Reconciliation bill at odds with national interest

Amid all the uncertainties of Thai politics, one thing is clear. What is going on at present is not an effort to make peace. Neither side in the political divide seems ready to make sacrifices for the sake of national peace. This is why one insult after another has been hurled against the term “reconciliation”. The people who matter either provoke their rivals or let the provocation get the better of them. All the wrong things are happening in the name of “justice” or “democracy” or the “rule of law”.

If those campaigning against charter amendment or the reconciliation bills are rocking the boat, the other side is badly mistiming its proclaimed peace agenda. If the yellow shirts are obstructing “reconciliation” bills by protesting against them, the red shirts mock these bills by mobilising rallies in their support. If Thaksin Shinawatra’s enemies are nit-picking him in their bid to block the reconciliation bills or charter amendment, the man himself chose the worst possible occasion to state how he had “the right” to reclaim “stolen” money.

Initially, it appeared Thailand would have a months-long break from political turmoil, pending the election of the Constitution Drafting Assembly and the CDA’s highly delicate job of writing a new charter. The ruling camp’s decision to put reconciliation bills up for immediate parliamentary deliberation, and the Constitution Court’s virtual call to delay charter amendment have suddenly changed the complexion of the country’s political landscape. 

Exactly why the ruling party wants to pass the reconciliation bills now remain unclear. Government leaders had sent obvious signals that a reconciliation scheme, which the ruling camp believes must include a general amnesty, would wait for a new Constitution to be written by the CDA. The government’s U-turn threatened a constitutional crisis, as an amnesty scheme could contravene the present charter, which provides strong legal back-up for consequences of the 2006 coup. But a constitutional crisis is less of a worry now, since rumbling street protests by those on each side of the political polarity have raised the possibility of renewed violence.

Meanwhile, the Constitution Court has preliminarily accepted petitions against the charter amendment bill that sought to pave the way for the setting up of the CDA and writing of a new charter. The court’s action has angered the ruling Pheu Thai Party and the red shirt movement and led to the existing stand-off between the Pheu Thai-dominated House of Representative and the judiciary.

This Constitution Court issue involves two separate controversies. First, the petitions submitted to the court had not gone through the normal channel, albeit the Attorney General’s Office. Whether the court is empowered to consider the petitions in the first place – let alone making a ruling on them – has been a subject of tumultuous debate.

The second controversy has to do with why the petitions were written in the first place. The current charter, enacted under a military government although through a referendum, allows itself to be “amended” by Parliament. That begs the question if the current charter allows itself to be practically dissolved and replaced by a new one written by a group of people outside Parliament. In other words, is it constitutional to set up the CDA and have it write a new charter? To inflame this particular controversy, the amendment bill that seeks to set up the CDA is criticised by opponents for failing to provide safeguards against possible CDA tampering with key institutions like the monarchy or check-and-balance mechanisms.

Photos of recent protests are ominous. Lines of riot police at Parliament and every newspaper headline sneers at whoever tries to describe what is going on in a country supposedly striving to restore peace. Nothing, it seems, has changed from a couple of years ago. It’s just a political game being played in a new venue under new circumstances. “Reconciliation” is just a term everyone uses when it serves him, not vice-versa.