Growing numbers of the public and mass media have become increasingly outraged by the upsurge of brutality in the deep South. People are also increasingly impatient about the notion of reconciliation.

Many in the print media are calling for a more "militant" approach to solve the insurgency issue, while locals appear to favour arming themselves for self-defence.

The government's reconciliatory approach appears to be losing support, although one must question whether the authorities' reconciliatory approach was real or superficial. To some observers it was no more than lip service.

There can be no genuine reconciliation without open dialogue among the various stake holders, however. Even if the militants/separatists/rebels may not want to join, other groups should be encouraged to engage in real, open talk.

Attempting to free oneself from ideological constraints such as nationalism or separatism is needed, along with a conscious effort to empathise more with others.

All these requirements appear to be missing from the government's endorsed reconciliatory approach. The current notion of reconciliation is superficial and appears to be more of a ploy to secure and maintain the power structure, especially when one considers that no open dialogue can take place.

Issues like elected governors for the three southern-most provinces are literally "not for discussion", as is the idea of a referendum that might allow local people to select the best way to adjust or change the administrative structure in the region.

Various government figures claim time and again that only 10 per cent of the populace in the strife-torn areas are causing the ongoing violence. Why then, should they fear the majority of people having more say in running the area?

The fact that people are often restricted by the narrow notion of nationalism is apparent when considering the issue of secession, or the possible independence of Pattani through peaceful means, which many see as completely taboo.

One senior member of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) told this writer that such an issue was simply "against the constitution". This is despite the fact that all the NLA members have been appointed by the junta, which tore up the 1997 constitution.

This particular NLA member appeared to have no problem with being appointed by the junta and working with the military men who acted against the constitution by staging a coup. However, the same NLA member - who has been playing a prominent role in trying to make southern reconciliation a reality - simply discounted the idea of possible independence for Pattani as "unconstitutional".

He noted that even if they granted independence to the deep South, it would be premature to do so because the risk of Pattani being a "failed state" was substantial without proper preparation for such a move.

This is reminiscent of the colonial masters' mentality from the last century, or earlier, when states tended to argue that people were not ready for self-rule.

As for empathy, it is strange considering how many Thais have become so engrossed by the recent pseudo-historical films on "King Naresuan", especially when it comes to the king's unwavering spirit to fight for Ayutthaya's independence.

Yet the desire of some Thai Malay Muslims to unleash a violent separatist struggle is met with utter incomprehension.

It's not that Pattani necessarily needs to be independent, but the way towards any peaceful solution cannot be achieved if ideas and feelings cannot be openly placed on the table. Any real discussion should not just involve the government, but society at large in order to consider the various dimensions and details of the conflict, no matter how unpalatable they may be.

Pattani's union with modern Thailand was achieved through coercion. In marriage, one side can seek a divorce if they're not happy or treated unfairly. In a forced union, there's even less reason not to treat Thai Malay Muslims more fairly by allowing them a greater say on the direction this union should take.

As a result, some unnecessary killings on both sides may be spared. It is this sort of genuine reconciliation that is urgently needed.

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation