Thread: Divided Thailand seeks elusive 'normalcy'

Thailand must learn the lessons of history | Scoop News

Thailand must learn the lessons of history

Tuesday, 24 May 2011, 2:37 pm

Press Release: Asian Human Rights Commission

Thailand must learn the lessons of history

A Statement from Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD) on the 19th Anniversary of the Black May Incident

18 May 2011

18 May 2011 marks the 19th anniversary of what Thai people remember as "1992 Black May incident," when a popular uprising was met with brutal and violent suppression by the military. Official reports put the death toll at 44 with 38 missing, however in actual, more people were victimized. The victims’ families continue to suffer because of the non-revelation of the truth and the absence of justice.

Almost two decades have passed since the gruesome massacre. Many questions still remain unanswered. Even the final death toll is still being disputed while the families of those who went missing continue their long and agonizing search for truth and justice.

Though the traumatic event of 1992 has triggered the demands for change that led Thailand in the road to democracy, this path is always chaotic and sometimes, violent. Human rights have always been sacrificed.

The Thai government must therefore recognize that the future of its fledgling democracy lies in dealing with its dark past. If it is to move forward towards achieving a long and lasting peace, it must first remember its own history and learn from it.

The long-delayed project to build a monument on Ratchadamnoen Klang Avenue would have been a good start. The Black May monument, if finally established, will stand as a stark reminder that violence must never again be used to settle political differences because it is doom to fail.

While lives lost can never be replaced, a simple acknowledgement of wrongdoing, however hurtful, can help mend the deepening wounds of the Thai society so that the process of reconciliation can start.

Nevertheless, the recognition of past human rights violations is not enough to engender the culture of transparency and accountability. It necessitates sincere commitment of the state to promote and protect the human rights of its citizens. Doing such complementary efforts both for the past and for the present will bring the country to the road to genuine democracy that will guarantee the future of its citizens.

Thailand, which prides itself for being a party to seven out of the nine core human rights treaties, however fails to make human rights a reality on the ground. The issue of state impunity on the human rights violations committed in the context of the ongoing military operations in southern provinces remains unsettled. Even its promise before the international community that it will prioritize the speedy resolution of the disappearance case of human rights lawyer, Somchai Neelaphaijit turned empty when on 11 March 2011, the Appeals Court acquitted the five police officers charged with the offense of coercion and robbery.

Today as the Relatives Committee of the May 1992 Heroes commemorates the 19th anniversary of "1992 Black May Incident," the Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD) expresses its firm solidarity with them and with all the families of victims of human rights violations in Thailand and around the world as we reiterate our collective call to the Thai government to move beyond human rights rhetoric and fulfill its international human rights obligations..

The call of for national reconciliation of the Thai government can only be made possible if it will lead by example. It can concretely do so by seriously investigating the past crimes, in identifying those responsible for human rights violations and imposing sanctions on them, providing reparations to victims and families, preventing future violations, and preserving and enhancing genuine and lasting peace.

There can never be peace and reconciliation without truth and justice.

Signed by:

MUGIYANTO

Chairperson, Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances

MARY AILEEN D. BACALSO

Secretary-General, Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances

About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation that monitors human rights in Asia, documents violations and advocates for justice and institutional reform to ensure the protection and promotion of these rights. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

Visit our new website with more features at www.humanrights.asia.

ENDS

^ It all sounds so familiar....

Black May 1992

April/May 2010

What's changed....?

Nothing.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

What's changed....?

Nothing.

Actually, I think some things have changed. This for a start-

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

"The military doesn't want a coup anymore. The last coup was the worst they ever had and they learned."

The knee jerk response was then to move on the Judicial activism as a means of disenfranchisement. Thanks mainly to the red shirts ("you don't fool Me"), that didn't work either.

At the root of it all people have changed, society has changed, technology has changed- people are more mobile, and better informed. Less easily fooled. Politically, Thaksin (in many ways a traditional, grubby sinoThai oligarch himself) tapped the future. With repression and censorship, the Military/democrat political cabal has been actively trying to return to a past where peoples opinions could be manipulated, via ignorance. They have outright failed.

Yes, I think things have changed.

