Riot Victims To Receive 3 Million Baht Each In Compensation

[lungmi]

How do perpetrators become victims?

Well, for some it was by being unarmed, picking up a large red flag, loitering near the front line of a standoff and having the top of their head shorn off by a high velocity bullet.

For others, it involved having a career in the medical service, providing care for injured people in a temple and receiving a fatal bullet in the chest.

For others it was joining the army, standing near their commanding officer in an extremely volatile area without knowing of the potential risks and having their guts blown out by a grenade.

For others yet. it happened because they worked as journalists and were shot whilst doing their job.

Next idiotic question please......

ask yourself

[lungmi]

The riot victims of FROC are included?

[phiphidon]

How much of the compensation money will actually get into the victims hands? When the term victim is used, is the term one sided, or do all who suffered get compensated? What about the shop owners who lost everything when the call went out to burn Bangkok? What about the soldiers who were beaten to death by the red shirted mob before the army started shooting. So many to compensate, who will decide who gets paid?

The incident I was referring to was when an army truck was surrounded by red shirt supporters, some of whom climbed into the back of the truck and began beating the soldiers, who despite being armed refused to use them on those who were beating them, the soldiers bodies were later seen being handed over to the army, as I remember the truck was trying to pass through the red controlled area when it was over whelmed, all of this was seen on live tv telecast of the protest.

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

Actually they were not beaten to death. They were shot to death, on live television.

If my memory of the timing of this event, then it was before the army started shooting.

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

So if memory serves you both correctly there were several soldiers on a truck who weren't beaten to death but shot to death and then their bodies were given back to the army and this was before the soldiers started shooting and all this on live TV, is that right?

[hellodolly]

from 2005 - as opposed to ...... let's say for example October 25th 2004.

It will be interesting to see if the is accepted by the families or not. And just as interesting to see if it's accepted by the Red Shirt leaders who must themselves share a proportion of the guilt for the way they sought confrontation and glamourised the armed, violent campaign.

I doubt if many of the families are in a position to refuse such an attractive offer.

US 100,000 is attractive?

Life must be cheap in Thailand.

As a matter of fact it is. look at the sentencing they hand down for murders.

But as usual the good TV posters. have neglected the article just read the headlines and ran to post on it.

According to the article it is a recommendation. A far cry from a done deal.

[WarpSpeed]

from 2005 - as opposed to ...... let's say for example October 25th 2004.

It will be interesting to see if the is accepted by the families or not. And just as interesting to see if it's accepted by the Red Shirt leaders who must themselves share a proportion of the guilt for the way they sought confrontation and glamourised the armed, violent campaign.

I doubt if many of the families are in a position to refuse such an attractive offer.

US 100,000 is attractive?

Life must be cheap in Thailand.

What a silly comment, quite pompous too..

So does this mean we can collect some compensation for the wages my wife has lost due to the lost tourism dollars from coups, riots and airport closings? lest I also forget the flood debacle, I think 3 mil will just about cover it..

[lannarebirth]

So if memory serves you both correctly there were several soldiers on a truck who weren't beaten to death but shot to death and then their bodies were given back to the army and this was before the soldiers started shooting and all this on live TV, is that right?

No need for prevarication.

[TomTao]

So if memory serves you both correctly there were several soldiers on a truck who weren't beaten to death but shot to death and then their bodies were given back to the army and this was before the soldiers started shooting and all this on live TV, is that right?

No need for prevarication.

Thats the incident, as I earlier stated 'if my memory serves me right', if I am wrong then I accept that I am wrong and apologise if anyone took offence.

[nurofiend]

that's inexcusable.

[Emptyset]

that's inexcusable.

Yes, but it's hard to tell from the video what actually happened. Aren't people just assuming he was shot by a red shirt? Maybe the gun went off by accident, after all, they're taking him to the ambulance afterwards, which presumably they wouldn't have done if they intended to kill him?

[DP25]

that's inexcusable.

Yes, but it's hard to tell from the video what actually happened. Aren't people just assuming he was shot by a red shirt? Maybe the gun went off by accident, after all, they're taking him to the ambulance afterwards, which presumably they wouldn't have done if they intended to kill him?

The plan from the beginning was to mix the criminals, murderers, and terrorists in with the unknowing pawns intended to become martyrs for Thaksin. Not all of the people there wanted to kill, and some would have tried to help. Their part in the grand plan was to die once the terrorist elements engaged in enough violence to force the army to act.

