Deep South Watch
[Note: A.= "Ajarn" = a Thai term used to denote a scholarly person or a person of academic standing]
Remark: This is a transcript of the recording of "Fah Vikrit Kanmueang Thai" ("Overcoming the Thai Political Crisis") that would soon be broadcasted on ThaiPBS Channel. The discussion panel included A. Prasit Meksoowan, Director of Baan Yaha School, Yala Province, Assist.Prof.Dr. Srisompob Jitpiromsri, Director of Deep South Watch, A. Ahmad Somboon Bualang, former member of the National Reconciliation Commission (NRC) and Mr. Lamai Managarn, representative of civil societies in the Deep South, with A. Hafiz Salae as the host of the program. The editors of DeepSouthWatch.org deem that the content is relevant to the Thai political crisis at present and makes an interesting reflection on the lessons learned from conflict in the Southern border provinces, thus hereby bring the transcript of the show for further distribution.
In the midst of the on-going political conflict, the violence and tension that exist at present are not a confrontation between 2 groups, nor a confrontation between the government and the UDD, but they are a confrontation between the UDD [and people] who have come out to oppose such phenomenon, thus causing fear that this would lead to another level of conflict, which is a civil war, a point that we do not wish to reach. The topic of today's forum will be on the exit for Thailand by relying on the lessons learned from the South. Our guests today are people who have worked on conflict in the South in many fields, whose insights may be useful towards proposing an exit for the current problem of conflict.
Host : First question, I would like to ask A. Srisompob, as the Directors of the Center for the Study of Conflict and Cultural Diversity as well as Deep South Watch, could you compare the similarities and differences between the situation in the South and in Bangkok?
A. Srisompob : I think that the main issue which caused conflict in the South, in comparison to the one in Bangkok, should be the issues of legitimacy of the state and democracy, as well as participation, are the main causes. There are issues of legitimacy of the state in managing the problem, special differences in terms of culture, religion, and history that are the strong point of the society in the South, management by the state that is still not in accordance with legitimacy, and acceptance of state power in managing the problem have caused a struggle, with exertion of pressure and destruction of special identity. The problem in the South is about the feelings of some of the people to belong to the majority in the area where there are struggles against the state, and democracy is still not fully implemented. There is also the issue of participation of the people and the rights of the people in solving their common problem.
Now, on this issue, if we connect it to the national-level ones, then we'll see that there are problems in the form of administration according to the '97 and the '07 constitution, the coup that happened, and the various forms of interest which has existed over the past 5-6 years. Thus there is a rejection that what has happened this time, the governmental administration system at the moment could be challenged as being unjust, coupled with the accumulated soial problems, the problem of gaps between classes, causing sentiments to build up.
The problem is not that of a particular group against the government, but it is a problem of classes, of the legitimacy of politics and the political and government systems which has existed. The issue is how to create true democracy, with legitimacy and justice. The things that happened have caused a movment, a struggle, a legitimacy in interpretation. One side says that the government is legitimate and good, while the other side disagrees, saying that it is illegitimate and not rightgeous, thus there are fightings and use of violence, whether by any particular side. Once there is the use of violence, there are escalation of hatred, causing rejection of each other, discontent of each other, and mutual hatred which can only become greater and greater among the protesters, those who are against the protest, the state side, or even the government itself.
Host : The issue of the South seems to be an issue of identity and history, while on the political conflict in the capital, it seems that the issue is structural when you look at its root.
A. Ahmad Somboon: I agree with Dr. Srisompob who has laid the foundation. If we look at the model of the Southern issue, it can be considered as a failure of the problem in Bangkok as well. I deem the Southern issue to be a failure because over the past 5-6 years, the government has been saying that it was going in the right direction, but the learning process of the villagers has gone far beyond that, in term of the struggle of certain groups who defied state authority. For example, a few days ago there was a bombing near the police. I think that this is an act of ignoring the problem of violence in Bangkok. One of the things that Bangkok people have not yet seen, but people in the Deep South see all the time, is that what the state has come to fix in the Deep South has not been in the right direction. Likewise with the troubles in Bangkok, people in Silom also do not like to see soldiers, because soldiers are a symbol of violence, just like the feeling of people in the Deep South.
