Thai Police must crack down on 'third hand' agent provocateurs

[webfact]

Police must crack down on agent provocateurs
Pravit Rojanaphruk
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Police should try harder to arrest "third hand" agent provocateurs in order to prevent violence at the planned Bangkok shutdown, said a key member of Peace Witness, a group whose volunteers monitor whether protests are staged in a peaceful manner.

Pairin Jotisakulratana, a key member of Peace Witness, told The Nation yesterday that there are agent provocateurs among the protesters who will not listen to the protest leaders and who are determined to ensure that a violent confrontation occurs.

This, said Pairin, was what occurred on December 26 at the Thai-Japan Youth Centre in Bangkok, where a police officer and a protester were shot dead by an unidentified gunman or gunmen.

"What we see is that there's a 'third hand' starting violence. When protest leaders order the demonstrators to retreat, this group of people won't follow. They will continue to confront [the police]. I can't say [who they are]. We don't really know who they are," said Pairin. He added, however, that the main responsibility is that of the police, who have a duty to identify and arrest these people. "These are the people who cause problems and we must be careful."

Pairin urged leaders of the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) and other protest groups to be mindful of this "third hand" group, and to do something about it.

Veteran peace activist Gothom Arya, meanwhile, said the so-called vocational college students among the protesters are prone to violence. He urged lecturers to accompany them in the protest from Monday onwards to ensure that they would not engage in violent protest. Gothom also urged the Red Cross to be ready for possible protest-related injuries.

Gothom said it's still not too late for the PDRC to enter into a dialogue to find a solution acceptable to both sides in order to prevent further loss of life.

At least eight people have been killed and more than 200 injured in clashes since the PDRC began its protest in November.

National Human Rights Commissioner Niran Pitakwatchara said the NHRC would hold an emergency meeting with all sides invited today in order to ensure peace is maintained during the protest next week.

With Army top brass insisting that another military coup cannot be ruled out, Niran warned, however, that trying to stage a coup would be a mistake and would not end the political confrontation.

"We have to try to accept and to reach a consensus on the fact that a military coup is not the answer and won't solve the problem. Society must come out and say no to it," Niran said.


-- The Nation 2014-01-10

[Nowhereman60]

A lot easier said then done.

[EricBerg]

Thai police won't crack down on anything... as usual.

[Emptyset]

"What we see is that there's a 'third hand' starting violence. When protest leaders order the demonstrators to retreat, this group of people won't follow."

That doesn't mean they're necessarily a third hand though. They could just be particularly belligerent protesters. Not all of them are bound to follow orders from the leaders. (Not saying they're not a third hand either, mind, just saying it's not possible to draw this conclusion just on the basis of them not following orders from the leaders).

[Nowhereman60]

"What we see is that there's a 'third hand' starting violence. When protest leaders order the demonstrators to retreat, this group of people won't follow."

That doesn't mean they're necessarily a third hand though. They could just be particularly belligerent protesters. Not all of them are bound to follow orders from the leaders. (Not saying they're not a third hand either, mind, just saying it's not possible to draw this conclusion just on the basis of them not following orders from the leaders).

They were the students who did this. Or should I say drugged students who did this.

[Jitar]

Mr Pairin seems to be suggesting Police arrest protesters for not following their leaders ?

So following Suthep is a legal requirement....

Edited January 10, 2014 by Jitar

[Thait Spot]

There seems to be a belief that the agents provocateurs are not the police.

I beg to differ. I would not be surprised in the least if they are a rogue unit under the control of Calerm and others and have operated since 2010

[Mampara]

There are a lot of mercenaries floating around in Thailand, especially in Phuket

[chainarong]

If I was the police I would stay away, who knows who you are dealing with, Thai treachery knows no bounds when the chips are down, one could be looking down the barrel , owned by the Military.

[LuckyLew]

arrest thy self

[noitom]

They say that they "know" that the third hand exists and that "they" won't follow protest leaders. If this is so why not identify them and round them up? Because this kind of comment in and of itself engenders a violent disposition. This Peace Witness sounds like a crock based on this story. Where have they been all along?

[NongKhaiKid]

" We don't know who they are " says it all. From the very first time I came here as a tourist until moving here to live and now to thew present the ' third hand ', ' dark or unseen forces ' have been a stapler of Thai politics. I think Gen. Chavalit was the first I heard using such pkrases but am sure they were in vogue long before him.

It's a lovely convenient expression and as always they can never be identified.

[chrisrazz]

Catch them, expose who is behind them and prosecute. If they are really a 'third hand' this of course will never happen.

[Showbags]

All while singing...'I'm jake the peg, diddle iddle iddle dum'

[Emptyset]

There seems to be a belief that the agents provocateurs are not the police.

