many outside Thailand
Detour: Accept Political Change
Thailand’s political landscape has changed, the idea that the rural mass population will become passive again is impossible, and the depth of division in Thai society says that something must give, a new political era is happening, like it or not
Service Lane: Democracy
As many have suggested Thailand has barely ever really entertained true democracy, it is not a half-way house type of thing, it needs justice, free and fair elections, sooner not later, independent courts, clean and colourless policing, and a return to people’s constitution
Roadworks: Corruption
This is cultural, Thailand’s legacy of patronage, and has to be reduced for democracy to work, corruption is not simply about skimming budgets, but a political tumor, and needs to be worked on as part of any democracy agenda
Soi 1: Truth & Justice
The April and May tragedies will not blow away in the wind, an independent inquiry must try to give some meaning to the terms ‘truth’ and ‘justice’
Soi 2: Freedom of Speech
Censorship and the laws that deny open debate must be removed as a prerequisite for democracy and a reconciled society, anything else smells of state repression, and in the midst of global free media, a fool’s paradise
Soi 3: Removal of Terror Speak
Terrorist charges against ones political opponents are desperate acts of despots-in-waiting, let the civil courts
Soi 4: Thaksin’s and Abhisit’s Quiet Exits
Both their legacies are too divisive for a reconciled Thailand so they must remove themselves from the picture
Soi 5: Demilitarization
Too much political influence, internal divisions, extended emergency decree, and shooting Thai citizens, paints a disturbing picture, time to return to the barracks, remove the State of Emergency, and unravel the military-political ties
Tollgate: Less Greed, Shared Wealth
Surely baking in the stifling heat is reminder enough of the destructive potential of global warning, and this alone suggests we all need to consume less, but a reconciled Thailand needs everyone to work no bridging this gap, not just with taxes, but also through changing our habits and behavior
Yes, such a roadmap for reconciliation is idealistic and incomplete. For obvious reasons, the ‘elephant in the room’ has not been discussed in depth. I just put this forward as an alternative to a roadcrash, if it has not already happened…
[The author is a writer, peace worker, artist and academic living in between countryside and city in Thailand, currently wearing a dull brown shirt with lime green patterns.]
36 responses so far ↓
1 Wern D // Jun 10, 2010 at 11:06 pm
Has to be one of the best article re the current turmoil Ive read.
Quality comment or not?
17 
2
2 john francis lee // Jun 11, 2010 at 12:40 am
There is no explicit call for the dissolution of parliament and an election. I don’t see how there can be reconciliation without an elected government in place.
As well there is no explicit call for the immediate end of Thaksin’s Emergency Decree.
Otherwise a nice theoretical exercise.
Quality comment or not?
2 
9
3 Tarrin // Jun 11, 2010 at 2:37 am
I agreed with peace and reconciliation however if the freedom of speech is being suppress here, its very hard to talk about the core of the problem in Thailand. I don’t know whether the author attacking on Thaksin’s corruption is intended to make the article more neutral or the author really believed that legacy of political elitism was started by Thaksin. In my opinion, legacy of political elitism was started by Democrat with their power grip in the South of Thailand.
I tend to think of the situation in parallel to “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need – Motivation” theory that before poor people are, well, poor so they have to fulfill their need in the hierarchy order. Before Thaksin, the only need that the poor has been fulfill was Physiological and they have been waiting for century for their next fulfillment. Now at the eve of Thaksin era, Safety and Social needs has been fulfill by Thaksin’s populist policy. However, because of the Coup of 2006, people from this emerging poor now realized that they have been deny the next step of the hierarchy, the Esteem needs. All in all, I agreed that the Mr. Herbertson’s suggestion for the road map, but without mentioning another very important and influential institution, I think the roadmap will not achieve the long term result, like the reconciliation in the 80s
Quality comment or not?
19 
5
4 Suzie Wong // Jun 11, 2010 at 2:50 am
Soi 4 sounds good!
Quality comment or not?
4 
1
5 FredKorat // Jun 11, 2010 at 4:14 am
Reconciliation will do nothing more than reward BOTH of the two contending color-coded succession terrorist goon squads. Their capitulation to the desires of the overwhelming majority, and adherence to the rule of law, are far more necessary.
Quality comment or not?
