Both sides at fault for lack of progress in 2012

Avudh Panananda

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The debate on charter change and reconciliation remains inconclusive as 2012 draws to a close, and next year will likely see more of the same with a worrisome prospect of intensified conflict.

The ruling Pheu Thai and the opposition Democrat parties are equally at fault on two counts - for putting the country on the edge of a political cliff, and for refusing to work together on mending fences.

The fate of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra is a bone of contention between the government and the opposition, sending ripple effects through the pro- and anti-Thaksin camps and the red and yellow shirts.

Unless all sides can agree to either confront and flush out the issues involving Thaksin, or to bury the hatchet, the country will see no end to the political animosity.

Since 2004, Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva has been crusading to pin the blame on Thaksin for all that has gone wrong in Thai politics.

Even though Abhisit may be correct, he has, unfortunately, let his assessment of Thaksin cloud his better judgement on what he can do to advance the country instead of getting stuck in turmoil.

In his latest war cry, he has called for a boycott of the referendum that is expected to precede the rewriting of the Constitution.

Before the government could even outline the details of its plan to seek the people's consent to amend the charter, Abhisit rejected the idea out of hand, just because he suspected an ulterior motive to rescue Thaksin from his legal predicament.

The New Year holiday should allow time for Abhisit and his fellow Democrats to reflect and map out a sound strategy on the referendum vote.

In 2007 the red and yellow shirts cited different reasons for boycotting the charter draft. And their efforts were proven in vain. In contrast, the Democrats campaigned hard to put the country back on the path to democracy, and succeeded.

The participation of voters in Democrat strongholds proved crucial for the smooth power transition from the junta to an elected government.

If and when the referendum is held on charter change, the Democrats should emulate their own success story, instead of repeating the failure involving the red and yellow shirts.

Should the opposition lawmakers find charter change objectionable, they ought to try and defeat it rather than stage a boycott.

During the upcoming long holiday, the government too should reflect on what has gone wrong in its efforts to improve on the political system and bring about national reconciliation.

Throughout the year, the government completely failed to make headway in pacifying its opponents. The persistence of the political rough patch can be attributed to the suspicion that charter change and reconciliation are pretexts to pave the way for granting amnesty for Thaksin to return home

As the government is preparing to hold the referendum around the middle of next year, tensions will likely increase if there is no effective way to dispel doubts on Thaksin as the main beneficiary of charter change.

Instead of deflecting whatever problems are hurled her way, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra should find a way to engage Abhisit in an open-hearted dialogue designed to move beyond Thaksin and move the country forward.

-- The Nation 2012-12-21

In the last administration, Abhisit led a neutral administration.

What kicked it all off was Thaksin's trial and him setting the red dogs of hell on Bangkok.

Yingluck's administration has been so self centred as to defy belief not to mention its ineptness and corruption.

If anyone can explain the changes to be made to the charter then it will make voting clear. The proposed question is a joke - would you like us to rewrite the constitution? Nonsense.

>I don't buy into this notion of political stress, even to the point where they borrow the USA terminology of a "political cliff" of sorts. There is no more political stress in Thailand than any other Democracy, in spite of all the noise. Also defining the two sides of the political divide by their "group affinity colours". I really wish the media would stop that, and use political descriptors reflective of the political context.

>This article is certainly correct when informing about Abhisit's Thaksin fixation. But he is just reflecting his political constituancy. It was good that in the last election, Thaksin was "front and center". The PTP made no secret of his association with both the PTP and the election. The voters also knew this, and voted accordingly. This puts the Opposition in a difficult position, in their ongoing "demonize Thaksin to validate the coup" agenda.

>I don't understand the success characterization of the Democrats with respect to affirming Democracy by this writer. That is a spurious claim at best. Until Mr. Abhisit wins an national, popular election. Gaining power via Parliamentary procedures does not apply. This in spite of those who wish to cast it within the realm of Parliamentary normalcy. Those in the know, know what happened.

>Suggesting that Yingluck can "Pacify Opponents" or get them off their Thaksin fixation, is a totally unrealistic expectation. That will never happen, and one can be thankful for Electoral Democracy to keep things organized. The best that one can expect, is if this Opposition decides to broaden their political base through a strategy designed to achieve electoral success. This will need to begin with some sort of leadership review. Mr. Abhisit has a lot of political baggage with which to try and mount another electoral challenge. (78)

Edited December 21, 201213 yr by righteous

How many times are reporters going to write about this same topic?

