It is always good to find a solution to a serious problem. There are times when troubles continue, apparently without end, until finally the problem is resolved. Right now, the most serious security threat to the nation is the nine-year conflict in the far South. On Friday, Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung is to make the case that the one missing link in resolving the worst of the violence in the troubled deep South is an overnight curfew. Unfortunately, he is wrong.
Curfews don't work against long-term problems. Government security forces know that, because the army and the Southern Border Provinces Administrative Centre (SBPAC) all have experience with curfews in the South. The country knows it, because the 1976 curfew in Bangkok failed to halt the next year's military coup. Police know it because of attempts at grounding youths at night who ignored the curfew.
Just over two years ago, then-prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva promised a 20% reduction in Bangkok crime as one of his "nine gifts" for the New Year. Quickly, the head of the Juvenile Observation and Protection Department suggested a new curfew to ban under-18s from public places after 10pm. By then, authorities knew that such curfews only tie up police in senseless roundups of curfew breakers instead of battling the real crimes that the curfew supposedly addressed.
So it is with Mr Chalerm's suggestion. The minister is in charge of the impressive-sounding Centre to Implement Policy and Strategy to Resolve Problems in Southern Provinces. Because of two extremely vicious attacks on visiting farmers and fruit dealers last week, he felt it was necessary to respond somehow. The curfew, he decided, was the best possible response.
Defence Minister Sukumpol Suwanatat quickly and strongly opposed the suggestion. So it will be put to Friday's meeting of security agencies. One must never underestimate Mr Chalerm's persuasive powers, even though most senior officials oppose a curfew in principle.
The strongest arguments against a curfew are by the people it would affect. A curfew would affect Muslims because the first prayers of the day must be said before sunrise. It would also affect the region's top industry, because rubber tappers also must begin work before dawn. Mr Chalerm, who never has visited the deep South, must listen to these important voices before trying to impose restrictions on the Thai population _ those he is trying to help.
Nor is it evident that a curfew would even be useful, beyond the questions of the manpower needed to enforce it. Almost all terrorist-type attacks in the South take place in the daytime, including bombings, drive-by shootings and the murder of teachers.
That was the point ACM Sukumpol made right at the start of the controversy. The southerners themselves have experience of curfews, and have considered whether they want another one. If Mr Chalerm were to visit the South this week, he would be hard-pressed to find a resident who wants a curfew.
Mr Chalerm is dangerously close to trying to impose his will on the residents of the South. This is reverse thinking. He must impose his will on the insurgents who threaten them. There is no evidence to suggest a curfew would help to do that.