Nothing to fear

In the spirit of Halloween, please allow this contributor to switch from the usual talk of current events to a more abstract discussion on the matter of fear, specifically the dread and suspense of the unknown.

Often while working in the news, especially in my earlier days over 20 years ago, more seasoned colleagues would remind me that “You haven’t seen anything yet”.

The phrase was deployed whenever I found myself reacting with any urgency to the many horrors and worries to be encountered when reporting on world events.

Over time, I have found myself also reflexively adopting the attitude when speaking with those less chronically engaged with the news than myself.

While I surely agree with the sentiment enough to have let it become part of my vernacular, I still understand how jaded the response can appear. More importantly, it has become a cause for some level of terror within me in recent years.

How do you distinguish between history being repeated and history taking place?

Despite sensational claims that we are living in “unprecedented times”, the world has been engulfed in greater periods of unrest and uncertainty in the past. There have been worse conflicts, worse outbreaks of disease, more devastating natural disasters and immensely terrible leaders.

However, reading about the many protests currently happening around the globe, with causes ranging from the cost of living to climate change, and reflecting on Thailand’s lack of such public anger at present, it’s reasonable to ask what should or should not warrant passionate action.

My personal concern is not so much over what matters are worth a public rally, but whether there is a danger on either side of the idea that all happenings are an inevitable condition of human society.

Do we do ourselves a disservice by tempering our reactions to events that have come and gone before, or is it always preferable to remain calm and collected?

Stockpiling fuss

Governments around the globe decided, rather oddly, this past week to issue advisories to their citizens to prepare provisions for outlasting a crisis.

On top of the fact that it is rather uncharacteristic for administrations to risk mass panic without a clear and present danger, the announcements were made even more peculiar by including a 72-hour timeframe for survival, even while not identifying any exact threat or cause.

“Don’t wait for the emergency: prepare now!” officials in the Normandy region of France posted on social media.

“Being prepared means having your own food, water and other supplies to last for several days,” was the ominous declaration on the Ready.gov website of the United States.

Speaking to BBC Radio, UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham remarked on how he prefers to fill his cupboard with beans: “I think those are the kind of things that I would recommend people to have.”

Similar messages came out of public offices in Mexico, Canada and even Japan.

Many commentators said the advisories may have been prompted by reports that US President Donald Trump is leaning towards new strikes against Iran after his country’s midterm elections this coming Tuesday.

Nevertheless, Thailand’s National Security Council dismissed chatter online that residents of the country should also stock up on crisis supplies.

Many conversations have probably taken place here as to what level of alarm is appropriate considering how Thailand has handled, or mishandled, emergencies in the past.

Those conversations definitely included warnings against overreaction, the pitfall of prompting the panic you are trying to avoid, as well as appeals to secure some level of readiness in the face of uncertainty.

But both overreaction and proportionate preparation can only be decided after the fact.

While it can be easier to weigh the pros and cons of rushing out to buy extra packs of instant noodles and water bottles, we must decide daily how we want to feel about the legitimacy of Thailand’s government and civil servants, whether or not to worry about the country’s turn towards nationalism, if there are adequate protections against calamity — both natural and artificial — and much more.

These issues are harder to leave to retrospection, and there is arguable risk in both being proactive and not active enough.

It is one matter to agree or disagree with a demonstration or social push, it is another to not adequately recognise a turning point as it occurs.

My fear this Halloween is not so much that I would choose incorrectly in a binary, but that by repeating “You haven’t seen anything yet”, I have blinded myself to “seeing it when it happens”.