Must be a slow news day in Thailand.

As soon as people realize the current Gov't does not care about reconciliation,

the better of they will be. PTP is b eing run by Thaksin, and all he cares about

is himself and being allowed to return with a get out of jail free card

Come one back Thaksin, IMO someone will put a cap in your kiester ...

Then we can all watch the bonfire at the WAT in CM

Righteous is correct when he says Pheua Thai campaigned with Thaksin at the forefront, indeed Chalerm stressed the necessity of it if they were to win.

And therein lies the problem, for Pheua thai are nothing without Thaksin, yet 11 million voters who voted for the Democrats hate him intensely, seeing him correctly as a would be dictator, devoid of any scruples.

So this impasse will remain until Thaksin is out of the picture.

>I don't buy into this notion of political stress, even to the point where they borrow the USA terminology of a "political cliff" of sorts. There is no more political stress in Thailand than any other Democracy, in spite of all the noise. Also defining the two sides of the political divide by their "group affinity colours". I really wish the media would stop that, and use political descriptors reflective of the political context.

>This article is certainly correct when informing about Abhisit's Thaksin fixation. But he is just reflecting his political constituancy. It was good that in the last election, Thaksin was "front and center". The PTP made no secret of his association with both the PTP and the election. The voters also knew this, and voted accordingly. This puts the Opposition in a difficult position, in their ongoing "demonize Thaksin to validate the coup" agenda.

>I don't understand the success characterization of the Democrats with respect to affirming Democracy by this writer. That is a spurious claim at best. Until Mr. Abhisit wins an national, popular election. Gaining power via Parliamentary procedures does not apply. This in spite of those who wish to cast it within the realm of Parliamentary normalcy. Those in the know, know what happened.

>Suggesting that Yingluck can "Pacify Opponents" or get them off their Thaksin fixation, is a totally unrealistic expectation. That will never happen, and one can be thankful for Electoral Democracy to keep things organized. The best that one can expect, is if this Opposition decides to broaden their political base through a strategy designed to achieve electoral success. This will need to begin with some sort of leadership review. Mr. Abhisit has a lot of political baggage with which to try and mount another electoral challenge. (78)

There is only one poster on here who doesn't know the meaning of the word "constituency" and that is PPD.

Must be contageous

>I don't buy into this notion of political stress, even to the point where they borrow the USA terminology of a "political cliff" of sorts. There is no more political stress in Thailand than any other Democracy, in spite of all the noise. Also defining the two sides of the political divide by their "group affinity colours". I really wish the media would stop that, and use political descriptors reflective of the political context.

>This article is certainly correct when informing about Abhisit's Thaksin fixation. But he is just reflecting his political constituancy. It was good that in the last election, Thaksin was "front and center". The PTP made no secret of his association with both the PTP and the election. The voters also knew this, and voted accordingly. This puts the Opposition in a difficult position, in their ongoing "demonize Thaksin to validate the coup" agenda.

>I don't understand the success characterization of the Democrats with respect to affirming Democracy by this writer. That is a spurious claim at best. Until Mr. Abhisit wins an national, popular election. Gaining power via Parliamentary procedures does not apply. This in spite of those who wish to cast it within the realm of Parliamentary normalcy. Those in the know, know what happened.

>Suggesting that Yingluck can "Pacify Opponents" or get them off their Thaksin fixation, is a totally unrealistic expectation. That will never happen, and one can be thankful for Electoral Democracy to keep things organized. The best that one can expect, is if this Opposition decides to broaden their political base through a strategy designed to achieve electoral success. This will need to begin with some sort of leadership review. Mr. Abhisit has a lot of political baggage with which to try and mount another electoral challenge. (78)

"It was good that in the last election, Thaksin was "front and center"."

It was also illegal under electoral law, but <deleted>, Thaksin and his proxy parties has never had much time for electoral rules. Hence the push to dispense with any real penalties for breaking them.

I am quite prepared to welcome Thaksin back, as long as he is prepared to face all charges against him. Those that say he should be whitewashed seem to forget the latest charge, the theft of almost 10 billion baht from the people of Thailand. I know it's not a large amount compared to his other thievings, and part of his nature so he shouldn't really be held accountable, but some obstinate part of me believes that it is foolish to ask a thief to hold your wallet for safe-keeping.

