The Royal Thai Government has always sought a peaceful resolution to the problems and exercised utmost restraint. It did so when it had to enforce the rule of law, as the protests went beyond the legitimate exercise of people’s rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression and transformed into unlawful activities. Tremendous efforts were made to negotiate with the protest leaders, particularly by the Prime Minister who had proposed a reconciliation plan and a tentative date for early elections as a way out of the impasse.  These were rejected.  

As it could not allow such unlawful protests to continue indefinitely, the Government had to take action to restore order, and it did so not by moving in to disperse the demonstrations, but by cordoning off the outside perimeters of the protest site to pressure the protestors to end their demonstrations themselves, bearing in mind the need to minimise losses.  Although this proved difficult in the face of attacks by armed elements infiltrating among the protesters using lethal weapons, it is important to point out that in discharging their duties, the security officers were guided by clear rules of engagement in line with international standards.

                         
                        The Royal Thai Government regrets the losses that occurred. All the events will be subject to investigation, and those responsible will be held accountable in accordance with the law. In this regard, in addition to the investigations being carried out by the Department of Special Investigations to bring perpetrators of crimes to justice in line with due process, the Cabinet has appointed Professor Dr. Kanit Na Nakorn, a former attorney-general, as chair of an independent fact-finding committee set up as part of the Government’s reconciliation plan to investigate what had transpired during the demonstrations. In parallel, separate investigations are being conducted by the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand and the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which are independent constitutional bodies, as well as by parliament itself – with all of which the Government stands ready to cooperate.

                         Looking ahead, the Government has made the implementation of the reconciliation plan its top priority.  In addition to an independent inquiry on the events that occurred, efforts have been made to set in motion an inclusive national reform process to address in a systematic and sustainable manner people’s grievances, particularly economic and social disparities, which have long existed in Thai society. In this regard, a national survey will be conducted in parallel with the convening of assemblies to be participated by all groups of people in order to identify and prioritise people’s needs and gather views on how to resolve these problems. This process will be driven by civil society organisations and all sectors of society and networks of people at all levels will be encouraged to join, while the government will provide full support. All the views gathered through these channels will be compiled by late September or early October and will be used as input when drafting a blueprint for national reform by the end of 2010.

                         
                          Steps have been taken in other aspects as well. A panel of 19 academics, chaired by Dr. Sombat Thamrongthanyawong, Rector of the National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA), has been set up to look into the issue of constitutional amendments, which is related to making election rules acceptable to all sides. Another group, led by Associate Professor Dr. Yubol Benjarongkit, Dean of the Faculty of Communication Arts, Chulalongkorn University, will work with media organisations on how to ensure press freedom while enabling the media to work constructively and contribute towards healing the divisions and animosity which may exist within society.

 

 

·      For more than seven decades since becoming a democracy with a constitutional monarchy, Thailand has been going through the process of becoming a full-fledged democracy. In recent years, this process of democratisation has focused on overcoming the vestiges and legacies not only of military authoritarianism marked by intermittent coups – the latest being in September 2006. Thai society has also strived to get rid of the influence of money politics and abuses of power by political office holders, as could be seen during the time of the Thaksin Shinawatra administration. It was this which led to widespread street protests in 2005 and 2006, culminating in a coup and a period of protests and counter-protests by opposing sides, even after elections were held in December 2007.

 

·      Against this backdrop, on 12 March 2010, demonstrators from the group called the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) that is supportive of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, began staging rallies in Bangkok, demanding the dissolution of the House of Representatives and holding of general elections. These demonstrators were composed of different groups with different underlying agendas.

 

·      First, there were those with legitimate grievances, including problems related to poverty, hardship, unfair treatment or economic and social disparities, which they wanted resolved. Like its predecessors, the present Government has been working to address these grievances through, among other things, implementation of various welfare and development schemes.

 

·      Second, there were those who want to bring down the present Government in order to bring back former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, without having him serve his prison terms as sentenced by the Court on the criminal charge of conflict of interest.

 

·      Third, there were Marxist-Leninist ideologists who worked as strategists.

 

·      In addition, there were armed elements, equipped with weapons of war, who infiltrated among the demonstrators.

