Reform and reconciliation are often mentioned
in the same sentence. That's most likely because a lot of people believe, or
hope, that the two things can go hand in hand, or at least one can lead to the
other.
These
two words form the most convenient response when you are asked what should be
done to solve the Thai crisis. "Let's reform the country and bring back
peace," the embattled Pheu Thai administration insisted before its
collapse. Now, the National Council for Peace and Order is embarking on the
same mission.
Add the
Democrat Party, the "whistle mobs" and the red shirts and we will see
that everyone in Thailand basically wants the same things. But here's the
problem: What if reform cannot bring about reconciliation and vice versa? A
bolder question is: What if reform and reconciliation stand in each other's
way? These are questions that often get sidestepped. They have always been the
elephant in our room, whether it's a "democratic" room or one
supervised by coup leaders.
Thailand's
political complexities aside, the two words' simple meanings can clash. Reform
means drastic changes so that perceived flaws can be eliminated. Reconciliation
generally requires willingness to accept the flaws or imperfections of
"the other side". Do lenient, considerate changes constitute a
"reform"? Is it "reconciliation" if one side is required to
give more and take less than the other?
General
Prayuth Chan-ocha's coup was the easy part. When a husband and wife are on the
verge of killing each other, the police intervene. The difficult bit has to do
with the question "What's next?" What can the police say to a badly estranged
couple who have come to hate each other's guts and are never in doubt as to who
is right and who is dead wrong?
And
that's just one angry and prejudiced couple. Can a nation divided into two
ideological camps with apparently irreconcilable differences be truly reunited?
They say democracy was invented to deal with such differences, but what if
democracy itself - or how it should be - is the crux of the disagreement?
Prayuth's task is gargantuan, not to mention that one side views him as biased.
Before
he seized power, Thailand was rocked by the question of whether it should have
an election before reform or vice versa. The Pheu Thai government grappled with
reform (proposed constitutional amendments) and reconciliation (the amnesty
agenda) and both things blew up in its face. Post-coup, Thailand is being
condemned by the West despite pledges to improve politics and bring back
harmony. As we can see, our big problems have revolved around seemingly wrong
timing of "reform" and "reconciliation".
Rightly
or wrongly, one side's proclaimed "reform" or
"reconciliation" efforts are never trusted by the other camp. The
bottom line for Pheu Thai and the red shirts is that "reform" must
reflect total renunciation of a coup and unconditional respect for the people's
choice. Without that, reform is just a "conspiracy" to deny Thais
their democratic mandate.
Meanwhile,
the other side's perceived "reform" features absolute intolerance of
corruption and decisive and fearless checks and balances.
Can
both camps reach a compromise, albeit reconciliation? Let's get back to the
husband-and-wife analogy. If he said "Sorry, baby, I was wrong, too"
and kissed her, and she did the same, then peace would return to their home.
Another scenario has them wait until the police turn their backs so the fight
can be resumed. Take your pick of which possibility is more likely.
A most
intriguing thing in Thailand's "reconciliation" and
"reform" saga occurred after the 2011 election.
It was
a time that, ironically, clashing ideologies co-existed reluctantly but
effectively. The ballot box was left to rule on who should lead Thailand and
the checks and balances kept the powerful brother of the new prime minister out
of the country. Corruption was not tolerated and the democratic principle of
respecting the people's choice was prevailing. It was awkward. There was
constant tension. But both camps' ultimate arguments mattered. "Our
vote" mattered. Caution that "our vote" must never be
"abused" mattered.
As many
things have gone wrong since then, our best hope now rests on whether most
people realise that genuine reconciliation is the ultimate type of reform. True
reconciliation, after all, requires a drastic change in attitude - and that is
the willingness to admit that one's own flaws contribute to the problem. In
other words, the only way for reform and reconciliation to co-exist now is for
the former to come from within so the latter can materialise. That is the most
difficult change of all but also a challenge no Thai can avoid.
Tulsathit
Taptim
Business & Investment Opportunities
Saigon Business Corporation Pte Ltd (SBC) is incorporated
in Singapore since 1994.
No comments:
Post a Comment