September 20, 2006

  • Which Southerners are they asking????

    Everything that comes out of the Bangkok Post’s mouth is anti-Thaksin.  The South “wanted the coup”/”needed the coup”/”asked for the coup.”  Says who??  I don’t think they are asking people who actually live in Southern Thailand and are dealing with the terrorism — getting blown up in a department store, getting shot at while walking home from work, having your schoolteacher shot in the middle of class. . . .

    The only people I see wanting the coup are people in Bangkok.  Why?  Because they think handing Southern Thailand over to the Muslim insurgents will keep them safe in their skyscrapers.

    Southerners welcome coup

    POST REPORTERS


    The majority of people and religious leaders in the lower South are
    confident that the coup will ease the political pressure valve and ease
    the insurgency. Abdulrosak Ali, chairman of the Islamic committee in
    Narathiwat, said yesterday that efforts to restore peace in the
    southern border provinces should be more united. Previously,
    anti-insurgent policies were ineffective because security forces,
    especially soldiers, were reluctant to carry them out as there had been
    too many orders from different agencies.

    Chid Banluesil, chairman of the Songkhla chamber of commerce,
    agreed the change of national administration would mean a welcome
    respite.

    He urged the ruling Council for Democratic Reform to get an
    election organised as soon as possible to restore investor confidence.

    Somchart Pimthanapoonporn, president of the Association of Hat
    Yai-Songkhla Hotels, said the coup had satisfied southerners because
    the Thaksin Shinawatra government had neglected the region’s problems.

    Chamras Sriprasom, director of Southern Region Investment and
    Economic Centre 1, said southern people and investors welcomed the coup
    because they had had enough of the conflicts of interest plaguing the
    Thaksin government as well as Mr Thaksin’s favouring of the North and
    the Northeast and simultaneous ignorance of the South.

    Waedueramae Mamingji, chairman of the Pattani Islamic
    committee, said the coup should prevent confrontation between groups of
    Thai people.

    Solutions to southern violence should be more effective as Gen
    Sonthi, in charge of restoring peace there, would not have to bow to
    intervention by politicians

    from http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/21Sep2006_news07.php

    COMMENTARY

    Thaksin’s out, so will peace come to South?

    Sanitsuda Ekachai


    Will the southern violence ease up now that the most-hated man in the
    deep South is out of power? In contrast to Thaksin Shinawatra’s hawkish
    policies towards the deep South, Army Commander-in-Chief Sonthi
    Boonyaratkalin, himself a Muslim, has shown willingness to build
    bridges with instigators who consider themselves Pattani freedom
    fighters. Now that Gen Sonthi is the man of the hour, his openness to
    political solutions should be a reason for hope in the southernmost
    region, shouldn’t it?

    Don’t hold your hopes too high. The political wounds wrought by
    the Thaksin administration during the past two years are probably too
    severe to be done away with merely by Mr Thaksin’s political departure.

    It is understandable why people in the Muslim-dominated deep
    South jumped with joy to see Mr Thaksin’s political career in disgrace.
    His war on drugs led to many killings and kidnappings that aggravated
    the locals’ anger towards central control and state violence. And with
    the Krue Se and Tak Bai tragedies, Mr Thaksin pushed many young people
    into the terrorists’ open arms.

    To create a tough-guy image for his voters in other regions, Mr
    Thaksin’s scornful remarks and use of state media to blast the southern
    Muslims also made the majority of the southern Muslims burn with anger
    while feeling more alienated. The state of emergency which allowed
    security officials to detain anyone for questioning and re-education
    has also plunged the communities in deep fear and mutual suspicion.

    Meanwhile, the ethnic Malay Muslims feel their natural
    resources _ be it the coastal seas, forests or farmland _ are being
    stolen by the central government to enrich outsiders, leaving them
    steeped in poverty and hardship.

    Now that Mr Thaksin has been ousted, they hope that the seafood
    bank project which will give their coastal seas to seafood
    entrepreneurs, will come to an end. So will the destruction of their
    seas by big trawlers and the taking away of their farmland and orchards
    by National Park officials.

    Despite the upbeat atmosphere in the deep South, their hopes
    may not materialise easily. For if Mr Thaksin could win wide public
    support for his violent ways in the deep South, our problem is not with
    Thaksin, but with our society as a whole. His money-first belief and
    central control ideology is also much the same with officialdom, which
    refuses local communities, both Muslim and Buddhist, to have a say over
    the use of their natural resources.

    The military takeover may lead to better coordinated policies
    in the South, yet many still doubt if the military’s old
    counter-insurgency approach will still work in today’s age of modern
    terrorism.

    The military wants to talk. But now no one really knows who to
    talk to. Nor how many different organisations are involved and what
    conflicts they have among themselves. In modern terrorism, even the
    members of each cell do not know information and other people beyond
    their immediate assignment.

    And even if we know who to talk to, that is no guarantee for
    peace. Just look at Sri Lanka and other countries where violence rages
    on despite peace talk attempts.

    If we don’t want bomb blasts to reach Bangkok, we must
    seriously think not only of political decentralisation, but also what
    it takes for peace to be possible in a pluralistic nation. It takes
    mutual respect and willingness to learn about other beliefs and
    histories. It takes a new definition of nationhood that is not tied to
    ethnicity and religion. It takes the courage to apologise, make amends
    and start anew. It takes an ability to forgive.

    All this does not require a talk with separatist movements. It
    requires a serious talk with ourselves.

    We are now free of Mr Thaksin, but peace in the deep South
    won’t come about unless we free ourselves of Mr Thaksin’s mindset that
    fosters violence.

    Sanitsuda Ekachai is Assistant Editor, Bangkok Post.

    Email: sanitsudae@bangkokpost.co.th

    from http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/21Sep2006_news25.php

    This woman says, “If we don’t want bomb blasts to reach Bangkok, we must
    seriously think not only of political decentralisation, but also what
    it takes for peace to be possible in a pluralistic nation. It takes
    mutual respect and willingness to learn about other beliefs and
    histories. It takes a new definition of nationhood that is not tied to
    ethnicity and religion. It takes the courage to apologise, make amends
    and start anew. It takes an ability to forgive.”

    Am I the *only* one who is amazed that she thinks ‘forgiving’ the Muslim insurgents bombing a department store is going to keep bomb blasts from reaching her beloved Bangkok?  Nevermind that “forgiveness” isn’t helping the Thai citizens dying in the Southern Provinces.  It’s all well and good to talk about forgiveness, from the safety of your home in the city.

    Forgiveness requires that the party you are asking forgiveness from really cares that you want forgiveness. . . .  What would they want with forgiveness, sweetie??  They want the Southern half of your country, not forgiveness.