Mass murder in the milk bar

18 February 2003

They sat down in a trendy new eating place in the department store. A couple of young professionals. One of them looked very gloomy.

Jit: It must be around 200 bodies now. It’s mass murder. If the government is behind it, then it would be hard to find anything similar in the world outside a revolution or a civil war.

Jai: But what makes you think it’s the government. The prime minister denies it.

Jit: Well, for a start because the Interior Minister announced it. He said something like, we’re going to kill them and seize their property so their children do not benefit. Of course, other government ministers then gave totally contradictory statements. But that’s normal. A minister did announce this.

Jai: So you don’t believe it’s other drug dealers who are doing these killings?

Jit: Don’t you think it’s a bit strange that so many of these killings are the same? If this was a panic reaction among drug dealers, you would expected the killings to be more varied. And messier. Some knife fights. The odd grenade. Explosives. Whatever. But no. Most seem to be a highly efficient executions by hand arms. Very professional.

Jai: Maybe. But who cares? These are bad people. They don’t care who gets hurt by the drugs they sell. They have been warned many times. I agree with Thaksin. We shouldn’t have any sympathy. We should care more about the risk to the police.

Jit: But suppose I decide this is a great chance to take revenge on my business rival. I hire a hit man. Get some pills planted on the body. The police who find these pills are happy because they get a bounty. The provincial governor breathes a sigh of relief because he has another statistic.

Jai: You’re right. Maybe there will be a few cases. But that sort of thing happens all the time anyway.

Jit: I just think the authorities have to act within the law. If they don’t, why should anybody else. Look at the destruction of the bars in Sukumwit, or even the riot in Phnom Penh. Someone decides there’s a bigger reason which justifies them to defy the law. That can be getting your property back or salvaging the honour of the nation. Anything.

Jai: But there is a difference in this case. Lots of people support this campaign against the drug dealers. They’re fed up with the fact that the dealers have got away with this for so long. They want to protect their kids. They like Thaksin for being decisive.

Jit: You’re probably right. But does that mean the government can now do anything as long as it has some kind of vague popular support? There are consequences, you know. Despite being a Buddhist country, there’s a very violent streak in the culture. Not so long ago, when law enforcement was very weak, people were used to settling their own problems using violence. Then when we were fighting communism, people in uniform got used to doing terrible things in the name of saving the country. Eventually that results in events like the October 1976 and May 1992 massacres. There are not many countries where a university has been subjected to armed assault, and a street demo been cleared using the methods of jungle warfare. Look at elections even now. How many canvassers get shot every time? This anti-drug campaign encourages this sort of thing.

Jai: So you worry violence breeds violence?

Jit: It’s more than that. There has been a strong force in support of non-violence over recent years. Especially since 1992. But campaigns like this push things the other way. Just look at last week. A Thai Rath reporter assassinated in Phuket. A grenade launched at a big political family in Khorat. A vendor shot on a Bangkok street. Is this the open season? Should we be surprised?

Jai: But we know those events are different. It’s very clear. They are about business conflict, or political conflict, or something else.

Jit: I’d feel safer if I thought we had a good chance of getting the information to make the distinction. But it has become difficult to trust the media these days. Especially TV. The news reports are like government propaganda. The current affairs programmes have become little more than “Meet the Minister”. Even the dramas on the army-owned channels are thinly disguised PR for the military. It’s like we’ve gone back before 1992, before 1988, maybe even earlier. This combination of media control and violence is horribly familiar. Suppose the local branch of some political party decides to get a step ahead in the next election by picking off a few of the rival canvassers.

Jai: Ok. But suppose it works. Suppose we do get rid of drugs. Suppose a few hundred real drug-dealers die and maybe a handful of others are killed on the side. Wouldn’t that be worth it? Wouldn’t it be an acceptable cost?

Jit: But how do you make the calculation? Would ten innocent deaths be ok? How about a hundred? Or a thousand? What value do you put on the sacrifice of principles, of human rights? Besides, what makes you think that the success would stick? The authorities have been after the ya ba dealers for 6-7 years. We have had national campaign after national campaign. Signs everywhere that selling drugs is selling the country. Pa Prem making appeals on TV. Ads showing officials being locked in jail. Pop stars making soulful appeals. Marches, concerts. But none of it works. Not law enforcement, peer pressure, authority figures, appeals to nationalism, nothing. Only mass murder. What does that tell us? The problem goes deep. This may be a quick solution. But it may not solve the real problem and so it won’t last. What happens then? We do it again?

Jai: Drink your milk.