By The Nation
In an exclusive interview on "World Beat" with Suthichai Yoon (to be aired at 11pm on Thursday night on Modern Nine TV), recently appointed Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya opened up about his involvement with the People's Alliance for Democracy and his plans to put Thailand back on track in the international community.
The following are excerpts from the interview:
Q: What is the difference between Kasit the protestor and Kasit the foreign minister?
A: On the role of foreign minister, I have to work in the framework of the Cabinet for policy direction. And I have to implement policy. As an activist, one can talk and comment on so many subjects - domestic and international issues and so on. But as foregn minister I have to confine myself to the international relations of Thailand. I have to coordinate with other ministers and other agencies. I have to observe policy direction, first of the Democrat Party and second of the coalition government.
Q: So what you said as an anti-Thaksin protestor you cannot say today as foreign minister.
A: Not exactly. I have to maintain integrity, principles and good governance as a person. PM Abhisit came out with nine precepts. Besides upholding the institution of the monarchy, the second precept is honesty, transparency and accountability. It is a continuation of what I have been doing all along. And second is to be able to listen to the people, both to criticism and to suggestions. And to consult them as much as possible in the decision-making process. On this particular point, as an activist, I was not accountable because it was theoretical and an expression of opinion. But we have to really sit down and talk to the civil society, the bureaucrats, to the private sector, to the academics.
Q: Did you regret anything that you said when you were up on stage against Thaksin? Were there things that you shouldn't have said that could affect your position now?
A: No.
Q: Nothing at all? Not even saying that "joining the airport protest was fun?"
A: I did not say it exactly in those words. I think those words were put together by a couple of journalists. But what I was trying to explain on many occasions … that the atmosphere at the protest was non-violent. Second, people were helping one another, to clean up the place, with food, and most of the people there were women, about 60-70 per cent. But the atmosphere was friendly. Not only the food and music, there were substantive issues and so on. I just wanted to convey to the people that it was non-combative; it was very friendly. And I went in order to genuinely find justice for Thai society, for something they believed in - that is accountable government, or a government without conflicts of interest and no abuses of power.
Q: If you were asked now about the occupation of the airports as part of the protest plan that you were involve in, how would you explain that?
A: One has to look at the progression of the event. At first there was no dialogue from the government side. At one time the Somchai government appointed General Chavalit to be the interlocutor between the government and the protestors. And then that disappeared. Then there were many violent acts committed against the protestors. The zenith of the whole thing occurred on October 7. People died. With that non dialogue there was no attempt to respond to the petition of the protestors. There were atrocities committed on October 7 and that led to the increased stakes and conditions and eventually to the airport protest. The response from the government was in terms of threats and use of violence.
Q: Some people called it an act of terrorism - the taking over of the airports.
A: What I understand of the English word "terrorist act" or "terrorism" is that you have to be armed. But it was peaceful in the sense that it was non-violent. One might understand the word "terrorism" differently, using a different dictionary. Who is to judge? I think the judicial process could decide on that one. For any one person to say that was a terrorist act, then what about the atrocities committed not only on October 7 but all over Thailand by people with opposing ideas.
Q: How can we be sure it will never happen again, the taking over of the airports?
A: I think it depends on the behaviour of the government. This government will have to behave in such a way that will not give rise to any deep discontent about their malpractice, about the abuse of power, about atrocities and so on. If the government behaves like a normal democratic government, like in any civilised democratic country, then there should not be any problem.
Q: what are your top priorities now?
A: The immediate one is to organise the Asean summit, as the Asean charter came into force a few weeks ago. We have to act. We have to implement it and push it. Second is to set up the human rights body at the Asean level. We have to go through the range of bilateral relationship issues and see how we can push it further, bilaterally and in the sub-regional context. Third is to be more present and more active in the international arena. In multilateral organisations like the UN and WTO we have to be active participants.
Q: Thailand's image has been shattered by recent events. How do you propose to change that?
A: I have instructed all ambassadors and consulate generals to go out and inform people that the change of government has been peaceful, normal and within the parliamentary system. We are going to be very business friendly, accommodating and so on. We are serious about business. There will not be any conflict of interest. All the infrastructure projects and the procurement systems will be above board, transparent and fair, on a level playing field.
Q: Cambodian PM Hun Sen may have some bad feeling about what you said when the Samak government signed a memorandum of understanding with Cambodia over the Preah Vihear temple issue. Do you have any personal apology to give to Hun Sen?
A: No, I don't think so. I think Somdej Hun Sen is a well seasoned politician, a man who fought for his ideological beliefs. And he would have understood what I was doing in my other hat. And my comment was not directly aimed at him or the Cambodian people. My comment was on the former PM of Thailand and his regime. It was just unfortunate that Hun Sen was involved. But it was more of a secondary issue. So I think Somdej Hun Sen, who even took up arms in his younger days, would have understood what I was doing for my country.