 

·      In their call for early elections, the protest leaders accused the present Thai Government of being “illegitimate” and focused on discrepancies in Thailand’s democracy and the current political regime as their rallying point – employing class-based terms and interpreting Thai society in a manner that does not reflect the present situation.  While such political demands could be made through peaceful assembly, using violent means to force a legitimate government out of office could not be accepted, as it would set a dangerous norm in the democratisation process of the country. Indeed, based on speeches and activities of the protest leaders,it remains unclear if this was actually their only demands as there have also been talks about state power or the notion of “a new Thai state.”

 

·      The connection among these various different groups – who earlier seemed to work separately – have now become clearer. Moreover, some members of the opposition party had joined UDD protest leaders on the stage at their protest sites. In this regard, the moves made by various personalities – be they from opposition parties or protest leaders to draw attention from the local and foreign media or to appeal to the masses in other provinces or diplomatic corps – were not co-incidental or unplanned.

 

·      At the same time, there were links with networks operating through various means such as the internet and other media who conducted activities and disseminated messages or information variedly verging on subverting the country’s monarchical institution and calling for a change in Thailand’s present political regime. All these have to be further looked into.

 

·      Against the backdrop of these movements has been former prime minister Thaksin, who had continuously provided them with support, covertly and overtly, manoeuvring from overseas not least by linking in through video, phone calls or other electronic means inciting the crowds to carry on with their unlawful rallies and attempting to undermine a legitimate government by violent means. He acted similarly during the riots in April 2009. In this regard, on 25 May 2010, the Criminal Court – having considered evidence and witnesses from both the authorities’ and former prime minister Thaksin’s sides – found that there was sufficient evidence to approve an arrest warrant against the former prime minister as requested by the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) on a charge related to terrorism in accordance with the Thai Criminal Code.

 

·      To press his case, the former prime minister has recently hired an international legal counsel to conduct a global public relations campaign – on his behalf – using and spreading distorted information against the Government. Nevertheless, the fact that he was once an elected leader and ousted by a coup does not absolve him from accountability and responsibilities from his malicious behaviours and wrongdoings.

 

·      Despite his continued popularity, Mr. Thaksin is by law a fugitive in a criminal case. Instead of accepting the legal system, which he himself continues to use against others, he has chosen to live abroad to avoid serving his two-year prison sentence, having fled Thailand in October 2008, just two months before the Thai Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions – set up pursuant to the Constitution of 1997 – found him guilty of conflict of interest in accordance with the country’s anti-corruption laws. A number of other cases against him remain pending with the court or on-going investigations, involving charges of corruption, conflict of interest and abuse of power. In addition, in February 2010, the Court also found that, while in office, the former prime minister had committed acts that inappropriately benefited a company in which he, through various nominees and shell companies, was actually the main shareholder in contravention of the law. Consequently, the Court ordered the seizure of part of his assets (approximately US$ 1.4 billion). The verdict has also pointed to certain inappropriate acts which could lead to further legal and administrative actions.

 

·      Besides court cases, numerous allegations of human rights violation have been made against former prime minister Thaksin, in connection with his policy in launching a war on drugs that resulted in thousands of cases of alleged extra-judicial killings, as well as in handling the situation in the Southern Border Provinces which had exacerbated the problems there. Many also believe that he is hardly a true believer of democracy, given his tendencies towards parliamentary authoritarianism and widespread nepotism – putting those close to him in important position. 

 

·      At the beginning, the UDD rallies had been largely peaceful. The Government had allowed them to continue as part of the exercise of the people’s constitutional right to peaceful assembly, regarding this as a process through which people could participate in the country’s political life. At the same time, to enable police, military and civilian officers to take measures to prevent and contain the situation from escalating, the Government had to invoke the Internal Security Act (ISA), which – as evident from previous cases – did not affect the right of peaceful assembly.

 

·      Towards early April, however, the demonstrations escalated, with protesters occupying the business district around Ratchaprasong Intersection, blocking areas and roads and storming into the Parliament building, while defying efforts by the authorities to enforce the law. Their rallies thus transformed from what was peaceful assembly to unlawful action beyond the limit sanctioned by the Constitution, causing serious disruption to the daily life of the general public, as well as having a severe economic and social impact upon the country. This was reaffirmed by the Civil Court on 5 April 2010, which found – based on the Government’s petition and the objection submitted by the UDD, as well as other evidence and facts regarding the situation – that the UDD demonstrations were unlawful, and that the Government has the authority to resolve, prevent and restore the situation back to normalcy.

