Thai citizens do live beyond the boundary of the City of Angels: Some commentaries of the complete TRCT report | Prachatai English

Thai citizens do live beyond the boundary of the City of Angels: Some commentaries of the complete TRCT report | Prachatai English
Saowanee T. Alexande, October 16, 2012


On behalf of the volunteers who collected information on the impact of 2010 April-May crackdown in Ubon Ratchathani, I would like to make the following observations regarding the complete Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) report as follows.

Truth-finding

The report centers around what transpired in Bangkok. Although there are some mentions of parallel rallies leading up to the violence in provinces, it gives little value to the lives of stakeholders in the incidents including the accused and affected individuals. In Ubon Ratchathani alone, 418 warrants were issued for which 88 civilians were taken in custody¹. Twenty-one individuals were held in custody without bail from the day they were arrested to the day the verdict was handed down. A typical reason given by the court for not allowing bail was the claim that the individuals were a flight risk because the offenses they were charged with were serious. Most of these suspects were male adults with families to care for. Many of them were arrested soon after the May crackdown, leaving their families to suffer from the lack of financial support ever since. It took months for the TRCT staff to start their fieldwork to collect information about the families and those affected. In the entire report, there are only 11 references to the city of Ubon Ratchathani. Of those 11 mentions, four have to do with the City Hall incident with little information as far as specifics of the incident and related demonstrations are concerned. No case study is discussed. Nor is there any example of individuals who they call “victims” as appeared on page 33².  It is worth-noting that the TRCT has created several subcommittees to carry out specific tasks for “truth-finding” purposes concerning individual incidents. Also created was the Fifth Subcommittee whose responsibility involved fact-finding about the Ubon Ratchathani City Hall incident. With the vast budget and human resources to collect field data, the TRCT should have reported their findings to the public in order to make it aware of the impacts of this political conflict. Instead, after 2 years of study, the report presents nothing but general, vague recommendations for reconciliation--something which can be found in a textbook or a theory-based academic paper. Missing are any recorded accounts and reports of facts regarding the events including prior incidents, the aftermath, as well as its consequences. This missing information would have earned the report a status of an academically-oriented source of knowledge instead of a collection of invalidated claims and the like.

For Reconciliation

Anonymization of Individuals

The report is not faithful to the spirit of “truth-finding”. Rather, it focuses on “reconciliation” although it is not clear what parties would reconcile as a result of this report. As they are, the recommendations in the report are not grounded on the principles of truth-finding--a prerequisite for a reconciliation process. Apparently, the absence of individuals’ names, which can be seen as an attempt to avoid further divide, backfires as it put these individuals in the background while the word “the City Hall arson” takes center stage.  The report’s anonymization of these affected civilians makes them “nonexistent” in the public discourse. Severely affected individuals such as Mr. Tanoosilp Tanootong, Mr. Kamploy Namee, Mr. Ubon Saentaweesook, and Ms. Sininaat Chompoosapate and their stories do not earn a single reference in the report.  Consider the tone of the following excerpt:

“there were rallies  for more protesters and reports of the situation in Bangkok through pro-UDD local radio stations in provinces. It was found that there were UDD demonstrations in Bangkok and  provinces along with Thaksin’s speeches via video link, which were characterized as provocative, and demanding the protesters to congregate at city halls should there be a crackdown on the Bangkok protest. On May 19, 2010 it was found that UDD protesters gathered on the city hall compounds in many provinces, and city hall arsons took place in Khon Kaen, Udon Thani, Ubon Ratchathani, and Mookdahan.”³

Although the language in the excerpt is ambiguous as to who was responsible for the arsons, juxtaposition of words in it could possibly lead the reader to believe that the protesters set the halls on fire. If the report had focused on the facts regarding the matter, the reader would have seen a picture of something other than the scorching flames rising from the burning state-owned buildings, a sight which affect laypeople’s sensibilities—laypeople who had no clue how all this had come about. Rather, the reader would have learned more details about what transpired that day. For instance, the reader would have been given an opportunity to put things in perspective, had it been mentioned in the report that someone took a photo of Mr. Namee as the incident was unfolding. This photo was later used to charge him with an involvement in the arson attack. As for Mr. Tanootong, he was arrested later. He claimed that he was working in his cassava plantation in a different district along with his wife when it took place. He later made repeated statements to the court that he was in the plantation about 100 kilometers away from the city of Ubon Ratchathani. Let us turn to Ms. Chompoosapate, she had a gunshot wound on her leg from a bullet reportedly coming from the direction of the second floor of the City Hall building.