This passivity is one of the basis which appears to be likely if the problem continues to be solved like this [the crackdown had not happened when this interview was made - translator], so the fact that a number of people are out to resist the previously protesting group presents the pressue of the people in Bangkok, not unlike the people in the 3 Southern Border Provinces who were trying to convey a message to the state that the state had failed. So there should be options and solutions. People in the South always say that the approach to solve the problem is through the feasible options, such as during a collaborative discussion for peace, which should have been done since the state entered the area. However, once the state came to be the government, the state did not do it, and this had been neglected for years.
Likewise, in Bangkok, I believe that the government understands that something like this will happen again. It will happen for sure, but the government did not care to create an understanding with people in the country, or create a mutual understanding that if it happens, there will be damages and casualties, but the state did not bring this to solve the problem at hand and used the same paradigm. 30 years ago, the approach was to throw any word at it. Instead of using the word "communists", the government used the word "terrorists" instead. Like in the 3 Southern Border Provinces, whoever disagrees with the state are labeled as rebels, considered as part of the separatist movement. These sentiments have been felt by Southerners for a long time and has been hurting for a long time. People in Bangkok must understand that such process has happened for a long time in the South, and must communicate and make an understanding that such approach to solve the problem cannot result in a peaceful ending. This is what we are worried about.
Host : The troubles in the South and the problem of conflict in the capital can be considered as national-agenda issues. In your opinion, what has the government learned from the South and the capital?
A. Prasit: In my opinion, I think that the government is week on solving the problem of ocnflict, particularly in term of political security. I think that the government should have some lessons in solving the problems in the South and be able to apply them in the capital to a certain extent. However, once you go deeper, things remain the same, i.e. the state only looks at the immediate problem at hand, but does not connect the problem to the past phemonenons in history. The process of solving the problem in the South does not consider the problem regarding past history of Pattani. The problem in the capital at this moement has its root in the event of Black May, after which we came together and help drafted the 1997 Constitution. We were hoping that the '97 constitution that was the most democratic would help develop Thai politics to be strong. Once interest from using the Constitution caused a political party to grow and had stronger politics, the side that has lost interests which it had possessed for hundres of years then stirred up the coup and shove charges at politicians from the opposite side that it disliked, with felony counts.
The 2006 coup was the cause of the conflict because we tore apart the Constitution and the rules, but the Thai society did not make a serious discussion about this. Therefore, the problem that exists at this point is the problem of democracy. If it is this difficult in the capital, how difficult would it be in the South with the request for a special administrative region and laws, particularly the shariah? There are questions. Questions on the fact that if the South remains like this, while the problem in the capital still has not been addressed at the heart of the matter, restricting the space of the opposite side, shutting the eyes and ears of the people and the society, and presenting information one-sided just like in the South.
The people who are actually living with these problems are the Pattani Malays. It is difficult for them to have a space to talk, take actions, and form groups by the concept of civil societies. The government has remained inflexible, so the conflict that stems from something like this is irreconciliable. There are 2 types of conflicts in the society: the ones that can be compromised, and the ones that cannot. The conflicts that cannot be compromised are the ones based on principles and democracy. They can never be compromised.
Now, when politics and governance reach a dead end, violence is sure to take place. I think that it is difficult to stop the violence, because if we do not want violence, we have to let the politics go all the way. The 1997 Constitution was in effect for some time, then once it encountered a group that was not satisfied, those who received interest from the Constitution deemed the other group as a threat, so there was the coup. After the coup, various groups, this and that, were formed and were all politically opposing sides. The sentiments of the former political section, the Thai Rak Thai Party, the People Who Love Thaksin, etc. fell into this politicla games. Then there was a commitee that scrutinized thaksin and Constitution Court justices. So, although the judgement process was fair, but the sentiment had already been spoiled. Bringing the opposite side as a justice was unacceptable.
So I think that we have to look at things clearly. The government has to clearly understand the actual nature of the conflict. It's like in the South. The Pattani Malay people want: 1. Their identity, and; 2. The religion which is their way of life. The government has not listened on these 2 issues and has been afraid to discuss it on a forum. They were afraid that it would be true. Therefore, the government has to make it clear. I believe that the problem in the capital, if we look at it as a structural problem between the old money who has enjoyed advantages in the society for many years, and then after the 1997 Constitution we had the new money, led by Thaksin and associates, who developed into the capitalists of the nation.