 

·      Given the continued escalation, the Government on 7 April 2010 declared a severe emergency situation pursuant to the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situation B.E. 2548 (2005) in the areas of Bangkok and some districts in nearby provinces in order to empower officials concerned to restore normalcy and return the areas occupied by demonstrators to the general public.[1]

 

·      In discharging their duties, the security officers – military, police and civilian – have been provided with clear procedures governing their operations, undertaking measures only as necessary and proportionate to the situation. Due consideration have been given to people’s rights and safety. They also have established rules of engagement for crowd control in accordance with international standards,[2]including a strict rule on use of live bullets – which at the time was permitted only in two cases, namely, to shoot warning shots into the air and to defend themselves when their lives are threatened.[3]Their actions were also guided by the relevant rulings of the Administrative Court and the Civil Court, which do not prohibit dispersal of the demonstrations, but state that any measure to be taken must be as necessary and appropriate to the situation and in accordance with international standards.

·      On 10 April 2010, while security officers tried to enforce the law by asking the demonstrators to give back the areas they occupied around Phan Fah Bridge, they were met with strong resistance from the demonstrators in various forms, including the use of lethal weapon by armed elements among them, leading to over 20 deaths and several hundred injured among both the security officers and demonstrators as well as innocent bystanders.

 

·      The Government regrets the losses that occurred. The Government also regrets underestimating, at the time, the readiness of armed elements among the protestors to use lethal weapon to harm fellow Thais – at times indiscriminately against demonstrators, bystanders and security officers alike – to worsen the situation and instigate further violence.

 

·      Judging from evidence and video footage taken by both the local and international media, it is clear that these armed elements among the demonstrators used terrorist tactics and weapons of war with indiscriminate effect, leading to loss of lives and injuries on both sides. Photographs and video footages show that tear gas launchers, M 67 hand grenades, M 79 grenade launchers, AK 47 machine guns as well as improvised weapons were used against security officers who were not equipped with these types of weapons.

 

·      As for the incident on 22 April 2010, while a group of people – comprising residents in the Silom area and those described by the media as “multi-coloured shirts” – gathered on Silom Road at Saladang Intersection to express their opposition to the UDD, M 79 grenade launchers were used by unknown person(s) to fire into the former group, resulting in one death and injuring several others. Then on 29 April 2010, beyond anyone’s expectations, a group of demonstrators blockaded and intruded into Chulalongkorn Hospital, which is next to the protest site, making it necessary for the hospital to move patients to farther buildings or transfer them to other hospitals.

 

·      After the efforts at negotiation and compromise had failed – particularly with the UDD leaders’ rejection of the five-point reconciliation plan proposed by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva on 3 May 2010, and given the increasingly adverse effect of the prolonged protests on Thai society and its economy, the Government decided on 13 May 2010 to cordon off the area around Ratchaprasong Intersection so as to pressure the protesters to end their demonstrations. Measures include setting up of check points along the outer perimeter of the area to prevent people from joining the rallies, and suspending public utilities and transportation services in the area. There has been no instruction to disperse or “crackdown” on the protests, and no intention to cause harm to anyone, as misrepresented or alleged. The authorities had also facilitated efforts by charity groups and NGOs to bring innocent protesters, particularly women, children and the elderly, out of the protest area or to safe locations.

 

·      Be that as it may, security officers sent in to set up and man the check points on the perimeter were attacked – not just by sling shots and homemade bombs – but by live ammunition and war weapons, particularly hand grenades and M 79 grenades. From 13 to 19 May 2010, more than a hundred M 79 grenades were launched against the security officers. All these affected people in the areas and compelled the officers to respond to defend themselves as well as innocent bystanders, including members of the media and emergency medical service personnel working in the areas.  There is also visual evidence of these armed elements using innocent people, including children, as human shields. It should be noted that all these incidents took place well outside the immediate protest area, and the security officers were holding their ground without making any attempt to enter therein.

 

·       On 19 May 2010 at 05.45 hrs., the Government therefore began operations to tighten the cordon to secure the perimeter around the protest site so as to better provide security and safety for the public in those areas. The operation also sought to secure the area around Lumpini Park, which was used by armed elements to hoard their weapons and launch attacks upon security forces. Although the operation was met with stiff resistance from the armed elements, the area around Lumpini Park was secured by late morning. Under pressure, UDD protest leaders announced the end of protests at around 13.45 hrs., following which the security officers were ordered to halt their operations. Those protest leaders who turned themselves in with the police are being detained in accordance with the warrants issued under the Emergency Decree. Others had escaped and remain at large. As for other protesters, their safe passage home was facilitated by the Government.

