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