2 
11
6 Thailand Dramatisk utvikling i Thailand. - Side 215 - Asiaforum.no // Jun 11, 2010 at 4:21 am
[...] #2147 (permalink) I dag, 18:20 Reconciliation: climbing the mountain Anbefalt [...]
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
7 FredKorat // Jun 11, 2010 at 4:26 am
Most Thais are already reasonably well-reconciled to each other. It is only those who are avidly playing succession poker who can’t really get along with each other. And yet again they want the ordinary public to pick up the tab for their arrogance and greed. Do we seriously want to put Joe Public through the ‘reconciliation’ hoops when it is blindly obvious that it is the greed of entrenched and irresponsible powermongers that has brought us to this pass?
Quality comment or not?
5 
12
8 Athita // Jun 11, 2010 at 5:06 am
Very good article and suggestive one.
As I’m seeing here, the problem is from the government. They don’t want to step down, they just don’t care of anything. No one can force them to step down, except the coalition parties and the backers.
Despite people, well, I can say all around the world, want Thailand to be united, but simply the government doesn’t listen to the voice of people.
The solution you made here, even in the last Reconciliation Committee led by a Senate, appointed by Abhisit, to find out the truth of last April 2009 incident. The committee had some proposal to the government, but it was just a piece of paper.
Before the crackdown began in early morning of 20 May, a group of senate went to talk with the UDD leaders, but the government just nodded to the army to use full force against the people.
Those senates said “betrayed by the government”. Did the Government listen to that? I don’t think so.
It is just a “hero and bad guy” propaganda. The government wants to be hero, and painted those red protesters as bad guys.
Many scholars have advised to the Government, but they don’t listen. They just believe in what they’re doing is “right” thing to do.
For example, appointing a new head of Truth-Finding Committee of May 2010 crackdown is becoming hot issue in Thailand as the one Abhisit appointed is not recognized by the Opposition and UDD leaders.
Did Abhisit listen? No.
You are right about peace without justice is unacceptable. But who is going to judge?
Quality comment or not?
23 
2
9 John // Jun 11, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Affecting change in a country where accepting responsability when one has done wrong seem almost impossible as is evident in the strong prevelence and impotance of retaining FACE in Thailand.
Thai people are a product of their own upbring and deficient education system. A system that denies them the ability to critically think and actually ask questions. They are not empowered as they do not understand they actually have a voice.
In the past education in the kingdom came out of the temples with monks teaching the principles of ethics and morals alongside side formal education.
To the present. The relevence of a moral and ethic civil codes seems diminished as the present social system glorifies wealth and status above all else. The teacher can not be questioned no matter if he or she is wrong or right.
Education reform seems like the only avenue for real change yet who will teach the present educators to actually critically think when it goes against the very social norms that have kept the underclasses undereducated and the Thai elites in centralised control .
Quality comment or not?
23 
1
10 Del // Jun 11, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Herbertson’s article is so lengthy but it still misses the whole point of reconciliation. Because according to Nopadon Patama, Thaksin’s lawyer, there could be no Thai reconciliation unless the Abhisit government makes an effort to reconcile with Thaksin Shinawatra. ‘No ifs and buts’ echoes the whole UDD leadership.
The road to Thai reconciliation must pass through Montenegro.
(So what happened to all those Rachaprasong speeches about double standards, election, dissolution, and d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y? The Reds had always been about T-H-A-K-S-I-N, right?)
Quality comment or not?
5 
23
11 FredKorat // Jun 11, 2010 at 1:40 pm
#10
Thailand’s elite is wonderful at lecturing the ordinary citizen about where they are going wrong, but are totally incapable of living by their own standards. If they want reconciliation, perhaps it is about time they (both colors) reconciled themselves to the fact that the rest of the population do not owe them a living for doing nothing. Frankly, all this losse talk around here about revolution around here is pure waste of time if that simple fact is not taken on board by those who believe themselves to be better-educated. Indeed, we don’t owe you fairweather radicals a revolution either.
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
12 neptunian // Jun 11, 2010 at 1:49 pm
The PADs like Del and the Democrats obsession with Thaksin is the real stumbling block to any re-concialliation in Thailand. Of course there’s also the -the reds are a bunch of country buffaloes- mindset. You really cannot be serious about giving buffaloes the right to vote?
While I agree with most of the writer’s points, with that type of mindset (ambly demonstrated by writers like DEL), how do you find a middle ground?
Quality comment or not?
