EDITORIAL
It happened before and it has happened again. The dawn crackdown on supporters of the anti-government People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) in front of parliament by anti-riot police yesterday, was a repeat of the police blunder on Aug 27, when anti-riot police baton-charged through a PAD security cordon to remove barricades and evict the protesters from Makkhawan Rangsan bridge.
At that time, 25 protesters and a police officer were injured, none of them seriously. This time was different. Scores of protesters were hurt, mostly from tear gas. A number of them needed surgery at Vachira hospital and one of them lost a leg, which apparently got blown off at the protest site by a tear gas canister believed lobbed by police at very close range.
Apart from the barbed wire and other barricades set up to enforce their siege of parliament, the protesters who had gathered in front of parliament since Sunday night to prevent Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat from delivering the government's policy statement, did not directly provoke the police attack.
There can be no justification for the authorities to have used such force to disperse the peaceful crowd. According to eyewitnesses, no warning was given by the police prior to the raid. Dozens of tear gas canisters were fired into the unprepared crowd, to the extent that police appeared to have acted with excessive force.
The officer in charge claimed the police simply enforced the law to keep access to the parliament building open so that the scheduled session could be held. The officer also claimed the crackdown to disperse protesters was in compliance with international standards and that tear gas was not considered a lethal weapon.
Obviously, however, the police used excessive and unnecessary force against the protesters, who were not forewarned; no negotiations were held to persuade them to at least allow access to cabinet members and parliamentarians to enter the building, before the police launched their surprise crackdown.
This raises a big question mark about whether the police strictly complied with internationally-accepted standards of crowd control - otherwise one of the protesters would not have lost a leg from a tear gas canister being lobbed.
Deputy Prime Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, who was tasked with negotiating with the PAD leaders, tendered his resignation yesterday to show responsibility for the violent incident. But his abrupt departure leaves a few questions which need answering: What had gone wrong with the negotiations with the PAD? Why was the crackdown on protesters allowed? And who gave the orders?
Even more troubling than the violent crackdown yesterday morning was the indifferent attitude shown by the prime minister over the violence which could have been avoided in the first place. Apparently unperturbed, he simply went ahead and delivered his policy statement.
That this unfortunate incident might spark off widespread unrest is also cause for concern. One police officer was reportedly stabbed with a flag pole by a PAD supporter.
With the protracted political standoff now entering a dangerous and uncertain phase, it is imperative that all sides in the political equation - especially the PAD and the government and its supporters - exercise extreme tolerance and prudence, to avoid any escalation of this serious situation that could result in further, and more widespread, violence.
Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Next