Wake-up call for elite: senator

Wake-up call for elite: senator

By Pravit Rojanaphruk
The Nation
Published on June 2, 2011

Siriwat urges people to fight all kinds of coups d'etat

The Thai elite should not try to get involved in a "zero-sum game" to maintain its power because that will lead to violence and the eventual destruction of the current "pyramid of power", warned Nakhon Si Thammarat Senator Siriwat Kraisin. The warning came after some people voiced fears that the military or "invisible hands" might not accept the result of the July 3 election and might even interfere with the formation of the next government chosen by the voters.

Siriwat said that in many countries, by the time the elite realised the folly of interfering with the democratic process, it was too late. "I'm saying this out of loving-kindness" for them.

He added that reforms and the sharing of power were the only way out. Siriwat also chairs the Senate's committee on education.

"The [Thai] elite are troublemakers and were behind the [political] crisis. They are selfish, even though they talk about religion and morality the most loudly.

"They are narrow-minded, but they can't hide from the truth. I don't know who their advisers are, but they're approaching a risky point with their zero-sum game," Siriwat said.

He was speaking yesterday at a forum on democratisation and conflict resolution organised by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and the Institute of Democratisation Studies. Siriwat urged people to fight against any and all forms of coups d'etat, saying Thailand needed to democratise and keep its society free from interference from any power outside the system, be it the Army or the so-called "invisible hands".

He also blamed the Thai education system for making people docile and accepting of the existing pyramid of power and believing in the simplistic notion of good versus bad.

"They're not adhering to the principle of justice, but more to the idea of good people. But who are these 'good people' we are referring to?" he asked.

Plodprasop Suraswadi, deputy leader of the Pheu Thai Party, who was also present at the forum, said the military needed to be reformed for the country to democratise.

"There will be problems as long as the military interferes and does not accept elected governments. Soldiers must return to the barracks, and they will become heroes. Otherwise, they will have to fight with the people," he said.

He also urged Thais to stop relying on senior non-governmental leaders or retired generals to "rescue" them.

"These people should meditate or run [non-profit] foundations that don't meddle with politics," he advised.

Meanwhile, the Democrat Party's Niphon Boonyamanee said he believed "soldiers would know what is appropriate and what is not where their role is concerned".

"If the public sentiment is clear, I don't think they will dare [to stage a coup]. If it were that easy to stage a coup, they would have done it by now.

"They must learn lessons. The 2006 putsch made it clear that it is impossible [to govern the country] after a coup in this day and age. As the old saying goes, 'You may be able to seize power, but you cannot govern'. Studies were conducted and printed in books about this at the National Defence College.

"They can't simply act, as there are eyes, domestically and abroad, watching" the upcoming election and the Army, he added.

^ Wow!!!

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Nakhon Si Thammarat Senator Siriwat Kraisin

Well said that man- right on the button.

PM material that gent.

He just omitted the army amart scum merderers must face justice and pay for their crimes

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

"The [Thai] elite are troublemakers and were behind the [political] crisis. They are selfish, even though they talk about religion and morality the most loudly.

"They are narrow-minded, but they can't hide from the truth. I don't know who their advisers are, but they're approaching a risky point with their zero-sum game," Siriwat said.

Refreshing to know there are some who see the big picture ,

Kudos Khun Senator Siriwat Kraisin

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

"If the public sentiment is clear, I don't think they will dare [to stage a coup]. If it were that easy to stage a coup, they would have done it by now.

with corrupt politicians like Thaksin and his family, no need to stage a coup, just nail them using the judicial system

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

The Thai elite should not try to get involved in a "zero-sum game" to maintain its power because that will lead to violence and the eventual destruction of the current "pyramid of power", warned Nakhon Si Thammarat Senator Siriwat Kraisin. The warning came after some people voiced fears that the military or "invisible hands" might not accept the result of the July 3 election and might even interfere with the formation of the next government chosen by the voters. Siriwat said that in many countries, by the time the elite realised the folly of interfering with the democratic process, it was too late. "I'm saying this out of loving-kindness" for them. He added that reforms and the sharing of power were the only way out. Siriwat also chairs the Senate's committee on education. "The [Thai] elite are troublemakers and were behind the [political] crisis. They are selfish, even though they talk about religion and morality the most loudly. "They are narrow-minded, but they can't hide from the truth. I don't know who their advisers are, but they're approaching a risky point with their zero-sum game," Siriwat said.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

He also blamed the Thai education system for making people docile and accepting of the existing pyramid of power and believing in the simplistic notion of good versus bad. "They're not adhering to the principle of justice, but more to the idea of good people. But who are these 'good people' we are referring to?" he asked.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

^ Wow!!!