Groups in the North, the Northeast, and the East like Thaksin because he had tangible policies. People feel that they have gained benefits. I believe that if people are sleeping on the streets for months, there must be more than what Deputy PM Suthep has said. An easy example is that in the South, there have been more than 5,000 persons dead and nearly 20,000 persons injured, but the instigators are called "perpetrators". In Bangkok, there have been 24 deaths [at the time of the show - translator], but the instigators are called "terrorists". The government must prove themselves before they say something. This time, once they see something, they say it outright: these people are terrorists, these people gather arms, these people go as far as planning to bring down the monarchy. I think that the more these things are said, the more divided the people become, and the greater number of wounds.
So what's the solution? Well, the government has to keep its act together, so what can be proven or not. Whatever is not ready or the evidence is unclear, don't say it. Second of all, we must look at the demonstrators as Thai people, give them space for reasonable expressions of their causes and their roles for the people to decide, not all locked up like this. I'm not taking the side of the red shirts here, but I don't see justice when I look at this. We must take a stand on fairness. Third of all, we must give opportunities for all civil society representatives to have a meeting with each other, then allow their representative to come, talk, and find an exit for the osciety. Don't just occlude them and only include our own kind: that's not it. Fourth of all, we must negotiate. No matter what happens, we must negotiate. While the PM was asking for the 9-month period, the other side might see it as: 1. The PM wanted the budget to pass so he could campaign and gain votes; 2. So there would be appointment of a powerful figure to cover the Army, get the Army Chief up there so he could cheer the Democrat Party, and if these two did not happen, there would be no dissolution of parliament. So it turned out that those on the opposite side deemed this to be an act for one's own interest even though the Prime Minister was making claims about setting the rules in order to please all sides so we can move to the next step in politics. I think that the government should be more open and respect people more than at present.
Host : So you quite agree with the offer of the DAAD to dissolve parliament?
A. Prasit : I deem and believe that all Thai persons have reason and good will for the country. We have to first look at the reasons, see how immediate dissolution could be done, what would be better, where are the negative points, if there are more advantages than disadvantages, then the PM says that he is always ready to dissolve parliament. I think that we should listen to all sides., but those who say that we must reconcile and end the violence but do not provide a solution must be put at a lesser priority. These people only make a demand: they do not provide an answer, it's useless. So we must listen to what clearly represents the problem, and honor all groups to be able to propose possible exit strategies for the good of all people, all groups, not just for ourside. If things are like this, then these problems can be resolved, whether it is the problem in the South or the problem in the capital.
Host: Many sides see that dissolution of parliament is a short-term solution. Khun Lamai, how do you see this, as there are many issues which remain unfixed?
Lamai: Actually, in my personal opinion, I do not agree with the dissolution of parliament yet. Before the 10 April Incident, our network had tried to push for many legislations, such as environmental laws. We wanted to wait for the remaining one-something year of the government to push for certain laws on the Mabta Phut Complex, to talk about environmental laws with which we were working. However, after that day, we have not made a clear thought on whether we wanted or did not want dissolution. In our opinion, what is necessary is that the government must listen closely and realize that it must listen to all sides. By nature, people who come to protest are really troubled, because we go and protest with the villagers many times. So, the government must be open-minded when it listens.
Historically, we have not been blaming the government, but rather the media and many things. We have never heard the red shirt leaders themselves talked about the troubles of the villagers at the protest siteon the stage. The media themselves only present the events that happened, e.g. how many people are dead, but never say what are the desires of people who come to the assembly. We're saying this because we believe that there are many shades to the red shirts. Minor factions have different desires, but they are only using the red shirts as a stage in their movement, just like the yellow shirt protests. We only needed the yellow shirt's stage in announcing what the farmers, gardeners, and fishermen needed. We never stop in this aspect. We have been doing this for many months.
Actually, the villagers do not care whether there's democracy or dictatorship, but tey should have dignity in what they wish to do. For example, in the Deep South, once there is an incident and people say that they want the government to commit money to rehabilitate them, we actually need no money, but we want the government to manage our troubles when they happen. People who are in Bangkok have never heard the government talked about relief and caring. We think that if there is to be basic justice, people who are affected must be given relief, at least by giving basic reliefs that are already in the rules.
Host: So you're saying that people who come to protest with the red shirts have their own group's agenda. Will dissolution of parliament actually answer their question?
Lamai: I do not think that it is an appropriate thing to do yet. Actually, dissolution of parliament is not a solution. There should be discussions on other matters as Ajarn Prasit has said. Look at what people need, what are the things that we should be able to do.
Host: Previous events have beenvery violent, is dissolution of parliament one of the things that will remove the deadlock from this problem?
