I have been thinking quite hard about what I should write regarding Pitak Siam’s pretty disastrous weekend rally. There is much that could be said, and which I would maybe want to say, but I would then get into danger of slipping into purely speculative realms. There is much where independent confirmation will be required, and other aspects and implications which only the future will tell. So, I think it is best to just stick with my account of the day, as much as possible.
Acting on a tip-off, I woke up quite early, had a quick coffee, and switched briefly into Blue Sky TV’s live coverage, which was showing a caravan of protesters moving from their assembly point at the Royal Turf Club to the Royal Plaza. I then arrived at about 7.40 am there (there were no problems entering the site as I have already been there the night before and asked about open entry points), parked my motorcycle in the Metropolitan Police Headquarters, and walked up to the Royal Plaza, where I registered at the stage as a journalist. I received a yellow journalist’s armband, but decided not to wear it as I do not want to wear any protest group issued journalist’s identification openly (I also did not wear the UDD issued armband in 2010, but only the Thai Journalist Association issued armband). Wearing any protest group’s issued ID can easily lead to misunderstandings with the authorities. One of the guards told me that it took them ten days to assemble the complex mechanism of the huge tents, making it quite obvious that Pitak Siam planned for an extended stay there.
I walked then to the soft spot of the area – the barricade blocking the protest site from Government House at Misakawan intersection. The second soft spot was the opposite barricade at Makhawan, where a protest convoy was to join the main protest site. I decided though to stay at Misakawan because of the close proximity to the main rally site, while Makhawan would have been a huge detour as police did not allow journalists to walk past Government House. The protesters aim was to extend the rally site from Royal Plaza through Rajadamnern Avenue passing Government House, which the police were to strictly keep off limits to protesters, fearing another seizure of Government House. Police had already erected the night before a barricade with concrete slabs and several rows of barbed wire. Protesters of course claimed that the rally site was too small, which quite possibly might have been the case if the expected 70,000 protesters had arrived. While police counted maybe 50,000 protesters, privately I was told by high ranked officers that they thought that 30,000 protesters at most would come. Nobody though really expected such a low turnout, especially that so few hardcore guards were joining the protest, as intelligence was quite clear that more than 1000 guards were ready to join in Bangkok and in the provinces.
About 8.00 am protesters were assembling at the barricade facing police.
At about 8.20 they began dismantling the barbed wire.
By that time it was already quite clear that there definitely would be some action. The first commotion began at about 8.30, when a few protesters threw a large blue rubbish bin at police, pelted them with stones and bottles, and tried to hit police with sticks over the wire.
The few guards that were present calmed the protesters. At 8.45, the barbed wire in the center removed, concrete slabs thrown over, protesters began facing police directly and began pushing, and the skirmish started.
More stones and bottles were thrown, and police used their batons against protesters trying to take their shields or pushing too hard.
After some minutes protesters nearly broke through the police lines, and the first tear gas canisters were thrown by police, which almost instantly separated protesters from police. Some of the grenades were thrown back by the protesters.
I got quite a dose, nearly threw up, and ran back with the protesters. When my eyes cleared I saw an elderly protester with a PAD T-Shirt from 2008 behind a quickly erected make shift barricade maybe 50 meters away from the police lines firing a barrage of slingshot missiles into the police, and quickly snapped a picture.
As soon as he saw me taking pictures he grinned and hid the sling shot. I saw a huge cloud of teargas from the direction of Makkhawan bridge, and knew that at the same time a clash occurred there as well (I was afterwards told about the incident with the lorry and the many arrested protesters there, but one cannot be at two places at the same time).
When the cloud of teargas cleared, and it was obvious that the police was not attempting to disperse the protest or even to pursue the protesters, but just hold their line, protesters began confronting the police again, after which more teargas canisters were thrown, again quickly clearing the scene. I got some more nice pics of teargas.
One protester held up an empty teargas canister with an expiry date of May 2012.
Protesters again moved up to face the police lines, but kept a few meters distance, and the situation remained calm. A few overexcited protesters were quickly led away by guards. A loudspeaker duel between a mobile stage of the protesters and the police began which lasted the whole day (I tried to avoid listening as it was quite shrill at times – protesters accused police of being cruel, lackeys of Thaksin, and that they were fighting for the monarchy, while police said that they were following orders and doing their duty).
