'I've had enough, politics has sunk to fighting'

Why did you quit the Pheu Thai Party?

May I make it clear that I did not quit because of any conflicts within the party? It was actually because of the recent serious rifts. I could see that instead of decreasing, the conflicts have become more serious. I'd never thought that this would ever happen in Thailand. It was more severe than the October 14, 1973, the October 6, 1976 and the May 1992 incidents.

I was not interested in political work from the beginning, but I'd wanted to work on policies. However, I felt that in the present environment my work on policies would be useless. The drafted policies would not be implemented soon. I don't know when the election will happen, so I decided to take a break. You can call it taking a break, but I don't know whether I will come back. But the report that I will set up a new party is just rumour.

You were the first deputy party leader in charge of economic issues. Who will succeed you?

Those who stay can work by themselves. I didn't desert anybody. I'd never told anyone I would stay on until I die.

You could have just stayed on as a deputy party leader. Why did you have to resign?

I don't know what it will be like in the future. At this moment, none of the political parties are making adjustments to bring Thai politics back to normal. All are focused on fighting against one another. ... I don't want to be in the conflict. I didn't come into politics to work in conflicts.

But your work on policies was not part of the conflict, so why did you have to resign?

I was an executive member. I had to share the responsibility for the party's decisions.

Was your decision to quit because you disagreed with the party's direction?

Only on some issues [disagreement], but they were not the reasons why I quit. Working people can have different opinions. I was among the minority on some issues.

What do you think about Pheu Thai MPs speaking on the red shirts' anti-government rally stage?

In principle, a political party should operate within its frame of work [boundaries]. When it forms the government, its duty is to keep things in place in the country. In the opposition, it has to scrutinise and examine the government and take care of the people's well-being.

Do you think speaking on the red-shirt stage is beyond the frame of work?

The frame of work implies problems of parliamentary work should be resolved in Parliament. The party members could join the red shirts, as it was their personal right to do so. But they did not have the right to drag the party as an organisation to be involved. Now people misunderstand that the Pheu Thai Party supported the red shirts. That's not true. The party never held a meeting to discuss the issues or pass an official resolution to support the red shirts or be involved in any of the red-shirt activities.

But no political party would ever pass an official resolution on such issues.

(Did not say anything.)

The party could have resolved to ban its members from joining the rally, to make it clear.

It should have been discussed from the beginning where the line was between the party and the red shirts.

So, you resigned as you were among the minority who disagreed with that?

I believe I have already said it all. I did not come into politics to fight with anybody. It's time we stopped quarrelling. Its time each side stepped back and restored the country to normal.

Did you notify former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra about your resignation?

Why should I? He is not the party leader. I notified the party leader [Yongyuth Wichaidit]. I followed the process. I was not in touch with Thaksin, as he has no position in the party. He never told or even advised me to do anything.

Have you ever thought of the possibility of the Pheu Thai and Democrat parties working together?

At this moment, even though the two parties hug each other, the problems won't just go. It's not only about the government and the opposition. Reconciliation should be among people. And those who can facilitate it should not be stakeholders or a part of the conflict. We need really neutral people otherwise, the nominations will be opposed.

Former prime minister Anand Panyarachun and Dr Prawase Wasi are only two in a population of 60 million. We have many respected people. But the person is not as important as the ways chosen to reconcile. The paths should be clear before finding the people to make it.

Reconciliation is not easy, but it's not too hard. It needs determination. Now the country is in trouble, everybody must be ready to sacrifice, not ready to hold on the power.

The biggest problem now is the rifts in society. The longer we let it stay, the harder it'll get to fix it. We need to change little by little from hate to just dissatisfaction, from dissatisfaction to neutral, from neutral to positive.

What else do you think the government should have done but has not?

The government announced since it took power that it would create reconciliation. If it had really done that the conflicts might not have been this severe. The government cannot deny responsibility. It tried to negotiate before the conflicts became too big but what a shame it failed. I don't know who is responsible for the failure. If the negotiations had succeeded, there might have been no violence.

The government can easily prove its seriousness about reconciliation; it can reduce harshness towards its opposition. It should come clean on accusations about attempts to topple the monarchy, terrorism, money freezing, find the real wrongdoers and investigate into the causes of the 88 deaths [during the reds' protest].