Kanit Commission: Truth Must Come Before Amnesty: Thai Talk

THAI TALK

Kanit Commission: Truth must come before amnesty

By Suthichai Yoon

The Nation

The Independent Truth for Reconciliation Commission (ITRC) under well-respected former public prosecutor Kanit na Nakhon may be the only legacy from the Abhisit government that the new Yingluck administration accepts with open approval.

That isn't necessarily a blessing. In fact, Kanit made it clear that he would have to keep a proper distance from the new government "because we have to position ourselves appropriately to ensure our impartiality and independence".

If the Yingluck government hopes that the ITRC will promptly raise the issue of "amnesty" in order to fulfil the Pheu Thai Party's election promise of national reconciliation, that would be a major miscalculation.

Permanent Justice Secretary Kittpong Kitayaraks, a member of the ITRC, made it plain last week in the first public statement after the July 3 election that "truth must come before amnesty".

He was in fact emphatic that "the government and Thai society as a whole shouldn't be talking about offering amnesty to anyone, because the victims from recent violent incidents have yet to get systematic assistance and detainees have yet to get fair treatment…"

In other words, the ITRC is sending out a clear message: National reconciliation can only happen if the authorities and society as a whole set the right priorities.

Yingluck, the incoming prime minister, appears to have struck a positive chord by announcing even during her campaign that national reconciliation had to be navigated by non-partisan parties - and that the "Dr Kanit Commission" that was appointed by the Democrat-led coalition government had built up sufficient credibility to continue its task of "finding the facts to map out a national reconciliation road map" even under the Pheu Thai-controlled coalition government.

Kanit, however, is realistic about the challenge of his job. "The ITRC is but a small group of people with no authority. We can't summon anybody to testify," he told me during an interview last week.

But that, perhaps, is a blessing in itself. Kanit, who left Thai Rak Thai Party after it was founded by Thaksin Shinawatra after two years, said: "The fact that we don't have any power may be the reason why we can do our job more effectively. The public may trust us more that way."

Inevitably, the question will emerge as to why both Thaksin and Yingluck have publicly endorsed his commission's work so far despite the fact that it was appointed by the Democrat-led government.

"That's because we were adhering to the principle of justice and that created trust. We didn't have authority but we did gain very good cooperation from all parties concerned. Now that things have come this far, any party that refused to work with us would be seen as the odd man out," Kanit said.

But will Thaksin's shadow be haunting his commission's work? The ITRC's chief is emphatic that he has had no contact with the former premier in exile abroad. "Since I left the Thai Rak Thai Party, I haven't talked to Khun Thaksin at all. He has no influence over my work whatsoever," he insists.

Kanit says his work and Thaksin's career haven't converged at any point. "He is in the political field. Ours is to help solve the public's problems."

But there have been suggestions from certain quarters in the Pheu Thai Party that the new government, while publicly supporting the commission's role, may name some new committee members to "help with" his work. Kanit of course realises what that would mean to his image should it happen.

The answer is a polite but firm "Thanks but no thanks."

"If the new government wants to lend me a hand, it's better to help in other areas, such as trying to facilitate our work and letting us work independently," the 74-year-old veteran legal expert says.

Perhaps the most sensitive issue for the ITRC would be how to handle any political pressure to come up with an amnesty bill that would, one way or another, benefit Thaksin. That could rekindle the serious conflict in Thai society yet again.

Kanit, in his usual cool and eloquent manner, explains: "Maybe most Thais, when they talk about amnesty, relate that to what coup leaders did in the past. They immediately enacted laws to pardon themselves after staging a military take-over. But in the national reconciliation process, that's a different story altogether…"

As Kittipong, another ITRC board member, put it succinctly: "The commission's task isn't only to find out who did what to whom, but why we did these things to each other…and how to prevent violent conflicts from recurring in the future."

Kittipong points out that the official name of the commission is The Independent Truth for (not and) Reconciliation Commission. The emphasis isn't just on "independent"

- the difference between "for" and "and" in the title is very significant indeed.

That could decide whether the commission eventually lives up to the expectations of the public. It's a subtle but substantial line between success and failure, peaceful co-existence and violent confrontation.

-- The Nation 2011-07-14