On Sunday March 28 at 4pm, talks were held at the King Prachadipok’s Institute between the Abhisit government and the red shirts. On the red shirts side was Jatuporn Prompan, Weng Tohjirakarn and Veera Musikapong. For the government, it was Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, PM Office’s secretary general Korbsak Sapavasu, and Democrat MP and Democrat Secretary-General Chamni Sakdiset. The reds were, of course, wearing red while the government was wearing blue.

The meeting started with photo opportunities, but the talks were broadcast live in TV. Today was not about negotiations, it was about each party setting out why they held their positions. Below is a summary in chronological order on what was said:

Veera: We have previously been speaking to each through media. Now, we can speak to each other face-to-face. I thank the PM for coming. The goal of the reds is for the dissolution of parliament. There has been no conclusion over constitutional reform and a dissolution is the way out.

Abhisit: We want Thailand to win, not just one group. We don’t want enemies and have different views (Veera nods in agreement). I have never refused to dissolve parliament. A dissolution is normal within a parliamentary system, but one has to ask, is dissolution the answer? I have spoken to coalition partners today so they know what is happening so you can be assured that when you leave here there won’t be mixed messages being sent. A dissolution is not the same as a referendum. One may choose a party, but that does not mean you agree with that party’s reasons for amending the constitution. Also, if we keep the current constitution, what happens if there are problems in an  election campaign and more red cards for executives (and thus party dissolution and the banning of executives)?

Veera: We want the PM to accept that coup and what transpired after the coup with coup orders and the constitution are a problem. There are differences between now under Abhisit and under Samak. Samak asked for the military to come out and help, but they refused. However, now the same military protects your government.

Abhisit: Everyone wants a 100 percent pure democracy, but how do we get to there? If there is a dissolution, will there still be a problem? Not every problem started from the coup. Both Samak and Somchai faced problems too. A joint House and Senate committee agreed on amending six provisions of the constitution, but Puea Thai disagreed with this. On this, there is also the influence of someone who I don’t want to refer to in a negative way as they are not here [BP: He means Thaksin].

Jautporn (of reds): I was in the Puea Thai meeting. It was not because of Thaksin that PT pulled out. We wanted the 1997 constitution and didn’t see that the process of the six provisions was working. Also, you should remember PM, your party room also voted to not to support the amendment of the constitution. The Democrat party has now set a goal of 280 MPs [out of 480 MPs - this was from a Dem. party meeting on Saturday]. Therefore, you can dissolve parliament and you will win. If Peau Thai loses the election and choose the Democrats then we have lost. It will mean ppl want you and reject Puea Thai solutions.

Chamni (of Dems): I never thought there would be another coup after the ’91 coup. How do we come together to fix this constitution? I don’t see how we can get answers on amending the constitution after we have had an election.

Dr Weng (of reds): What we want is real democracy for Thais and constitutional monarchy such as in the UK. I never agreed with Thaksin on everything, but his was an elected government. We got a coup and independent agencies appointed by coup leaders. Army C-in-C Anupong refused to enforce a state of emergency under Samak and also when the government under Somchai asked for military to help guard the airport, the military just stepped aside idly. However, now Anupong sends troops to the temple for Abhisit.

The military helped you to become PM. This outside influence means you have become part of the ammat (aristocrat) system. An election gives power back to the people. The military budget increased dramatically after the coup [BP: from 80 billion to 140 billion]. The military gained too much power.

The referendum for the 2007 constitution was held when half the country was under martial law and the then government in conjunction with the military spent billions to support the “yes” vote. How can a referendum be considered legitimate held when people are looking down  the barrel of a gun. The 2007 constitution punishes a party and executives for the wrongs of one. This is not fair whoever is punished. The 2007 constitution gives power to seven people to choose 74 senators.

Abhisit: You mention the UK as a system you want, but in the UK there is legislation on limits on public protests in England and in the UK you couldn’t do what the reds have done. We need a road map (he uses the English term) in order to proceed. We need permanent changes not just band-aid solutions to get to the next election. (Turning to Dr. Weng). In your years of fighting for democracy, has another PM ever sat down and talked with you? I have also never blamed anyone for the bombs.

Jatuporn: We really shouldn’t be moving too far afield today. Our interest is in dissolution. Reminds Abhisit’s call to Samak to resign. Also, in regards to illegal protests and the law, when PAD seized Government House, you (turns to Abhisit) went to visit the PAD protesters. We only have one demand, unlike Thaksin, who has many, and that is to dissolve parliament. If you do not dissolve, we will continue our fight, but I guarantee we will not seize any government buildings. We only want one thing and that is to dissolve parliament will you (faces Abhisit) do this?

Abhisit: Some say I shouldn’t dissolve parliament, but I came today to talk to you. There are many other people who have voices as well. As PM, I have to consider everyone. There are also what you call “fake” reds and what happens then if they obstruct us? We can set up a framework for further talks. Before dissolution we need to first to agree to amend the constitution. We can meet again tomorrow if necessary.

