The rights and wrongs of protests
As NHRC members wrap up work at the end of their tenure, the allegation of failing to maintain political neutrality remains a talking point
Outgoing National Human Rights commissioner Niran Pitakwatchara pondered for a moment when asked if he could have done anything better during his past seven years in office. During his tenure, the country has seen the highest numbers of casualties from political demonstrations.
The 2010 military crackdown on the red shirts resulted in 99 deaths. There were 25 deaths during the 2013-14 People’s Democratic Reform Committee street protests to oust the elected government of Yingluck Shinawatra.
Before Mr Niran’s time in office, the 1992 Black May event’s official casualty toll claimed 40 deaths, although many claimed the number was much higher, and the Oct 14, 1976, uprising left 77 dead.
The seven current members of the NHRC were in office for both the 2010 red shirt protests and the PDRC rallies. During that time there was an immense change in the demonstrators’ agendas and tactics.
The number of protesters swelled as both sides of the political divide drew support from different parts of the country: one from central and northern areas, the other from Bangkok and the South.
This was a far cry from the student-led political activism of the 1970s against successive autocratic military regimes.
The NHRC members were also in office when a new level of brutality and violence emerged,
from both the state and demonstrators. Bangkok residents witnessed a type of urban warfare between protesters and the state as gunfire was exchanged and bombs were let off across the city.
The commissioners were heavily criticised for the NHRC report they produced on the 2010 red shirt demonstrations for being biased against the protesters. But Mr Niran dismissed the criticism, blaming it on internal problems in the NHRC. He added that each of the seven members of the commission had their own political leaning.
“Politics has also changed a lot now that political groups make use of the masses to back them up at protests, which is an abuse in itself,” he said. “Ultimately, the role of the NHRC is to reveal the truth of what happened.”
TRUTH OR OTHERWISE
On Nov 16, the NHRC released a working report, summarising its seven-year tenure, and attached policy assessments and recommendations.
The report outlined the violent events during the 204 days of the PDRC demonstrations from November 2013 to May 2014. The protests were led by former Democrat deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban in a bid to oust Ms Yingluck’s government after the House of Representatives passed a blanket amnesty bill in November 2013.
Two major events during the protests were assessed in the report’s summary: the Bangkok Shutdown campaign in January last year and the blockade of the Feb 2, 2014, election. The NHRC’s assessment is that “violence stemming from the action of PDRC protesters are mostly individual actions, which are subject to legal prosecution on a case-by-case basis. However, this does not detract from the fact that the majority of protesters were peaceful and unarmed.”
The report said that trying to block the election was “an individual act without references that could point to an order from the protest leadership”.
The assessment drew criticism from some quarters of the press and academics, who slammed the human rights body and accused it of being unable to maintain neutrality. Comparisons were drawn with the NHRC’s 2013 report on the 2010 red shirt protests.
In that report, the NHRC damned the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship protesters for using children, women and monks as human shields when the UDD decided to move its protest site from Ratchadamnoen Avenue to the Ratchaprasong intersection in April 2010, after the Kok Wua junction shootings. It said this was a “serious breach of human rights and did heavy damage to the nation’s image and economy”.
Red shirt leader Weng Tojirakarn resents the NHRC reports on both protests and the timing of their release. “As with the 2010 protest report, released after the event was over, it was too late. I wonder why the NHRC made no comment at the time that Mr Suthep announced himself above the law on the PDRC stage.
“Likewise, is there any place in the world where a sign which pronounces ‘live firing zone’ is put up by the military as in the UDD protest grounds? That alone breaks all laws, yet the NHRC did nothing at the time. NHRC commissioners have attitude and ideological problems. People died like falling leaves during the 2010 red shirt protests and they have been completely silent.
“Belated justice is injustice.”
PROCESSING THE TRUTH
In an interview with Spectrum, Mr Niran said the NHRC had tried its best to be fair, through a series of interviews with government officers and protesters as well as collecting evidence from the protest scenes, before making a final summary of the events.
“The NHRC’s main procedure was to visit the PDRC protest sites with the police to collect evidence. At that time the PDRC protesters placed no trust in the police and wouldn’t allow the police to enter the site without the presence of the NHRC.”
