Top cop’s Islamic State remark more than an honest mistake

It was not the first time that Thai police shot themselves in the foot and probably won’t be the last.
But the recent off-the-cuff statement by deputy police chief General Srivara Ransibrahamakul about the alleged involvement of Thai nationals with the Islamic State terrorist movement should not be treated lightly. In other words, it shouldn’t be billed as another honest mistake, because the subject matter is too grave of a concern for so many people and so many countries.
To describe the comment as sloppy and careless would be an understatement although the authorities tried hard to pick up the pieces as they went into damage-control mode.
Pol General Srivara had initially alleged that Thai nationals – specifically Malay Muslims from the far South – were providing funds to Islamic State. Sources in the government said he was briefed by his people about charity money from Muslim groups in Thailand and elsewhere going to Syrian refugees. But Srivara misunderstood “Syrian refugees” for “Islamic State fighters”.
With regard to the people logging onto Islamic State websites, Srivara also tried to backtrack on his statement by suggesting that the Thai police were just looking at the usernames of the people logging into the terrorist movement’s site. He said the Australian Federal Police had provided the usernames to the Thai police because Thailand doesn’t have that kind of IT technology.
First of all, it could be anybody logging onto these sites – people with sadistic tendencies, journalists, researchers, academics, law enforcement, intelligence officers, or the just plain curious. Thai police have to do more to connect the dots if they want to pursue this route.
And please don’t tell us about how Thai police have to rely on the technology of other countries when so many charges and arrests have already been made in connection to cyber-crime – all done by Thai police investigators monitoring cyberspace and its content.
Needless to say, many of these charges were absurd – like the mother of a well-known student activist, Sirawith Seritiwat, who was charged with such crime for just acknowledging a post that was deemed violating the lese-majeste law. And remember how they went after a factory work who had made a remark about the late King’s favourite dog?
The issue about radicalisation was discussed with Australian police. But then again, Thai security people talk to many foreign governments about the security challenges relating to radicalisation via the Internet or what have you.
If these individual Internet surfers act alone, taking terrorist matters into their own hands and carry out a terrorist attack in their homeland, they are called a “lone wolf”.
Thai police have every right to be concerned with the possibility that conflict in the Malay-speaking deep South could become part of the global war on terrorism. But Thai law enforcement and policymakers should not lose sight of the fact that Patani Malay separatist movements have been around for some time.
The second wave of armed insurgency that went into the current mode of operation in 2004 has the same narrative as the wave that surfaced in the mid-1960s and went under in the early 90s. Essentially, the same grievances that motivated the previous generation are the same grievances that motivate the current one.
They should also know that jihadist groups like Jemaah Islamiyah have tried to exploit the situation in the far South but were turned away by the Patani Malay separatists.
Instead of barking up the wrong tree or making off-the-wall statements, perhaps Thai law enforcers should learn to analyse the security situation at the local, regional and international level. If they don’t have the know-how, they should have the courage to ask for help. This is better than just making wild assumptions. People’s lives depend on it and so does the country’s reputation.