[nurofiend]

that's inexcusable.

Yes, but it's hard to tell from the video what actually happened. Aren't people just assuming he was shot by a red shirt? Maybe the gun went off by accident, after all, they're taking him to the ambulance afterwards, which presumably they wouldn't have done if they intended to kill him?

i very much doubt that's what happened.

you can see guys jumping off the truck and running away when it happens, yes people would run when hearing a gunshot but my guess is that the shooter was amongst those fleeing the scene.

just because other red shirts helped doesn't mean that it wasn't one that shot him.. after all, they're not all one in the same.

obviously it can't be proven from that clip alone but to me it seems that way.

[TAWP]

So now taking part of riots and getting yourself killed - even by other rioters - will net your family 3 million baht?

I think we just created a new subsidized employment opportunity for a bunch of under-performing people.

[moe666]

Any speculation that the 3 mil will be taken from Big Ts stash as he was the driving force and pay master behind all of this. Maybe a few of the redshirt leaders who got big bucks from him should have to pony up for their envolvement

[moe666]

from 2005 - as opposed to ...... let's say for example October 25th 2004.

It will be interesting to see if the is accepted by the families or not. And just as interesting to see if it's accepted by the Red Shirt leaders who must themselves share a proportion of the guilt for the way they sought confrontation and glamourised the armed, violent campaign.

I doubt if many of the families are in a position to refuse such an attractive offer.

US 100,000 is attractive?

Yes, for the average (non-Bangkokian) Thai, it's an absolute fortune.

It is probably a fortune for the average Bangkokian as well who make about 6 to 8,000baht a month.

[OzMick]

How do perpetrators become victims?

Well, for some it was by being unarmed, picking up a large red flag, loitering near the front line of a standoff and having the top of their head shorn off by a high velocity bullet.

For others, it involved having a career in the medical service, providing care for injured people in a temple and receiving a fatal bullet in the chest.

For others it was joining the army, standing near their commanding officer in an extremely volatile area without knowing of the potential risks and having their guts blown out by a grenade.

For others yet. it happened because they worked as journalists and were shot whilst doing their job.

Next idiotic question please......

Before using the word idiotic, perhaps you could use a dictionary to understand perpetrator.

[OzMick]

Thailand, new rent a riot hub. Burn and earn.

Hey seriously, we're talking about people killed. Have some shame... if not respect.

There has been a lot of violence in the last 5-6 years and no one, not one person deserved to die. 3 mill Bhat is peanuts for a life.

Term life insurance is quite common in Thailand, B3,000,000 is not as it represents 40 - 50 years earning potential of your average Thai.

Those that instigated and perpetrated lethal violence on others deserve to die, and it is my wish to see that happen, though we will have to wait until the end of the parliamentary term or a return from abroad.

[OzMick]

that's inexcusable.

Yes, but it's hard to tell from the video what actually happened. Aren't people just assuming he was shot by a red shirt? Maybe the gun went off by accident, after all, they're taking him to the ambulance afterwards, which presumably they wouldn't have done if they intended to kill him?

Are you claiming suicide? If you are attacking someone offering no violence to yourself and he ends up dead, you are guilty of murder.

If you are part of a mob attacking someone offering no violence to yourself and someone in that mob uses deadly violence, you are guilty of murder even though that was not your intent - acts after the event are mitigating only.

Notr that the truck was quite capable of being driven over the "peaceful protesters" and the M-16s in the back could have sorted the problem very rapidly. Yet in the aftermath, it is the RTA who get labelled as murderous bastards.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

US 100,000 is attractive?

Life must be cheap in Thailand.

Very. If you offered such an amount to poor families in exchange for the head of one of their group, many many would get together and decide who will be sacrificed. You would probably get many older family members volunteering in order to help their family.

That's an **enormous** amount of money for an upcountry peasant family, way beyond the scale of usual compensation.

May not be as direct, but happens all the time - little sister gets sent to Pattaya with "auntie" (or much worse, the buyer for a Thai brothel) to allow the older sister to get an education.

Only in silly Western countries do we consider human lives to be so precious, I just don't understand it, there's way too many of us if there were a way to remove 3/4 of the species but leave the rest of the ecosystem intact the world would be a much better place. Of course long-term 100% extermination would be more effective, Mother Nature just hasn't figured out how yet - or maybe we just haven't quite crossed that line just yet.