16 
3
13 jonfernquest // Jun 11, 2010 at 2:43 pm
[Editor (NSF) - Jon: In this case, and many other cases, your attacks on people that you do not know are inappropriate. The author of this piece may, for all you know, be devoted to the "real work" that you hold dearest. It's probably best to take this particular hint - I offer it with all due respect.]
From above: “Our great teacher, history, also reminds us that governments that use the term ‘terrorist’ against their own citizens are showing the symptoms of hard-line, repressive control, even ruling through terror. ”
This preaching style is really worthless. Give me an example and cite your source like Paul Chambers does in the previous article. Is this an academic blog run by real academics? Or just a Farang “South East Asian Studies” spew-my-personal-feelings and emotions out on the page because-I-have-some-status-in-a-western university joke blog?
“Terrorism” may have accumulated a lot of connotations along the way but it is the noun form of “terrorize” and that is exactly what the red shirts were doing to people in Bangkok. That includes unpredictable violence and bomb attacks as well as the economic terrorism implicit in occupying and shutting the entire central part of a city. The negative economic impact includes a lot of Isan people working in Bangkok whose incomes declined substantially or even lost their jobs during the occupation of central Bangkok.
This whole text stinks of yet another know-it-all foreign “expert” telling Thai people what to do (“a writer, peace worker, artist and academic living in between countryside and city in Thailand”).
Doing real work, humble non-self aggrandizing work, teaching poor people in Isan or the North skills that they can get ahead with and prosper in the, up ’til now, thriving Thai economy, that is what the real heroes do.
Quality comment or not?
3 
32
14 Del // Jun 11, 2010 at 5:49 pm
I have always maintained that the Reds could not take any step, forward or back, without the say so of Thaksin. That happened during the Rachaprasong riots-rebellion, when the Reds leadership had to scuttle peace negotiations with PM Abhisit’s government because of Thaksin’s say so . . . and that led to the crackdown.
Again: ” . . .The opposition has dismissed Abhisit’s (reconciliation) plan as little more than a bid to win popularity by his ruling Democrat party, saying reconciliation without Thaksin would not bring lasting peace.”
source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65912W20100610
How to find the middle ground indeed Mr. Neptunian if your favored Reds could not get over their obsession with their patron/paymaster Thaksin Shinawatra?
Quality comment or not?
6 
24
15 Official Russia | Thai PM Seeks Confrontation, Not Reconciliation // Jun 11, 2010 at 6:04 pm
[...] are various other conversations by peace experts on the necessary steps to resolve the Thai crisis, but true reconciliation must [...]
Quality comment or not?
1 
2
16 BangkokBurt // Jun 11, 2010 at 7:56 pm
A very weak “roadmap”. If I dare use that term.
What exactly are you trying to say about the second stop on the road map after sincerity?You raise nothing new here.
The author also talks about disposing of greed of the “elite” and about sharing wealth, how exactly does he propose to make that happen?
What other models are there of effective redistribution of wealth that would apply in a developing country? Nigeria?
At some point some people will need to accept that it is a fact of life that poor people usually end up working for rich people.
Thailand is a capitalist country, a system in which there are winners and losers. A system which rewards those who make the most of the opportunities that are presented to them, which in turn benefits the entire Nation in the form of tax revenue and development.
In short, greed should be encouraged, so long as its tempered by social responsibility.
What Thailand needs to do is present more opportunities to those who need them and educate them so that they can learn to recognise these for what they are, and give them the skills, know how and wherewithal to capitalise on them, and the intelligence and integrity to do so in a way that is socially sustainable,
What it should not do is penalise those who have already worked out how to do this themselves.
Quality comment or not?
3 
11
17 StanG // Jun 11, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Today, during a Q&A session with foreign journalists, Abhisit made it clear that he is not going to reconcile with Thaksin and those working for him but try to reach to ordinary people instead.
Thaksin’s lawyer insists that no reconciliation is possible unless the govt deals with Thaksin himself.
The whole exercise is pointless, I, like FredKorat, believe that ordinary people are already reasonably reconciled with each other.
Abhisit’s efforts will never satisfy Thaksin’s minions and they will always scream that the country is deeply divided.
Hopefully the people will get some side benefits like equal opportunities, moves to bridge income gap or more general development in Isan/North.
Quality comment or not?