BTW those family members and cronies who assisted him in his raping of this country, perjured themselves to deflect prosecution, and profited from his venality are equally culpable and deserve no less jail time, no matter what prestigious political positions they hold or have held.

If charter change had anything to do with reconciliation there would have been progress made.

But all sides know it hasn't...... ergo no progress.

i think any return of Mr "T" and any court case would be a white wash, same old problem, however if allowed to run free, he probably would develop a bad case of lead poisoning, end of problem and the start of another, best solution "T" stay away , let sleeping dogs lie.

As a buddhist country I think the politicians should know and practice at least a little bit of the lessons of the Buddha. As far as reconciliation is concerned the following words might be remembered:

“Let none find fault with others;

let none see the omissions and commissions of others.

But let one see one’s own acts, done and undone.

- Dhammapada v.50”

At the moment it seems like the opposite of these words is the common practice.

Apart from this I think a reconciliation on the polical level can only be very superficial and not change anything about the real cause of the devide, the gap between the rich and the poor. But it might be a first step if the politicians among themselves agreed on a program of closing the gap.

>I don't buy into this notion of political stress, even to the point where they borrow the USA terminology of a "political cliff" of sorts. There is no more political stress in Thailand than any other Democracy, in spite of all the noise. Also defining the two sides of the political divide by their "group affinity colours". I really wish the media would stop that, and use political descriptors reflective of the political context.

>This article is certainly correct when informing about Abhisit's Thaksin fixation. But he is just reflecting his political constituancy. It was good that in the last election, Thaksin was "front and center". The PTP made no secret of his association with both the PTP and the election. The voters also knew this, and voted accordingly. This puts the Opposition in a difficult position, in their ongoing "demonize Thaksin to validate the coup" agenda.

>I don't understand the success characterization of the Democrats with respect to affirming Democracy by this writer. That is a spurious claim at best. Until Mr. Abhisit wins an national, popular election. Gaining power via Parliamentary procedures does not apply. This in spite of those who wish to cast it within the realm of Parliamentary normalcy. Those in the know, know what happened.

>Suggesting that Yingluck can "Pacify Opponents" or get them off their Thaksin fixation, is a totally unrealistic expectation. That will never happen, and one can be thankful for Electoral Democracy to keep things organized. The best that one can expect, is if this Opposition decides to broaden their political base through a strategy designed to achieve electoral success. This will need to begin with some sort of leadership review. Mr. Abhisit has a lot of political baggage with which to try and mount another electoral challenge. (78)

"It was good that in the last election, Thaksin was "front and center"."

It was also illegal under electoral law, but <deleted>, Thaksin and his proxy parties has never had much time for electoral rules. Hence the push to dispense with any real penalties for breaking them.

I am quite prepared to welcome Thaksin back, as long as he is prepared to face all charges against him. Those that say he should be whitewashed seem to forget the latest charge, the theft of almost 10 billion baht from the people of Thailand. I know it's not a large amount compared to his other thievings, and part of his nature so he shouldn't really be held accountable, but some obstinate part of me believes that it is foolish to ask a thief to hold your wallet for safe-keeping.

BTW those family members and cronies who assisted him in his raping of this country, perjured themselves to deflect prosecution, and profited from his venality are equally culpable and deserve no less jail time, no matter what prestigious political positions they hold or have held.

10 Billion Baht? Where / how do you arrive at this figure?

Quote from story

"Even though Abhisit may be correct, he has, unfortunately, let his assessment of Thaksin cloud his better judgement on what he can do to advance the country instead of getting stuck in turmoil."

How can Abhisit not be wrapped up in Turnmoil? He is doing his patriotic duty trying to protect his country from destruction and is being bashed by the Thaksin mob for it. It's no secret that Pheu Thai is only interested white washing their boss. Pheu Thai has no clue how to run a country and are raping Thailand for everything she has.

As far as I see it, Abhisit has been the only one to step up to the plate and challenge Pheu Thai's actions. He's the only one with big enough ba##s to take on Thaksin. A real hero in my mind. Only if and when Thaksin departs from the political scene can Thailand come to grips with moving the economy forward.