The day all hell broke loose outside Thai Parliament

[webfact]

The day all hell broke loose outside Parliament

By The Nation

 

 

BANGKOK: -- IT WAS such a peaceful morning that yellow-shirt leader Sirichai Mai-ngam would never have imagined that any violent act would happen to break such serenity.
 

But it did. 

 

On the morning of October 7, 2008, amid the sound of music from some activists who had taken a break from a long demonstration the previous night, the first can of tear gas suddenly landed, exploding and sending white smoke all around.

 

Sirichai, who had been relaxing on a truck parked near the gates of Parliament, narrowly escaped by jumping down. He then joined the crowd of 600 to 800 demonstrators who had been resting nearby.

 

What was about to happen turned out to be one of the most chaotic and deadly scenes in Thai political history.

 

“The very first tear gas cans were fired from Kattayani Intersection,” Sirichai recalled. “I was fired at, too, and narrowly escaped it. I heard a leader telling the crowd to remain peaceful, but the mood was highly charged already and some of us started to fight back. That’s when the chaos began.”

 

It was on the night of October 6, 2008, that the leaders of the yellow-shirt People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) resolved to step up pressure on the new prime minister, Somchai Wongsawat – who was Thaksin Shinawatra’s brother-in-law and was viewed as a proxy for the former leader.

 

Following the 2006 coup, the subsequent election saw the victory of Thaksin’s People Power Party, seen as a reincarnation of his first party, Thai Rak Thai. The PAD, which was formed in late 2005 to pressure Thaksin, resumed again to chase out the PPP-led government.

 

This happened just three months after Samak Sundaravej, the PPP leader, took office. He was then discharged from the premiership following an allegation concerning a conflict of interest over some TV shows he had hosted.

 

Somchai replaced him, and he was set to officially announce on October 7 his government policies to Parliament as required by the Constitution at the time .

 

The PAD, however, called for “final war” against Thaksin’s regime to begin, eventually resulting in a resolution to block Somchai from making that policy address.

 

“The reason we decided to step up our pressure against the government was because we wanted to end the so-called Thaksin regime and his nominees,” said Suriyasai Katasila, who was then the PAD coordinator. 

 

“We held the months-long demonstration as well as moving to several government compounds as part of our strategies, including Government House, but they had achieved little. 

 

“As the decision was made, we stressed non-violent demonstrations, and prohibited everyone from invading Parliament, because we were aware that they would have guns. Despite those instructions, a sorry state of violence did happen. The strong signal of the violence was that “My communication with some senior police officers was shut down. They turned off the phones.”

 

Sirichai and a few other PAD leaders subsequently led the crowd to Parliament in an attempt to block Somchai from entering the building and making his address.

 

The crowd of some 600 to 800 moved to Parliament on the night on October 6, and surrounded its main gates. A few 10-wheeled trucks with speakers attached to them were dispatched, and PAD leaders took turns speaking during breaks in a mini-concert of folk songs.

 

It was a peaceful night without any signs of violence, said Sirichai.

 

The violence broke with that first tear gas canister in the morning, he recalled. Sirichai said he believed that the security officers had tried every means to get parliamentarians into the compound so that the prime minister could give his speech. That’s the reason they decided to use force against the demonstrators.

 

After being bombarded by a countless number of teargas cans, the demonstrators retreated and parliamentarians, including Somchai, managed to enter the compound.

 

Around 9.30am, Somchai began to deliver his policy speech, but the situation inside Parliament was not all that smooth. Some senators, particularly the so-called 40 senators, protested, but to no avail.

 

Somchai managed to finish his speech around 2pm. He left the scene by helicopter, leaving the demonstrators and security officers confronting one another, before the violence broke out again.

 

His deputy prime minister, Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, resigned to take responsibility, but this did not improve the situation outside Parliament. Clashes continued and the number of casualties increased on both sides. One explosion occurred nearby, in front of Chat Thai Party, resultingresulted resulted in the death of Pol Colonel Maethee Chartmontri. 

 

Teargas canisters were fired against the demonstrators again in the evening, when the security officers wanted to force them to give way to allow parliamentarians to leave the compound.

 

Tear gas was fired until late into the evening, when darkness fell. Clashes were still sporadic and spilled over to some nearby areas. It was near the Police Metropolitan Bureau that Nong Bo, one of the yellow-shirt demonstrators, was killed mysteriously. She had wounds on her stomach and traces of a tear gas canister were found.

