Negotiated solution the best way out of debilitating political impasse

[webfact]

Negotiated solution the best way out of debilitating political impasse
Hataikarn Treesuwan,
Pakorn Peungnetr,
Somroutai Sapsomboon
The Nation

Peace will never come before talks. But successful talks need the consent of all parties.

BANGKOK: -- It appears that Thailand has again come to the point of no return. The political stalemate seems to have hit a dead end, as the two sides are showing no signs of stepping back during the almost four months of anti-government rallies. Although there were some meetings between both sides, they failed to reach any agreement.

Like the latest effort initiated by the caretaker Yingluck government to hold talks, it was immediately shot down by the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC).

Former deputy prime minister Wissanu Kruangam last weekend revealed that he was in the process of attempting to broker negotiations between the government and PDRC. But he refused to elaborate, saying he feared the government would move in an opposite direction if more details of the talks were exposed.

A key leader in the anti-government protest yesterday told The Nation that the PDRC would not join the dialogue as now the protesters are gaining an advantage over the government.

"It was a one-sided attempt [to hold talks]. Why do we need such talks? The government and the premier [Yingluck Shinawatra] are facing indictment by independent agencies and also protests from rice farmers," he said. Yingluck is being probed by the anti-graft agency for dereliction of duty related to the government rice-pledging scheme. If found guilty, she will be forced by law to suspend herself from the PM's post.

However, a source from an intelligence agency confirmed that talks had taken place at least twice with the latest one on Friday or Saturday.

At least five people reportedly joined the talks. They were a senior figure, a retired Army general, PDRC leader Suthep Thaugsuban's brother-in-law Niphon Promphan, Wissanu, and ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra's close aide Wattana Muangsuk.

An initial agreement on the table reportedly was the appointment of an interim government with a non-elected PM, the source said.

If all sides agree on the concession, they will help soften the legal consequences to Yingluck from the probe into alleged irregularities in the rice-pledging scheme and to the protesters from insurrection accusations, he said.

However, Thaksin and his Pheu Thai Party did not completely accept the proposal. Instead he sent some conditions back, the source said.

Another source from the Pheu Thai Party admitted that the ruling party had asked Wissanu to act as the mediator for the talks because the government now realised that if the political impasse is not resolved it would definitely become an economic problem.

Wissanu was chosen because he has the gift of the gab, is trusted by the monarchy, has good relations with veteran politicians, is a leading businessmen, and is a "superb" legal guru, the source said.

"The big problem today is the difference in legal interpretations. So we need a legal expert like him to help explain issues and convince the stakeholders," he said.

Wissanu sits on a committee of the Council of State chaired by veteran legal expert Meechai Ruechuphan. The council has the greatest influence on the deci-

sion-making of the Yingluck government. But it seems that Wissanu decided to end his role as he thought the talks should have been kept a secret until the deal was done.

Wattana, another key man in the talks, was a negotiator tasked with convincing the Democrat Party to join the election race. The negotiatiion was done via the Election Commission.

The Pheu Thai even accepted the proposal from the Democrats to postpone the February 2 election. But Wattana's role was shot down by other factions inside Pheu Thai.

However, the leaders of Pheu Thai will still push for the talks. They hope another key player, Niphon, will help to make the talks a done deal.

He said at least all sides agreed with the national reform proposal of a reform network co-founded by Kittipong Kittiyarak, permanent secretary of the Justice Ministry.

"Although the government and the PDRC showed their extreme stances, we share one thing in common. It is national reform. And the matter could draw the leaders of the government and the PDRC to sit and talk at this table," he said.


-- The Nation 2014-02-13

[millwall_fan]

With the courts now slowly strangling the government and set to achieve what months of protests failed to achieve, why would the PDRC be interested in negotiating. The courts will hand them power on a plate as they did in 2008. Reform is desperately needed in this country - of the composition of the judiciary.

[iancnx]

Reform is needed across the board. A new emerging party will I hope be born. The dinosaurs can exit left and ponder over the despicable legacy they have left for today's oblivious youth.

[h90]

With the courts now slowly strangling the government and set to achieve what months of protests failed to achieve, why would the PDRC be interested in negotiating. The courts will hand them power on a plate as they did in 2008. Reform is desperately needed in this country - of the composition of the judiciary.

2008 Abhisit was voted to be PM from Parliament not the courts. Because the coalition partner shifted as the Thaksin party had no majority themself.....

Nothing to do with the courts. They could have also voted for another Thaksin crony.

[mightyatom]

No more need for negotiations.

The PDRC just like anyone else including myself see that there is now mechanisms in place which are automatically set to blow Yingluck and the PTP out of power, never to return.

