Innocent until proven ignorant?

The sadly typical story of a Thai citizen being taken into custody in a foreign country on drug smuggling allegations should be almost too mundane to merit meaningful discussion, yet the national interest in the case involving a Thai Airways flight attendant has raised some points of note, notably what aspects of the story have triggered interest.

The employee of Thailand’s flag carrier was stopped at Melbourne Airport on June 25 and subsequently found with about 1 kilogramme of heroin, estimated to be worth over 11 million baht, concealed in the lining of tote bags among her luggage.

So far identified only as Meena, the attendant has told authorities she was travelling with the 12 tote bags after being hired to bring them from an unknown sender to an unknown recipient in Australia.

Where the case has become interesting is how it has been approached here in Thailand.

While the expected process of deciphering the chain of possession for the narcotics is ongoing, considerable effort, by authorities as well as the media, has been devoted to determining if Ms Meena intended to transport the contraband or if she was duped into doing so.

The Office of the Narcotics Control Board (ONCB) declared that it was not able to find any evidence that the flight attendant was an actual drug trafficker, giving weight to the view that she is somehow a victim of a transnational drug operation.

ONCB deputy director-general Areepak Ngernbamroong did make a point of saying it had not been determined why the woman took the risk of carrying the tote bags from a stranger. Most Thai flight crew, she said, would refuse to carry items from an anonymous party.

Even celebrity lawyer Decha Kittivittayanan took time to speak about this aspect of the case.

“I believe the Thai Airways flight attendant was tricked and used by criminals because she openly submitted to having the 12 bags inspected,” he said.

“I believe she was unaware that there were narcotics inside the bags and I hope her the best in being absolved from this case.”

The comment echoes a recent headline from a Thai-language television station, to the effect that “the flight attendant was likely an unwitting pawn in the drug trade.”

It has been reported that the woman herself has maintained in interviews with Australian investigators that she did not know the contents of the bags she had agreed to carry.

Services advertised

This focus on the flight attendant’s awareness, and the general sense among the media that there is a drug network conning individuals into being drug mules, seems to overlook the established fact that Ms Meena was advertising her “carrying services” online.

Even if it were proven true that she was genuinely deceived into transporting drug-laced bags, as a professional airline employee, Ms Meena should have known better than to take on the liability of a third party’s goods.

More significantly, she should have known the likelihood that this particular sad chain of events would eventually transpire.

There may be many people who find it convenient or cost-effective to send items overseas via flight attendants, but it takes a wilful obliviousness to not consider that many of them would have nefarious reasons for not choosing a more conventional method.

One online post made in reference to Ms Meena’s situation came from Suthinan Maneelorsawat, a veteran flight attendant and founder of the Sky Coach Mam training institute for flight attendants. She made clear that regardless of the legality of an item, the majority of airlines maintain a policy against flight crews “carrying” goods as a matter of security.

Standard policy, she pointed out, is that cabin attendants are forbidden from accepting any items for transport, boarding planes with belongings other than their own, and holding any items for others if they are not aware of the true contents.

Most airlines, on finding a violation of this policy, would consider the holder of the goods at fault regardless of any other circumstances.

Importantly, Ms Suthinan noted that the policy is especially aimed at flight crews because of the privileges they are afforded in travelling through airports and between countries.

This is not only standard practice among commercial carriers, it is a widely understood part of the industry, she said.

The woman at the centre of this case has seemingly claimed ignorance of the narcotics that have landed her in Australian detention, but she cannot say that was unaware of her offence against basic flight crew protocols and the inherent dangers.

Admitting to not only carrying goods as a side job but also to advertising her services online, Ms Meena must be made to understand how culpable she is in the criminal action that has taken place.

Flawed thinking

However, the conversation that has dominated the headlines, focusing on how heroin came to be “planted” on the flight attendant, seems to imply that she needs to be absolved of the larger crime.

The flaw in this line of thinking is that to excuse Ms Meena by virtue of ignorance would be to encourage others to continue engaging in risky acts.

Worse yet, it would support the argument that people should attempt to know less while carrying out such acts, so that if things were to ever go sideways they could simply shrug their shoulders and lament that they were deceived.

While some people seem to think this a new scheme by the malevolent drug trade, it is no secret that international “carrying” services have long been common and that those involved understand the loopholes they have created in the customs system.

The lesson taken from this case should not be that drug dealers are targeting unsuspecting goods transporters, it should be that transporters are blameworthy enablers of the illegal trade.