7 
8
18 Ralph Kramden // Jun 12, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Didn’t Democrat Governor Sukhumbhand also say that reconciliation had to involve Thaksin?
Quality comment or not?
9 
0
19 Slacks // Jun 12, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Thailand is in need of an external enemy. After the death of the king and the ensuing civil war, eventually the reds and yellows will come together. How? By blaming all of their problems on us “farangs”.
Thailand – Paradise Lost.
Quality comment or not?
0 
5
20 chris beale // Jun 12, 2010 at 9:41 pm
In the best news yet, Abhisit is visiting Anand Panyarachun, apparently for advice on how to achieve genuine reconcliation.
Abhisit is also reported to be lobbying for Anand to become the head of a multi-panel reconciliation board :
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/06/12/politics/PM-Govt-will-reach-out-30131434.html
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
21 Tarrin // Jun 12, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Slacks – 19
In 1976 Thailand enemy was the Commie, now in 2010 they made the red “terrorist” as their enemy so the chance that the yellow will join the red is really slim.
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
22 StanG // Jun 12, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Absolutely, but that’s not the kind of reconciliation the govt has in mind.
It (foolishly, imo) plays along with people who claim the red movement is more than about Thaksin and tries to address those alleged problems – poverty, inequality, double standards, whatever is their current hot excuse to burn Bangkok.
In the end, however, the only way to really reconcile the country is to make a deal with Thaksin, or shut him up for good so that he and his minions stop pitching one part of the population against the other.
His divisive rhetorics should be erased from the public consciousness, then we shall see how important the “issues” are on their own.
Abhisit has ordered the census bureau to collect information nationwide in the next couple of months, while red media are still off the air. I won’t be surprised if the seriousness of red grievances will be found seriously overestimated.
Hopefully, even the red radicals would realize they are fighting their own strawmen and their battles are completely lost on those who aspire for greater prosperity – for them Bangkok is a magnet, not a target.
Quality comment or not?
2 
10
23 Steve // Jun 13, 2010 at 5:49 pm
With the Emergency Decree still in widespread force – and still no sign of when it might be lifted – it’s interesting to ponder just how many pro-UDD respondents will be willing to risk saying what they really think if the government piggy-backs an opinion poll onto the long-scheduled but delayed* 2010 census.
If the article at http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/38686/emergency-decree-is-setting-the-stage-for-tragedy is anything to go by, then the answer seems likely to be not many…..
* http://unstats.un.org/unsd/dnss/docViewer.aspx?docID=2402
(Note this from para 3.3.4: “The 2010 Population and Housing Census still adopt face to face interview as the major method of data collection.”)
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
24 Nuomi // Jun 13, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Del, a suggestion:
Instead on harping on and on about Taksin, why don’t you offer to help those who wanted and needed help HOW to do it?
I totally agree with you that for the RS to move forward, they really should become as remove from Taksin as possible. I know a number of the UDD leaders are working to do that – clearest example is Giles Ungpakorn who wrote multiple times on his blog on this issue.
So yes, those leaders who organize and abetted holding the country’s economy to ransom should be charged and punished – they should never be promoted to position of Foreign Minister! Both sides should be EQUALLY punished.
Enough of that.
Like you, I want Thailand to continue prospering. When TRT introduced the B6K affordable loans, a lot of my BKK friends “screamed” that all these money would only go to waste or go to pay loan sharks or the Thai govt will never get the money back or wasted money etc etc. What my family did was talk to our workers, help set up “talks” on money management and business management. We cautioned on jumping into action but taught them about drawing up a business plan and how to manage finances. We also stress very hard on NOT to use credit cards as atm debit cards and the reason why (the uber high loan shark rates by banks) after TRT allows banks to give credit cards to those earning B6K a month. A number of them eventually help their relations or themselves set up businesses. Some worked, not all. That was my family’s contribution to the country on one of TRT’s policy platform.
One can be positive or negative, Del. Now, may I respectfully ask for your contribution?
Quality comment or not?
11 
0
25 Nuomi // Jun 14, 2010 at 12:25 am
Herbertson,
This is one of the few rare balanced piece on the current crisis in Thailand. It is carefully thought out and clearly presented – one may disagree on some points, but no one can fault the logical reasoning behind those points.
That’s what reconciliation is all about, ability to reason and ability to accept the reasoning behind an opposing view, backed up by offers of a possible solution, practical way to move forward. Almost all of the above qualities are missing in the dialogue of those in power and in Thai media.
