ASIA HAND The bounce of a ping-pong bomb
By Shawn W Crispin
BANGKOK - Who was primarily responsible for the grisly violence which killed
two people, maimed many and injured hundreds of anti-government protesters in
the Thai capital on October 7? The answer to that question, now under
investigation by two government-appointed panels, could have a large impact on
the outcome of the country’s violently escalating political conflict - and, as
such, alter the course of Thai democracy.
One week after police fired tear-gas canisters to disperse a group of People's
Alliance for Democracy (PAD) protesters in front of parliament, the history of
those violent events is hotly contested, with each side blaming the other for
detonating improvised
explosive devices, or so-called ping-pong bombs, amid the fog of the
government's crackdown.
Local newspapers last week were splattered with gory and graphic images of
bloodied protesters who lost limbs in the attacks' hazy early dawn aftermath. A
protester who had half of his leg completely severed was even shown on
state-controlled television. The mainstream Thai media have in the main played
up the PAD-perpetuated narrative that rogue police officers likely threw the
explosives, which killed two demonstrators and maimed an estimated six others.
More significantly, army commander Anupong Paochinda demanded that Prime
Minister Somchai Wongsawat's government accept full responsibility for the
violence - the latest indication that under Anupong the military considers
itself independent of the elected government. That's raised speculation that
the military could eventually intervene and bump Somchai from power on the
grounds of protecting the Thai people from abusive politicians if the two
panels' findings unanimously pin the blame for the October 7 events to the
police.
All agree the police mishandled the crowd control operation by firing the
tear-gas canisters directly into rather than nearby the protesters. At the same
time, government officials have countered that there is compelling evidence
indicating the PAD itself may have triggered the low-grade explosions, in a
cynical ploy to generate public sympathy for their anti-government cause, which
includes a "new politics" bid to move towards more appointed, and fewer
elected, government representatives in parliament.
One official, who requested anonymity, believes the interpretation of events so
far represents a public relations failure. He pointed to lack of attention to
the still-unexplained explosion of a white Jeep Cherokee, allegedly laden with
bombs and owned by a prominent PAD supporter and police lieutenant colonel,
which exploded on October 7 near the PAD's main protest site at Government
House.
The official claims that if the police had lobbed grenades among protesters the
number of injuries would have been higher and that there would have been
noticeable craters left in the cement and evidence of shrapnel. He also
contends that widely circulated photos of injured protesters holding in their
hands some of the round unexploded devices were not published in the mainstream
Thai media.
Meanwhile, a recent online discussion at Pantip.com's Rajdamnern chat room
raised questions about perceived pro-PAD bias in the mainstream media's
coverage of events and posted pictures under "black propaganda" headings that
appear to corroborate the official's claim that certain protesters were in
possession of the mysterious devices.
One possible check and balance on the investigative panels could come from the
United States government. According to the same government official, a US
citizen was among the injured and required surgery after the October 7 assault.
There is a precedent for the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to launch
its own probe into attacks involving American nationals, as the agency did this
after a grenade attack that killed several during a Khmer Nation Party rally in
Cambodia in 1997.
Thriving on violence
For its part, the PAD has so far parlayed the violence to its political
advantage, stoking always close-to-the-surface popular resentment against the
Thai police and re-energizing the movement's popular support base, which since
the October 7 violence has seen a noticeable surge in its yellow-clad numbers.
PAD leaders have vowed to file criminal charges against the government both in
local and global courts.
Despite what many view as the protest movement's reactionary agenda, the PAD
has deftly mobilized the leftist symbolism of the 1970s' pro-democracy movement
- which likewise was violently suppressed by Thai police forces on October 6,
1976 - to consolidate support among Thai progressives, academics, students and
non-governmental organizations.
The PAD's numbers had dwindled substantially after prime minister Samak
Sundaravej, previously the PAD's prime target for serving as a proxy for ousted
premier Thaksin Shinawatra, was disqualified from the premiership by a Thai
court for hosting and receiving payment for a television cooking show. The PAD
was also handed a popular rebuke when an opinion poll showed around 70% of
Bangkok residents supported the arrest on October 5 of protest co-leader
Chamlong Srimuang on treason charges.
What is clearer is that the PAD has abandoned its earlier claim to being a
non-violent movement. Three police officers were shot by PAD supporters near
parliament after protesters retook the building in the afternoon of October 7.