These people now walk free. Ms. Chompoosapate carries with her a scar from that gunshot, which will later be discussed, and memories from being imprisoned in the state prison while her small children were left with relatives. Financial compensation from the Ministry of Human Resources does not erase the event from her memory. Mr. Namee has become permanently blind and hemiplegic due to a rupture of a brain aneurysm while he was being held in prison without bail during the long trial process; his prior attempts to post bail to seek proper medical treatment failed miserably. Mr Tanootong was eventually acquitted after being held, again without bail, for over a year. No one is taking responsibility for his time and part of his life lost in the prison. Mr. Saentaweesuk is currently taking medications for psychiatric problems—the condition he had before the incident which became aggravated while he was kept behind bars. With these problems he cannot take a normal job to earn a living. These individuals are only some of many who were severely affected by the incident. Presentation of broad, unbacked claims about protesters’ “likely” involvement in the problem without verification and depiction of resulting civilians’ plight not only underscores the report’s superficial take on alleged claims against the people, but it also reflects the report’s lack of efficiency in reporting facts regardless of whether the facts are for reconciliation or any other purpose.

Absence of the Role of Authorities

Citing the above excerpt from the report, it is clear that the report misses information regarding the role of local state authorities in provinces with serious incidents. There is no mention of how state agencies, be they the police, military, or governing bodies, treated or responded to the civilian protesters. For instance, the report does not state that gunshots were reportedly fired at the protesters from the direction of the City Hall building before the place was set on fire. One of the shots wounded Ms. Chompoosapate’s leg. The woman received hospital treatment, was later arrested despite her compromised health, charged, and detained in the Ubon Ratchathani prison for several months. Questions remain unanswered. Why was no fire engine sent to distinguish the fire? Where were state officials when the fire just started? This is such in stark contrast with footage televised both domestically and internationally of an aggressive army strike at the Ratchaprasong rally site.

There is nowhere in the report any mention of the government’s continual suppression in the aftermath. Also unmentioned are challenges with which the accused civilians had to face in the judicial process, both in principle and practice. The report leaves the impression that the City Hall arsons occurred as an isolating event, leaving no consequences.

Concluding Remark: Truth-finding “for” Reconciliation

As of October 13, 2012,  of the original 21 civilians charged with cases related to the Ubon City Hall arson and related incidents, four individuals have been detained without bail, namely, Ms. Pattama Moonmin, Mr. Sanon Ketsuwan, Mr. Somsak Prasansap, and Mr. Teerawat Sajjasuwan. They were accused of setting the fire to the Hall and sentenced to life imprisonment. (Their) punishment was reduced to 33 years and 12 months (exactly how it is phrased). Nine who were acquitted and set free on August 24, 2011 are struggling to move on with their shattered lives. Some are still fighting other charges. Two questions: 1) Does this report show any attempt to seek the truth involving the arson? and 2) How can this report support a path to reconciliation as it both anonymizes affected civilians and fosters civilians’ image as perpetrators.
...............

Note:
1  Summary of Arrest Warrants and Status Updates as of August 24, 2010.
2  As indicated in the TRCT announcements of members of case-specific truth-finding committees.
3  On page 33 of the complete TRCT report.

Saowanee T. Alexander is a lecturer at the Faculty of Liberal Arts, Ubon Ratchathani University

Thailand: Act to Bring Justice for 2010 Violence | Prachatai English

Thailand: Act to Bring Justice for 2010 Violence | Prachatai English
September 22, 2012

Independent Commission Finds Both Sides Responsible, Urges Accountability

(New York, September 22, 2012) – The Thai government should act on the findings of an independent inquiry and prosecute all those responsible for rights abuses during the 2010 political violence, Human Rights Watch said today.

The report of the independent Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) is Thailand’s first ever independent inquiry of political violence that detailed violence and abuses committed by state security forces and opposition “Red Shirts.”

The TRCT report, released on September 17, 2012, concluded that excessive and unnecessary lethal force by the Thai army and armed elements among the protesters were responsible for at least 90 deaths and more than 2,000 injuries during political confrontations from March to May 2010. Human Rights Watch found in its May 2011 report “Descent into Chaos” that both government security officials and elements of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), including the “Black Shirts,” were responsible for the violence, though the government forces were responsible for the large majority of deaths and injuries. The TRCT urged the government to “address legal violations of all parties through [the] justice system, which must be fair and impartial.”