Originally Posted by sabang

Well said that man- right on the button.

Originally Posted by LooseBowels

PM material that gent.

I can only add my full agreement to those posters above; I didn't realise such honesty existed in the senate...

^ Indeed.

Absolutely outstanding stuff from Senator Siriwat Kraisin.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Siriwat urges people to fight all kinds of coups d'etat

Truely an amazing speech and he hit the nail on the head for sure, but I doubt any of the military or invisible hands will raise an eyebrow.

It would be great to see real change here and Thailand becoming a true democracy, without wishing to sound negative "no f*cking chance".

"no f*cking chance".

Yep. Standing up has never been legal in Thailand. Life on their knees ain't so bad.

Powers outside electoral system 'key'

Powers outside electoral system 'key'

By PRAVIT ROJANAPHRUK
THE NATION
Published on June 28, 2011

National reconciliation is not likely to be achieved unless "powers outside the electoral system" make peace with power-holders in the electoral system, Prof Chaiwat Satha-ananda, a political scientist from Thammasat University, said yesterday.

"What can we do to make the powers outside the electoral system reconcile with the power within the electoral system and make the powers outside the electoral system accept the electoral result?" asked Chaiwat in a symposium on the post-electoral reconciliation process organised by Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Law and Matichon newspapers.Chaiwat tried to answer his own question by saying boosting the power of the electoral system and political parties would comparatively weaken the powers outside the electoral system, which tend to interfere.

The political scientist, known for his expertise in peace studies and conflict resolutions, stopped short of listing all the elements that constitute the powers outside the electoral system, however.

He urged the public to pay close attention to how reconciliation can be achieved, citing spates of violence in the past half decade or so that have "chained" Thai society.

"Reconciliation is an important component of a democratic system... because it enables the society to revitalise itself," Chaiwat said.

He admitted, however, that a single unified truth about what happened in April and May 2010 - when a total of 92 people were killed, 2,000 injured, and dozens of buildings burnt down - may never emerge.

Instead, he called for Thai society to be open-minded enough to embrace what he called a "plurality of truths".

Kittipong Kitayarak, chairman of the strategies for reconciliation subcommittee of the Truth for Reconciliation Commission (TRC) - whose chairperson, Kanit na Nakorn, was appointed by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva - said the framework for reconciliation must be broader than merely unearthing what happened last April and May. It must include consideration of the notion of transitional justice.

"I don''t know if Thai society can discuss every issue but I will try to speak as much as possible," said Kittipong, who's also permanent secretary of the Justice Ministry. He said it was difficult to say when the truth would be revealed and whether the public would accept it or not.

"But truth alone is not enough, justice and accountability are also needed," he said.

Kittipong said issues like fair treatment of the red shirts still incarcerated without bail and in shackles, a year after, was an urgent issue that needed to be addressed by the next government. Many should not be considered ordinary criminals.

Long-term challenges were issues like establishing the rule of law, eradicating corruption and preventing intervention by forces outside the electoral political system.

Former deputy premier Surakiart Sathirathai, who was foreign minister under Thaksin Shinawatra, sounded more hopeful. Surakiart suggested people close to conflicted parties should ask contacts or friends to forge a dialogue for reconciliation. Forging mutual tolerance between or among disputing parties was also needed.

Surakiart said he hoped the TRC would remain, even if a different political party heads the next government after the July 3 election.

He added that the world is watching Thailand closely as to how things transpire after the election.

Chairman of Thailand's Industrial Congress, Payungsak Chartsuthipol, another panellist, stressed the need for a socio-political environment free of the conflict and violence that has plagued Thai society in recent years. He said the economic competitiveness of Thailand was at stake if the situation did not improve after the election. Establishing trust among various conflicting parties was vital, he said.

The moderator, Thakor Boonpan, editor of Khao Sod newspaper, conceded earlier that the conflict had now become so "messy… people no longer know what they're fighting about".

Excellent comments in posts #543 and #544.

Both spot on, imho; and the fact they are being opening discussed is very important.

Thanks for posting them, SD.

