Is violence an effective solution?

Is violence an effective solution?

BANGKOK: The conflict over the controversial Thai-Malaysian
gas pipeline project, played out with acts of savagery and
senselessness in Hat Yai District on Saturday, was not based
purely on the need for local residents to conserve their
livelihood. They also demand the right to full participation in
discussions on any major change that is going to affect their
community.

That is fair enough. But what about the need for proponents
and opponents to strike common ground in the national interest? A
simple rule of fair play and openness, now couched as
transparency, is the appropriate norm for settling disputes on
public-related or utilities projects.

Things will never be the same again after the violence in Hat
Yai, which disrupted a planned public hearing on the US$1 billion
(Bt43 billion) gas pipeline project and was followed by the
frenzied destruction of public property -- in this case, the
district's sports arena.

There are many aspects of blatant distortion in the whole
picture. The public hearing might not have looked right, either
under existing regulations and requirements, or as perceived by
environmentalists and non-governmental organizations. It might
not have conformed to universally-acceptable standards, but at
least it was adequately prepared to serve as a venue for all
parties concerned to express their views regarding the pipeline
project.

The sports hall meeting was not organized so that the
participants could be set up as sitting ducks for a half-crazed
and drunken mob wearing green headbands to symbolize peaceful
protest. They should not have had to risk their lives. But the
2,000-strong group of teenagers, plus environmental radicals and
members of NGOs, did not give much consideration to rational
debate and peaceful discussion.

They had been there for several hours before the public
hearing was to take place, armed with sticks, iron bars and other
lethal objects. They were fully prepared to use violence to break
up the session. When all hell broke loose around the hall, the
protesters did not discriminate about their targets -- women or
defenseless villagers, who were shocked by the act of insanity.
There was little the overwhelmed and outnumbered police force of
800 assigned to provide security could do.

In the aftermath, where are the true environmentalists and
NGOs who claim to uphold democracy and peace? A gathering of some
30 NGOs and environmentalist groups in Bangkok on Sunday issued a
statement demanding a "government apology" for going ahead with
the public hearing. That is laughable, if not downright absurd.

They did not condemn the violent protesters who wrecked the
stadium and threatened the lives of innocent people, who were
there to hear reasonable and sensible arguments on the project,
which will have either positive or negative effects on their
community. If environmentalists and NGOs want to fulfill whatever
social agenda they see fit, then they must also be prepared to
accept accountability and responsibility for the consequences --
intended or otherwise. It is rare, if it has ever happened, to
hear NGOs criticize or condemn one another if they disagree on
any issue.

When the police clashed with the Pak Mool Dam villagers who
invaded the Government House compound a few months ago, more than
200 organizations decried the violence, for which they held the
government responsible. Why are those NGOs and environmentalists
silent about the violence in Hat Yai? Could it have been that
they missed the show on television during the long weekend?

What's more absurd is the audacity of the violent mob
surrounding the Jana Police Station to demand that no legal
action be taken against those who destroyed the sports arena and
other law offenders on Saturday. Surely they cannot expect to be
above the law? At the same time, they demanded that the person
who fired at them be brought to justice within 10 days.

If the police refuse, these violence-prone protesters will
likely burn down the station. They had already pelted it with
rocks, breaking glass windows and panels and forcing police to
maintain their patience under incredible pressure. It was mob
rule in the truest sense of the word.

Do NGOs and environmentalist groups agree that stick-wielding
and stone-throwing protesters be given special immunity? If their
response is "yes", then should the public assume that violence
and the possibility of bloodshed are the only effective means to
stop whatever projects the NGOs and environmentalists disapprove
of?

-- The Nation/Asia News Network