Changes In Thailand's Far South Will Be Closely Watched

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE

Changes in the far South will be closely watched

By Avudh Panananda

The Nation

Next year the government is slated to take a bold step to resolve social strife in the South - wading through uncharted waters which can yield either success or a misstep in the struggle to quell violence.

Pending final preparations, the Southern Border Provinces Administrative Centre (SBPAC) will be upgraded to a fully-fledged agency under the prime minister and with full mandate to run the five southernmost provinces of Songkhla, Satun, Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat.

Parliament voted to approve the revamped SBPAC in November. The actual enactment and implementation of the SBPAC provisions will take months to complete due to their intricate details.

The Democrats will likely push for an early inauguration of the SBPAC with an enhanced mandate before the next general election. It is quite obvious the main coalition party wants to remind its southern constituents to spearhead efforts to give locals a greater say on their affairs.

Even though the draft bill had gone through a series of revisions, the final legislative version ended up with a number of provisions to ensure the SBPAC is an autonomous agency on an unprecedented scale.

The SBPAC is, however, an administrative tool. Its future hinges on the political will and the vision of the people running the agency.

The SBPAC is a super agency run by a secretary-general, who will have the same seniority as a permanent secretary. The prime minister will oversee its operations and a designated minister will supervise it.

The southernmost provinces will be the first region with direct access to the prime minister and the government.

The SBPAC will have the mandate to designate any areas within its jurisdiction as a special economic development zone. It will also have leeway to sanction the Muslim way of life, including the formation of Islamic courts.

An advisory council, made up off local figures and religious leaders, will be formed and factored in the decision-making process on local and community affairs.

Following the re-structuring, the government will pin its hope on the SBPAC to bring about a return to normalcy and peace.

However, there are two issues that could lead the SBPAC to become a bloated bureaucracy instead of a vehicle for change.

First, the government has yet to map out a clear strategy on how to strike a right balance between counter-insurgency and rehabilitation. Thai leaders have formed a consensus about opting for a political solution rather than a military one. But at the same time they have allowed the military free rein to fight the insurgency.

Throughout the history of warfare, there has never been a total victory over an insurgency. The counter-insurgency can at best help to contain violence in order to pave a way for rehabilitation, or address root causes for the violence.

More than 4,400 people have been killed since January 2004 and the southernmost provinces remain like a war zone. A large number of locals see troops sent by Bangkok as a foreign occupation force. It's hard to see how there could be a sustainable solution if the military still runs the show.

If Thailand is emulating the British model on Northern Ireland, then it should duly note that the British plan to phase out its military operations was implemented along with rehabilitation measures.

To give the SBPAC the mandate for civilian affairs while allowing the military an overriding power for counter-insurgency is like trying to administer the South with two heads.

Second, local figures and religious leaders will take part in running local affairs - but their appointments hinge on the blessing of the central government.

Although the SBPAC legislation has been given leeway to choose any qualified candidates for the job, is it possible in the foreseeable future for the prime minister to pick locals over trusted candidates from Bangkok?

-- The Nation 2010-12-21

[asiawatcher]

Pulling troops out of the South will not stop the violence - it will only allow free reign of these violent morons hiding behind religion. Even a witch hunt with full infantry moving through house by house will not solve the problem.

It is a dilemma that I think could be resolved by NOT having religious leaders involved in Government. Religion and politics have always been a bad mix and religion has been behind just about every human conflict in recorded history. Is there something wrong with this equation? Go figure. Become a 'thesist' (not atheist), believe in only yourself and we all know right from wrong.

This on Wikipedia:

The collective representation of Harris, Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens has also been termed "The Four Horsemen", based on a discussion in 2007.^[3] They and other supporters of the New Atheism movement are hard-line critics of religion. They state that atheism, backed by recent scientific advancement, has reached the point where it is time to take a far less accommodating attitude toward religion, superstition, and religion-based fanaticism than had been extended by moderate atheists, secularists, and some secular scientists.

Edited December 21, 2010 by asiawatcher

[Colabamumbai]

Talking is what is necessary, something Thais do not like to do.

[jayjay0]

This one paragraph jumped right of the page at me

"The SBPAC will have the mandate to designate any areas within its jurisdiction as a special economic development zone. It will also have leeway to sanction the Muslim way of life, including the formation of Islamic courts.'

Do we really want the Muslim way of life. Iran, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon,Pakistan the list goes on. Unlike the Buddhist with there different sects the Muslim's blow each other up if you don't agree with them.

This is not even close to the same as Ireland. The British captured and raped Ireland in there idiotic drive to rape the world. They had no business there in the first place. The southern provinces were never a problem until certain people took it on them selves to shove there way of life on every one. Not to let them carry the Burden of evil by themselves a certain citizen with a lot of power and money reacted in just as ignorant manner.

I am not a citizen of Thailand but it is my home. If I want to walk down the street holding my wife's hand I do not want to have to find out what the law is in this Province.

Abhist has done a great job considering what the red shirts have allowed him to do. But it is these kind of things that keep me from fully endorsing him. This and the handling of the refugee's the army put on a scow out in the middle of nowhere after they took the engines off them. The way he could get them to jump with the snap of a word. The same Army that was content to watch Thailand suffer with the closure of the airports. He does all right if it is a project to discredit the red shirts but the rest of it is lacking.

Edited December 21, 2010 by jayjay0