It was used by exPremier Thaksin Shinawatra as a way of avoiding any acknowledgement of culpability. He had maintained until his very last day in office his policy in the South had been "on the right track". And when he mouthed all the outra¬geously insulting words against the locals there, all he managed to say was: "I am sorry if my words offended anybody."

He wasn't sorry, of course. He simply want¬ed to sound apologetic. The sham and insin¬cerity were unmistakable. He never took back what he had said. He never disavowed his words. His pseudoapology was only used to get his critics off his back.

That's why, when Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont, as he put it, "started the healing process by expressing an unreserved apology" on behalf of "the previous government" over the failure of its policy towards the deep South, he struck a positive chord all round. Some Muslims in the 2,000strong audience in Pattani even cried when they heard his humble words of regret. They hadn't expected such a compassionate gesture from the Bangkok leadership. They hadn't thought this simple but powerful expression of apology could finally be delivered while the new gov¬ernment was still coping with the socalled undercurrents that are causing sporadic harassment of the powers that be.

It's a profound and compelling apology that goes beyond the usual "I am sorry I made a mistake" expression of remorse.

First, Surayud said he was sorry on behalf of the previous government over its terrible mistakes in the South. That's the gracious gen¬tleman's part. That's the show of magnanimity on the part of the successor to an ousted leader.

But much more telling and, to me, much more politically significant was the fact that Surayud also apologised for his own failure to check Thaksin's destructive and divisive policy in the South when Thaksin held virtually absolute political power and was doing his utmost to curtail the traditional largerthanlife profile of the Army commanderinchief.

Subtly hidden somewhere in his soft but steadfast tone, delivered impeccably, was the message that he had done his utmost to thwart Thaksin's apparent blunders in the South. Surayud's attempts to foil the hawkish approach and strongarm tactics in the three Muslimdominated provinces had fallen on deaf ears, and as a result he was squeezed sideways and even branded an uncooperative officer in official quarters.

Having made the striking disclosure of his role as an "inside dissident" under the Thaksin regime, Prime Minister Surayud has come across loud and clear with this new pledge: now that he is in charge, he won't let the ugly past repeat itself ever again.

Left unsaid and unexplored was the ques¬tion of whether Surayud was also apologising for having kept relatively quiet over the past five years despite his disagreement with Thaksin's bungling of the problems in the South - five years of what he described in a speech on Tuesday evening to the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Thailand as "politi¬cally motivated, illconceived meddling and strongarm tactics".

One clear conclusion from the premier's statement was that had proper checks and bal¬ances been in place, the disastrous effects of the previous regime's tactics in the South could have been avoided.

Even more thoughtprovoking as a result of Surayud's unprecedented public apology was the question: had he assumed the dissenter's position at the height of Thaksin's political power, would his role as a whistleblower against the ruling clique have changed any¬thing for the better?

This question may sound hypothetical now. But if we are truly to benefit from Prime Minister Surayud's inspiring apology, it must serve one very crucial purpose: to empower dissidents within the system so they won't have to apologise in the future for not having spoken up at the most critical point of a national crisis.

And from General Surayud's own experi¬ence, it may be even more important to empower dissenting voices from within the establishment than it is to protect the right to protest from the outside.

That way, good, honest, courageous and publicspirited people within the establish¬ment won't have to wait until after some terri¬bly corrupt policies have wreaked havoc on the country before they say, "Sorry, everybody. I should have blown the whistle long, long ago."

The fact that Surayud has survived to issue this unreserved apology is a very, very rare exception indeed.

It's a sad fact of political history that most of the few good men didn't make it to the finish line.

Suthichai Yoon