“The TRCT report should end once and for all the denials by all sides about who was responsible for the deaths and destruction of property during the 2010 political violence,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “It is clear that high-ranking figures on each side were to blame, and now it is up to the government to prosecute all those responsible, regardless of political affiliation or position.”

The police and the Justice Ministry’s Department of Special Investigation (DSI) found strong evidence that soldiers were implicated in at least 36 of the 92 deaths during the 2010 political violence. On September 17, 2012, the Bangkok Criminal Court ruled in a post-mortem inquest that UDD supporter Phan Khamkong was shot and killed by soldiers during a military operation near Bangkok’s Ratchaprarop Airport Link station on the night of May 14, 2010.

While failing to provide the names of those responsible for abuses, the commission presented substantive findings backed by forensic evidence and testimonies of witnesses and victims showing that high numbers of casualties among unarmed demonstrators, volunteer medics, reporters, photographers, and bystanders occurred in the government’s designated “live fire zones” around the protest sites in Bangkok.

The commission said that the joint civilian-military Center for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) – established by then Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and chaired by then Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban – authorized security forces to use war weapons and live ammunition in military operations to contain and disperse the protests without sufficient measures to monitor and control the use of lethal force.

The TRCT also found that heavily armed “Black Shirt” elements connected to the UDD were responsible for deadly attacks on soldiers, police, and civilians. The findings, however, did not provide details about the identity and command structure of these militants. In addition, the commission examined incidents in which “Red Shirt” guards and supporters committed violence. The report also found some UDD leaders incited violence with inflammatory speeches to demonstrators, including urging their supporters to riot, carry out arson attacks, and loot.

Under domestic and international pressure, Abhisit’s government established the TRCT in July 2010 to investigate the causes and consequences of the political violence and make recommendations for action. The current government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has repeatedly and publicly vowed support for the TRCT and promised to consider its findings.

However, both governments have politicized the justice process, Human Rights Watch said. The Abhisit government summarily charged hundreds of UDD protesters with serious criminal offenses, but at the same time failed to file charges against any government officials or military personnel.

The Yingluck government, which has the backing of the UDD, has taken a similarly one-sided approach, focusing criminal investigations primarily on cases in which soldiers were implicated while dismissing evidence of violence by the “Black Shirts.”

Immediately after the release of the TRCT report, the UDD leadership and their supporters, including those holding positions in the government and the parliament, emerged in large numbers to dismiss the TRCT findings and assert that there were no armed elements within the UDD. These assertions were made despite the fact that incidents of “Black Shirt” violence, and violence committed by some UDD protesters, were captured on videotape and in photos and widely reported at the time by witnesses.

On August 16, 2012, the army commander-in-chief, Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha told the DSI to stop accusing soldiers of having killed UDD protesters and not to report publicly on the progress of its investigations. Rather than order General Prayuth to end his interference in the criminal investigations, Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung announced on the same day that soldiers would be treated as witnesses in the investigations and that they would be fully protected from criminal prosecution. Under pressure, this position has since been adopted by the DSI.

“While politicians and military officers involved in the 2010 violence spend their time trying to ensure they are immune from prosecution, the victims and their families are denied justice,” said Adams.

For decades in Thailand, the concept of “reconciliation” has been promoted not to bring communities together, but to protect powerful politicians and military leaders from being held accountable for wrongdoing. In the name of “reconciliation” there were no independent investigations into the crackdowns on students and pro-democracy protesters in 1973 and 1976, which led to the deaths of well over 100 people. The complete findings of a government inquiry into the bloody 1992 repression of protesters calling for an end to military rule have never been released. In each of these cases, in the name of “reconciliation,” amnesty was given to those responsible for abuses.

Human Rights Watch warned that the push for a new National Reconciliation Bill by the ruling Pheu Thai Party and its coalition partners may become a convenient device for denying justice to victims of human rights abuses. Early drafts of that bill contain a proposal for a broad amnesty for leaders and supporters of all political movements, politicians, government officials, and members of the security forces involved in the 2010 violence.

The TRCT report warned that amnesty should not be rushed and should not be the ultimate objective of reconciliation. It concluded that the principle of justice must be taken into account to address the needs of victims and affected persons, accountability of perpetrators, and encouragement that perpetrators provide reparations and publicly take responsibility for their actions.

“Impunity has long been institutionalized in Thailand, with each side protecting their own while paying little regard for justice,” said Adams. ”The TRCT findings should serve as an important encouragement for the victims of violence and their families to oppose attempts by politicians and military leaders to whitewash deadly abuses.”

