A minute later, the bombs went off. The explosion ripped through the hotel’s lobby, shattering windows both in the hotel and surrounding shop houses, shredding vehicles and motorbikes parked nearby and sending shockwaves across the country, which has yet to come to terms with the recent spate of bombings in seven provinces in the upper South.

As expected, policymakers in Bangkok insist that the Tuesday night attacks in Pattani were not related to the ones two weeks earlier.

Suhaimee Dulasa, a senior member of the Patani Institute, a local civil society organisation, said he was perplexed at suggestions that the Tuesday night bombings along with other similar attacks in the region, were meant to force the Thai government to make concessions at the negotiating table with MARA Patani.

“People in the region and just about everybody monitoring peace initiatives for the Patani region know very well that MARA Patani does not have any command or control over the combatants on the ground,” Suhaimee said.

From the looks of it, the bombs used on Tuesday night were deadly but not meant to come up with a body count.

The first bomb, a very small one, went off at about 10.30pm just outside a discotheque about 100 metres from the hotel. Nobody is really sure what to make of this explosion, because it does not match previous attacks.

Previously, the first bomb – usually a small one – is intended to draw security officials to the site of the attack, where they are greeted by a much bigger and more deadly bomb set off by someone within the line of vision. A third bomb detonated harmlessly after the main attack on the hotel.

However, the one on Tuesday night was different, as the explosives packed vehicle was parked more than 100 metres from the first bomb. And instead of it being set off by someone nearby, a timer was used to explode it.

The incident has made political leaders even more confused as they work to quell growing fears that the attacks two weeks ago and the one on Tuesday night are related.

If the attacks in upper South were the work of suspected insurgents as suggested by officials, then it would mean that the government’s policy for the restive region has failed, even though the authorities have claimed that they are on the right track for the South. And the fact that the insurgents have the audacity to continue with such attacks despite heightened security across the country suggests that they have absolutely no respect for the country’s security apparatus, local officials said.

The Medical Council of Thailand issued a statement describing the incident as an act of grave intimidation and an insult to the medical profession. “In no circumstances may one use violence against doctors or medical workers,” it said.

The Dental Council expressed sadness such an incident occurred, while voicing concern about the safety and welfare of health workers.

Dr Ittaporn Kanacharoen, deputy secretary general of the Medical Council, also pressed for the Thailand Nursing and Midwifery Council to issue a statement on the case, noting that nurses have been the likeliest victims of such violence.

Suddenly the professionals who deserve our respect seem vulnerable when patients turn unruly. Just why would a patient seeking medical help turn violent against the gown-wearing man who was there to help him?

The 68-year-old patient, a former mayor, has never apologised to the 30-year-old doctor since the assault occurred on August 6 at Mae Jai Hospital in Phayao. Instead, the unrepentant patient went to seek treatment at another hospital.

However, the doctor has now decided to lodge a complaint with police over the incident using recordings from the hospital’s security camera as evidence.

After a clip from that same hospital footage somehow did the rounds on social media, the patient insisted, after a barrage of criticism, that the segment failed to capture how the young doctor looked down on and verbally abused him.

He claimed the clip had slandered his reputation and lodged a defamation complaint with police. “I have never been an aggressive man,” the former mayor said.

But the doctor in question has an impressive professional record, including one award for his hard work. Although he could have sought a better-paid job in big city, he chose to work at the provincial hospital.

When the case goes to the court, the doctor will have a good chance to win, given the video-clip evidence.

But this case should not end there. It deserves further study so problems that led to the assault can be identified and solutions introduced.

Authorities will have to review safety measures to determine if medical workers can be better protected.

Foreign studies show that frontline medical workers in hospitals, particularly in accident and emergency units, often experience verbal and physical violence.

In Thailand, a 2010 study titled “Workplace Violence and its Management by Nursing Personnel in Emergency Department” revealed that most nurses faced threats or violence but most were just threats and drunkenness was a major factor.

As with other workplaces and industries, employers of health professionals should provide them with a safe work environment. Authorities should also look into whether medical workers could become so overwhelmed with workloads that they turn irritable.

Medical schools and employers should also provide communications and human-relations training to health workers. Such skills, after all, can only reduce the risk of misunderstanding, ill-feeling, confrontation and assaults.

All parties concerned should come together to address the risk of violence that health workers may silently face. Had the neck-kicking incident not gone viral, society might not have been aware of the type of risks that health workers have to endure.

However, as Thailand’s economy has improved, it has striven to ensure that all citizens are entitled to state-provided welfare such as medical care and education.

In the late 1990s Thailand promised free education for all, in the 2000s it launched a universal healthcare scheme, and in the 2010s it began handing out monthly subsidies for all elderly people.

While no one wants to refuse welfare, there are growing concerns as to whether Thailand’s coffers can really afford such a provision of welfare.

Given that the country has a limited budget, wouldn’t it be better to spend money only on those who need it? According to the Fiscal Policy Office, about 20 million Thais qualify as poor. If 20 per cent of those are elderly and the monthly subsidy for the elderly is fixed at Bt600, the country would need to pay just Bt28.8 billion a year. But because the government now pays monthly subsidies to all the elderly, the budget for the subsidy is no less than Bt60 billion annually.

Many economists have pointed out that if the government continues such a universal approach, with the elderly of rich families also enjoying subsidies, such a welfare provision would not be sustainable.

On those grounds, senior government figures have recently suggested the elderly subsidy would be only directed towards the needy. For example, any elderly person who earns more than Bt9,000 a month or has more than Bt3 million in assets should not be entitled to the subsidy.

The government would then have more money to help people in need. Instead of just handing out subsidies, the government might open more elderly homes – which means the most to many people in frail health and in the final phases of their lives. Across Thailand, many elderly people pass away while still on the waiting list for state-run elderly homes.

Many economists have suggested that such problems would be reduced if the government learns to manage its budget more efficiently and to stop the more populist universal approach.

In many economists’ eyes, helping only those in need should also apply to the state provision of education and healthcare as well.

Their advice has not fallen on deaf ears as the government started registering low-income people in mid-July.

By the middle of this week, more than 4.12 million people will have come forward for state welfare with registration ending today.

The government has said that the registration will allow relevant agencies to design welfare based on the actual needs low-income people. Not all people should be entitled to free bus or train rides, which instead would be allocated to people who have low-income cards, according to the government.

Finance Minister Apisak Tantivorawong has said registered individuals would get more welfare than people who have not registered.

“For example, we may give them a 50-per-cent discount on cooking gas and tap water services,” he said.

While such promises sound good, critics have raised concerns that the poor will be stigmatised and people’s rights will be affected.

These critics have said the state budget should be used efficiently, but the government had a duty to provide basic welfare for its citizens, particularly in regards to healthcare and wellbeing. Both sides have good reasons. For Thailand now, the most important thing is to find the right balance in preparing a state budget.

Let’s provide for the very basic welfare for all. Anything further than that should be provided only on the basis of neediness.