The quest for a practical peace continues

The King Prajadhipok’s Institute’s “reconciliation” proposal is not the first and will not be the last such idea to be attacked for its “divisive” undertone. The KPI has suggested three options to deal with the past work of the Assets Examination Committee (AEC), arguably the most controversial outshoot of the 2006 coup. To the institute, anti-corruption probes conducted by the AEC should be nullified for ongoing cases while finalised cases are not to be touched, or finalised cases are retried in a normal justice system, or both ongoing and finalised cases are nullified.

It’s the last option that has raised many eyebrows. Total nullification of both ongoing and finalised cases will whitewash Thaksin Shinawatra, pure and simple. The KPI has been asked how that can ever bring reconciliation to Thailand, which is now polarised between those believing he is a victim of injustice and those absolutely certain that he is guilty as sin. The institute is not being confronted with evidence that Thaksin may have really abused power, but it is being asked how a proposal that a lot of Thais will find unacceptable can ever re-install political peace in the country.

The institute’s proposal mirrored a campaign by the Nitirat movement, which seeks to erase legal consequences of the coup. Nitirat is accused of trying to help Thaksin because other coup consequences affecting anybody else other than him are either expiring or made irrelevant by the Pheu Thai Party’s convincing election triumph. The banned politicians are coming back, regardless of what happens to legal consequences of the coup, and the dissolution of the Thai Rak Thai and People Power parties was effectively rebuked by voters in July last year.

Only Thaksin is still suffering from legal outcomes of the coup. His party has won back political power and his younger sister now serves as Thailand’s first female prime minister. Economic and social policies she advocates, whether they are controversial or not, are either being implemented or clearing political hurdles. Her “mandate”, when national interests are concerned, is not being impeded, at least not by the 2006 coup.

Remaining consequences of that coup have to do with something that does not involve governing of the nation. They are primarily related to whether Thaksin broke the law when his ex-wife bought land on Ratchadapisek and the massive wealth that was taken from him just before the bloody political turmoil. That is why Nitirat and KPI have been questioned for saying that the idea to have legal impacts from the coup erased has nothing to do with Thaksin.

The KPI’s idea of retrying Thaksin seems the most sensible reconciliation option. One little problem needs to be sorted out, though. Thaksin never accepts he was wrong in allowing his ex-wife Pojaman to buy the Ratchadapisek block. Senior government politicians have emphasised what Thaksin believes – that while he might have violated the law, he was not wrong. With Thaksin apparently believing that the law is unfair, how can a re-trial be possible? Will he accept a reduced sentence while still being branded guilty, or is his bottom-line a “not guilty” verdict and anything short of that is unacceptable?

To join the KPI and Nitirat in the political focus soon is the ad hoc House reconciliation committee that commissioned the KPI to do its study. The panel, ironically led by 2006 coup leader Sonthi Boonyaratglin, will review the KPI proposal and have to come up with its own report. No matter how much the KPI proposal sounds like a slap on his face, Sonthi seems compromising and ready to embrace drastic ideas. The irony in Thailand’s “reconciliation”, it seems, is fast outgrowing any semblance of practicality. And stranger things may yet be in store for all politically weary Thais.