The distrust of the police force, which was used by the Yingluck government to handle the PDRC protesters, is recorded in the report. It focuses on the clash in front of Government House between the police and the protesters as they tried to break in and the use of tear-gas by police. It says, “From Dec 1-3, 2013, police officers failed to warn the protesters in advance of the use of tear-gas. Further, the purple substance found in the tear-gas heightened distrust among protesters.”
PDRC spokesman Akanat Promphan recalled the outbreaks of violence during the street protests. “There were a few major violent events that occurred, including the firing of M79 [grenades] into the protest site at the Ratchaprasong intersection, the bombing of the PDRC gathering in Trat province and the bombs at Banthat Thong Road during our march,” he said.
“The Yingluck government commented on these events and said they were PDRC-instigated ones as we tried to justify our demonstration and prolong the protests. We denied that. We think the police were not doing their job well enough to provide security for the protesters.
“We didn’t trust the police at the time. We could not trust the then chief of the Metropolitan Police Bureau, Pol Gen Kamronwit Thoopkrachang, because of his long association with Thaksin Shinawatra.”
The NHRC working report also summarised the cause of violence during PDRC protests: “The violence that erupted showed a lack of sound management. The government’s negligence of its duties partly contributed to the constant violence.” Mr Akanat added: “I have no idea how someone could carry weaponry into the Bangkok vicinity with such ease. Not without the help of the authorities.”
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
Thammasat University political scientist Janjira Sombatpoonsiri pointed out the nature of the UDD and PDRC protests. “Both protests were
Politics has also changed a lot now that political groups make use of the masses. Ultimately, the role of the NHRC is to reveal the truth NIRAN PITAKWATCHARA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONER
disputes over the issue of legitimacy. Protesters accused those in power of not having the legitimacy to serve as the government.”
When it came to the degree of violence, both protests had a tendency to step up pressure on the government to resign by becoming more violent.
“To call for the fall of a government is a highstakes move, therefore mass mobilisation is applied for that purpose. The difference being that the red shirts always demanded a new government through electoral means, while the PAD [yellow shirt People’s Alliance for Democracy] and the PDRC demanded a government be put in place through non-electoral means.”
Mr Niran also noted that both protests saw violations of human rights, particularly through the use of the law on the part of the government. “Both protests failed to find solutions through political means, and the use of the Internal Security Act and State of Emergency Act was a breach of human rights,” he said.
The NHRC deemed the PDRC protests as being “an expression of citizen’s rights in a democratic society”.
The report also said that “police did not act with neutrality” towards the PDRC protesters. “The PDRC protesters would not let the police enter their sites alone because they feared they would make up evidence against them,” said Mr Niran.
According to the NHRC working report, Mr Niran made seven visits in total to the PDRC protest sites.
Mr Niran and the other NHRC commissioners made no visits to the UDD protest sites from April-May 2010.
DIFFERING TRUTH
The NHRC working report also included a summary of the UDD protest, taken from a 2013 report.
In it, the NHRC concluded that the UDD protesters lacked “an understanding of human rights issues, which is a new issue for them”.
The report pointed out that the UDD’s move from Ratchadamnoen Avenue to Ratchaprasong in April 2010 was “a serious breach of the human rights” of others.
On the military crackdown, the report said, “Due to the protesters’ exploitation of their own rights and freedom, it falls on the government to manage and bring order. However, the state operation was far from being effective as military officers had not been trained to handle political protests, particularly in an environment of violent instigation.”
The UDD demonstration, which started on March 12, 2010, saw the use of the Internal Security Act, the Emergency Administration Act and the setting up of the Centre for Resolution of Emergency Situation to handle the gathering. This lasted throughout the incidents at the Kok Wua intersection on April 10, the Sala Daeng incident on April 22, the National Memorial incident in the Rangsit area on April 28 and the military operations from May 13-19 in 2010.
During the UDD protests, seven statements were released by the NHRC criticising the protesters’ use of firearms during the UDD raid at Chulalongkorn Hospital when they believed snipers were in the building.