And to put it in perspective, it would be great if an Australian could post the government's current maximum limits for compensation for occupational cripplings, I remember when I worked there it was just a few thousand for loss of one leg, not much more for both. Workers weren't allowed to sue for any more than that, no punitive damages like in the US.

[webfact]

Families of turmoil victims may get Bt5m each

SAMATCHA HUNSARA,

CHANIKAN PUMHIRUN

THE NATION

A government committee on national reconciliation yesterday suggested that compensation of Bt3 million to Bt5 million each be paid to the families of those killed in political unrest between 2005 and 2010.

The government's coordination and follow-up committee on recommendations from the Truth for National Reconciliation Commission yesterday resolved to seek Cabinet endorsement next week of the remedy plan, the panel's deputy spokesman, Anek Wongpermseni, said.

He said the preliminary estimate showed that about Bt2 billion would be required initially.

Two subcommittees would be set up for civil and criminal rehabilitation, with the former being chaired by Prasit Kowilaikul, a former PM's Office minister in the post-coup government of General Surayud Chulanont, and the latter by former attorney-general Chaikasem Nirisiri, according to the spokesman.

Anek said the exact amount of the payment and how it would be paid are some of the details that will be discussed later.

"We initially came up with a broad framework for compensation, with the calculation based on the national GDP. According to this, each person killed in a political conflict is entitled to Bt3 million to Bt5 million," Anek said.

Yesterday's panel meeting was chaired by Deputy Prime Minister and Interior Minister Yongyuth Wichaidit, who is also leader of the ruling Pheu Thai Party.

The meeting found that the previous Democrat-led government had allocated Bt11.4 billion to compensate victims of political unrest, and that more than Bt8.3 billion had already been spent, he said.

"The Budget Bureau was assigned to find out if that budget is still left unspent. We will only need Bt2 billion. There's no need to seek additional funding," the spokesman said.

As for those who have already been compensated, they can seek additional help under this new scheme, he said.

The spokesman said the compensation would be based on the original rules set by the previous government, in addition to new rules that are in line with international standards and based on similar cases from other countries, such as Argentina and Peru.

He said the goal was to overcome the conflict and achieve reconciliation while preventing political violence.

"I believe this measure will help us achieve reconciliation and prevent conflicts from recurring," Anek said, adding that he did not think people would be tempted to join protests just so they can get government compensation.

Panel chairman Yongyuth had given Anek the job of calling the conference because the former was scheduled to have lunch with Matubhum Party leader General Sonthi Boonyaratglin. Also present at the luncheon were Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, Chart Thai Pattana's Chumpol Silapa-archa, Bhum Jai Thai's Chaovarat Chanweerakul, Rak Santi's Purachai Piumsombun, Rak Prathet Thai's Chuwit Kamolvisit and Mahachon's Apirat Sirinawin.

Sonthi asked leaders of parties that won House seats in the July 3 elections to join the lunch.

As lunch was being served, Sonthi voiced optimism that the gathering of party leaders would bode well for bringing about reconciliation.

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra declined the invitation because she said she was not a party leader, though she was willing to join the reconciliation process at a later date.

-- The Nation 2012-01-07

[wxyz]

paid to riot, if you get hurt, your family wins the riot LOTTERY, good one

more than the pimps pay for the kids

when is the next riot?

Edited January 6, 2012 by wxyz

[Emptyset]

that's inexcusable.

Yes, but it's hard to tell from the video what actually happened. Aren't people just assuming he was shot by a red shirt? Maybe the gun went off by accident, after all, they're taking him to the ambulance afterwards, which presumably they wouldn't have done if they intended to kill him?

i very much doubt that's what happened.

you can see guys jumping off the truck and running away when it happens, yes people would run when hearing a gunshot but my guess is that the shooter was amongst those fleeing the scene.

just because other red shirts helped doesn't mean that it wasn't one that shot him.. after all, they're not all one in the same.

obviously it can't be proven from that clip alone but to me it seems that way.