 

“If there was anything that I regret, it would be about our decisions and assessment of the situation at that time,” Sirichai said.

 

“Also, the state should really not use force and violence against citizens and their non-violent expressions. They should learn to listen and avoid adopting violence as a way to solve a problem.”

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30322273

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-07-31

[webfact]

Two ex-PMs, police chiefs face final verdict for 2008 fatal yellow-shirt crackdown

By The Nation

 

 

BANGKOK: -- THE Supreme Court’s Criminal Division on Political Office Holders is scheduled to deliver its verdict in yet another high-profile case on Wednesday.

 

The four defendants in the case are top former government figures and high-ranking police officers indicted for malfeasance after being held responsible for the fatal police crackdown on yellow-shirt protesters on October 7, 2008 – an incident that left two demonstrators dead and some 470 others injured.

 

They are former prime minister Somchai Wongsawat, his then deputy Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, former national police chief General Patcharawat Wongsuwan, and former Metropolitan Police commander Lt-General Suchart Muenkaew.

 

Somchai, who is the brother-in-law of former PM Thaksin Shina-watra, was the country’s 26th prime minister, serving briefly between September and December 2008. 

 

Throughout his tenure, Somchai never got inside Government House, which had been seized by yellow-shirt protesters. At that time, he also served as leader of the People Power Party, which was viewed as Thaksin’s proxy.

 

It took more than six years before a case could be filed with the court. The delay was mainly due to differences of opinion between the National Anti-Corruption Commis-sion (NACC) and the Attorney General’s Office.

 

Just a year after the crackdown on demonstrators who opposed Somchai’s appointment as prime minister, the NACC indicted the senior state officials deemed responsible for alleged malfeasance under the Penal Code and the Anti-Corruption Act.

 

In 2012, almost three years later, the then-attorney general Julasing Wasantasing decided not to pursue the case due to “certain imperfections” in the NACC’s investigative report. A joint committee set up by the two agencies failed to settle the differences.

 

After a long wait, in January 2015 the NACC resolved to bring the case to the court by itself, an option that is allowed by law.

 

The court accepted the case for trial just a month later. The four defendants appeared before court in May that year to deny the charge against them. They were released on bail – Bt9.5 million for Somchai, Bt8 million for Chavalit, and Bt6 million each for Patcharawat and Suchart – on condition that they do not leave the country without court permission.

 

In its indictment, the NACC held Somchai responsible for the criminal offence in his capacity as the government head. The NACC concluded that he had called a special Cabinet meeting on the night before the police crackdown and assigned Chavalit to oversee an operation to ensure that MPs and senators would be able to get into Parliament to attend Somchai’s declaration of his government’s policies – a process required by law before a new administration officially assumes office.

 

The Parliament compound by then was surrounded by large groups of protesters affiliated with the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD). Police commandos were sent in to disperse them, with teargas being used. Explosions of poor-quality teargas canisters were blamed for a lot of casualties during the crackdown.

 

In addition to Somchai, the NACC also resolved to indict Chavalit, who was responsible for overseeing the police crackdown, Patcharawat for failing to prevent the loss of lives as head of the police force, and Suchart for being in charge of the operation.

 

During the court trial, the four defendants asked for public prosecutors to be appointed as their defence lawyers. They argued that they deserved legal assistance from public prosecutors because the case resulted from their work as state officials. However, the nine judges hearing the cases voted 8-1 to reject the request. The judges explained that according to the relevant law, public prosecutors must not represent the defendants in a case in which a state agency is the plaintiff. The judges concluded that public prosecutors are not authorised to act as the defence’s lawyers.

 

The defendants produced a list of more than 600 witnesses but the court cut down the number to 100. However, the defence eventually had only 19 “really necessary” witnesses to testify, after consulting with the judges involved in the case. That was compared to 66 prosecution witnesses originally suggested by the NACC, which was cut down to 20 by the court. 

 

The hearing of the witnesses from both parties began in April, 2016, and was just completed in June this year.

In an apparent attempt to undermine the NACC’s case, Somchai asked the court to summon the anti-graft agency’s report in a separate investigation of former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his ex-deputy Suthep Thaugsuban, from the rival Democrat Party. 