A. Srisompob: I think that the condition of dissolution of parliament is not a solution, as the discussions are not about the grievances of the people. The image of the protest is still unclear with regard to the troubles of the grassroot society. If we want to help out the people in Silom without any understanding, then it won't be any different from the people in the South who have always received sympathy from others. Problems are not fixed at the right spot because these problems are not understood. The root of the power in Bangkok that tends to be too great has caused the true power of democracy, i.e. the people, to be unable to exercise their own power. However, protests alone are not the answer. Dissolution of parliament is not an answer. This does not mean that we do not disagree with the dissolution of parliament, but there must be discussions and clear communications. The state must be bold enough to annouce policies or the way forward and must solve problems in this approach in the long term. Don't solve problems only at the state mechanism, the problems must be solve at the people as well. The state must be audacious enough in writing its policy and plans, and have some pre-dissolution measures. If this is so, I think that the negotiations on both side with be more on satisfying for the hearts of the people.
Host: That's in term of the problem-at-hand. In the long them, there still are disparities and there's no conclusion as to what to do about it?
A. Srisompob: In term of politics, it is a pressing problem, with democracy and participation. I think that: First, political problems are solving the problems at hand by negotations in dissolution of parliament. There must be talking: it is one of the best things to do to solve the imminent problems. Hurting each other will affect the harts in one way or another. Therefore, it depends on the timing of dissolution of parliament and how it would be most appropriate. In my opinion, it should be less than nine months from now, no matter what.
Secondly, there are social problems, sentiment of the people, problem of disparities, problem of resources and the issue of how they can be more in accordance with long-term solution. Thirdly, there are the rules once there is dissolution of parliament. There must be political rules for all sides to acknowledge and to accept each other in the elections by participation from all sides and abstain from use of violence.
There are both long-term and short-term problems which we must solve that the same time. All Thais must admit that the problemis complex. We must think of the complexity that exists. Thus there must be clear discussions. It's like in the South where the war is a war of sentiments. No matter what, we must try to hold back our feelings first, then start using reasons.
Host: Khun Lamai, as someone who has joined the farmers in their rallies, if we analyze politics in this matter, we have a period of time from today until the date of dissolution of parliament, while there are many factors that press for confrontations. Do we have enough time?
Lamai: Actually, I do not anticipate whether there will be enough time. For civil societies, we have been doing this for a long time. We think about doing things stedily and keep on doing them. We do not say that we are waiting for democracy to flourish. We must help about it. As for participation, we do not think that any governent pays attention to participation in development, and it does not care about the people below, so there is no need to wait for them to pay attention. We do whatever we can. When we know that something comes in and it's not right, not transparent, not appropriate, we must make our voices heard. For the small people, if they had no peers to help them shout, do you think they would have the courage to go on shouting? They do not even know how to communicate to a single press agency. Therefore, we must think that at a time like this, the Southern Network like us never wait. Whatever we can do, we do. We must help each other achieve these good deeds. This democracy does not have to wait for the government, as it is very difficult for that to happen. While you are the government, and we are the citizens, you must respond to what we want in an appropriate manner. We think and believe that we do not need anything that is more than what the state is capable of doing. But the state is narrow-minded. It's very difficult for them to listen to the issue of democracy, ever more multi-layered and complex.
Host: One of the issue is that time is a catalyst that would lead to a more violent conflict. What should we do with this limitation?
A. Ahmad Somboon: At least, in the short them, there must be a creation of understanding. Conflict can always happen and will only disappear when we die. Conflicts have not occurred yet in graveyards. In conflict, there is a scientific wisdom in solving problems. This scientific wisdom is what we must come together to fix. Or should we resort to using emotions as a destroyer, by looking at people like they are not people, like they do in the South? In the South, there are a lot more dead people than in Bangkok, but it is the lesson for people in Bangkok, as modeled from the South, that should be solved quickly. Civil societies should not expect much from the government. So, you must move forward. Success is only within the reach of your arms.
Host: How do you perceive the role of the state in management of violence that has occurred?