Upon reflection that does seem the most likely scenario. I know they're not all one in the same, that's why I've been contesting this board's general characterization of them as a vicious bunch of deadbeats, dancing to the tune of the 'puppet master' Thaksin for 500 baht a pop. Obviously in any 'mob', there are mixed motivations, and all protest groups in Thailand seem to attract some criminal, mercenary types*. But I think the law and individual morality itself becomes irrelevant once groupthink has set in and it becomes an 'us vs them' thing. 'Them' being the soldiers that had been shooting at the red shirts previously, of course (I think the video is from about the 15/16th of May, when the so-called 'Battle for Rajaprasong' was in full swing). The red shirts at this point had come to see the army as an enemy to be overcome at all costs, and the soldiers, in return, of course, were not only responding to being the object of red shirts animus but were also told that the red shirts were 'disloyal' and therefore not 'real Thais', which in consequence dehumanised them in the eyes of both the soldiers and the public at large. A perfectly nice, ordinary human being can be capable of acts of the most egregious violence in the right (or rather, wrong) circumstances.

So it would hardly be surprising in this environment if an unarmed soldier was shot in cold blood at point blank range, neither would it be surprising if, in the heat of the moment, soldiers shot up a temple, killing several (probably) unarmed people. There's a lot less space for individual agency and moral deliberation at times like this. Propaganda is a dangerous thing...

That said, I don't want to claim those on either side of the conflict were fully deprived of individual agency, as I've said, I'm not sure this conflict can simply be reduced to elites on both sides simply pulling people's strings and manipulating them, though that is part of it. And I'm not saying no one should be punished either, clearly the person responsible for shooting the soldier should be prosecuted, as should those soldiers responsible for the shooting at the temple. But at the same time I think all of this could've been avoided, either by Abhisit simply calling an election, or by the red shirt leaders (and Thaksin) being willing to be more patient and bide their time... after all, there was going to be an election anyway, what difference would it have really made in the end to Thai democracy, if there'd been an election a year earlier than the one eventually held last year?

*Not that you have to be a criminal or mercenary to become violent during protests. I honestly don't think the issue most people have with the red shirts is the violence directed by ordinary members towards soldiers (excluding the heavily armed men in black) - after all if they had an issue with molotovs, rocks and such, surely if this was the only criteria for decided whether a protest is legitimate or not - they'd have had to side with the police and Mubarak against the Eygptian protesters and so on and so fourth. Most people who dislike the red shirts do so not because of any violence, but because they don't believe they have a worthy cause. In fact, as I've said, they tend to see the people as just 'puppets' in an elite conflict. They believe that though the military and traditional elites are not perfect, they're certainly a lesser evil than Thaksin (a view that is often restated on this board).

Edited January 6, 2012 by Emptyset

[OzMick]

paid to riot, if you get hurt, your family wins the riot LOTTERY, good one

more than the pimps pay for the kids

when is the next riot?

Made it well worth while to donate Granny, who was pretty well f#cked anyway, and that bastard baby that cried all night. Problem was the army boys refused to shoot them, and the black shirts disappeared once they got the shitfight kicked off.

[wxyz]

paid to riot, if you get hurt, your family wins the riot LOTTERY, good one

more than the pimps pay for the kids

when is the next riot?

Made it well worth while to donate Granny, who was pretty well f#cked anyway, and that bastard baby that cried all night. Problem was the army boys refused to shoot them, and the black shirts disappeared once they got the shitfight kicked off.

Heck of an incentive to shoot them yourself and claim the soldiers did it.

[OzMick]

paid to riot, if you get hurt, your family wins the riot LOTTERY, good one

more than the pimps pay for the kids

when is the next riot?

Made it well worth while to donate Granny, who was pretty well f#cked anyway, and that bastard baby that cried all night. Problem was the army boys refused to shoot them, and the black shirts disappeared once they got the shitfight kicked off.

Heck of an incentive to shoot them yourself and claim the soldiers did it.

Send us your sick, your lame,

your retards and the maimed........

They seem to have got an excess of retards.

[jackr]

US 100,000 is attractive?

Life must be cheap in Thailand.

Are you kidding! That's a boatload for many folks here... half of em would give up their granny if you removed a couple of zeros.

[jackr]

Did they consider extending the window back to 2003 to compensate those killed in the WoD?

[wxyz]

Wait till the flood victims hear about this.

[nurofiend]

that's inexcusable.

Yes, but it's hard to tell from the video what actually happened. Aren't people just assuming he was shot by a red shirt? Maybe the gun went off by accident, after all, they're taking him to the ambulance afterwards, which presumably they wouldn't have done if they intended to kill him?

i very much doubt that's what happened.

you can see guys jumping off the truck and running away when it happens, yes people would run when hearing a gunshot but my guess is that the shooter was amongst those fleeing the scene.

just because other red shirts helped doesn't mean that it wasn't one that shot him.. after all, they're not all one in the same.

obviously it can't be proven from that clip alone but to me it seems that way.