Thank you very much for writing this, and writing it so well. It is a calming influence for me. (Just got back from BKK and feeling uptight – guess that came out in my recent posts)
LOL – I would like to write more, but I think I am still a little too tensed to do justice to your writing if I were to comment. Otherwise, I am keen to explore the “paradoxes” you mentioned re poor and rich and well-off UDD leaders – I believe historically people’s power uprisings usually only succeed when it is backed by a number of elites that oppose their own ‘class’ for whatever reasons (whether altruistic or not) as per the French revolution and the Russian one too.
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
26 Ralph Kramden // Jun 14, 2010 at 6:42 am
Yes, let’s ignore moderates like Sukhumbhand. Poor fool, he is so lost in the real world or “let’s shut Thaksin up for ever.” Better still, why not keep the red shirt media off the air forever and hunt down the “extremists” so they can’t possibly influence anyone else. This is really beginning to sound like a kind of fascist extremism. But what the heck, the middle class wants it, so it must be good. Once the extremists are all shut up for ever, it will be easier. Shutting up can be censorship, arrest and murder or whatever the royalists/yellows/StooG’s want because we hate them all.
Quality comment or not?
5 
3
27 KhunChit // Jun 14, 2010 at 2:05 pm
When the governing give in to the whims of those who refuse to discuss in reasoned debate, the uncompromising, and unrepentant violent then we have anarchy.
Let us be wary of those who discuss sharing or redistribution of wealth. It’s the sharing of prosperity for all that should be the goal – not taking from one and giving to another, but the empowerment and opportunity for personal and community success.
Equal rights; Equal Justice under rule of law; and recognition that debate strengthens us and leads us toward more informed decisions. On all sides of a topic, whether for or against, it’s when we stop listening, stop being willing to discuss and debate in open comity, that we fail the dream of democracy.
Quality comment or not?
0 
2
28 FredKorat // Jun 14, 2010 at 3:09 pm
#25 Well Ralph. You didn’t really have to be a pro political pundit back in the mid-1990s to figure that Thaksin’s biggest weakness was his total inability to countenance the pursuance of any other interests than his own very narrow set. Maew has managed to cause almost all of this reaction against himself, by being such a complete blowhard. As such, I have ZERO sympathy with either him or the short-term thinkers (many now his enemies in the elite) who were prepared to tolerate his brand of simp CEO-style politics for the sake of a few lousy dollars more.
Thaksin really is too headstrong for his own good. He had the elite eating out of his hand at one point a few years back. You really should be asking yourself what is so wonderful about a man who can alienate so many in the elite in such a short space of time. Any politician worth a damn should be aware that his/hers is a balancing act with the desires of conservatives. If he couldn’t figure out that plain & simple truth, he should never have entered politics. That is a hard fact, regardless of what politics you espouse. so now he has created his own burden And one which he has to keep lying about, if he wants to keep his sorry backside out of the pen. Why should I support such a recalcitrant parasite?
I constantly wonder why so many NMers continue to be so supportive of this bent cop and his faked-up version of politics. I am convinced that expats can do more good by not taking sides in this conflict. One can have some sympathy with the ordinary folks who have been duped, and still have no wish to support any of the successionist goon squads. If we sell ourselves too cheaply to either faction, they will continue to assume that we are their lowly servants.
Quality comment or not?
3 
3
29 Ralph Kramden // Jun 14, 2010 at 5:18 pm
FredKorat: you miss my point, but make it for me at the same time. Thanks.
Quality comment or not?
3 
1
30 StanG // Jun 14, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Well, Ralph, at least you seem to agree that talking to reds is a waste of time unless the govt is prepared to make a deal with Thaksin himself.
Yes, that would solve many problems but there are many arguments against it, too.
Quality comment or not?
0 
7
31 Tarrin // Jun 14, 2010 at 8:06 pm
FredKorat – 27
I constantly wonder why so many NMers continue to be so supportive of this bent cop and his faked-up version of politics
I’m old enough to remembered what Chuan and Bunharn government did back in the 90s (Chaovalit didn’t have enough time in the office to be of any significant or to stop the inevitable) I recalled the Chuan government Sor-Por-Gor 4-01 corruption case and how they manage to escape the charge just because of Kanit Na Nakorn (the one who over see the April-May riot investigation) turn down the case simply because he cannot find any “intention” of wrong doing. I still recalled how Chuan and subsequently Bunharn spent “Billion” just to come up with the construction plan for the new air port and how they spend another “Billion” and about eight years to build a low quality parking lot for the airport. Fortunately for me that my memory is not so short like many Bangkokians who simply forgot everything that happened prior to 2001 and refused to mention anything about it.
