Appointment of Natthawut not good for unity

The first Cabinet reshuffle by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has created quite a few focal points for discussion. The decision to change the finance minister after just over six months. Her confessed “frustration” with “inefficiency” during the flooding despite the fact that none of the ministers tasked with handling the disaster was removed. The change at the top of the Defence Ministry and the dispiriting yet typical disruption at the Education Ministry. These moves have made this Cabinet revamp conspicuous at least. The social media, however, has directed its attention to the new deputy agriculture minister, Natthawut Saikua.
The rise to a government post of the red-shirt leader brought back bitter memories to those on the opposite side politically or ideologically. Videos featuring his extremely provocative speeches during the 2010 political turbulence re-emerged on Facebook. Anti-red Tweeters expressed disbelief. Several newspaper articles called his Cabinet post a “reward” from Yingluck’s brother Thaksin.
That Natthawut still faces grave criminal charges for his anti-government role in 2010 may not be as important as the fact that he is a divisive figure with or without the legal trouble. While the Yingluck Cabinet II list did not inspire confidence, people only shrugged at the other names. When it came to Natthawut, many jaws dropped, followed by not-so-polite exclamations.
Yingluck defended her new Cabinet, saying it would improve government work. She did not say how and neither did she spell out what went wrong at the ministries subjected to drastic changes like energy or education. On Natthawut, she said he was more than qualified to tackle grassroots-related problems at the Agriculture Ministry.
The prime minister may be right about Natthawut’s qualifications, but she also may have missed the point that there is a place and time for everything. Giving Natthawut a Cabinet seat just over a year after he led raucous street rallies during which he openly promoted violence and demonstrated a political ideology many Thais deem unacceptable will certainly not help Yingluck’s proclaimed reconciliation agenda.
It really doesn’t matter much whether what he did in 2010 was right or wrong. People on both sides of the national divide have been viewing him differently. Maybe that should remain his current status – an inflammatory activist waiting to see where the country’s fledging reconciliation road takes him. Perhaps he should not have been shoved back into the political limelight and had every word he uttered at Ratchaprasong recited with renewed scrutiny.
Yingluck’s humble nature is a breath of fresh air for Thai politics. But it’s cases like Natthawut’s that have been belying her purported agenda of bringing back peace to Thailand.
Her government has wasted no time in putting the most sensitive issues before the public. First it was the rush to get self-exiled Thaksin Shinawatra his key foreign visas and return him his Thai passport. Then it was the shadowy efforts to get him a royal pardon or amnesty – attempts that ran into tough resistance from the other political polarity. Her party has also displayed readiness to spearhead a campaign to revamp the Constitution, again with an alleged eye on helping her big brother.
A Pandora’s box is probably being opened regarding constitutional reform, and Yingluck’s Pheu Thai Party has somewhat tried to distance itself. Whatever its stance on the charter now, the ruling party is unlikely to reverse the tide and will be considerably distracted at a time when Thailand should focus its resources and energy on post-flood rebuilding.
Natthawut’s appointment may not prove a long-term distraction. Yingluck must have gambled that the controversy will be transitory and she would probably be right. However, when it comes to the long-range future of what she once declared as her supreme mission – national reconciliation – it may turn out to be a bad bet.