Upon reflection that does seem the most likely scenario. I know they're not all one in the same, that's why I've been contesting this board's general characterization of them as a vicious bunch of deadbeats, dancing to the tune of the 'puppet master' Thaksin for 500 baht a pop. Obviously in any 'mob', there are mixed motivations, and all protest groups in Thailand seem to attract some criminal, mercenary types*. But I think the law and individual morality itself becomes irrelevant once groupthink has set in and it becomes an 'us vs them' thing. 'Them' being the soldiers that had been shooting at the red shirts previously, of course (I think the video is from about the 15/16th of May, when the so-called 'Battle for Rajaprasong' was in full swing). The red shirts at this point had come to see the army as an enemy to be overcome at all costs, and the soldiers, in return, of course, were not only responding to being the object of red shirts animus but were also told that the red shirts were 'disloyal' and therefore not 'real Thais', which in consequence dehumanised them in the eyes of both the soldiers and the public at large. A perfectly nice, ordinary human being can be capable of acts of the most egregious violence in the right (or rather, wrong) circumstances.

So it would hardly be surprising in this environment if an unarmed soldier was shot in cold blood at point blank range, neither would it be surprising if, in the heat of the moment, soldiers shot up a temple, killing several (probably) unarmed people. There's a lot less space for individual agency and moral deliberation at times like this. Propaganda is a dangerous thing...

That said, I don't want to claim those on either side of the conflict were fully deprived of individual agency, as I've said, I'm not sure this conflict can simply be reduced to elites on both sides simply pulling people's strings and manipulating them, though that is part of it. And I'm not saying no one should be punished either, clearly the person responsible for shooting the soldier should be prosecuted, as should those soldiers responsible for the shooting at the temple. But at the same time I think all of this could've been avoided, either by Abhisit simply calling an election, or by the red shirt leaders (and Thaksin) being willing to be more patient and bide their time... after all, there was going to be an election anyway, what difference would it have really made in the end to Thai democracy, if there'd been an election a year earlier than the one eventually held last year?

*Not that you have to be a criminal or mercenary to become violent during protests. I honestly don't think the issue most people have with the red shirts is the violence directed by ordinary members towards soldiers (excluding the heavily armed men in black) - after all if they had an issue with molotovs, rocks and such, surely if this was the only criteria for decided whether a protest is legitimate or not - they'd have had to side with the police and Mubarak against the Eygptian protesters and so on and so fourth. Most people who dislike the red shirts do so not because of any violence, but because they don't believe they have a worthy cause. In fact, as I've said, they tend to see the people as just 'puppets' in an elite conflict. They believe that though the military and traditional elites are not perfect, they're certainly a lesser evil than Thaksin (a view that is often restated on this board).

"I know they're not all one in the same, that's why I've been contesting this board's general characterization of them as a vicious bunch of deadbeats, dancing to the tune of the 'puppet master' Thaksin for 500 baht a pop."

that's a point i've argued here many a time myself

and as for the rest of the post, i generally agree with the points you've made

[KKK]

Bt3 million payment for each victim

And how many victims are there that would qualify to recieve this? Typical useless reporting again from The Nation.

if it is one then this is not news...if it is thousands then it would qualify....

And let's remember if it is the government who is paying this out then really it is the Thai people who are paying from taxes etc or cancelled projects that can no longer go ahead because the money ran out.

[SpoliaOpima]

that's inexcusable.

Yes, but it's hard to tell from the video what actually happened. Aren't people just assuming he was shot by a red shirt? Maybe the gun went off by accident, after all, they're taking him to the ambulance afterwards, which presumably they wouldn't have done if they intended to kill him?

The plan from the beginning was to mix the criminals, murderers, and terrorists in with the unknowing pawns intended to become martyrs for Thaksin. Not all of the people there wanted to kill, and some would have tried to help. Their part in the grand plan was to die once the terrorist elements engaged in enough violence to force the army to act.

That seemed quite clear to me as well at the time..

Also wondering if any compensation will be paid to Rajprasong residents who were robbed or beaten during the redshirts' two-and-a-half month occupation of Rajprasong. Or whose businesses failed as a result of the occupation.