Analysts debunk govt’s theory on recent attacks

WHILE the authorities’ hypotheses are confusing, analysts keen on the violence in the deep South maintained their theory, suggesting that last week’s attacks in seven provinces were carried out by the separatist Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN).

Independent analyst Rungrawee Chalermsripinyorat pointed out that the bombing strategy, the devices used and the targets hit shared a similarity with BRN’s practices for over a decade. 

The insurgents actually have criminal records for action outside the three southernmost provinces, she said, citing the bomb in Bangkok’s Ramkhamhaeng area in 2013 for which another South movement Pulo-MKP had taken responsibility. 

It was also concluded that South militants were to blame for the 2006 bombings in Bangkok, Rungrawee said citing a police source, though the perpetrators have not be prosecuted so far. 

The ruling junta, meanwhile, has implied that the bombings were likely influenced by the referendum results. Panitan Wattanayagorn, adviser to Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan, also weighed in political motives, citing the incidents’ timing.

Prawit also spoke of the possibility of an anti-government movement hiring South militants to plant the bombs, a hypothesis Rungrawee called “groundless” as Muslim militants would consider being hired by Buddhists a “big sin”. 

“Discourse like this helps legitimise the struggle of southern insurgents and politicises the conflict, making them look like normal criminals,” she said. 

 “The government should not turn [the bombings] into political games. This would only worsen the situation,” she continued. 

“They should also allow police investigation to be independent and try the suspects fairly, but now they are being tried in military court.”

Tony Davis, Bangkok-based security analyst for IHS Jane’s Intelligence Review, debunked the possibility of red shirts planting the bombs under close military surveillance. 

While fractious military camps might have the ability to plan the attacks, he said they would have no reason to destroy their bases in the provinces. 

Davis believes discrimination in state protection of religion and education in the charter draft and the struggling peace negotiations could be motivations for the attack. 

He also believes the attacks were the work of BRN, judging from the pattern. 

The two analysts also believe that there is a slim chance of the authorities ever putting the attacks down to terrorism because they want to avoid international influence, especially since it could help the Patani movements in their fight for independence. 

Six movements in the South, including some BRN figures, last year officially formed Mara Patani to proceed with the peace talks launched by former PM Yingluck Shinawatra’s government. However, these talks have hit a bump owing to unsettled upon terms of reference on a prospective draft between the two blocs. 

 

‘BRN’s signal?’

The BRN figures in Mara Patani have also not gained official mandate, Rungrawee said, quoting a high-ranking source from BRN as saying, “We want to wait and see whether the Thai government is serious about this.” 

Rungrawee suggested that the bombs could be BRN’s signal to the government to reconsider its position on the dialogue. 

The two analysts were speaking at a forum held by the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand.

Meanwhile, General Samret Srirai, a former deputy commander of the Fourth Army Region, said on a separate occasion that there was an 80 per cent chance of BRN being the perpetrator. 

Bombs used in the attacks were almost identical to those used in the deep South, with the only difference being the detonator, Samret said. 

The BRN has never recruited outsiders, he said, and traditionally its members are based in target areas for at least three months before carrying out an attack. 

Hence, he said, the authorities should focus on identifying accomplices, very likely the Malays who lived in the area.