 

·      Be that as it may, some protesters, especially the hard core elements, continued to instigate disturbances and rioting in some areas of the city, destroying properties and setting buildings on fire, targeting in particular members of the media whom they believed were responsible for reports not in their favour. Such incidents took place not only in Bangkok and also in some other provinces such as Khon Kaen, Udon Thani and Ubon Rachathani. All these occurred swiftly indicating that they were premeditated with well-planned preparations made in advance.  Attempts were also made to resist and obstruct officers from mitigating these incidents.

 

·      To enable security officers to enforce law, restore order and protect the public, the Government had to invoke the Emergency Decree in additional 16 provinces, [4]and impose curfew during the late night to early morning period from 19 to 28 May 2010.

 

·      A few days after the protests ended, the situation has continued to improve, and normal lives gradually restored. Nevertheless, the Government cannot afford to be complacent. The Emergency Decree remains necessary as a tool for officers to ensure public safety and bring perpetrators to the legal process, although measures and regulations have been gradually relaxed.

 

·      The present Thai Government assumed office through normal, parliamentary means under a democratic system. Despite efforts by protest leaders to portray the present Thai Government as “illegitimate”, the fact remains that Mr. Abhisit Vejjajiva – a seven-time member of parliament – was voted prime minister by a majority in the House of Representatives in exactly the same manner and by exactly the same House as his two predecessors, to whom Mr. Abhisit had earlier lost the contests to lead in forming a government, and who had subsequently been disqualified due to violation of relevant laws. That the House may decide to give a chance to form a government to a party other than the one which won the most seats but fell short of a clear majority, and that political parties may switch support from one party to another is not unusual in a democracy with a multi-party system, particularly when there is a hung parliament.

 

·         The overall objective of the Royal Thai Government in addressing the current political situation is not merely to return normalcy to the areas affected by the protests. It is also working to maintain the rule of law, return normalcy to the country and protect the country’s principal institution from being drawn into the political conflict. The Government has always maintained that both security and political solutions must be found and grievances addressed. Importantly, any solution must not result in creating a political norm which allows the use of terrorist means, violence, intimidation or threats to force or overthrow a legitimate government and achieve political ends, as this is related to the future of democracy.

 

·      First, with regards to the grievances of the demonstrators on such issues as poverty, injustice and unequal treatment, the present Government recognises its duty to tackle them, as successive Thai governments have endeavoured to do. Indeed, since taking office, it has implemented a number of measures, including through such schemes as income guarantee for farmers, free health care, free education, provision of subsistence support for the elderly, and measures to address the informal debt problems. which are problems that cannot be resolved within a short period of time,   

 

·      Second, on the political demands, including Constitution amendments and the dissolution of the House of Representatives, the Government views that these must be resolved politically through consultations. On its part, the Government has not rejected these demands and has all along shown its readiness to engage in dialogue with the protest leaders. The Prime Minister himself met with them twice and indicated his readiness to dissolve the House of Representatives in nine months, providing sufficient time for crucial conditions to be met. First, various problematic provisions in the Constitution should be amended and put to the people through a referendum, so that mutually acceptable election rules will be in place. Second, a conducive environment has to be achieved so as to enable politicians of all parties to campaign freely without fear of threats. Third, the Government wishes to see through the passage of the budget to ensure continuity of the country’s economic recovery and on-going stimulus programmes. This proposal was rejected out of hand by the protest leaders.  

 

 

·      In an effort to address the grievances and concerns not only of the protesters but also the majority of Thais in other sectors of society, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva put forward before the Thai public a five-point reconciliation plan to restore peace and normalcy to Thai society. The said plan, which was formulated based on the views and grievances from all groups of people, be they the protesters, academics, civil society organizations or ordinary people, encompasses the need: 1) to uphold and protect the monarchy – which is a unifying force among Thai people – from being violated or drawn into the political conflict; 2) to resolve fundamental problems of social justice systematically and with participation by all sectors of society; 3) to ensure that the media can operate freely and constructively and not be misused to create conflict or hatred; 4) to establish facts about violent incidents through setting up of an independent commission to investigate all violent incidents and deaths that took place to seek out the truth and ensure justice for all concerned; and 5) to establish mutually acceptable political rules by putting issues, including certain provisions of the Constitution or laws seen as unfair, on the table and set up a mechanism to solicit views from all sides to bring about justice for those involved in the political conflict, so that these issues would no longer lead to rejection of the political process and conflict in the future. At the time, the Prime Minister also proposed that should his reconciliation plan be acceptable to all sides, elections could be held as early as 14 November 2010.

