Pleaw See-Ngurn

Thatpost 29 March 2010



Thai society has made a “history” in the democratic world by “stepping over” a borderline dividing uncivilisation and civilisation. Not even the UK, the US, Europe or India can claim they are better than Thailand in learning “practical” democracy. The fact that a faction within Thai society was violently against the government and the system but the authority tried to “tolerate” with respect and without an attempt to quell the protesters and eventually all parties agreed to set up a negotiation for the sake of the country is a beauty of Thai democracy that prospers and astonishes the whole world as no one on earth would ever imagine that such “Siam” phenomenon would miraculously occur in the era of King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

The phenomenon that only a few hours before, on Sunday 28th March 2010, had developed from the Red Thaksin operation operating since Sat 27th March aiming at “searching for weapons, forcing the military” to leave their duty of protecting the capital city of Bangkok, and arranging to cordon off one of the major military camps with an attempt to catch interest from “news agencies from all around the world” and around the country who were eagerly ready to record a “catastrophic moment” at the battlefield of 11th Infantry Regiment surrounded by the Red Shirt protesters. Certainly, if the military had lost their temper with the protesters, the military camp on Pahonyothin road could have turned into a ground stacked with dead bodies.

In that crisis moment, both parties – the government and the Red Shirt leaders – still expressed their determination to maintain democracy and “the nation”. They managed to set up the venue, format, and a set of issues to be negotiated with the aim to bring back peace, harmony and unity to Thai society.

As we saw, never have we seen before, and never have it occurred in any democratic country, despite the conflicts which almost led the people into bloody fighting, the Thai government and the Red Shirt leaders agreed to not only set up a negotiation to resolve the conflicts but also “broadcast it live” worldwide!

There is no single democratic country in the whole world that has such transparent and accountable democracy like that of Thailand. In my opinion, the “United Nations” should take the phenomenon that the Red Shirts leaders and the Thai government have bilaterally brought about as a “democratic model” that illustrates a way to resolve conflicts and problems, fully-equipped with the philosophy of democracy – of the people, by the people and for the people. Each of the six persons should be honoured as an important person who makes a step forward to democracy in Thailand and they should be, in the future, well documented in the national curriculum.

On the authority side, there are the Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, the Secretary-General Korbsak Sabhavasu, and the Democrat Party deputy secretary-general Chamni Sakdiset. The Red Shirt, on the other side, comprises Weera Muksikaphong, Chatuphorn Phromphan, and medical doctor Wheng Thojirakarn while Natthawut Saikeua, another Red Shirt leader, was left to take charge of the protesters at the Phanfah Leelas bridge.

The venue for the negotiation is the King Prajadhipok’s Institute at the Government Complex on Chaengwattana Road. There is no need to give details about the negotiation as it was “broadcast live” in every television channel from 3.40pm until the end of the first-day first-round negotiation at almost 7pm making it a two-hour-and-forty-five-minute-long negotiation!!

Prime Minister Abhisit insisted on his standpoint that the parliament can be dissolved but there were certain issues to be clarified before that, such as “what else do we need to do in order not to incur other new problems” such that “dissolving the parliament” will not solve the problem but also cause more troubles!?

Gladly, both parties in the negotiation yesterday seemed sincere even though it was a negotiation to set a framework for a conclusion. Prime Minister Abhisit expressed his sincerity and respect to the three Red Shirt leaders by participating in the negotiation himself. The three Red Shirt leaders also expressed their sincerity by ceasing any movement that would destroy an atmosphere of negotiation.
Yesterday some said that the negotiation ended without ending and was led into a chicken and egg situation. No conclusion could be drawn as to the constitution should be rectified before dissolving the parliament and having a new election or the other way round.

But Prime Minister Abhisit concluded that it didn’t matter which one to do first but he would like to come up with the scheme that would later lead to that issue. Simply speaking, he didn’t deny to dissolve the parliament but, prior to that, we should consider together what can be done, what can’t be done, what needs to be solved.

Chatuphorn also concluded that the Red Shirt agreed to come back with a framework for the next negotiation scheduled on Monday 29th March which is today, at 4pm-ish like yesterday. But he also insisted that “the negotiation must be based on a condition to dissolve the parliament within two weeks’ time!”

I think it’s kind of cute. This is like “kids fighting”. A condition to dissolve the parliament has now changed from immediately to within half a month. We shall wait and see this afternoon (29th March) how far the “deadline” will get extended or shortened.
If benefits go to the country and the people, all parties then win. In the meantime, we shall help create an atmosphere of negotiation. We should not divide the people because, in fact, the government and all coloured shirts are all Thais. Being tolerate and considerate is a key.

I also would like to make a suggestion for consideration. The “broadcast live” negotiation as happened yesterday was great. But as today is a detailed discussion, I think, in order to lighten the pressure on the negotiators, the negotiation “should not broadcast live.” That just only major and minor votes in the court have been brought into an issue, such a negotiation involving parties having support from different groups of people would put tremendous pressure on the negotiators if it is broadcast live.

What makes a history should happen only once. If twice, it could be a history but is called a “rehappened history”!