Prayut said he had read the book written by renowned Thai historian Wichitwong na Pompetch, as well as other reconciliation study papers done in the past and saw similar points to his own thinking that he wished to point out. So, he summed the papers up and distributed them to the concerned panels.

Prayut said reconciliation is the most challenging task for the country, as it enforces a rule of law that some view as almost impossible to facilitate reconciliation. However, the premier insisted on enforcing the rule of law. He said people should not be worried about the work by the committees and its umbrella, known as Por Yor Por, as they would listen to what people say.

The reconciliation preparation committee plans to invite and listen to political parties by April. However, the premier came up with his summary yesterday to guide them on how to deal with the issue.

He insisted that he wished to listen to the conclusions of all committees, especially the reconciliation preparation committee. Amnesty, he reiterated, is not an issue he has ever addressed and it would not be a subject in the ongoing discussion.

The latest move by the premier drew concern from some political experts. They said the government’s fresh set of reform and reconciliation guidelines are ambiguous for democratisation. Prayut thought that the notes could be “useful” to the government, its supercommittee, and the National Council for Peace and Order.

Some 17 pages long, the papers emphasised three points: In order to achieve a peaceful and united society, people should “know their duties and boundaries” in a democracy or a proper democratic space should be created; economic and social injustice should be resolved; and, civic education and right thinking and caution needed to be instilled.

Attasit Pankaew, a political lecturer from Thammasat University, said the papers should discuss in more depth what is behind their so-called “democratic areas” and what could build democracy to be accepted by all. He said: “After reading them, I still wonder, was it because not all Thai people comprehend democracy, or was it because Thai society is not yet ready for democracy? If so, what should we do to achieve to live together?”

The academic also doubted that the papers’ suggestions to avoid some deep-rooted problems could really achieve reconciliation. “The government doesn’t want to talk about amnesty but I think it can’t be skipped,” he said. “What should matter is how amnesty should be managed.”

General Ekkachai Srivilas, director of the Office of Peace and Governance of King Prachadipok Institute, thought that the papers should consider more military roles in the political landscape. “These kind of reform principles have been talked over and over for years but hardly a thing was practised accordingly,” Ekkachai said. “I also wonder why the government has just brought this up after almost three years in office. It would also be better if the premier would rely on other sources rather than a single person [in issuing the guidelines].”