At about 10.00 am Samana Phothirak, the spiritual leader of the Santi Asoke sect, arrived at the barricade, and a retired general whose name I have forgotten, asking to negotiate with police.
The general was quite agitated, and when he was told by an officer talking with Samana Pothirak to wait for higher ranked officers, he climbed over the barricade, looking himself for a higher ranked officer, meeting one, and was told again to wait as some officers were on the way from the Metropolitan Police headquarters.
While waiting he showed a few empty cartridges from teargas grenades he found on the back of a police truck to the assembled journalists there, and posed for photos in front of police officers wearing gas masks.
Soon a group of high ranking officers arrived at the scene, one of them the general greeted with a hug. They talked a bit, the general asking to take down the barricades, and the police officers saying that if enough protesters would arrive that would warrant the space, they would open up the space to accommodate the officers. The general then walked to Makhawan with the police, but we journalists were told that we could not come along as this was police area, and we were not allowed in.
A long and quite boring stand-off between protesters and police followed. I walked up to the Royal Plaza, where I met Wayne from Al-Jazeera, walked back to the barricade, chatted with colleagues, many of them having been surprised by the early clash and arrived late. I had a great discussion with a young protester who was fluent in German, who studied for a while in Germany. I chatted with cops I knew; who told me off one badly injured police officer who was stabbed with a metal bar during the morning skirmish. Nirmal Ghosh, and Pravit Rojanaphruk from The Nation, arrived.
The protesters gave the police a deadline of 2.00 pm to open the barricade, or else. We all prepared for the next round, and tried to find the best positions, and discussed the best exit routes for when teargas would be thrown again.
A few drops of rain fell, and I already packed up my camera, thinking it not worth risking another camera. But the pushing began immediately, a few minutes before the end of the deadline, and I decided to continue taking photos.
At first I stood with the protesters, but then slipped at one side through the police lines, where they had a small opening for us journalists. Quite soon teargas was thrown again, and I retreated behind the police lines, and took pictures from there.
This time a huge cloud of teargas wafted over the quickly emptied space in the middle, making for great images.
Teargas grenades were thrown to and fro between police and protesters, lots of missiles came our way, and I could hear a couple of loud explosions coming from the teargas fog.
Suddenly I saw a few police officers carrying a protester out of the fog, I ran to the scene, snapping a few images, and got a massive dose of teargas, blinding me almost completely.
I staggered out of the fog, and a few police officers washed my eyes (it’s a great feeling when the burning stops). After only 6 minutes the skirmish was over, and only a few missiles came briefly our way, which I managed to evade.
One police officer suddenly fell to the ground a few meters away from me. At first I thought he was hit by a rock and I snapped a few quick pictures, but realized that he had an epileptic seizure.
I took my camera down, and helped to take care of him, when I realized that the officers did not know what to do. I asked for ice to rub him with to bring his body temperature down, which I learned is the best way to deal with a seizure when no other medicine is available. The officer quickly recovered and was carried away.
Quite soon the loudspeaker duel resumed (“Police are cruel and illegal”, “No, the police are doing their duty according to the law”, and so forth…). We journalists speculated on a possible third round.
At about 5.00 pm a very high ranked police officer came to the site, and I and a few other journalists took the opportunity to walk over to Makhawan while he was touring the area.
I climbed there on a firetruck and took images of the view over the faceoff between police and protesters under a dramatic sky.
Police officers there said that in the afternoon no clash took place at Makhawan. I decided to walk back to Misakawan, expecting round 3 there, as there were also more protesters. Quite quickly though heavy rain began to fall. I took cover in a tent and talked with a police officer from Chachoengsao. He was very tired, already for three days stationed at Government House, he could not change his clothes yet, and hoped to be able to go home soon. During the rain it was announced that Sae Ai had called the protest off. When the rain stopped, at about 6.00 pm, I walked over to the stage area, hoping to get a glimpse and a few images of the leaders.
When I arrived, I took photos of Samana Phothirak talking on the stage, and of Sae Ai when he shook hands with a few protesters.
