Wasant Techawongtham
Last week's public forum at Thammasat
University was precedent-setting. For the first time, ministers and poor
villagers sat down as equals on stage to provide information on an issue
of public interest.
Credit the government for deciding to participate at a venue not of its
own choosing and having the forum televised live. But also keep in mind
that it would not have made that decision had it not been for the
protesting villagers and the Assembly of the Poor, whose tenacity and
resourcefulness have put the problems of the poor on the public agenda.
It's true, as many have pointed out, that no new information was
revealed at the forum. Still, in a democratically-developing society such
as ours, it is often the process, not the outcome, of a social or
political development that counts the most.
The importance of this process must be accentuated in light of the fact
that a credible process of conflict resolution does not exist and, at the
same time, social conflicts are multiplying as the country is plunged into
possibly its worst crisis-politically, economically and environmentally-in
its modern history.
The non-existence of credible mechanisms to resolve conflicts
demonstrated its detrimental effect again recently at the so-called public
hearing on the Thai-Malaysian gas pipeline project in the South.
Gen Charan Kullavanich, chairman of the hearing panel, was forced to
bring the proceedings to a premature end following insistent disruptions
by activists opposing the project. The activists condemned the hearing as
a government ploy to push through the project without regard to its impact
on the environment or the local way of life.
Opponents earlier criticised the government for not involving them in
initiating the hearing or in the selection of members of the hearing
panel.
But even if the project opponents were allowed to participate fully in
the process, it is still doubtful whether the final outcome would be
acceptable to either side, considering that the hearing panel is merely a
complaint board with no authority to make a decision one way or the other.
The final say rests with the government.
In many aspects, it is akin to the government's appointment of a
"neutral committee" to consider the Pak Moon protesters'
grievances. The cabinet's subsequent rejection of some of the committee's
recommendations led to the current stalemate.
The government's insistence on holding the ultimate power to make
decisions on contentious projects is the source of continuing conflicts.
Politicians simply don't have the public trust to make impartial decisions
on projects they help initiate.
The "public hearing" advocated by the government is just
that-a public hearing, not public participation. It is like a boxing match
where the authority to call the fight rests not with the referee and
scoring judges but with the stadium manager who is not even present to
watch the fight. Is it any wonder, then, that any decision is always
contested?Another hearing on the pipeline project has been scheduled for
the end of next month. Opponents will continue to boycott it. Authorities
will no doubt be prepared to deal with any disruption or trouble from the
opponents, with force if necessary. The situation will be explosive.
If violence erupts, it will not be so much the opponents'
hard-headedness as the government's insistence on continuing with a
discredited process which only leads to a dead-end.
There is no time to play this foolish game. Society deserves no less
than a genuine mechanism for resolving mounting conflicts which takes into
consideration the interests of all concerned.
Wasant Techawongtham is Deputy News Editor for Environment and Urban
Affairs, Bangkok Post.