This idiot government would need to pull one HUGE rabbit out of a hat to cling onto power. The die is already cast and we are approaching the end game.

Even if the PTP and Suthep became the best of friends tomorrow, the damage has been already done.

The government if anything need to negotiate with their ex-voters, and without massively damaging populist policies, this is a seemingly impossible task.

They are done.

[tingtongteesood]

With the courts now slowly strangling the government and set to achieve what months of protests failed to achieve, why would the PDRC be interested in negotiating. The courts will hand them power on a plate as they did in 2008. Reform is desperately needed in this country - of the composition of the judiciary.

The protests didn't fail. If not for the protestors, Taksin would be here dictating as we speak ! The protests have succeeded spectacularly. The 'amnesty' to whitewash the crimes of Taksin and his cronies was blocked, the criminal 'government' has been brought to it's knees and the current crop of court action is because of the protests. Had the protests not happened, it would be business as usual with the happy dictator in charge debating where to hide 40% of the 2 trillion baht loan ( conjecture but I believe it to be true ).... Good on you Suteb, well done PDRC and keep the pressure on till they either 'Do a Thaksin' and run away or go to jail where they belong !

Edited February 13, 2014 by tingtongteesood

[Crushdepth]

With the courts now slowly strangling the government and set to achieve what months of protests failed to achieve, why would the PDRC be interested in negotiating. The courts will hand them power on a plate as they did in 2008. Reform is desperately needed in this country - of the composition of the judiciary.

The government keeps getting hammered by the courts is because they flout the law. Crying "judicial bias" makes no sense when the losers are so obviously and wantonly corrupt.

[bunnaag]

Peace will never come before Thaksin does not declare that he will not any more request his money and political power back and will never come back to Thailand and that he will NEVER do.With him alive and still power hungry there will be no peace in Thailand.

[icommunity]

Yesterday, The Nation had an article entitled “Only an election, not secret deals, can bring peace. “ Today, they have two articles – 1. “Talks are the only way out of limbo for Pheu Thai “ and 2. “Negotiated solution the best way out of debilitating political impasse”

The first one seems to be trying to “reason” with PTP that negotiation will get them out of “limbo” and that it is the only way”. However, it is also seem as a force demand by the ‘old elite’ power – unless you accept our demands or you will be in trouble.

The second one, touched on ‘negotiated solution’ seems to be a compromised short of being a ‘secret deals’.

IMO, based on what were written or reported on these articles, I don’t think we will have a sustainable, enforceable ‘negotiated solution’. My opinion is that if the administration and enforcement of rule of law continue to be seen as not equal and without fear and favour, and democracy (of which election is a part) is not practiced consistently and persistently, no solution is sustainable and enforceable.

My proposal, even it is proposed through this forum, is that ONLY people with real power and influence from the power base of the ‘old elite’ and the ‘emerging power’ of the people should come together to talk. Forget about using or mentioning names like PTP, DEM, PRDC, RS/UDD, political parties and anti-government and pro-government groups.

When come together for talk, it is to focus on seeking a solution to unite the country – IMO, in danger of splitting into three different independence States is real, not on making demands to get whomever out of ‘limbo’.

With the amnesty bill – modified from the original one, ‘murdered’, a new one might be necessary. It could be proposed as a ‘unity bill’. However, it will not work if any political groups propose it. My suggestion is for retired members of Privy Council or retired Generals of military who are not currently associated with any political parties, anti, and pro-government groups to propose - as a group not individual.

An interim Government – if there is a way to get it legally materialized, should specified its tenure, its focus and the role of lawmakers in parliament.

Forgiveness is hard and it begins with an individuals. Without love there can be no forgiveness – love yourself as a person. Without forgiveness, there can be no reconciliation - with yourself first. Without reconciliation, there can be no healing. Without healing, there can be no wellbeing – wholeness, oneness, harmony, unity. Without unity there can be no positive force to move us forward and see a bright future - for individual, groups and the country. We will be struggling in the midst of destructive forces waiting to destroy us.

[Crushdepth]

Yesterday, The Nation had an article entitled “Only an election, not secret deals, can bring peace. “ Today, they have two articles – 1. “Talks are the only way out of limbo for Pheu Thai “ and 2. “Negotiated solution the best way out of debilitating political impasse”

The first one seems to be trying to “reason” with PTP that negotiation will get them out of “limbo” and that it is the only way”. However, it is also seem as a force demand by the ‘old elite’ power – unless you accept our demands or you will be in trouble.