In early May 2010, before the military crackdown, the NHRC released a statement calling for an end to the violence and the instigation of violence, and urging negotiations and a peaceful political resolution.
In all of the statements, the NHRC made the point that “a side which refuses to negotiate is deemed as having ill intentions toward the country as a whole”.
No further statements were released, notably during the military crackdown from May 13-19, until May 26 when the NHRC announced the end of the gathering and that the “loss of lives and damage to the nation and to the general public, both in the private and public sector, should be appropriately compensated”.
There were no references to the UDD casualties resulting from the military crackdown. There were two meetings between the NHRC and the parties at the time.
NHRC chairwoman Amara Pongsapich met with UDD leaders at the start of their gathering on March 16. Two days later NHRC members met with then PM Abhisit Vejjajiva and then defence minister Prawit Wongsuwon to relay a UDD commitment that their gathering was peaceful. The government then promised to “proceed with care from light to heavy measures”.
The NHRC’s working report does not mention the killing of the six medics in the grounds of the Pathum Wanaram temple on May 19, 2010, right after the UDD leaders called off the protests and turned themselves in, although the details appear in the 2013 report.
Almost 60 people made up a sub-committee working on the 2013 UDD report. However, during the process several members resigned, including red shirt activist Sombat Boonngamanong and Thammasat law lecturers Piyabutr Saengkanokkul and Sawitri Sooksri.
DIFFERING ANGLES
Ms Janjira, the Thammasat political scientist, noticed the NHRC reports on the two protests each had a different focus.
In the report on the PDRC, the NHRC paid more attention to the role of the police force in dealing with the protesters than the actions of the protesters. In the report on the UDD protests, the focus was more on the red shirts instigating violence than the military crackdown.
“There is a different weight of focus that the NHRC places on the protests; the implication is there is bias in the NHRC’s work,” Ms Janjira said.
“The police use of tear-gas in December 2013 was a case study in that the police did fail to warn the protesters about the use of tear-gas.
“However, the NHRC should have also focused on the morning of Dec 3, 2013, when the police stopped the use of tear-gas and eventually allowed the protesters to enter the Metropolitan Police Bureau premises, which showed flexibility on the part of the police to try to ease the pressure from protesters, who at the time became more radicalised and were ready for more violence.”
The roles of men in uniform were at the centre of controversy in both protests. Police and the military were seen to be attached to either side of the protests.
Ms Janjira said this is a structural and traditional issue. “In Thailand, the military’s image is always associated with that of the elite, and protecting their interests, while the police’s image is that they are attached to politics.
“This is because the National Police Headquarters is under the command of the prime minister, which is partly an obstruction to professionalism as the organisation and officers are automatically politicised.”
TOWARD A COMMON GROUND
Ms Janjira sees the NHRC reports on both protests as being symbolic of the division in Thailand over the past decade. The NHRC has been drawn into the centre of the conflict rather than acting with objectivity, she said.
“The NHRC has become politicised and no longer acts as an independent organisation, as stipulated in the 1997 constitution, as the current NHRC commissioners were recruited under the 2007 constitution, which limited the diversity of the NHRC recruiters.”
Dr Weng said past failures by the NHRC did not bode well for the incoming commissioners, who are only waiting for the royal appointment before they take up their posts.
“I do not place hope in the incoming NHRC whatsoever. When someone is so attached to their attitude, he cannot perform well as a human rights worker.”
Mr Niran, a former student activist who was a successor to Mahidol University student leader Dr Weng in the 1970s, acknowledged the changing politics made the commission’s work more difficult than it had been in the past. “If we look back at Oct 14, 1976, the students relied on no leadership back then, therefore the demonstrations had no hidden agendas.”
Ms Janjira predicts that Thailand is not safe from the sort of political violence we have seen in the past.
“In most societies, after an ‘historical rupture’, people will find a way to discuss and learn from painful lessons so they won’t have to go back to that again.
“But in Thailand, as we try to avoid confrontations, we also avoid the opportunity to discuss the lessons we might learn.
“There are people who want to speak but cannot. Hopefully, this will not lead to the point of a violent explosion in the future.”