Double standards against protestersM.L. Nattakorn Devakula
26 July 2007It is absolutely acceptable and within legal confines to use water, tear
gas, or even pepper spray to disperse crowds of protesters who decide
to intentionally take a violent turn.
When mobs of people gather to instigate violence by verbally insulting
and physically assaulting police or military officers, the officers reserve
the right to retaliate to bring down the assailants on the spot.
To say that basic individual rights are violated in these instances is tanta-
mount to saying that you can violate the integrity of officers of the law.
Be that as it may, what we have been seeing, and including most
definitely this past Sunday,
must be explained further. Marches by protesters can certainly take place in a democratic society.
We have seen them in most countries from the most to least developed
around the globe.
The motive behind the crowds' attack against officers on the eve of
this past Monday was that they could not move on their march towards
the residence of the Privy Council president. The question is then posed:
What legal rationale did police have to prevent the United Front of
Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) - formerly known as the Demo-
cratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD) - from heading to where
they wanted to go?
Dating back to the massive protest gatherings of the People's Alliance
for Democracy (PAD), the 50,000 or so folk who came out to rally
against former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, were for the most
part mobile.
Their mobility was aided by police officers who guided movements of
crowds from Sanam Luang to Ratchadamnoen Road, from Ratchadam-
noen Road to the Equestrian Monument, from the Equestrian Monument
to Government House, and so on. Throughout the year-long attempt
to ask for Mr Thaksin's resignation, police had almost always cooperated
with the movements of protesters. The military never uttered a word
about protesters and how they created divisiveness in society.
The role of all branches of the armed forces is now completely the
opposite. Instead of facilitating protesters' mobility, officers of the law
have now become "blockers" of protesters' ability to move.
To make the point clear here, this article does not differentiate or discri-
minate in regard to the motives of the PAD and the UDD - for both have
different political aims. Whether the aims are justifiable or not depends
on where one stands politically. Although one cannot help but remember
the incident where the first movement of the then-nascent PAD carried
over to Government House, all the way from Lumpini Park, to forcibly
enter into the compound. Charges were later dropped against the parti-
cipating individuals and the main perpetrators. I doubt whether authorities
today would drop charges against UDD protesters if they, too, decide to
push open the gates of Government House.
As a country, Thailand has never been able to contain mob gatherings.
From small ones like the Assembly of the Poor and the Pak Moon Dam
protesters, to medium-sized ones like the Egat labour union and the anti-
Thai Beverages Plc listing group of Chamlong Srimuang and the Dhamma-
kaya. Needless to say, when we have large protest rallies like those of
PAD and UDD, it is not even worth asking whether we are able to con-
trol or contain them peacefully.
What must finally be made clear and resolute is the standard for all mobs.
This standard of practice must be just and equal for all and applied in the
same spirit. If Sondhi Limthongkul and Suriyasai Katasila's PAD were able
to move on to Siam Paragon on Rama I Road, should Weng Tojirakarn
and Jakrapob Penkair's UDD not be able to move on to the Si Sao Thewes
residence of Gen Prem? Had police tried to prevent the PAD mob from
marching back then, would there have been a clash early last year that
could have potentially been similar to the one we saw last Sunday night?
With few exceptions, the office of the President of the Privy Council
must not be violated. There is little doubt about that consensus. And,
as a respectful Thai citizen, throwing rocks and other hard objects into
sacred compounds and residences of innocent bystanders is deemed
completely inappropriate. Yet society must come to grips with the reality
of the situation, that there is discrimination against crowds of gatherers
with different political objectives. This is not to say that crowds of pro-
testers should always be allowed to move, nor to say that they should
be dispersed violently.
The standardisation of practices against protesting crowds would also
assist in the implementation of policies. For example, several months
ago anti-coal plant activists gathered to lock down a public hearing that
would've sought the public's advice on the construction of a power plant.
A carefully thought-out and an indiscriminately-implemented codified modus
operandi on mobs would strengthen the country's ability to move quickly
on developmental projects as well.
Perhaps all that has been mentioned here represents too much optimism
when one is aware that the very authorities in charge of controlling these
mass movements are sometimes monitoring them for alternative purposes.
The Army usurped the power of the PAD, taking advantage of a massive
100,000 (or so they say) anti-Thaksin gatherers, as a launch-pad for the
coup d'e'tat.
It is truly hoped that the Army has better plans ahead for the anti-dicta-
torship UDD protesters as we move closer to politically cataclysmic dates
like the constitution referendum and election.
Hopefully, after all that has been said and done this year, this country will
finally find a way to treat all protest gatherings fairly and without seeking
out opportunities.
The writer is a news analyst.Especially for Priatel'. 