I beg to differ. I would not be surprised in the least if they are a rogue unit under the control of Calerm and others and have operated since 2010

Chalerm has absolutely nothing to do with the 'mib'. Nor were the 'mib' a rogue unit of the police. And neither are they the sort of group that would be right for this job. What you'd want is people from the South, or technical school students, and to successfully infiltrate the protest group, they'd have to be there from pretty early on. Most of these people know each other, so it's probably not as easy as you might think.

I still don't see why people are assuming there are actually agent provocateurs. There could be, but if they are, they're not necessarily placed there by the police or government. And people do not always follow orders from the leaders. Hardcore red shirts didn't follow instructions from the stage in 2010. It's getting similar to the red shirts now, blaming every incident on 'third hands' and 'fake reds' instead of taking some responsibility.

[Emptyset]

" We don't know who they are " says it all. From the very first time I came here as a tourist until moving here to live and now to thew present the ' third hand ', ' dark or unseen forces ' have been a stapler of Thai politics. I think Gen. Chavalit was the first I heard using such pkrases but am sure they were in vogue long before him. It's a lovely convenient expression and as always they can never be identified.

Yes, at least going back to 73 there were reports of provocateurs and probably before that. In fact Chavalit himself was actually said to be behind the provocateurs in 1992, the youth who were setting things on fire and trying to provoke the military into opening fire on the protesters. He was nothing to do with the protest itself, but stood to gain if they got Suchinda to step down. That's why I said don't only assume there are two sides. There are people who see opportunities that may not be directly involved.

It's like Sondhi said in his Asia Times interview, the people behind him in 2006 were saying 'show us some blood, Sondhi', they knew it was the most effective way of 'moving things on'. Thaksin or rather those strategising on his behalf knew that in 2010 but it didn't work because of lack of middle class and/or military/elite backing. And who stands to gain now...

[Bakseeda]

Come on guys..... They are the police... TiT...

[pedro01]

This "third hand" thing is nonsense.

There are 2 sides in this fight. If there is trouble, it will be from one of those sides.

[Nowhereman60]

When I see someone with 3 hands then I will believe this. Otherwise a bunch of garbage.

[Scamper]

" We have to try to accept and to reach a consensus on the fact that a military coup is not the answer and won't solve the problem. Society must come out and say no to it," Niran said.

Society is coming out and saying no to Thaksin's grip on this administration. They are saying no to this administration's unfettered practice of corruption. Unfortunately, the history of protests that have precipitated great change have often been violent. But the PDRC has made a point of pledging non-violence, and their protests have been largely peaceful. And as it's undeniably difficult to completely control large masses of people, one has also to acknowledge that such pledges are an undeniably important start. The problem is that change very rarely comes about absent of organized protest. If the eradication of corruption was ever able to be achieved without protest, it would have happened long, long ago. No one wants to see agent provocateurs on either side. But to lose sight on what has been achieved already by a largely peaceful protest suggests that change is indeed possible through peaceful means. I think most observers would agree with General Prayuth - that the administration should bear the responsibility of violence. As is always in these discourses, it is easy to forget that one side in this conflict will be bolstered by many legions of fully armed riot police. And as far as observers have been able to see on television, the protesters are armed with flags, whistles and broad smiles. They want their voices to be heard.

[rubl]

" We don't know who they are " says it all. From the very first time I came here as a tourist until moving here to live and now to thew present the ' third hand ', ' dark or unseen forces ' have been a stapler of Thai politics. I think Gen. Chavalit was the first I heard using such pkrases but am sure they were in vogue long before him. It's a lovely convenient expression and as always they can never be identified.

Yes, at least going back to 73 there were reports of provocateurs and probably before that. In fact Chavalit himself was actually said to be behind the provocateurs in 1992, the youth who were setting things on fire and trying to provoke the military into opening fire on the protesters. He was nothing to do with the protest itself, but stood to gain if they got Suchinda to step down. That's why I said don't only assume there are two sides. There are people who see opportunities that may not be directly involved.

It's like Sondhi said in his Asia Times interview, the people behind him in 2006 were saying 'show us some blood, Sondhi', they knew it was the most effective way of 'moving things on'. Thaksin or rather those strategising on his behalf knew that in 2010 but it didn't work because of lack of middle class and/or military/elite backing. And who stands to gain now...

Interesting this "main responsibility is that of the police, who have a duty to identify and arrest these people" with another topic of "Police officer is charge warns of violence". Also interesting is the mere suggestion that those 'unknowns' 'might be' related to the protesters.

BTW the "Sondhi and 'show some blood' interview is new to me, or maybe I simple missed or forgot. Do you have a link please?