 

·      The reconciliation plan has been welcomed by people in various sectors of society, including key figures in the opposition party, as offering a way not only towards ending the demonstrations and restoring normalcy, but also towards resolving some of the fundamental problems in Thai society in a longer run. The UDD leaders, in fact, had also accepted it in principle but after days of talks with the Government, they rejected it, refusing among others, to end their protests to join the process of reconciliation. With the UDD’s rejection, the Prime Minister had to drop his proposal on the election date, which would be determined later once the situation becomes conducive. Meanwhile, the Government has continued to work with the civil society sector and others concerned, including the media, to move forward on the five elements under the reconciliation plan.

 

·      On the issue of the breaking of the law and matters of security and the safety of the public, particularly acts of violence which can be considered “terrorist acts” under Thai law and use of weapons in the afore-mentioned instances, the Government regarded this as a pressing problem, and there was no alternative but for the authorities to enforce the law in accordance with the principle of the rule of law and due respect to human rights principles.

 

·      Despite the call for the Government to take more forceful measures to disperse the protesters and maintain law and order, the Government had all along exercised utmost restraint and avoided using force. This was not because it could not enforce the law but because it wanted to avoid unnecessary violence. And in cases where force was used, the officers were not the first to resort to it.  Meanwhile, in light of the demonstrators’ attempts to spread distorted and incisive information, some of which have also been picked up and spread by normal media, including international ones, the authorities have been making efforts to disseminate facts so that people understand the situation.

 

·      The Prime Minister has noted that there are various groups of people among the demonstrators, with some being subject to arrest warrants, some using violence and some being innocent people. By law, they cannot be treated in the same manner. In this regard, most of the protesters have returned home, while those armed elements or instigators of disturbances would be arrested.

 

·      During the course of the demonstrations, which began on 12 March 2010 and ended on 19 May 2010, 87 people lost their lives and 1,406 people were injured. Of these figures, 11 security officers lost their lives and 411 were injured.

 

·      The Prime Minister has reaffirmed that the Government is open to scrutiny and ready to be subject to the legal process in accordance with the law. Everyone, including himself, is under the law, and no one, including former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, should be exempted from the judicial process.

 

·      In this regard, investigations are being conducted into the violent incidents and losses that occurred during the UDD protests, as well as other incidents involving the use of war weapons, including sporadic grenade attacks and the firing of an RPG rocket at an oil reserve tank. These efforts are led by the Department of Special Investigation (DSI). A fact-finding committee headed by the Permanent Secretary of the Office of the Prime Minister has also been established. 

 

·      In addition, the Cabinet has appointed Professor Dr. Kanit Na Nakorn, a former Attorney-General, as chair of an independent committee to investigate what actually transpired. The Government has given this committee a mandate to consider all sides, including those sympathetic to the protesters, so that it would be able to produce impartial findings acceptable to all concerned and contribute to the reconciliation process. The Government also stands ready to cooperate with other efforts being conducted by Parliament as well as by independent organs such as the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which has launched an inquiry process of its own, and the National Counter-Corruption Commission. On 31 May and 1 June 2010, during the no-confidence debate in the House of Representatives against the Government which focused on the incidents and deaths that occurred during the protests, the Prime Minister had also provided information which has helped to dispel the rumours spread and confusion caused.

 

 

·      The Government has been working to provide remedies to those affected – on both security officers’ and demonstrators’ sides – by the unfortunate incidents, as well as measures to assist businesses which had to close due to the prolonged protests and which were damaged by the rioting that followed. Of particular concerns are employees who could not earn their living, and owners of small and medium sized businesses which face liquidity problems or have lost their shops or stalls. Assistance would come in such forms as one-off monetary compensation, relocation to temporary places, low-interest loans as well as tax measures. A committee has been set up, chaired by the Secretary-General to the Prime Minister, Korbsak Sabhavasu, to oversee these issues, in cooperation with various concerned agencies as well as the private sector.

 

 _____________________

 

 

---