Nip violence in the bud

       The government's decision to invoke the Internal Security Act in Dusit district of Bangkok to deal with the mass protest planned this Sunday by the pro-Thaksin United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), is strictly in line with the famous adage that prevention is better than cure.
       Under the law, which was successfully enforced in Phuket during the recent meetings between Asean member countries and their dialogue partners, the responsibility to maintain law and order in Dusit district will be shifted from the police to the Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc), which is empowered to impose appropriate and stringent measures such as restrictions on travel and public demonstration in the designated zone, in order to pre-empt any chance of violence.
       Negative reaction against the enforcement of this law from the tourism sector and the opposition Puea Thai Party is not unexpected. Concern expressed by Tourism and Sports Minister Chumpol Silpa-archa at the cabinet meeting on Tuesday that the tough law might affect confidence in the tourism industry, is justified. But this problem can be addressed if the ministry and the Tourism Authority of Thailand immediately launch a publicity campaign to clarify to tourism agencies and related businesses here and abroad, of the need for this law and that its impact will hardly be felt by the public in general, let alone tourists. Unless, of course, the protest turns violent and certain appropriately stringent measures have to be applied to maintain peace and order, which could cause inconvenience to tourists and locals alike.
       While the concern of the tourism sector is acceptable, the one expressed by the opposition Puea Thai Party is rather sceptical. Puea Thai spokesman Prompong Nop-parith has asked the government to rethink its enforcement of the security law, claiming that "third hand" elements might incite violence and put the blame on the red-shirt protesters. Instead, the party should be telling the UDD to call off its planned protest so there would be no need for the government to invoke the security law and thus shut out any chances for "third hand" elements to undermine the cause of the UDD.
       Despite assurances from UDD leaders that the protest will be peaceful, the Songkran riots in Bangkok perpetrated by red-shirt mobs and the storming of the venue of the Asean summit in Pattaya, also by the red shirts - which successfully forced the postponement of the summit and made the country a laughing stock in the eyes of the international community - have served as costly lessons regarding the UDD leaders' credibility or the lack of it. Not only can these UDD leaders not be trusted, but the dismal performance of the police in dealing with the red-shirt protesters during the Songkran riots, made it necessary for the government to rethink its overall approach towards future protests; in other words, it would be prudent to nip potentially violent demonstrations in the bud.
       It should also be noted that without the pre-emptive measures made possible by the Internal Security Act, the only legal avenues available to deal with unruly protesters are traffic and criminal laws, which have proven time and again to be ineffective in mob control or in preventing violence resulting from protests.
       If anyone at all is to shoulder the blame for any negative impact that may result from the enforcement of this security law, it must be those persons who first stoke the fires, and not those taking precautions to prevent the flames from spreading.