Edited January 10, 2014 by rubl

[rickirs]

The Police seem to operate on a reactive basis than on a proactive basis. Rather than waiting for the first, second, third or how ever number of hand groups to display violence or voluntarily turn themselves in, they should be out on the streets now looking for weapons, going through the demonstration groups investigating and searching for illegal weapons (assuming Suthep's armed guard is legal). Maybe it's a cultural thing not to be too agressive, too forward, but is it better to see lives lost before enforcing peace. No one questions people's right to peaceful demonstrations but that does not trump other people's right to free movement and personal and property safety.

[tingtongteesood]

"What we see is that there's a 'third hand' starting violence. When protest leaders order the demonstrators to retreat, this group of people won't follow."

That doesn't mean they're necessarily a third hand though. They could just be particularly belligerent protesters. Not all of them are bound to follow orders from the leaders. (Not saying they're not a third hand either, mind, just saying it's not possible to draw this conclusion just on the basis of them not following orders from the leaders).

They were the students who did this. Or should I say drugged students who did this.

So now the students who were accused of being drunk yesterday are accused of being drug takers today. Is this the brain washing red propaganda or are you making up this crap by yourselves ?

What happened at Ramkamhang was the red shirts fault, they bring intimidation, abuse and violence with them wherever they go.

Bomb the aristocrats DESTROY aristocrats

[tingtongteesood]

There seems to be a belief that the agents provocateurs are not the police.

I beg to differ. I would not be surprised in the least if they are a rogue unit under the control of Calerm and others and have operated since 2010

Chalerm has absolutely nothing to do with the 'mib'. Nor were the 'mib' a rogue unit of the police. And neither are they the sort of group that would be right for this job. What you'd want is people from the South, or technical school students, and to successfully infiltrate the protest group, they'd have to be there from pretty early on. Most of these people know each other, so it's probably not as easy as you might think.

I still don't see why people are assuming there are actually agent provocateurs. There could be, but if they are, they're not necessarily placed there by the police or government. And people do not always follow orders from the leaders. Hardcore red shirts didn't follow instructions from the stage in 2010. It's getting similar to the red shirts now, blaming every incident on 'third hands' and 'fake reds' instead of taking some responsibility.

It was the reds ( Thaksin ) who blamed the 'third hand' in 2010 and it is PT ( Thaksin ) who are blaming them now. I think they are on Thaksin's payroll just to give him an easy cop out excuse.

[jaidam]

If there are any forum members that have the slightest doubt as to who the employer of the much discussed "third hand" is, I am delighted to clear the confusion up.

You will all remember the string of bombings throughout Bangkok a couple of years ago during the assault on the city after a certain asset seizure finished in the courts. One of the bombmakers even blew himself and an apartment block to smithereens during the assembly of one of his creations. Well, the blame was immediately put on the "third hand" but due to an unexpected fluke of police work a blaring financial trail was found directly from the sponsor to the bombmaker and the information was accidentally released to the public. The money came from a bank inside parliament, the sponsor was promoted by Thaksin to be deputy house speaker, and the riddle of who the 3rd hands were acting on behalf of was instantly, and forever, cleared up.

Only wind-up merchants perpetuate the myth of 3rd hands being linked to anybody other than dictator in the desert.

[Emptyset]

" We don't know who they are " says it all. From the very first time I came here as a tourist until moving here to live and now to thew present the ' third hand ', ' dark or unseen forces ' have been a stapler of Thai politics. I think Gen. Chavalit was the first I heard using such pkrases but am sure they were in vogue long before him. It's a lovely convenient expression and as always they can never be identified.

Yes, at least going back to 73 there were reports of provocateurs and probably before that. In fact Chavalit himself was actually said to be behind the provocateurs in 1992, the youth who were setting things on fire and trying to provoke the military into opening fire on the protesters. He was nothing to do with the protest itself, but stood to gain if they got Suchinda to step down. That's why I said don't only assume there are two sides. There are people who see opportunities that may not be directly involved.

It's like Sondhi said in his Asia Times interview, the people behind him in 2006 were saying 'show us some blood, Sondhi', they knew it was the most effective way of 'moving things on'. Thaksin or rather those strategising on his behalf knew that in 2010 but it didn't work because of lack of middle class and/or military/elite backing. And who stands to gain now...

Interesting this "main responsibility is that of the police, who have a duty to identify and arrest these people" with another topic of "Police officer is charge warns of violence". Also interesting is the mere suggestion that those 'unknowns' 'might be' related to the protesters.

BTW the "Sondhi and 'show some blood' interview is new to me, or maybe I simple missed or forgot. Do you have a link please?

Here, actually I got the quote wrong, but it amounts to the same:

'So that more or less upset their planned solution. I remember vividly that when there was [street protest] against Thaksin, I always had people calling me: "Khun Sondhi, could you move things a little bit forward, have a little confrontation, let us see a little blood?"

