The car accident in Mukdahan that resulted in the deaths of 10 monks highlights critical questions about child protection, parental responsibility and road safety.
It occurred after the driver, an 11-year-old boy who had allegedly taken his family’s pickup truck without permission, lost control and collided with the monks, who were walking in a single file on the roadside during a pilgrimage.
Emotions are running high among the public, with many expressing anger and disbelief that a child of that age could access, let alone operate, a vehicle.
Some members of the public are calling for the boy’s parents to be held accountable for the accident, and lawmakers and road safety advocates are urging the government to strengthen laws that prevent underage driving, including by introducing harsher penalties for parents and guardians.
The diagnosis
On Friday, the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security (MSDHS) announced the child is registered as a category 7 person with disabilities, which means he has autism.
Tuenjai Kongsombat, deputy permanent secretary of the MSDHS, said the boy is now under the ministry’s care because he is a minor.
The boy falls under the legal framework of the Child Protection Act 2003, Ms Tuenjai said.
Following a preliminary meeting of a multidisciplinary team, authorities determined the boy requires welfare protection.
Psychologists from the Department of Mental Health are evaluating his psychological state and providing support and assistance.
The ministry will coordinate with the justice system to consider the needs of both the child and the victims, Ms Tuenjai said.
Clinical and legal views
Assoc Prof Daranee Utairatanakit, member of the Equitable Education Fund Board and a specialist in the psychological development of children with special needs, said children with special needs can generally be categorised into nine groups: learning disabilities, speech or language impairments, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), emotional and behavioural disorders, intellectual disabilities, hearing impairments, visual impairments, physical and health impairments, and multiple disabilities.
Dr Daranee said that without a clear diagnosis regarding the “special needs” affecting the 11-year-old boy, it would be difficult to determine whether his condition contributed to the incident.
She said the modern term “special needs” also describes a concept of neurodiversity that encompasses conditions such as ASD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), learning disabilities, dyscalculia, dysgraphia, dyspraxia (developmental coordination disorder) and certain mental health conditions.
However, it would be inappropriate to draw conclusions based solely on limited information.
“Children with ASD typically experience difficulties with social communication, sensory processing and repetitive patterns of behaviour, while those with ADHD struggle with attention regulation, impulse control and hyperactivity,” she said.
“However, some children with these conditions may have exceptional memory and cognitive strengths despite not having a learning disability,” she said.
In her view, the boy’s driving behaviour could have been acquired through observation, whether of family members taking him out in their vehicles or content viewed on social media.
If a child has impaired judgement or limited understanding of danger, right and wrong, or the consequences of their actions because of neurological differences, their awareness of criminal behaviour may also be affected, she said.
Under Thailand’s Criminal Code, children under the age of 12 cannot be criminally punished.
Since the boy is 11, he cannot be sentenced to imprisonment or receive criminal penalties, even if the act constitutes a criminal offence if committed by an adult.
However, the Juvenile and Family Court may still order protective or rehabilitative measures.
Concerns are likely to focus on parental negligence and civil liability, while any developmental diagnosis would primarily inform welfare and rehabilitation decisions rather than determine criminal guilt.
“The community must recognise that supporting children with special needs is a shared responsibility.
“Without appropriate support, these children are at greater risk. As the saying goes, it takes a village to raise a child,” said Dr Daranee.
‘Mai Pen Rai’ no more
Dr Varoth Chotpitauasunondh, a psychiatrist with the Department of Mental Health and its spokesman, said the accident has less to do with ASD than with how the child was allowed to drive in the first place.
Allowing a child to drive a vehicle is deemed unacceptable by society, as it can be dangerous.
Experts say that families must exercise the utmost caution and prevent children from engaging in activities that pose serious risks.
“It is clear the boy was left unsupervised and allowed to do something that is against the law,” Dr Varoth said.
“More importantly, in many rural communities, people do not perceive it as dangerous when a child drives a car or rides a motorcycle on public roads, despite the fact it is illegal.
“This is an issue that has been overlooked for a long time,” he noted.
He said some embrace the attitude of “mai pen rai”, or “never mind”, when it comes to incidents that could have devastating consequences.
He said this should not become just another “case study”. He added the department has visited the families of the victims, as well as the boy’s family, and provided sessions with psychologists.
“I would like to express my deepest condolences to all those affected by this incident, especially the families who lost their loved ones,” he said.
“I urge the public not to share images or videos of the tragedy on social media,” he added.
“We do not know whether the family members of the deceased may come across such content, which could deepen their grief.”