That same day, another officer was run over and injured by a PAD supporter
driving a pick-up truck. The violence followed up the PAD's commando-style
assaults on government buildings on August 26, including an apparent armed
attack on a state-run television station.
A government official claims that as many as 1,000 off-duty military officials
are at any given time positioned at the PAD protest site and that they had even
recently established a grenade unit. Another military insider says he has
recently seen lieutenant colonels in charge of fighting units, including from
Chantaburi and Lopburi provinces, dressed as civilians at recent PAD rallies.
(PAD co-leader Sondhi Limthongkul denied in an ATol interview last month that
the PAD receives any military support and that his movement is financed and
organized by "the people". See
What Sondhi really wants for Thailand, Asia Times Online, September 9,
2008)
With or without military support, other important institutions have seemingly
lined up behind the PAD, including the political opposition Democrat party,
activist courts and, at least symbolically, members of the royal family. The
Administrative Court last week dropped treason-related charges against the
PAD's nine co-leaders, who surrendered to police to contest lesser charges and
were immediately released on bail.
Royal condolences
Meanwhile, at least two senior opposition Democrat party members double as top
PAD supporters and the party has echoed the PAD's calls for Somchai to resign
in the wake of the violence. Most significantly, Queen Sirikit and Princess
Chulaborn Valayalaksana on Monday presided over the funeral service of a PAD
protester who was killed during the October 7 melee. According to the local
press, the queen told the female victim's parents that she had died a
"protector" of the monarchy.
By law the Thai monarchy is above politics, but the highly revered queen's
presence was widely interpreted as at least tacit royal support for the
anti-government movement. One government supporter noted without comment that
royal family members did not attend the funeral service of a pro-government
demonstrator who was killed in street clashes on September 2.
If those interpretations hold true - and barring any investigative findings
which show irrefutably that the PAD was not only the victim but also the
perpetrator of the violence - then Somchai's days as premier are likely
numbered. Though not necessarily without a fight: over the weekend, tens of
thousands of red-clad pro-government supporters, known as the Democratic
Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD), convened in a show of force at Bangkok's
Sanam Luang park.
The group threatened to confront the PAD if it followed through on plans to
rally in front of the national police headquarters on Monday. Those plans were
put on hold after the PAD's leadership decided instead to direct their
supporters to the royally attended funeral service. That provided a temporary
reprieve, but the two groups are now mobilized and seemingly on a collusion
course. One government insider said the group plans to bring off-duty border
police and marines to fortify its ranks.
What happens next is altogether unclear. Some believe the Constitution Court
could rush through a decision on the Election Commission's recommendation to
dissolve Somchai's People's Power Party (PPP) and two coalition parties on
electoral fraud charges. The court agreed to hear the charges today and a
guilty verdict would at least temporarily defuse political tensions and set the
stage for new democratic polls.
Army commander Anupong has consistently ruled out the possibility of another
coup, but has simultaneously through his aloofness positioned the military as a
mediator of last resort. He refused to implement Samak's emergency decree in
early September and has repeatedly voiced his support for the establishment of
a national unity government, presumably including the PAD-supporting Democrat
party, to resolve the crisis.
If bigger clashes break out on Bangkok's streets, Anupong may have no choice
but to intervene and establish a national unity government by force. Indeed, he
may already be preparing, at least rhetorically, for that eventuality. One
military insider notes that content analysis of Anupong's recent speeches
reveals the increasing number of times he mentions that the military are
the "people's soldiers" and not solely the protector of the state, religion and
monarchy. He believes that a possible scenario in which the military
professionally contains a clash between the PAD and DAAD could consolidate
Anupong's and the military's reputation as a "hero who saves the day".
Perhaps, but a public opinion poll in August showed that less than 5% of Thais
would support another military coup after the perceived misgovernance that
followed the 2006 intervention. That was before pro- and anti-government groups
first clashed on Bangkok's streets on September 2 and the shocking images from
the still-unexplained violence of October 7. Popular sentiment could shift
again, either against the PAD or government, once the findings from the
investigative panels are made public.
Some Thais feared that a sort of civil war pitting competing political groups
with divergent visions for the country's future would break out after the
passing of King Bhumibol Adulyadej's long-stabilizing influence. That those
tensions have come to the fore while Bhumibol is still on the throne provides
some hope yet that Thailand will not slide completely into the abyss.
Shawn W Crispin is Asia Times Online’s Southeast Asia Editor. He may be
reached at swcrispin@atimes.com.
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road,
Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