When protesters asked him when he will call for new protests, he said to them that he had enough, and will step down. Some of the protesters were close to tears. I walked behind the stage, where I met Daniel Ten Kate from Bloomberg, who quickly interviewed Sae Ai, and I took pictures of Prasong Soonsiri.
The atmosphere behind the stage was quite depressed, some of the people were discussing how they lost today. People began dismantling the stage. I was exhausted, and went home.
All together, I was happy and relieved that the level of violence on the day was not too bad. There was enough action to raise the adrenaline, but no serious violence, and no really bad injuries as far as I I could see. I thought that the police was very restrained in their response, and disciplined, and I could see that they must have improved their training over the past years. Also the violence from the side of the protesters was not as bad as I have seen in many of the incidents over recent years. While many accuse the police of overreacting with the teargas, I have a different view: I believe that teargas prevents more serious violence. It separates the opposing sides, and prevents baton charges by the police, which can lead to severe injuries for protesters, especially internal injuries such as ruptured organs, as I often saw in Germany when I was young and attended protests there.





































Thanks Nick. I always watch for your post of an incident, you always have some good pictures and balanced reporting of events.
Your reports and Spring News seem to be the most unbiased of all the news sources
Highly rated. Quality comment or not?
34
0
Fantastic post as usual Nick, thanks yet again.
Quality comment or not?
22
1
Great report, Nick. Hope you don’t mind but I ‘shared’ this on my Facebook page.
Quality comment or not?
18
0
I don’t mind of course, thanks a lot.
But won’t you expose yourself to criticism for endorsing the scribblings of this evil German pain in the arse?
Quality comment or not?
1
0
Commendable restraint by the police. Worth pointing out for those who have nothing positive to say for Thai Police.
Quality comment or not?
23
0
Interesting post.
Before the protest I openly supported the government’s invocation of the ISA something for which Pravit, amongst others, accused me of supporting “dictatorship”.
However a couple of comments relating to the appropriate use of tear gas something which I have mixed feelings about.
Like Nick I was “lucky” enough to see the German riot police in action in the 1980s on a few occasions, in Hamburg and Berlin etc. They used gas, water cannon, armoured cars etc in a pretty aggressive fashion. I’ve also witnessed police use of similar in France when England fans rioted during the World Cup, anti-EU protests in Denmark and, as I spend most of my time in the very centre of London, the various anti-riot tactics employed by the UK police over the years.
One of the problems with tear gas is that it is completely indiscriminate – particularly in an urban settings. It drifts into dwellings, down subways and affects people who have nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of riot or disturbance. In the UK it has been used only when such disturbances are turning very violent and wasn’t used at all during the riots in 2011 because of this indiscriminate nature. It’s use can actually draw people into a confrontation who had no interest in the disturbance in the first place. The rioters in N.Ireland also soon learned to make it less effective by building burning barricades with the heat from the fire pushing any gas upwards.
While I think the use of teargas on Saturday was, in a Thai context, an incomparable step-up from Abhisit’s snipers, to simply pass it off as some kind of “humane” act flies in the face of all studies and even the UN’s own Special Rapporteur’s report on “freedom of assembly” which states
“With regard to the use of tear gas… [it] does not discriminate between demonstrators and non-demonstrators, healthy people and people with health conditions.”
Having said that I still think that given the resources they have and the situation at hand the Thai authorities use of gas was proportionate.
Real progress in many ways but always room for improvement but what the govt have shown is that security laws can be used to protect democracy, not upend it, and that the police, if deployed effectively, can also play a very important role when civil disturbances occur, pushing the army out of the frame.
Quality comment or not?
22
4
I was against the premature use of the ISA (and the emergency decree) by the Abhisit government, and for the same reasons i was against the use of the ISA by this government.
These harsh laws are, as i understand it, used as a reaction, when protests go out of hand, cannot be handled without a partial and temporary suspension of civil rights, and not as a preventative measure. It has to be pointed out that just because ideologies of protest groups are somewhat anti-democratic our democracies are still supposed to give them the same rights to voice their opinions, regardless of our agreement or disagreement with their aims.