Anyway, from the past experience Thaksin was the better choice to pick for the 2001 election, I never politically supporting him since I wasn’t even in Thailand during his time in office. However, I decided to be the red sympathizer not because of Thaksin, but because I hate coup detat and I want the country to be full grown and mature democracy. Make no mistake, I don’t think hard-line royalist like Thaksin is suitable to be the spiritual leader like Sun Yat Sen or Lenin but many people still cannot let loose of him, which is culturally understandable like how the Southerner cannot seem to forget about Chuan. All I can do is sit and wait for the red to mature and able to move on their own without Thaksin, I think this April-May riot has teach them a hard earn lesson, thanks to Abhisit for not dissolving the house and the military to suppress the red.
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
32 Kaiser // Jun 14, 2010 at 8:32 pm
A Realistic Alternative Road-map for Reconciliation
1) Universal political representation, free of coups, royal, judicial, constitutional or military.
Everything else, the corruption, the terrible leaders, the inequality, anti-Isaan bigotry, the fake investigations, the double standards, the Thaksin duped red shirts and the reactionary yellow shirts, indeed the whole laundry list of problems listed above doesn’t matter if there is representation. Thais will eventually work out all the other problems to their own satisfaction if they can have a say.
The great irony in Thailand is that it has representation already, and it previously had middle class support. But what is happening is an attempt to roll it back and put in place a more authoritarian system. A softer Authoritarianism that maintains the social status-quo without constantly having to make corrections through coups. This is something that appeals to not only the elite but the middle class too.
Abhisit’s reconciliation is nothing of the sort – it is capitulation followed by authoritarian patronizing rule by the existing power structure.
It has to be said that this sort of authoritarianism has worked well in other SE Asian countries and has deep roots in the cultures. It also relied on an implicit compact that all boats would benefit from the rising sea and all would eventually become middle class.
The question is what happens to such countries when the growth slows and the vast bulk of the population are still poor. Thailand is not Singapore the problems are very much larger because the population is much larger. I think the record shows that it eventually leads to repression and the locking in of economic stagnation.
The poor in Thailand are not just a burden they are also represent a huge economic opportunity. A Thailand where the poor have become middle class would be be immensely richer for all its citizens and their is several decades of organic economic growth possible. It would be a pity to see Thais throw it away.
Quality comment or not?
3 
1
33 Wern D // Jun 14, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Adding on to what Tarrin has said, Thaksin was the catalyst for this turmoil. He certainly was not the cause of it. The underlying issues such as “double standards”, income disparity, and corruption existed way before Thaksin was in politics. The so called “elites” have had years to benefit from these issues. When Thaksin got elected he came up with policies to benefit him as well as the rural people. Due to his increasing popularity with the rural he was seen as a threat to the elites. Hence the coup to depose him. IMO Thaksin was the better of a bad bunch.
There are probably two directions Thailand could head to.
1. Elites accept the fact that majority rules
2. Thailand becomes a non-democratic country like Burma/Iran/N. Korea
Quality comment or not?
4 
1
34 Nganadeeleg // Jun 15, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Whilst I would welcome a trip down Soi 4, I wonder whether the old guard would see it as a concession for reconciliation, a major victory, or a trap?
Losing expendable Abhisit would be a small loss, but surely they realize the need to keep Thaksin as the bogeymen, lest the dissenters become more united?
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
35 FredKorat // Jun 15, 2010 at 2:10 pm
#28 So we agree on something. We just don’t agree on anything else.
#32 Slightly better of a really crap bunch just isn’t good enough.
Quality comment or not?
0 
1
36 FredKorat // Jun 15, 2010 at 2:18 pm
#32 Your last point suggests you believe Thailand has been a democratic country at some point. In 2 decades ( and in examining several other decades of history), I have never experienced Thailand as anything other than a non-democratic country. Indeed, it is as much of a myth as most of the monarchy propaganda
Quality comment or not?
4 
1
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.