Were these military people making the calls?

[Nods]. Or [Prime Minister] Surayud Chulanont ... I said no.'

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/ID27Ae01.html

[Emptyset]

"What we see is that there's a 'third hand' starting violence. When protest leaders order the demonstrators to retreat, this group of people won't follow."

That doesn't mean they're necessarily a third hand though. They could just be particularly belligerent protesters. Not all of them are bound to follow orders from the leaders. (Not saying they're not a third hand either, mind, just saying it's not possible to draw this conclusion just on the basis of them not following orders from the leaders).

They were the students who did this. Or should I say drugged students who did this.

So now the students who were accused of being drunk yesterday are accused of being drug takers today. Is this the brain washing red propaganda or are you making up this crap by yourselves ?

What happened at Ramkamhang was the red shirts fault, they bring intimidation, abuse and violence with them wherever they go.

Bomb the aristocrats DESTROY aristocrats

What does an old issue of Voice of Taksin have to do with anything? I don't think inflammatory statements or media help, but it's not like it's particular to one side. Have seen plenty of stuff along the same lines coming from anti-govt supporters and media. Anyway, only a minority of red shirts read Voice of Taksin and the former editor is now in jail for 11 years for LM. Why is it connected to the Ramkhamhaeng incident?

So you're blaming the red shirts for anti-govt "students" attacking them while they were just trying to get into the stadium? Blaming the red shirts for students attacking old men and women, pulling them off motorbikes and beating them? Also, I replied to you yesterday giving the reason I said they were drunk. I also pointed out it hardly matters whether they were drunk or not, their actions speak for themselves.

[Emptyset]

This "third hand" thing is nonsense.

There are 2 sides in this fight. If there is trouble, it will be from one of those sides.

Despite what I said before, I do think this is usually true. There were assumed to be third hands at the Thai-Japanese stadium and Ramkhamhaeng, but no real evidence that there actually were. However, there is a history of third party involvement, so it's a possibility. When I said there were more than two sides, I meant that sometimes things are ordered by people not present at the protests, but when it comes down to it, they're still either anti-govt, or pro-govt, I guess.

[bigbamboo]

This "third hand" thing is nonsense.

There are 2 sides in this fight. If there is trouble, it will be from one of those sides.

Despite what I said before, I do think this is usually true. There were assumed to be third hands at the Thai-Japanese stadium and Ramkhamhaeng, but no real evidence that there actually were. However, there is a history of third party involvement, so it's a possibility. When I said there were more than two sides, I meant that sometimes things are ordered by people not present at the protests, but when it comes down to it, they're still either anti-govt, or pro-govt, I guess.

When ex tennis player and candidate Paradorn gets involved in the election we may even see four hands.

[rubl]

" We don't know who they are " says it all. From the very first time I came here as a tourist until moving here to live and now to thew present the ' third hand ', ' dark or unseen forces ' have been a stapler of Thai politics. I think Gen. Chavalit was the first I heard using such pkrases but am sure they were in vogue long before him. It's a lovely convenient expression and as always they can never be identified.

Yes, at least going back to 73 there were reports of provocateurs and probably before that. In fact Chavalit himself was actually said to be behind the provocateurs in 1992, the youth who were setting things on fire and trying to provoke the military into opening fire on the protesters. He was nothing to do with the protest itself, but stood to gain if they got Suchinda to step down. That's why I said don't only assume there are two sides. There are people who see opportunities that may not be directly involved.

It's like Sondhi said in his Asia Times interview, the people behind him in 2006 were saying 'show us some blood, Sondhi', they knew it was the most effective way of 'moving things on'. Thaksin or rather those strategising on his behalf knew that in 2010 but it didn't work because of lack of middle class and/or military/elite backing. And who stands to gain now...

Interesting this "main responsibility is that of the police, who have a duty to identify and arrest these people" with another topic of "Police officer is charge warns of violence". Also interesting is the mere suggestion that those 'unknowns' 'might be' related to the protesters.

BTW the "Sondhi and 'show some blood' interview is new to me, or maybe I simple missed or forgot. Do you have a link please?

Here, actually I got the quote wrong, but it amounts to the same:

'So that more or less upset their planned solution. I remember vividly that when there was [street protest] against Thaksin, I always had people calling me: "Khun Sondhi, could you move things a little bit forward, have a little confrontation, let us see a little blood?"

Were these military people making the calls?

[Nods]. Or [Prime Minister] Surayud Chulanont ... I said no.'

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/ID27Ae01.html

Thanks for the link

BTW I assume you understand the difference between "the people behind him in 2006 were saying ..." and "I always had people calling me" ?

I'm willing to believe you didn't try to suggest something here.