Middle Class, Inequality, and Democracy – Part II | Asian Correspondent

Middle Class, Inequality, and Democracy – Part II

By Bangkok Pundit Jun 29, 2011 8:00AM UTC

Erik Kuhonta of the Department of Political Science at McGill University wrote a research note at the end of 2008 that was published in the the Canadian Council for Southeast Asian Studies newsletter (Vol 8, No 2, pp 4-6). The title was “A Research Note on the Middle Class and Democracy in Thailand”. As it is no longer online and as a follow up to yesterday’s post entitled “Middle Class, Inequality, and Democracy”, below is a copy (formatting changes made):

Is the middle class a harbinger of democracy? This question has been one of the most enduring issues in the study of comparative politics. Much of the literature has leaned towards the view that the middle class serves as a central force for democratic change. Yet, there is also much evidence to suggest that the middle class is not necessarily a bulwark for democracy. This question is particularly important today in Thailand. With the country deeply split over the accomplishments and legacy of the Thaksin Shinawatra government, the middle class has been one of the most important players in the current crisis. A broad coalition of largely middle class supporters, the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), has spearheaded public rallies against the Thaksin government that eventually opened the way for the 2006 military coup. The PAD continues to call for the ouster of the current government led by Thaksin’s brother-in-law, Somchai Wongsawat, while advancing a proposal to curtail the electoral influence of the rural sector – the core support base for Thaksin. In this political turmoil, it is important to think theoretically about the role of the middle class in Thai politics and its democratic or anti-democratic leanings. In the context of the PAD’s behavior, we should be very skeptical of general arguments of a democratic middle class, but we should also not be too quick to “throw out the baby with the bathwater.”

The literature in comparative politics has generally tended to view the middle class as a force for democracy. This goes back to Lipset’s (1959) classic work on economic development and democracy where he argued that the middle class, as the more moderate, tolerant, and educated class would usher in democracy. This view has since then been dominant in academia, in policy circles, and in journalistic work. Yet, important comparative work has also challenged this position. In a ground-breaking study, Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens (1992) claimed the real issue in identifying which class supports democracy is to understand who has the most to gain or lose by promoting and defending democracy. In their work, they identified the working class as more central to democratization. More recently, Bellin (2000) has argued that the relative support for democracy among class groups is contingent on their political interests. Thus, Bellin conceptualizes the bourgeoisie and labor as “contingent democrats.”

The literature on Thai politics in contrast, has been quite critical of the role of the middle class as a force for democracy. Writing during the turbulent 1970s, Anderson (1977) argued that the incipient middle class, particularly the petty bourgeoisie that was born of the 1960s economic boom had some democratic inclinations, but its insecure position and its concerns over heightened student radicalism eventually led it to support an authoritarian crackdown. Other authors writing with the backdrop of the 1991 coup and the 1992 upheaval have also claimed that the middle class exhibits ambivalent positions toward democracy. Such authors have collectively pointed out that the middle class tends to be pragmatic, materialistic, and self-interested. It will only support democracy if the alternative (authoritarianism) provides conditions antithetical to their interests. In particular, the middle class cherishes political stability in order to protect its investments (Girling 1996; Voravidh 1993). The middle class is furthermore deeply tied to the capitalist order, such that it often allies with capitalists and its behavior reflects capitalist interests (Preecha 1993; Voravidh 1993). Others posit that the middle class sense of alliance lies with the <redacted> and aristocracy (Ockey 1996). It is clear, then, that the Thai middle class acts like a “contingent democrat,” and that its attitudes and behavior tend to be quite conservative.

These critiques of the Thai middle class paint a very mixed picture compared to the progressive views of modernization scholarship. How are we to resolve this tension? The central issue that needs to be disentangled in this theoretical discussion is this: what are middle class interests? That question in itself needs to be broken down further, for the middle class is not one coherent entity: what are the interests of the middle classes? Although we are used to thinking about the middle class as one whole, analytically speaking, this class is a residual category, composed of those who are neither in the lower class and those in the upper class. While they may share certain common traits such as a modern lifestyle shaped by material consumption, differences in values and attitudes among small shopkeepers, business executives, and academics is vast. As Koo (2006) notes, it is thus not necessary to unravel contradictions in values within the middle class. What is necessary, however, is to recognize the heterogeneity of the middle class and identify which groups support particular values and maintain particular interests. Girling (1996) has already moved in this direction, arguing that groups in civil society, such as NGOs, tend to represent the progressive values of the middle class, while industrialists, financiers, and traders tend to be more concerned with stability than with justice.