Both sides blamed for violence on Thailand's May 19, 2010 crackdown | Prachatai English

Both sides blamed for violence on Thailand's May 19, 2010 crackdown | Prachatai English
Pravit Rojanaphruk, The Natio, September 14, 2012

Commission says 'men in black' may have got cooperation from red shirts
The long-awaited final report from the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) on the 2010 crackdown, which was obtained in advance by The Nation, shows that the so-called "men in black" had received cooperation from red-shirt guards. It also said that security officers eventually used live bullets, deployed snipers and were likely responsible for the six deaths at Wat Pathumwanaram on May 19, 2010.

The 515-page report appeared to hold both sides responsible for the 90-plus deaths and said the clashes on April 10, 2010, where more than 20 people were killed including Army Colonel Romklao Thuwatham, were seminal in creating a climate of animosity between the red shirts and the Army. The report is scheduled to be made public next week.

The men in black and April 10, 2010

"Both [sides] believe they were victims. The operation by the 'men in black' were very instrumental in creating and elevating the violence with the aim of provoking the Army to use weapons against protesters and wanting to exact the loss of lives," page 184 of the report read.

The TRCT explained that after the night of April 10, 2010, the Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES) had started using the term "terrorist" and had permitted security officials to use live bullets for self-defence. Abhisit Vejjajiva's government created the commission with chairman Kanit na Nakorn personally chosen by the premier.

When Colonel Romklao was unexpectedly attacked and killed by a bomb and some senior officers injured, "it led to the confusing and out-of-control use of weapons by soldiers", the report said. It added that soldiers then used rifles and fired "many" live bullets in the direction of the red-shirt protesters. "Many protesters died from bullet wounds," the report stated, without explicitly linking the deaths to soldiers.

The report links at least one of the "men in black" to Army Maj-General Khattiya "Seh Daeng" Sawasdipol, who would later end up being shot down by an unknown sharp shooter on May 13. The report does not reveal the name of the "man in black" believed to be a close aide of Khattiya. On pages 163 and 164, the report says that somebody saw a group of men in black step out of a white van at 7pm on April 10 near the Democracy Monument only to be "surrounded" and escorted by red-shirt guards toward the direction of the deadly confrontation. The guards "barred people from taking photos and some protesters shouted 'a helping hand is here', but were later prevented from speaking".

The report failed to shed light on who might have killed Reuters photographer Hiroyuki Muramoto that night, but it did point out that the first death on April 10 had taken place in front of the Education Ministry when a red-shirt protester was killed by a bullet from an unknown assailant. This was well before the men in black showed up.

Death of Maj-General Khattiya

The TRCT report said that Khattiya, a key red-shirt ally, was shot in the head by a "high-velocity" but unspecified gun on the night of May 13 with bullets that "probably" came from the Silom Plaza Building, which was "under the control of the authorities since April 18".

Six deaths at Wat Pathumwannaram

After Khattiya was killed, violence escalated on both sides and the TRCT report noted a photograph taken by Agence France-Presse, showing what was later examined by weapon experts to be the shell of a live bullet flying out of a soldier's rifle aiming his gun toward protesters. The report noted on page 208 that security officers shot live bullets from both rifles and handguns.

On May 19, at around 10.50am, the report said that clashes occurred between soldiers and armed men in black who were holed up inside Lumpini Park and stated that some protesters may have been killed when bullets were fired from the park.

As for the six killed at Wat Pathumwannaram on the evening of May 19 after demonstrators had been dispersed, TRCT said that on May 19, some 4,000 people had entered the temple, which had been declared a sanctuary area. A sign stating temple's sanctuary status had been posted since May 17, after peace advocates had managed to have the government agree to the idea. The report noted an eyewitness account saying men in black had been spotted inside the temple compound on May 15.

The report noted that: "At around 6pm [of May 19, 2010] seven soldiers were deployed on the first floor of [BTS] Skytrain track in front of Wat Pathumwannaram and five [soldiers] at the Siam Centre BTS Station. All of them were armed with M16 rifles and live bullets.

"It was discovered that officers aimed at and shot in the direction of Wat Pathumwannaram.

On the first-floor Skytrain track, two .223 bullet shells were discovered and they had been fired from the same gun.

What's more, a senior monk at the temple said he had seen a number of soldiers on the Skytrain track and had heard my gunshots fired around the front of the temple at dusk.

"It is highly likely that this was the cause of the deaths and injuries around Wat Pathumwananram," the report concluded, adding that one soldier told the TRCT that he had fired into the temple because there was an armed man in black on a tree inside the temple.

An M16 was later discovered inside the temple, the report added.