If the real intention of the reconciliation bill submitted to parliament last Friday by former coup maker and Matubhum Party leader Sonthi Boonyaratglin and his supporters is to bring about peace and national reconciliation in our divided society, it has missed the mark from the very outset.
A chorus of protests immediately greeted the bill once it was known that parliament had accepted it as an urgent matter.
The People's Alliance for Democracy rallied at parliament to protest against the bill yesterday while critics were also quick to pour scorn on Gen Sonthi, including claims which were denied by the general himself that he was in the service of fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who will be among the beneficiaries of the bill.
Despite the uproar, Gen Sonthi remains unperturbed in the same way he was almost two months ago when, in his capacity as chairman of the House reconciliation panel, he rammed through the House a reconciliation plan which selectively made use of a study on reconciliation undertaken by the King Prajadhipok's Institute.
Gen Sonthi was quoted as saying, "I don't want anything other than to see peace and reconciliation. I have already had everything, especially honour and dignity" when asked whether he was acting on behalf of Thaksin.
The former coup maker insisted his reconciliation bill was similar to Order 66/23 initiated more than three decades ago by then prime minister Prem Tinsulanonda to bring an end to the communist insurgency by allowing insurgents to return to society and turn over a new leaf without legal prosecution.
That was only half right. Order 66/23 did not exclude the insurgents from prosecution of serious criminal offences such as murder and robbery.
Gen Sonthi's bill is about anything but reconciliation. It should be renamed an amnesty bill which will be more appropriate because it was written in a way to whitewash the criminal offences committed by all parties to political conflicts since 2005, including officials and protesters, as well as the investigations undertaken by the now defunct Assets Scrutiny Committee against Thaksin.
As a precautionary measure, parliament has ordered a temporary staircase be installed in its compound to serve as an escape route in the event parliament is besieged by protesters.
The debate on Gen Sonthi's bill together with three other similar bills submitted by Pheu Thai MPs has been postponed until today.
But none of these measures will ease the conflict and ward off the political showdown which is likely to follow.
Instead of trying to force the reconciliation bill down the throats of the public, especially those who disagree with it, the Pheu Thai Party should convince Gen Sonthi to withdraw the bill.
Alternatively it should ask House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranant, also a Pheu Thai MP, to delay the debate of the bill until a climate of reconciliation emerges when all or most of the stakeholders in the conflict are willing to discuss the issue in a mature and constructive manner.
There is no question that Pheu Thai has the numbers it needs to ram the bill through parliament in disregard of the noisy protests and dissenting views.
But that will be a foolhardy exercise which will only court more trouble and defy the declared objective of the bill _ which is to bring about reconciliation.