In the current struggle in Thai politics, it is imperative to sift through much of the conventional thought concerning the different actors engaged in pitched battle. In the first place, we should be wary of categorizing one class group as more democratic than the other. Despite their rhetoric, the PAD’s behavior and agenda is anything but democratic. At the same time, we should not necessarily jump to the conclusion that the middle class as a whole is anti-democratic. Some groups in the middle class, such as white-collar professionals, did support the coup and the more active continue to rally against the current government, accusing it of corruption. On the other hand, some elements of the middle class, such as intellectuals and NGO representatives, while not challenging the coup, did not support it either. The middle class, in all its diversity, complexity, and contradictions thus remains a fertile area for political analysis.

BP: An interesting read. Hopefully, more research on this area will be forthcoming…

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/op...ng29.html?_r=1

I.H.T. Op-Ed Contributor

Thailand's Fickle Democracy

By PHILIP BOWRING

Published: June 28, 2011

There is little doubt that Thais like the idea of democracy. They have been fighting for it on and off since 1932, when absolute monarchy was overthrown.

Most Thais will vote on July 3 for the third time in six years. Campaigning is feverish, posters omnipresent and a raucous — though not entirely free — media offer endless news, comment and speculation. Even those Thais who dislike the results mostly shy away from openly opposing democracy.

Yet this election is about Thailand’s repeated failure to agree on what constitutes democracy and on how democracy fits with the older institutions — <redacted>, the military and the centralized bureaucracy. Those failures have been seen in the cycle of elections and coups that has repeated itself since the 1973 overthrow of the Thanom Kittikachorn dictatorship.

But two things are different that make this election especially important and also unlikely to resolve political tensions.

The first is the personality of Thaksin Shinawatra, the exiled prime minister deposed by a coup in 2006 who is fighting this election through a surrogate party, Pheu Thai, headed by his photogenic youngest sister, Yingluck Shinawatra.

Thailand has had several democratically elected prime ministers but none aimed for, let alone achieved, populist appeal. They got to the top through deal-making between parties. Thaksin, however, was an authentic populist who identified the potential power of the nation’s poorer classes and used his wealth and organizing ability to exploit it. Whether Thaksin was an authentic democrat is another matter.

The second is a broad generational change that manifests itself in different ways. Income and wealth gaps are wide and getting wider but there is no shortage of work; Thailand now relies on about three million foreign workers, mostly from Myanmar, to do its dirtiest jobs. Political awareness has increased thanks to education and the ubiquitous media creating a feeling among many Thais, particularly in the lower income groups, that they are not getting a fair share of the cake. Generational change also affects views of the role of the old institutions at a time when thoughts are on <redacted>.

For Thaksin’s defenders the problem has been the unwillingness of the military and monarchists to accept democracy: Thaksin was overthrown, the Constitution was changed, and many Thaksin supporters believe the judiciary was manipulated to oust two prime ministers. They see the incumbent prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva of the Democrat Party, as a front for conservative forces that want a veto over who is prime minister, and, as in Bangkok last spring, is willing to use violence against peaceful demonstrators.

The anti-Thaksin forces accuse him, with some reason, of abusing his power in office for personal and political gain, and undermining the institutions and checks and balances built into the 1997 constitution — then viewed as a democratic model. Less convincingly, Thaksin’s opponents also accuse him of fomenting <redacted> sentiment and threatening economic stability through populist spending on low-cost health services and aid for farmers.

So the country has two choices. An Abhisit government that has proven competent but owes its existence to the military and is viewed by many to represent a self-interested elite, a choice that risks a backlash in the streets by backers of Thaksin. Or, a return to the Thaksin camp, a choice that risks a possible crackdown by the military.

This being Thailand some kind of deal is always possible, even one that allows for the eventual return and pardon of Thaksin. Money speaks loudly in Thai politics, and big business, though tending to be critical of Thaksin, is more concerned with avoiding political mayhem.

Given the passions that Thaksin arouses and that <redacted> is no longer seen as peacemaker between factions, finding a liberal and democratic way forward will not be easy. Neither Thaksin nor his military and monarchist enemies are at ease with the freedoms, rules and compromises necessary for democratic politics. But most Thais are, which suggests that the election will neither resolve nor worsen the tensions arising from economic success and social change.