 

In that case, the NACC concluded that Abhisit and Suthep committed no wrongdoing for the fatal military crackdown on red-shirt protesters during their government’s tenure in 2010. The court rejected Somchai’s request, explaining that the two incidents were unrelated and there were no reasons to summon documents regarding the other case.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30322275

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-07-31

[canuckamuck]

Can you imagine what would happen if a group tried to protest outside government house today? It wouldn't be tear gas they'd be worried about.

 

 

[metisdead]

A post attempting to hijack the topic into discussion of the crackdown of redshirts in the 2010 crackdown as been removed as it is off topic to this topic:

 

7. Please do not post off-topic responses in an attempt to hijack the thread. Such posts will be deleted. 

 

 

 

 

[DerekMarshall]

Brother of this Ex-Brother in law of that -- not much in the way of nepotism eh!

[wanderluster]

5 hours ago, metisdead said:

A post attempting to hijack the topic into discussion of the crackdown of redshirts in the 2010 crackdown as been removed as it is off topic to this topic:

 

7. Please do not post off-topic responses in an attempt to hijack the thread. Such posts will be deleted. 

 

 

 

 

i dont know what that post was but this is definitly a red shirt vs yellow shirt thing.  it is still going on by far. imho

[billd766]

8 hours ago, metisdead said:

A post attempting to hijack the topic into discussion of the crackdown of redshirts in the 2010 crackdown as been removed as it is off topic to this topic:

 

7. Please do not post off-topic responses in an attempt to hijack the thread. Such posts will be deleted. 

 

 

 

 

 

Like.

[AGareth2]

29 minutes ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

Civil conflict looks inevitable now.

 

Only a fool would have believed the 2014 coup was about reconciliation or corruption.

 

It was a blatant power grab by the faction that started all the troubles in 2005. 

 

Only going to end in tears.

only need to break into a few barracks

and it won't just be tears that are shed

[sandemara]

Crackdowns on crackdowns........

[halloween]

Why doesn't the article mention that many of the tear gas canisters fired were military issue? These exploded quite violently and were directly responsible for one death and many of the injuries, including the severing of limbs of a few of the protesters.

 

Pornthip Rojanasunand, director of the Central Institute of Forensic Science, said on 13 October, after viewing tests of each of the grenade types, that the canisters should be ‘considered weapons, not crowd control devices’.

http://www.newmandala.org/tear-gas-grenades-in-bangkok-on-7-october-2008/

[halloween]

2 minutes ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

You are seriously using Pornthip as a legitimate expert on military or crowd control hardware? 

 

The very same woman that backed the GT-200 bomb detector to the hilt. The GT-200 being a total scam, and was sold in the UK as a novelty golf ball finder.

 

Dear me mate, you really need to get a grip of yourself.

Why don't you try reading the article? Military grade gas grenades using RDX are a  WEAPON, whether you like the expert or not. something that will blow off your bloody limbs IS NOT what you use for crowd control, especially when those using them had received no training in their correct use, unless of course you just don't care about those you are maiming and killing.

[halloween]

4 minutes ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

You introduced the gas grenade argument using a woman that thinks a novelty golf ball detector can find explosive material and nails under water to legitimise your claim that they are a military weapon in order to further your continuing obsessive agenda against the Shin clan and Red Shirts. 

 

They are a crowd control weapon and the problem was lack of training and professional tactics, not the actual canisters themselves. 

 

At least the Thai Police tried to disperse the crowd with CS gas, and didn't shoot live ammo at them from assault rifles while telling lies that they were shooting blanks. 

 

And you can't deny the facts in the article simply by denigrating one of the experts consulted. Actually, I prefer her level of expertise over yours, unless of course you have a supporting link for your claim that RDX is safe to fire into crowds.

[tomta]

There is no mention of the other PAD protestor who died that day. He had a car full of bombs that exploded. 

 

"A PAD protester was killed by a grenade near the premier's office and a member of the PAD security forces was killed when his car exploded. "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Thai_political_crisis

 

https://books.google.co.th/books?id=2Z6aDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=2008+PAD+car+explosion+government+house+Bangkok+teargas&source=bl&ots=nWg8wOj8G0&sig=Cj50gzURsNylhZnFHee_SfWCxe0&hl=th&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOzK6y47PVAhWCyrwKHcx3CZsQ6AEINjAB#v=onepage&q=2008 PAD car explosion government house Bangkok teargas&f=false

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7656073.stm

 

plenty more sources