The long, rocky road to reconciliation

After the political turmoil in April and May 2010, the Abhisit Vejjajiva Cabinet appointed former attorney-general Kanit na Nakhon as chairman of the Truth for Reconciliation Committee of Thailand (TRCT). The committee started work in July that year, two months after the red-shirt riots that left 92 dead and about 2,000 injured. 

In the same month former premier Anand Panyarachun was made chairman of the National Reform Committee with social critic Prawase Wasi appointed as chairman of the Reform Assembly.

Anand’s panel stepped down after Abhisit dissolved the House last May, just prior to the election. However, the committee proposed decentralisation of power and strengthening ordinary citizens.

Meanwhile, Prawase considered the big problem of social inequity caused by the country’s flawed power structure, which has led to wealth inequity and social division. 

When Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra outlined the Pheu Thai government policies to Parliament on August 23 last year, she declared reconciliation as an urgent goal. She vowed to boost understanding about the constitutional monarchy system, provide rehabilitation for people affected by political conflict since the final period of the 1997 Constitution and support the work – and ensure the independence – of the TRCT.

Last October, Cabinet appointed a committee led by Deputy Prime Minister Yongyuth Wichaidit to “coordinate and follow up implementation according to the proposals presented by the TRCT”.

The following month, an ad-hoc House committee on national reconciliation was set up with General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, a Matubhum MP and leader of the 2006 military coup that ousted former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, as its chairman. 

The committee was set up to try to ensure political problems are solved in Parliament – not on streets.

His committee has studied the TRCT’s reports and also assigned the King Prajadhipok’s Institute to study and address the roots of the current conflict and suggest ways to restore national unity.

In the meantime, some Pheu Thai MPs pushed for changes to the Constitution and the issuing of amnesty laws, before the party shelved these ideas because of fears they would stir up conflict and opposition from people. 

Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung said he had prepared a Reconciliation Act, which would consist of six articles. But he has yet to elaborate on the details.

Pheu Thai Party, the Cabinet and coalition parties proposed charter amendments in February. And the Parliament agreed to establish a Constitution Drafting Assembly. But the parliamentary committee working on this has yet to decide on the size and make-up of this body.

The TRCT proposed to the government in December that “people who committed crimes due to political motivation” be treated differently from other criminals. The government responded by transferring red-shirt inmates from Bangkok Remand Prison to a new prison in Lak Si. 

In January, the Cabinet agreed to allocate Bt2 billion to help compensate and rehabilitate victims affected by political conflicts between late 2005 to May 2010. 

The latest development took place after Sonthi presented a report his panel received from KPI. 

Comments on the KPI proposal were released by Sonthi’s committee, prompting opposition by KPI deputy secretary-general Woothisarn Tanchai.

The Institute threatened to withdraw its study if the committee only highlighted parts of its report and insisted that its proposals were not for the 38-member committee to decide. 

A majority of the reconciliation committee, which includes Pheu Thai MPs, agreed on an amnesty for all cases related to political protest, including violations of the Emergency Decree and all crimes that stemmed from political motives.

To enhance the credibility of justice system, the majority agreed with a third KPI proposal that all cases probed by the now-defunct Assets Examination Committee – including unfinished cases – be revoked.

In an article sent to the media, the Institute said it actually proposed “dialogues” – talks in forums nationwide – as part of the way to achieve reconciliation. Meanwhile, any decision should not be decided on majority votes. Otherwise, the outcome would only be “justice for the winner.”

Sonthi said later he would drop parts about his committee’s voting out of the report to Parliament. 

Meanwhile, Chalerm came out to say his reconciliation bill would have a stronger chance of being passed than that proposed by Sonthi’s committee.

Nevertheless, the Sonthi committee intends to propose its report to a joint meeting of the House and Senate today. 

But the Democrats are up in arms. Their MPs have quit the reconciliation committee, saying they don’t want to be political tools for anybody. They also said the panel should not rush as its term has been extended till mid-April.