Bangkok Post : The real meaning of reconciliation

Opinion > Opinion
STRAIGHT TO THE POINT

The real meaning of reconciliation

• Published: 29/06/2011 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: News

It has to be accepted that the Thai political scene is severely polarised, much beyond the normal differences of opinion that exist in a democratic system where the rules of the system are accepted by nearly all of the population, at least as a starting point for political change.

But in Thailand, there is even polarisation over the legitimate rules of the system, and feelings of extreme resentment are still running high on both sides over recent violent events.

There is a clear danger of future violence on a scale closer to civil war if either side is provoked by extreme measures taken by the other; for example, if a Pheu Thai election victory were to be derailed by a legal judgement or military coup, or if a Pheu Thai government were to swiftly facilitate the return of a defiant Thaksin Shinawatra by means of amnesty and pardon.

I believe that the majority of the Thai population on both sides of the political divide would support some form of understanding or agreement for coexistence, whereby political struggle could be carried out peacefully and legitimately under democratic rules, without the danger of escalating into violence and civil war.

It would have to involve compromises by those holding power on both sides, and it would have to begin by defusing tensions on both sides.
I suggest that such an understanding would need to go along the following lines:

- The outcome of the coming elections must be accepted by both sides and the democratic formation of a new government must not be sabotaged by force or by any other unconstitutional means, or through mass demonstrations, or by legal manipulation.

- Both sides should agree to the maintenance and protection of the constitutional monarchy with the monarch as head of state, while agreeing on measures to isolate the monarchy from political conflicts and to allow democratic discussion and criticism of the monarchy in a respectful way.

- All forms of political censorship of the media need to be discontinued and both the Computer Crimes Law and Article 112 of the Criminal Code revised to allow democratic freedom of expression.

However, introducing a law against inciting hatred without seriously affecting freedom of expression might be useful.

- There should be a thorough review of all lese majeste court cases and convictions under the Computer Crimes Law and Article 112, with a view to correcting injustices and disproportionate sentencing, taking into account legitimate rights to political expression in a democratic system.

- Political amnesty should be granted to all people of all political colours charged for offences relating to mass demonstrations, unless there is clear evidence of their direct involvement in acts of violence endangering the lives of others.

(I must admit to a conflict of interest in giving this opinion with some personal interest being involved here).

- There should be agreement to end all forms of extra-judicial killings and torture of detainees.

The whole justice system should be overhauled to ensure greater impartiality and reduce double standards. Laws against torture and enforced disappearances need to be introduced.

- Thailand should accede to and ratify the Rome Statute governing the International Criminal Court so as to help prevent future abuses of power, unjustified force against demonstrators, and extra-judicial killings sanctioned by political leaders.

- If the Pheu Thai Party forms a government, they should agree not to put Thaksin above the law, but to help ensure he receives fair hearings on charges against him.

- Finally, there needs to be some form of accountability for past injustices and abuses of human rights on all sides.

"Without truth there can be no reconciliation," as relatives of people killed and injured during the April-May 2010 events recently declared.

Unfortunately, it is very unlikely anyone can ever be convicted in connection with illegal violence carried out by state officials against mass demonstrators in May 1992 and April-May 2010, or during the war on drugs in 2003 or throughout the insurgency in the southern border provinces (including the 85 deaths at Tak Bai).

For reconciliation to take place in Thai society, at least the truth of human rights abuses carried out by state officials under government policies and directives should be acknowledged. For this purpose the next government should establish a number of impartial and well-accepted truth commissions to hold hearings on past atrocities and come out with the facts, as well as recommend compensation for the victims and their families.

In my view political reconciliation in Thai society requires all of these important measures and more.

In the long run, we need a more democratic constitution as well as economic and social reforms to close the disparities of income and wealth that make Thailand one of the most unequal societies in the world.

If all of this seems difficult to achieve, please contemplate that the next opportunity for reconciliation may well not arrive again for many years to come, due to a long and violent civil war in which we destroy much of what we still have to value in our society today.


Jon Ungphakorn is a human rights and social activist, winner of the 2005 Magsaysay Award and a former elected Senator for Bangkok.

^ makes perfect sense. A good article that.