Reconciliation
in
Southern Thailand:
Lessons
from
past
attempts and present directions
A
talk by Dr. Mark Tamthai, Institute for
the Study of Religion and
Culture, Payap University, Chiang Mai
Present: Bodil
Blokker, Hagen Dirksen, Klaus Beitenhausen, Adrian
Pieper, Guy Cardinal, Mohamad Jesr, Thomas Ohlson, Annelie Hendriks,
Manus
Brinkman, Richard Nelson-Jones, Peter Hoare, Ken Kampe, David Steane,
Annette
Kanstrup-Jensen, John Butt, Bill Yoder, Hans Bänziger, Sophie Le
Coeur, Marc
Callemant, Intira Collins, Fregonese Federica, Carool Kersten, Mungoi
Suantak,
Kong Janoi, Kate Gunn, Gonzaque Jourdin, Ammarin Thanolap, Oliver
Hargreave,
Christy Tovar, Colin Hinshelwood, Sharreh, Phu Murng, April Paw, Ester,
Tabithar,
Sunday Htoo, Karen Williams, Sandar Moon, Khwa Nyo, Jessica M. Hill,
Oliver
Benjamin, Edward van Tuyll, Mark Bleadon, Martin Luiz, Yan Naing,
Alexander,
Nay Tawin, Mi Monkyae, Boorng Di, Aung Min, Dacia Gauer, Adam Dedman,
Brad
Teeters, , Reinhard Hohler, Chris Barr, Wan-Lee Yin, Maria and Guy
Scandlen,
Sasitor Tamthai. An audience of 60 + perhaps at least another 8 people
who
didn’t sign the attendance sheet.
Mark Tamthai
was a
professor at Chulalongkorn University for 30 years and is now the
director of
the Institute for the Study of Religion and Culture at Payap
University.
For the past 10 years he has been advisor to the National Security
Council on
matters of peace-building and reconciliation. He
was one of the architects of the National
Security Policy for the
Southern Border Provinces (1999-2003). He is a member of the
National
Reconciliation Commission (NRC) and chairs the NRC's working group on
the
development of nonviolent methods in the struggle for justice and
dignity in
the southern border provinces.
Mark’s
minutes of his talk
Content of
the talk
Past Attempts.
From the point of view of Bangkok the
southern region was always a security concern and the policy used to
deal with
this situation through the years was that of assimilating the
population in the
region to ‘Thai’ ways, along with an emphasis on economic
development during
particular difficult times. Since the
security situation never showed a sustained marked improvement, a
completely
different way of thinking about the region was embarked upon about 8
years
ago. It was time to draft the new National
Security Policy for the Southern Border Provinces (1999-2003) and
this time
the people who live in the region were invited to participate along
with the
security officials in trying to write a better policy which would take
their
lives and their personal security concerns as a starting point. The policy that resulted from this
participatory process was a complete 180-degree turn from all the
previous
policies based on the assimilation paradigm of security.
The policy begins with the following
‘Vision
for Resolution of Security Problems in the Southern
Border
Provinces’:
For
all people in the southern border provinces to be able to live happily
and
peacefully on the basis of their religious and cultural identity,
especially
for Thai Muslims, the majority group of people in the area, to be able
to “live
as Muslims in Thai society” just as other groups are doing as
members of Thai
society.
For
all people to realize the value of cultural diversity, as a source of
power and
wisdom which helps create security, peace, and sustained development.
For
the people in the region to have the opportunity to participate in
problem
solving and development processes as well as in tasks jointly carried
out by all parties in society, so as to
protect the way of life of
the people in the society from the impact of changes and external
pressures.
The
first
three years (1999-2001) of this policy
saw a marked improvement of the situation in the region.
But things began breaking down the final two
years (2002-2003), and January 2004 was the starting point of the
present
spiral of violence. This called for an
urgent evaluation of this policy.
Lessons
learnt from evaluating the implementation
of this policy:
1. This
kind of approach to the south was so very new and different from all
previous
approaches that the re-training of government officials to understand
this type
of policy will need much better planning and must go beyond merely
holding
workshops.
2. Those
who oppose such policies will not openly argue against them since they
are
designated as “official” policies but will attempt to
undermine them with
covert activities. If those wayward
officials are not disciplined by their superiors then this will likely
raise
questions as to the sincerity of the new approach.
3. For
such a turnaround in vision to take hold it is necessary to bring the
entire
Thai public on board. This will
necessitate a large number of public education programs throughout the
country.
Present
Directions.
The present directions being taken by the National
Reconciliation Commission (NRC) fall under 5 sub-committees, which
oversee
about 15 working groups. The 5
sub-committees (and examples of the problems they work on) are:
-
Sub-committee on rebuilding trust, human rights justice system reform. An example of a working group here is one
that deals with allegations of abductions by state officials.
- Sub-committee
on conflict
resolution and the promotion of nonviolent forms of struggle. An example of a working group here is one
that works with the community leaders in the south to explore the
possibility
of developing a nonviolent movement aiming at the struggle for justice.
-
Sub-committee on education and development. One of the working groups here is studying
existing text books which seem to be promoting assimilation and leaving
little
room for maintaining one’s identity. This
is then followed by suggestions on how to
rectify the matter.
- Sub-committee
on cultural
diversity.
- Sub-committee
on Reconciliation
in the local areas. This Sub-committee
deals with immediate short term measures to head off approaching
violence, such
as might arise from misunderstanding mosque activities during Ramadan
or from a
lack of go-betweens trusted by all during confrontations.
Are we doing
enough?
Are the present directions explained above
enough? Are the directions complete
enough to be a foundation for sustainable reconciliation?
One glaring omission from the various matters
the NRC is dealing with is that they do not cover the political
aspirations of
all the stakeholders. The NRC is basing
its work on the assumption that a revamp of the justice system (through
judicial reform) and the promotion of Thai society as a culturally
diverse
society (through public education projects) is the foundation for
reconciliation in the area. Political
solutions, such as special autonomous zones, have not been discussed or
debated
in any depth. The key question is,
“Should they?”. This question
itself can
not be answered without discussion of this matter, and so it would seem
that
the NRC still has much self-evaluating to do.
Mark’s
talk was followed by an extended and extensive
question and answer session. As part of an answer to one question from
the
audience, Mark talked about the Thai flag as an example of cultural
differences/diversity as an obstacle to assimillation. The white colour
in the
Thai flag represents religion – specifically Buddhism. The
Muslims in the South
do not feel inclined to acknowledge a symbol which does not include
their
religious faith. According to the Thai flag, to be Thai means to be
Buddhist.
<< Back to Metting
Diary
|