The second one, touched on ‘negotiated solution’ seems to be a compromised short of being a ‘secret deals’.

IMO, based on what were written or reported on these articles, I don’t think we will have a sustainable, enforceable ‘negotiated solution’. My opinion is that if the administration and enforcement of rule of law continue to be seen as not equal and without fear and favour, and democracy (of which election is a part) is not practiced consistently and persistently, no solution is sustainable and enforceable.

My proposal, even it is proposed through this forum, is that ONLY people with real power and influence from the power base of the ‘old elite’ and the ‘emerging power’ of the people should come together to talk. Forget about using or mentioning names like PTP, DEM, PRDC, RS/UDD, political parties and anti-government and pro-government groups.

When come together for talk, it is to focus on seeking a solution to unite the country – IMO, in danger of splitting into three different independence States is real, not on making demands to get whomever out of ‘limbo’.

With the amnesty bill – modified from the original one, ‘murdered’, a new one might be necessary. It could be proposed as a ‘unity bill’. However, it will not work if any political groups propose it. My suggestion is for retired members of Privy Council or retired Generals of military who are not currently associated with any political parties, anti, and pro-government groups to propose - as a group not individual.

An interim Government – if there is a way to get it legally materialized, should specified its tenure, its focus and the role of lawmakers in parliament.

Forgiveness is hard and it begins with an individuals. Without love there can be no forgiveness – love yourself as a person. Without forgiveness, there can be no reconciliation - with yourself first. Without reconciliation, there can be no healing. Without healing, there can be no wellbeing – wholeness, oneness, harmony, unity. Without unity there can be no positive force to move us forward and see a bright future - for individual, groups and the country. We will be struggling in the midst of destructive forces waiting to destroy us.

I had to slap my face a few times when I found myself agreeing with most of this

The bit I don't agree on is that it should be the elite(s) that get together and talk. What Thailand needs IMHO is for some grass roots, independent political parties to emerge that actually try to represent their constituencies. By that I mean that they aren't proxies of or sold out to influential figures, but are "genuinely democratic" in that they draw their power from the electorate.

Basically, Thailand needs to shove both Pheua Thai and the Democrats off a cliff and start voting for independent parties that aren't part of the existing, hopelessly broken system.

I don't know where such parties are going to come from and I won't hold my breath, but I suspect it will be a group of pissed off redshirts that put something like this together first.

[Scamper]

" However, Thaksin and his Pheu Thai Party did not completely accept the proposal. Instead he sent some conditions back, the source said. "

And that's the problem with all of this. Thaksin is the reason why the people are on the streets. Reform will only have meaning for the people if Thaksin is not a factor in any future administration. Thaksin is at the heart and centre of the whole political argument. He's why the administration is in such a mess. So how could either his input or conditions be acceptable ? This article has been written by three people. Collectively, is it possible to miss such a key, fundamental flaw like this ? But it touches upon one truth - the administration is truly finished from a judicial standpoint. The PDRC don't actually have to do anything.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Scamper

[gamini]

With the courts now slowly strangling the government and set to achieve what months of protests failed to achieve, why would the PDRC be interested in negotiating. The courts will hand them power on a plate as they did in 2008. Reform is desperately needed in this country - of the composition of the judiciary.

2008 Abhisit was voted to be PM from Parliament not the courts. Because the coalition partner shifted as the Thaksin party had no majority themself.....

Nothing to do with the courts. They could have also voted for another Thaksin crony.

Correct Abhisit was elected in a fair and transparent democratic process. Same way as most governments came to power. MPs had the choice of Abhisit or a PTP policeman. The military had nothing to do with his election. However Taksin and his supporters launched a massive disinformation campaign against the government.

[millwall_fan]

With the courts now slowly strangling the government and set to achieve what months of protests failed to achieve, why would the PDRC be interested in negotiating. The courts will hand them power on a plate as they did in 2008. Reform is desperately needed in this country - of the composition of the judiciary.

2008 Abhisit was voted to be PM from Parliament not the courts. Because the coalition partner shifted as the Thaksin party had no majority themself.....

Nothing to do with the courts. They could have also voted for another Thaksin crony.

Correct Abhisit was elected in a fair and transparent democratic process. Same way as most governments came to power. MPs had the choice of Abhisit or a PTP policeman. The military had nothing to do with his election. However Taksin and his supporters launched a massive disinformation campaign against the government.

The judiciary fast tracked the legal case against the Peoples Power Party before they had prepared their defence and found against them and banned the party - the small parties changed sides in order to continue on their gravy train under Abhisit and Suthep - which they did. Abhisit came to power because the courts banned PPP. He never had a popular mandate.