IN AN ATTEMPT to find a way out of the long-time conflicts hurting the country – especially among figures from political sector which is seen as the most divisive – the National Reform Steering Assembly’s (NRSA) political reform committee has assigned a sub-panel to study all past proposals relating to the issue. It will also study relevant recommendations from concerned figures.

The move is seen as a bid to reinforce the government’s reconciliation efforts. 

The Nation’s Wasamon Audjarint and Piyaporn Wongruang talked to the panel’s chairmanSungsidh Piriyarangsan, dean of Rangsit University’s College of Social Innovation, on the panel’s progress, his expectations of its work and the challenges ahead.

THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF PANELS WORKING ON RECONCILIATION, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT PANELS. SO, WHAT DOES YOUR PANEL EXACTLY DO?

We are assigned to gather, study and synthesise reconciliation topics from related actors and bodies and make a report of suggestions for the NRSA, which will then decide whether to forward it to other bodies including the government.

From our first, and so far only, meeting last Monday, we decided to submit letters to four prominent political blocs, asking them what should be done to achieve reconciliation. We also plan to study nine previous reports on the topic as well as invite their writers to meet us for discussions. All of these, to be rushed through within 60 days, will be done based on the principles of rule of law, compassion and social unity.

THE SUBCOMMITTEE WAS BORN JUST A DAY BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT’S COMMITTEES’, INCLUDING THE RECONCILIATION PREPARATION COMMITTEE, WERE ESTABLISHED, DID IT EMERGE SPECIALLY TO ASSIST THAT COMMITTEE, GIVEN THAT SOME OF THE NRSA TOP FIGURES ALSO SIT ON IT? 

No, it didn’t, although the NRSA is generally assigned to submit reform suggestions to the government. We at the NRSA have actually been working on reconciliation for quite a while but were told to hang on by the government, which started looking at the agenda just this year. Earlier this month, our chief, the NRSA political committee, also presented a report on reconciliation, on which we will elaborate this time through the panel’s work.

DURING A PRESS BRIEFING AFTER MONDAY’S MEETING, YOU RAISED THE MODEL OF THE COLD WAR 66/2523 POLICY, WHICH SEEMED TO BE CONSIDERED A SOUR IDEA BY SOME TOP GOVERNMENT FIGURES. WILL THIS ROUGH START STOP THE BODY FROM PURSUING SUCH A MODEL?

This has been widely misunderstood, I must say. Our point is not to copy that communism-fighting policy but to suggest that a political policy is much needed to reconcile fractures, just like how the 66/2523 policy did in replacement of stern military approach. Some measures adopted were, for instance, amnesty granting and fair justice treatment for defectors and insurgents.

Another instance was back during the Sino-Japanese War when Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-shek, though from opposite pillars, cooperated against occupying Japan to win over their foreigners. And Mao later adopted a national unity policy that healed China.

Or in South Africa. Nelson Mandela also adopted such a political policy to end the country’s deep divide between black and white people. The essential element is the compassion he showed, as he embraced whites, not exclude them from the effort … And eventually, you could see reconciliation have a chance in such countries. So, reconciliation needs compassion, rule of law, and last but not least a political policy. And, of course, we insist on pursuing this idea of a practising political policy.

CONSIDERING THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCE IN THAILAND, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT THIS POLITICAL POLICY TO LOOK LIKE?

That will be spelled out by the government, not us. We are only here to make suggestions, not make policy. Also, as a head of the panel, I’m not supposed to speak in terms of guidance or anything.

BUT YOU ALSO MENTIONED AMNESTY, WHICH IS SOMETHING THIS GOVERNMENT HAS INSISTED ON TURNING DOWN. WILL IT POSSIBLY BE INCLUDED IN THE SUGGESTION REPORT?

We’ve met only once and didn’t reach any conclusion in detail yet. But I can say that, firstly, we have to consider social sentiments when making suggestions, although the door is still left open for any recommendations from the blocs.

Secondly, we have to ensure that our work is in line with the government’s agendas. We also invited some of the NRSA figures, such as General Thitiwat Kamlang-ek and Pol Lt-General Trithos Ronritthiwichai, who are our advisers, to have closer communication with the government. It seems there is gap in our communication.

YOU ALSO SAID THAT THE PANEL SUBMITTED LETTERS TO FOUR POLITICAL BLOCS. CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT?

The letters were sent to the Pheu Thai Party, the Democrat Party, the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship and the People’s Democratic Reform Foundation, who should reply to us with their ideas on reconciliation within another week or so. We picked only these four blocs due to the time constraint.

Talking about other parties, Chat Thai Pattana’s key figure Nigorn Chamnong is a vice chairman to our panel, while the Bhumjaithai Party made it clear it would follow any mutually agreed rules. Some of our members are also from the said four blocs, such as Kasit Piromya of the Democrats and Sompong Sakawee of the red shirts. But we also approached their chiefs to ensure that suggestions will be done based on each bloc’s consensus.

CAN YOU ALSO EXPLAIN THE NINE PREVIOUS RECONCILIATION REPORTS THAT THE PANEL PLANS TO STUDY, AND WHAT IS THE PROGRESS SO FAR? 

Again, because of time constraints, and also because we want to respect the critical thinkers of past research, we decided to go through the existing reports of that kind [reconciliation] – ranging from the report of Direk Theungfang in 2009 to the recent composition by Anek Laothamatas [of the now defunct National Reform Council], as well as invite them for discussions. These reports have actually offered us valuable insights and solutions on the issue and we don’t have to start all over again. That’s also the reason why we have decided to pursue their reports.

Currently, we are still in the process of looking at them and have not picked any preferable points from those reports yet.

IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT SHOULD RECONCILIATION CONSIST OF?

In my view reconciliation has two levels. One is about the ‘people above’ or the elite or the leaders. The other is truly about the people. Although my panel is assigned to work on finding solutions, mainly for the political sector, I have to say that to achieve true and sustainable reconciliation, the work needs to be done at both levels. Unfortunately, I don’t see much effort invested at the people level, or what I call reconciliating with our people.

The meaning is much deeper. Of course we cannot leave the elite to find the way out alone and they won’t be able to settle their conflicts but rather fight with one another without end and that costs the country’s resources and opportunities a lot. But in my view, what is not less, or may be even more critical, is reconciliation with the people.

What I mean is inequality and poverty have left a lot of people behind and divided. That’s huge and fundamental to the strength of the whole society. Unfortunately, I hardly see much effort on this.

Here’s the current situation. Only 1 per cent of all people own 85 per cent of the resources in this country. If this inequality issue is not alleviated, starting from reform of the governmental agencies, it may be hard to realise any future compromising talks at the people level. Hence, it is necessary that people’s well-being, reform, and fair justice treatment go together to make the reconciliation with the people happen.

YOUR IDEA OF RECONCILIATION WITH THE PEOPLE SEEMS TO GO IN LINE WITH THAT OF DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER GENERAL PRAWIT WONGSUWAN’S RECONCILIATION PREPARATION COMMITTEE. DO YOU ALSO PLAN TO MAKE ANY SUGGESTIONS ON THAT PARTICULAR IDEA?

We haven’t thought of it yet. I expect that our recommendations will be only five or six pages after extracting information from everyone. It will be the 10th document suggesting reconciliation, but I hope that we will come up with the desired political policy for our conflicts of the present time.