No shame, no responsibility

Re: "Prayuth regrets shooting", February 1.

I read with mounting disquiet your lead article on Wednesday. That this is an appalling public relations disaster is without question. However, what it draws into disturbing focus is the attitude of very senior figures and the clear and chronic lack of effective leadership being given. When an incident such as this occurs, it should be handled with the utmost probity and sensitivity by those whose duty it is to act for the state. However, what we have seen is an utter shambles littered with nonprofessionalism and incompetence of breathtaking magnitude from the top to the grassroots.

Firstly we must look at the comments of Deputy Prime Minister Yuthasak Sasiprapha who, earlier in the week, doubted the victims were innocent and made various disparaging comments to that end. As the truth now begins to trickle out, these comments are seen to be highly ill-judged to the point of misleading. Indeed, in any decent society, the pressure for his resignation would be irresistible. Moreover, any decent politician who had erred so comprehensively on such a highly sensitive issue, even though misinformed by subordinates, would do the decent thing and take responsibility and resign. However, there is absolutely no chance of this happening, as politicians here have consistently shown no shame whatsoever. In fact, I believe that most of their moral compasses are so defective that they actually believe there is no reason for them to go when they foul up comprehensively.

Secondly we must look at the head of the Army. For some reason he has felt it necessary to blunder into the situation in a most tactless way by seeking public sympathy for subordinates; there is, however, no mention of sympathy for the bereaved having been expressed, just a detached regret for the incident.

Most importantly, however, this must bring into stark focus the questionable use of paramilitary rangers. It would appear by their actions that they are highly unprofessional, untrustworthy and trigger-happy. The fact that the situation in the South is highly charged and dangerous is not in question, but the use of ill-disciplined semi-thugs as state servants cannot be seen as an appropriate or effective policy. So those responsible for this policy must be pressed as to why they consider it appropriate.

As ultimate head, the Army's chief must accept the consequences of trying to keep the Army at arm's length in the South by using rangers rather than regular troops, and ultimately his political masters must shoulder the consequences of this flawed policy.

Perhaps a more useful issue for the new defence minister to focus on might be a root-and-branch revision of security policy in the South and how it is implemented, as the appalling record is not pleasant reading, rather than scheming to fill the higher ranks of the military with pro-Thaksin men.

Reluctantly, I am resigned to the fact that: no one will resign, responsibility for the appalling tragedy will be obfuscated, platitudes of regret will be grudgingly muttered, some money will be handed out to assuage the pain of loss, and the name Nong Chik will join that of Tak Bai and many others in an ever-growing catalogue of stains on the country's standing in the world.

John de Laurent

Bangkok