A. Prasit: Well, I see the measures here in a more optimistic viewpoint. Today, we look at it very negatively, but I see it as being positive. It is positive because: One, the civil sector dare to express the desire for democratic ways. In the past, if 20 people are dead, the crowd should be dissolved already. But when we came to feel it, it was surprising that everyone was willing to commit. Two, state officials, particilarly the military and the police, must be praised because they have a lot of patience. If this was in the past, there must have been fights to the death on one side already. Even the commander of the army said that politics must be solved by politics. It depends on how much the Prime Minister and his colleagues will understand politics. Three, there are more peaceful means. A peaceful mean is the decrease of emotions and increase of reasons. If all groups receive justice, there will be a balance of sentiments, then there will be reconciliation. I think that there is still a solution for the Thai society. All sides should use reason, do not use the feelings of one's own group as the basis. I want the Prime Minister to use his reasonability to solve the problems.
Host: Now let's look at the different roles of the media in the South at present, as well as in the capital. What are your opinions?
A. Srisompob: The media have a very large role in creation of emotions, feelings. The problem of sentiments is that the media do not give reasons, but only emotions and feelings. The mainstream media must weight this equally. During the events in the South in 2004, the media only presented what happened. However, alternative media came into existence afterwards to present the way of life of people in the South, letting us know that it was not only about the two sides that were fighting. Everyone has their own reason, every side has its own reason, can they accept each other without necessarily having to accept everything? The media are an important instruement to create positive feelings.
A. Ahmad Somboon: I think that there is a certain awe in the televised media. The root cause of the problem should be presented rather than the phenomena. We have to look at how we can decrease these phenomena.
A. Prasit: I agree with Ajarn Somboon's point that the level of the media should be raised. The media should not only present only the events, but should present more on the positive and negative sides and the ways to solve the problem. As for the core of the problem, there must be an intellectual uplift. We must listen to all groups. Academics should brainstorm to solve problems and find a solution together.
Host: 5 years ago, there had to be a great effort to create a space for civil societies in the South, and right now there are more spaces. What about in the capital?
A. Ahmad Somboon: I think that in Bangkok, it's still about solving short-term problems, but at least I encourage them even though the work is being done in a conflicted area. In the area where there is no conflict, knowledge must be created. What is important is that people under state authority have not created as much knowledge as they were supposed to, especially when the endpoint is peace in the country. I'm afraid of the phrase "They're not my father", which I think the government should fix urgently.
Host: Khun Lamai, do you think that there will be a peaceful mean for the current situation?
Lamai: Of course. We sometimes think that if the events in 2004 that happend in the South happened elsewhere, things would be more severe. Because people there were religious, the principles based on forgiveness would then create peace. But we also have to make a voice on the things that are not right. It's nice for Bangkokians that the multi-colored shirts came out and take actions quickly.
Host: You can see that, at present, the parliament cannot be relied upon in solving the problems. As someone who monitors the South, how do you think protection should be administered?
A. Srisompob: I still think that the parliament and democracy is the best solution. There are issues of disagreement in certain reasons, and there is use of emotions, but at least it's good that struggles happen openly, with wide and diverse participation by the people. This will be a balancing weight that will create a frame for the parliament to be more balance by not using violence and emotions as the basis.
Host: The form of participation that is about to happen is deemed by many sides as a step in development of democracy, while others see it as a problem which must be overcome.
A. Prasit: From the fact that all groups have come out as being harsh, we must look at how much pressure there is. In the South, the conflict has been going on for 100-something years, so it's impossible. If we look at the conflicts in the Thai society, in term of advantages and disadvantages, we can see that they have existed for a long time. Therefore, when there is pressure on democratic society, the society already knows that there are hundreds of problems, but the problem of democracy is the main one. If we allow for true democracy, other problems can be fixed slowly, because there is also an element of democracy in smaller issues. If we can fix the big thing, the smaller things can be fixed. So there must be a middle path that can be taken. We must accept the development of democracy and we must help each other to support it. Peace is the best solution.
Host: Now we have a variety of actors who are involved in this problem. I want all of you to remind all groups on how they should act.
A. Ahmad Sombood: At the least, you should use your intelligence, use your patience, use your morality. Don't use the philosophy of "Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles" without seeing whether the rulers also have to use morality. This morality, in my opinion, is present in every person. It's the forum that can bring this morality into full use that must be heavily considered in a democracy.
Lamai: I think that, right now, both sides want to win and do not care that the country is losing. If the country loses, there will be devastations. There must not be a viewpoint with a we-must-win-only attitude.
A. Prasit: For all sides who have come out: 1) You must extract the diverse information and find the pith of the truth, 2) Use intelligence to analyze and synthesize well, 3) Together, we must find a solution that will affect the country the last, 4) We must think positively and see that in a situation that is apparently terrible, there are always good things in it.