In an exclusive interview on "World Beat" with Suthichai Yoon (to be aired at 11pm on Thursday night on Modern Nine TV), recently appointed Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya opened up about his involvement with the People's Alliance for Democracy and his plans to put Thailand back on track in the international community.
The following are excerpts from the interview:
Q: What is the difference between Kasit the protestor and Kasit the foreign minister?
A: On the role of foreign minister, I have to work in the framework of the Cabinet for policy direction. And I have to implement policy. As an activist, one can talk and comment on so many subjects - domestic and international issues and so on. But as foregn minister I have to confine myself to the international relations of Thailand. I have to coordinate with other ministers and other agencies. I have to observe policy direction, first of the Democrat Party and second of the coalition government.
Q: So what you said as an anti-Thaksin protestor you cannot say today as foreign minister.
A: Not exactly. I have to maintain integrity, principles and good governance as a person. PM Abhisit came out with nine precepts. Besides upholding the institution of the monarchy, the second precept is honesty, transparency and accountability. It is a continuation of what I have been doing all along. And second is to be able to listen to the people, both to criticism and to suggestions. And to consult them as much as possible in the decision-making process. On this particular point, as an activist, I was not accountable because it was theoretical and an expression of opinion. But we have to really sit down and talk to the civil society, the bureaucrats, to the private sector, to the academics.
Q: Did you regret anything that you said when you were up on stage against Thaksin? Were there things that you shouldn't have said that could affect your position now?
A: No.
Q: Nothing at all? Not even saying that "joining the airport protest was fun?"
A: I did not say it exactly in those words. I think those words were put together by a couple of journalists. But what I was trying to explain on many occasions … that the atmosphere at the protest was non-violent. Second, people were helping one another, to clean up the place, with food, and most of the people there were women, about 60-70 per cent. But the atmosphere was friendly. Not only the food and music, there were substantive issues and so on. I just wanted to convey to the people that it was non-combative; it was very friendly. And I went in order to genuinely find justice for Thai society, for something they believed in - that is accountable government, or a government without conflicts of interest and no abuses of power.
Q: If you were asked now about the occupation of the airports as part of the protest plan that you were involve in, how would you explain that?
A: One has to look at the progression of the event. At first there was no dialogue from the government side. At one time the Somchai government appointed General Chavalit to be the interlocutor between the government and the protestors. And then that disappeared. Then there were many violent acts committed against the protestors. The zenith of the whole thing occurred on October 7. People died. With that non dialogue there was no attempt to respond to the petition of the protestors. There were atrocities committed on October 7 and that led to the increased stakes and conditions and eventually to the airport protest. The response from the government was in terms of threats and use of violence.
Q: Some people called it an act of terrorism - the taking over of the airports.
A: What I understand of the English word "terrorist act" or "terrorism" is that you have to be armed. But it was peaceful in the sense that it was non-violent. One might understand the word "terrorism" differently, using a different dictionary. Who is to judge? I think the judicial process could decide on that one. For any one person to say that was a terrorist act, then what about the atrocities committed not only on October 7 but all over Thailand by people with opposing ideas.
Q: How can we be sure it will never happen again, the taking over of the airports?
A: I think it depends on the behaviour of the government. This government will have to behave in such a way that will not give rise to any deep discontent about their malpractice, about the abuse of power, about atrocities and so on. If the government behaves like a normal democratic government, like in any civilised democratic country, then there should not be any problem.
Q: what are your top priorities now?
A: The immediate one is to organise the Asean summit, as the Asean charter came into force a few weeks ago. We have to act. We have to implement it and push it. Second is to set up the human rights body at the Asean level. We have to go through the range of bilateral relationship issues and see how we can push it further, bilaterally and in the sub-regional context. Third is to be more present and more active in the international arena. In multilateral organisations like the UN and WTO we have to be active participants.
Q: Thailand's image has been shattered by recent events. How do you propose to change that?
A: I have instructed all ambassadors and consulate generals to go out and inform people that the change of government has been peaceful, normal and within the parliamentary system. We are going to be very business friendly, accommodating and so on. We are serious about business. There will not be any conflict of interest. All the infrastructure projects and the procurement systems will be above board, transparent and fair, on a level playing field.
Q: Cambodian PM Hun Sen may have some bad feeling about what you said when the Samak government signed a memorandum of understanding with Cambodia over the Preah Vihear temple issue. Do you have any personal apology to give to Hun Sen?
A: No, I don't think so. I think Somdej Hun Sen is a well seasoned politician, a man who fought for his ideological beliefs. And he would have understood what I was doing in my other hat. And my comment was not directly aimed at him or the Cambodian people. My comment was on the former PM of Thailand and his regime. It was just unfortunate that Hun Sen was involved. But it was more of a secondary issue. So I think Somdej Hun Sen, who even took up arms in his younger days, would have understood what I was doing for my country.
No comments:
Post a Comment