Our Few Good Men Need Clear Thai Mandates On Vital Missions

[webfact]

THAI TALK

Our few good men need clear mandates on vital missions

By Suthichai Yoon

The Nation

While it's not clear what the exact mandate is, the Kanit na Nakhon Truth and Reconciliation Commission will have a three-year term. That's what Premier Abhisit Vejjajiva has said. And that promises to add more confusion to the overall picture of the country's "peace process".

This government's term ends in December next year, or no longer than 18 months from now. It is almost certain that a new election will take place no later than a year from now. So, the peace process will still be there when the new government takes office.

A new government will want its own brand of "reconciliation" - unless Abhisit returns to power with the same mindset, that is. Otherwise, the "reform" and "reconciliation" committees to be chaired by Anand Panyarachun and Prawase Wasi will be overstaying their usefulness if they think in terms of a three-year timeline. Twelve months is the longest period within which they could operate with any credibility and effectiveness, if at all.

It's even more confusing when you consider the fact that the premier earlier said these panels will come up with their respective proposed action plans in six months. Remember, he did say he was offering those plans as "New Year gifts" for the Thai people.

Now, the timeline has been extended to three years, and nobody is quite sure where the "reform" and "reconciliation" missions of these committees meet. Already, Anand and Prawase have said reform and reconciliation are two different animals. But it seems that Kanit is determined to work on both "seeking the truth" and "achieving reconciliation" in the same process.

What's clear so far is that the Cabinet has set up two committees, one led by Anand, and the other by Dr Prawase, with a three-year budget of Bt600 million. The first is known as the Reform Strategy Committee and the other is called the Reform Assembly Committee.

Some commentators have cited South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission as a guideline to what the Kanit Commission may resemble. But there are major political, social and racial differences between the two that should be taken into serious consideration.

South Africa's TRC was a "court-like restorative justice body", set up after the abolition of apartheid. Victims of human rights violations were asked to give statements about their painful experiences. Some were also picked for public hearings so that their stories could be made known to the country as a whole. At the same time, perpetrators of violence were also given the chance to make their cases. They were also asked to testify - and request amnesty from both civil and criminal prosecution.

This is where the Kanit Commission's mandate departs from the South African model. A significant feature of the TRC was the fact that it was empowered to grant amnesty to those who had committed abuses during the apartheid era, "as long as the crimes were politically motivated, proportionate and there was full disclosure by the person seeking amnesty".

Also highly significant was the fact that in order to avoid so-called "victor's justice", no side was exempt from appearing before the commission. All parties concerned were allowed to submit reports of human rights violations and amnesty applications. As a result, 849 people were granted amnesty and a total of 5,392 people were refused amnesty - out of a total of 7,112 petitions.

The commission presented its final report on October 28, 1998, after three years of work. The report condemned both sides for committing atrocities. While the commission's work was generally praised, there were also flaws, as to be expected. Critics say the TRC has failed to achieve genuine reconciliation between the black and white communities. A 1998 study by South Africa's Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation concluded: "Most believed that justice was a prerequisite for reconciliation rather than an alternative to it, and that the TRC had been weighted in favour of the perpetrators of abuse"

But then, the BBC described such criticisms as having stemmed from a "basic misunderstanding" about the TRC's mandate, which was to uncover the truth about past abuse, using amnesty as a mechanism "rather than to punish past crimes".

Kanit has made an interesting statement more or less to that effect: "My commission is tasked with the responsibility of finding out the truth. But our job isn't to send anyone to jail."

Truth, if it is fair and just, should bring about reconciliation. But since the commission isn't empowered to consider amnesty for anyone involved in the violent clashes, the "reconciliation" aspect of Kanit's panel will at best be stillborn.

Unless their mandates are clearly spelt out and potential confusion cleared up, we run the risk of engaging the country's remaining "few good men" in a desperate and futile exercise that will only add to their frustration and disillusionment over the nation's future.

Thailand is fast running short of good and trustworthy men. Don't desecrate them with ambiguous missions that get us nowhere.

-- The Nation 2010-07-01

[HAL9000]

"Thailand is fast running short of good and trustworthy men."

Are good people really in that short of supply?

I remember back home we used to joke that, "It's hard to find good help these days", but I don't know that it's fair to the population to tell them that the good are far and few between.

[Pib]

Quote: "A new government will want its own brand of "reconciliation" - unless Abhisit returns to power with the same mindset, that is. Otherwise, the "reform" and "reconciliation" committees to be chaired by Anand Panyarachun and Prawase Wasi will be overstaying their usefulness if they think in terms of a three-year timeline. Twelve months is the longest period within which they could operate with any credibility and effectiveness, if at all. End quote.

Amen to above!!!

[jackdawson]

Thailand is fast running short of good and trustworthy men

good thing this is counterbalanced by the large supply of "good and trustworthy" thai women

[rubl]

Kanit has made an interesting statement more or less to that effect: "My commission is tasked with the responsibility of finding out the truth. But our job isn't to send anyone to jail."

Truth, if it is fair and just, should bring about reconciliation. But since the commission isn't empowered to consider amnesty for anyone involved in the violent clashes, the "reconciliation" aspect of Kanit's panel will at best be stillborn.

Something about these two paragraphs is not quiet right. How to match 'no power to consider amnesty will make reconciliation stillborn' with 'our job isn't to send anyone to jail'. A contradiction ?

Edited July 1, 2010 by rubl