The southern insurgency has been a conundrum for all governments.
But currently, much of the kingdom’s attention has been on the Cambodian-Thai border, and so the violence in the deep South just blips on and off our radar.
The problem of this region won’t just fade away of its own accord. Silence and a lack of policy attention from the central government only goads insurgents to stage more violence.
It is therefore welcome news that the Anutin government approved the nomination of Gen Somsak Rungsita on Thursday to lead the peace negotiation team, paving the way for peace talks with the rebel group Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN).
However, Gen Somsak, a former secretary-general of the National Security Council (NSC), is the fifth negotiation leader who comes with a military background. Such a track record speaks volumes about the direction of our peace talks.
Among six negotiation leaders, only one, Chatchai Bangchuad, was a civil official. Yet, Mr Chatchai did not have much time to lead any peace talks, and he left over a year ago to lead the NSC. Since then, the Paetongtarn government left the position of negotiation leader vacant, resulting in peace talks with the BRN being put on hold. The lack of continuity and political commitment has stalled momentum, raising concerns about the sustainability of any future negotiations.
When Mr Chatchai was appointed chief of the negotiation team, there was fresh hope that with a civilian in the role, the direction of the peace talks would be changed or toned down from those pushed by the military.
Ideally, the head of the negotiation team should not come from the ranks of the security forces, so that they will at least offer some credibility as being impartial and serve as a bridge between the two sides.
The appointment of another military man as the negotiation team leader again raises questions about whether the future peace talks can produce a different outcome.
Despite government attempts to deal with the violence, my visits and interviews with local people over the past several years revealed to me that villagers have been living in fear. Every time they leave home, they must exercise caution and are subject to heightened scrutiny by police and military officers under special security laws still enforced in the area.
Indeed, governments have tried several means to reduce violence, such as approving more budget money for development and education, including scholarships.
Governments and security agencies have failed to win over the hearts and minds of local people. Special security laws, surveillance and executive decrees imposed by successive governments have pushed communities to the opposite side.
For over a decade, security management in the deep South — representing Yala, Pattani, Narathiwat and four provinces in Songkhla — has been governed by a combination of special security laws: martial law, the Emergency Decree and the Internal Security Act (ISA). Among them, the Emergency Decree allows officials to arrest and detain individuals for up to 30 days without charge, outside the standard criminal justice system, in locations such as military camps.
The problem is that security officials apply these security edicts in a ham-fisted manner.
There are routine reports of arbitrary detentions, prolonged custody without charges, and invasive surveillance, such as the collection of DNA from suspects. There are recent cases where individuals were detained after passing through road checkpoints in the region, only to be released without explanation.
Make no mistake, I always acknowledge the importance of law and order. But genuine and meaningful reconciliation will only come from mutual trust — never coercion.
To build trust, authorities must refrain from enforcing these special security laws excessively and should apply them proportionally, with prudence and discretion.
The presence of security laws and their blunt application only reflects the absence of effective political leadership. Politicians take a backseat and leave the army to create a security strategy and run the show. Naturally, the army is made to control and win battles and wars.
Yet, the policy for the deep South should not be about winning but co-existing in a plural society where all sides feel their voices and opinions are registered and valued.
Sustainable peace in Thailand’s southern border provinces cannot be achieved through military dominance alone. Thailand has attempted military approaches for years, but they haven’t been successful.
The question is: When will we ever learn?