At last, we have seen the full package of the Abhisit regime’s reconciliation kit, including the fact-finding committee on the May killings, the committee on constitutional amendments, and the committees on national reform by the Anand and Prawase duo.

So, is this reconciliation with the 90 deaths?  Impossible.  It’s just an attempt to convince naïve people into believing that there’s reconciliation to isolate the red shirts and others who want true democracy.

Why has the government set up such an inquiry committee when it’s not yet lifted the Emergency Decree, and is still keeping shut down any media which does not take its side and still blocking the flow of information, including photos, video clips and witness accounts, from all sides?  Who the government puts on this committee is meaningless, because it is setting up an inquiry into its own suppression, while shutting the mouth of the opposition.  The red shirts are right not to join this committee.

The committee on constitutional amendments is ridiculous.  It earned no credit in the first place when Sombat Thamrongthanyawong was chosen to be the Chair.  (Historically, he won the lottery when he happened to be Secretary General of the Students Centre on 14 Oct 1973, and he has lived ever since on that credential.)  Other committee members include Somkid Lertpaithool (Thammasat), Wuthisan Tanchai (King Prajadhipok’s Institute), Nakharin Mektrairat (Thammasat), and Jaras Suwanmala (Chulalongkorn).  They were drafters of the current 2007 charter. Somkid was secretary of the drafting committee.

Now they are setting out to make amendments to the charter which they once touted as the best.  No need to mention what their views are and which side they are on.

Nakharin wrote a major book which commends the 1932 revolution, and he praised the coup in 2006.

Many others in the 19-member committee are with the People’s Alliance for Democracy and have strongly opposed charter amendments, such as Phichai Rattanadilok (NIDA) and Jed Thonawanik (Siam).  Bancherd Singkhaneti (Thammasat) has long been a political tool since he became a member of the junta-appointed Assets Examination Committee.

Oh!  There’s also Chaiya Yimwilai, a military-radio academic and former spokesman for the Gen Surayud government.  Col Sansern, of the CRES fame, should have been included as well to garner support and public participation from his female Facebook fans.

Abhisit has probably placed his highest hopes with the reform committees chaired by Anand and Prawase.

Both committees are supposed to recruit good people with a good image, like Phaiboon Watthanasiritham, Akhin Rapeepat, Rapee Sakrik, Banthorn Ondam, Poldej Pinpratheep, etc.  Anand’s committee should include Prasan Maruekaphithak for sure.  Rosana Tositrakul or her husband should get a seat as well.

Oh!  There’s Phi Piak (Pipob Thongchai) standing behind the scenes.  He might not take a seat, due to his identification with the PAD.  But he can send one of his men as a stand-in.  This is a good opportunity for them to jump off the New Politics Party bandwagon which has no future.

Abhisit, Anand and Prawase represent three groups of people who are trying reform as a way to drown out the 90 corpses, and to prop up Democracy with the Special Power.

Abhisit represents the bureaucracy, the military and the judiciary, Anand the elite, the celebs and the super rich who are concerned with good governance, and Prawase the NGO and civil society nobles (ammat) who always think on behalf of the people and society.

This is the mountain which is the major obstacle to the struggle for democracy.  A triangular mountain, indeed, not a mountain-moving triangle.  The owner of the triangle theory has become part of the mountain which the triangle is supposed to move.

Such reform after the spree of killings of phrai doesn’t mean anything other than to crush and then console.  The coup, judicial activism, and double standards have distressed the poor and the disenfranchised.  Then Anand and Prawase say that they will try to address economic and social discrepancies, and we have to bear with the suppression.

The ‘Thaksin regime’, globalized capital with a grassroots base, was overthrown by the ‘Abhisit (privileged) regime’ which shares power with the elite of the middle class, but denies shares to the rural people and the liberal middle class.

I believe that Prawase and Anand probably have several decent ideas to address the inequalities, which in normal times I would have agreed with.  The problem, however, is what you are doing this for. To weaken the movements for democracy.  Yes.  To retain power in the hands of the elite. To keep the poor as recipients of aid, instead of standing up to reclaim their power.

Prawase recently said that the poor had to be supported to claim their power.  Heh!  The poor have just done that, and they got shot for it.

He said that social power was one element of his mountain-moving triangle.  Many people had been active during the crisis, and society would change from a vertical to horizontal structure.  If so, why have the active people been suppressed, and why should Prawase come out to help those doing the suppressing to hold onto power, and to keep the structure vertical?

When will direct democracy ever happen, as long as Prawase denies representative democracy, and justifies democracy with the special power?

The crisis resulting from major social conflicts among all colours is going to lead to a new quality of Thai society, but Prawase and Anand intervene, with their personal credentials, in a bid to thwart the changes.                 

Nevertheless, I don’t believe that they could.  How could you solve the inequalities in an unjust regime?  How could you build a social conscience and strength under the Emergency Decree, military rule and the unjust rule of law suppressing the opposition?

Suffice to say that ‘Prawase-ism’ is absolutely against the global tide.  The Prawase-ism which is buried in the subconscious of most NGOs is to go against capitalism and globalization.

I talked to Prawase once or twice before the crisis.  Looking back, I was not impressed at all.  The doctor always said what was always right, always good, always lofty, seemingly deep and philosophical, but indeed meaningless, with no steps to reach the goals, and no feasibility analyses of the projects.  If they were business plans, they would have been quickly rejected. 

However, NGO projects are considered on the merits of the individuals who propose them and how they well describe their dreams.

I’ve always wondered what Dr Prawase has actually achieved.  Are some projects in the rural areas which are implemented by his disciples really self-sustainable?  Or do they have to rely on millions of baht provided by the Thai Health Promotion Foundation or the Community Organizations Development Institute, both founded by Prawase, to make villagers ‘independent from capitalism’.

I’ve heard that initially there may be a Thailand reform office in every province.  Good.  At least, if they are not successful, they can be converted into provincial NGO offices, with NGO workers as employees of public organizations.  This would be a huge financial resource for the Prawase Network.

This is in no way meant to insult Prawase.  He’s always a good person in my eyes.  But he thinks as if he’s an ethereal being.  He does not think as an ordinary man who eats, shits, gets laid, and sleeps, unlike Anand who is more realistic in this aspect, as he’s still an ordinary guy who does all that.

I’d be glad if I’m wrong and Prawase succeeds with the reform.  History, however, always repeats itself.  Progressive forces were brutally suppressed on 6 Oct 1976, and then the dictatorial grip was loosened a little bit when the Thanin government was replaced by Kriangsak, and then Prem, under the so-called semi-democarcy.  That made people feel better, but the problems were not tackled, and Thai society continued to be suppressed.  It’s a society where people could not use the front part their brain to think creatively or differently, but only put their hands together to pay obeisance.  That’s what keeps Thai society weak as the doctor has mentioned, but he hasn’t addressed the cause of it.