Jatuporn: How long will this amendment process take? We have spent months and have got nowhere. We disagree on amending the constitution first. We want an election first. We don’t believe amendments can take place now as there are too many differences. If there is a dissolution, the Democrats will not be obstructed.

Veera (reds): Says problems started with the coup. This was outside the constitution. Says reds and government are a result of problems of the coup. We want to amend the constitution, but this never happens. A referendum never happens. There is no discussion in parliament. If there is a dissolution, then we can start anew and political parties can propose their amendments to the constitution during the election campaign. An election campaign is like a referendum.

Abhisit: I opposed the coup regardless of the reasons for it. It has created problems, but problems started before in 2005 [BP: He takes great care not to mention Thaksin's name]. We had interference with independent organizations. There were problems with the 1997 constitution and all parties agreed with amending it back then in the middle of 2006. Also, the 2007 constitution has some good points. Many people agree with amending it, but not everyone agrees on what to amend. It is good that Veera agreed that reds said they will accept whatever is outcome of the election.

Korbsak (head of PM’s office): We should speak about what we can do to proceed. I agree that it’s difficult to amend the constitution. You say that we can have a dissolution and then an election and then the winner of the election can then move ahead with amending the constitution. However, will any single party win a majority at the next election? The major party will still need to have talks with the minor parties on amending the constitution. The PM has to go overseas tomorrow morning. We can then resume tomorrow evening. I can talk with Weng (if he reds) in the meantime.

Jatuporn: Can we have a toilet break and discuss with each other?

[Korbsak gives the time-out signal, but Weng starts to speak. It is just a partial repeat of what he said above and then we get the toilet break after Abhisit speaks again. Now, back from the five minute break].

Chami (govt): We disagree on what is first between constitution and dissolution.

Veera: We see things differently on what comes first between constitution and dissolution. We should leave, talk among ourselves and then return.

Abhisit: We are not in complete disagreement. We just think we need to sort some things out first before dissolution.

Jatuporn: Dissolution should take place within two weeks or 15 days. We can also talk again tomorrow.

Abhisit: This is far as we can go today.

BP: Abhisit is off to Brunei tomorrow and returns around 5 p.m. so tentatively they agreed that talks should resume around 6pm.

Before looking at too much other commentary, BP’s initial view is that the reds gained on the substance (this does not mean that they had better arguments, more that many people would have today their arguments on what thy wanted and why they wanted it) whereas the government won on style (primarily because Abhisit fronted up and showed he was positively willing to compromise and had a coherent response). Both sides were very reasoned and each made good points at times. The atmosphere was very pleasant. You have some smiling and laughter. There were no insults directed at each other. Hence, I would score it as a draw when you consider all factors.

Both sides had a large TV audience – much larger than any of them normally have – and had ample room to present their arguments. It was the first negotiations and both sides got to present their arguments although we saw little progress on coming to a consensus. Hopefully, tomorrow Weng and Korbsak can move forward in private on the positions to proceed. The red shirts cannot expect a dissolution immediately – actually there was implicit talk of one in the future, but then at the very end Jatuporn belatedly gave Abhisit 14-15 days. There is no way the red shirts will get that either.

There are a few possible ways of moving forward. (1) as already mentioned in a post on Saturday, the reds and Abhisit agree for a dissolution in six months or by the end of the year (2) or the reds and the government agree on a time frame for proceeding with the constitution. The government argues it can be done now whereas the reds see no prospect for it happening. Say we agree on four to six weeks for parliament to vote and decide on what to amend – then we can have a referendum after that. This is what would also get us the time frame of before the end of the year for dissolution of parliament. Now, if parliament cannot agree to amend the constitution within a certain time frame then this triggers a promise by Abhisit for elections by the end of the year. There needs to be some mechanism and/or time frame otherwise we could still be talking about this until the end of the next year. (3), and Korbsak of the Dems seemed to hint this, is that we have a referendum on constitutional amendments and an election at the same time.

For all the talk by the Democrats they don’t necessarily want to amend the constitution, they just don’t want elections now so they could agree on (1) as long as the timeframe was acceptable. The reds could (or maybe BP needs to say should) agree on a timeframe in the future. They have mentioned three months before. This may be easier to discuss behind closed doors. For (2), this is the Democrats position now except the deadline. The Democrats also need to accept, we have had an open-ended talk of amending the constitution for at least six months now and very little progress. In fact, the two major parties have pulled out. BP views unless we get some deadline or at least a timeframe this could go on forever. For (3), this seems like the compromise. Not so sure that the coalition partners will be happy – maybe we can amend the move from the multi-member constituency seats first through parliament. This gets the coalition partners onside – although the Democrats actually oppose this, but it could be done through a straight parliamentary vote and it would pass.

Will Monday bring us closer to a resolution? Well that depends on how much each side is willing to compromise.

NOTE: This is from notes and when I typed and saw on twitter at the time. Have tried to flesh it out to make more complete sentences. While I am confident the above is fairly accurate, am not so sure that I get everything everyone says in the right order (i.e remember Abhisit saying something that didn’t tweet about, but might add to the part when he was talking about this issue when in fact he said it earlier or later).