In the case of Pitak Siam, the use of the ISA was a panic reaction by the government, and as it turned out – it was a bit of an overkill. As we have seen, the protesters were contained well within normal laws.
All anti riot measures are not nice, but i believe that careful application of teargas does prevent worse injuries. Both water cannons and especially baton charges, and of course rubber bullets, result in worse.
In this particular case – both clash sites are in quite a distance from populated areas, so there was a minimal exposure to bystanders.
Quality comment or not?
8
11
Some have said the ISA was enacted as a tool to preempt a coup, as it gives the PM the ability to remove/replace any security officials she would like (or so I understand).
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Comparing Abhisit’s undemocratic, unelected and unmandated regime and its complete disproportionate use of force to this government is simply false. I know that “false equivalences” are a favourite “logical” device of certain Thai “liberals” but on this occasion they are very easily exposed. (I wrote about these false equivalences here http://asiaprovocateur.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/sitting-on-fence-debunking-false.html)
The ISA is not a set of laws but gives the govt the right to suspend certain rights via regulations that are created to suit the situation. In this instance they suspended freedom of movement in a very small area by denying access to a couple of streets – hardly an overreaction. The successful containment you mention above was a result of the use of the ISA. Also, if the government didn’t use the ISA it may have faced legal challenges for breaching the constitutional right to freedom of movement.
The other thing to consider is proportionality. Every democracy has the duty to protect itself from threats and to safeguard itself. Every democracy on earth has similar laws to Thailand’s ISA as well. The key to them, in maintaining democracy and civil rights, is their proportionate use. So, when faced with a threat like Pitak Siam, in the historical context of Thailand’s coups, bodies hanging from trees, airport and government house occupations, and the threat to overthrow democracy, using a security law to close down a few streets for a few days is perfectly proportionate and perfectly democratic.
Democracies have a right to use power to protect themselves. The ISA was used to that end this weekend. When Abhisit used the ISA and SOE he didn’t even have the electoral mandate to clean Bangkok’s streets and used these laws to attack, not defend, democracy. He was not only unelected but his incompetence was matched only by his desire to unleash excessive force on unarmed civilians that was very very far from proportionate.
As for “rights” – those of the entire Thai electorate need to be taken into account as well. If PS had succeeded then the democratic rights of millions of Thais might’ve been sacrificed just to protect the rights of few thousand fascists to walk down a certain street for a few days. Democratically, legally, morally, rationally and ethically it simply doesn’t wash. PS were able to assemble and protest, were met with proportionate use of force and were almost immediately released after arrest. To claim their “rights” were abused doesn’t stand up to any reasonable scrutiny.
The “they should’ve waited” line before using the ISA is also easily debunked. Wait for what? Some deaths? Govt House to be stormed? A few more students being hit with metal chairs as they twist in the wind? These fascists have proven time and time again they are capable of extreme acts of violence and to be prepared to use force to overthrow democracy.
And on that note today Seh Ai has reportedly been saying that his fascist group are going to return and that this time they will be “armed”. What should the government do? We all know what would happen in an established democracy – such fascists would be very closely monitored and arrested the moment they attempted to mobilise. What would Thailand’s “liberals” do? Protect Seh Ai’s rights? Secretly support a coup, as one of Bangkok’s key “liberals”, Sunai Phasuk, once did?
Quality comment or not?
17
8
I would now like to have the opinion of a legal expert if indeed Rajadamnern Nok in front of Government House can be blocked by the government only with the ISA in force (in which case i would agree with your view that the ISA was justified), or if normal Thai laws would have allowed to block entry to that particular road (in which case i disagree with the ISA, in this case).
Quality comment or not?
7
10
You mean you didn’t already look into how the ISA worked before you pronounced it as an “over-reaction”? It is utterly meaningless until the regulations pertaining to the given situation are included. This time the regulations, as I understand them, included the closing of certain roads in order to make effective containment of the protest.
And surely, the blocking of a road is not the only reason to support or not support a robust defence of democracy in the face of a violent fascist mob? Surely the government needed the legal mechanisms available to them if there was a more serious threat or violence? Why wait until that happens when clear threats were already made and then carried out, to some degree, by protesters attempting to destroy democracy?
I’d also ask why, once again, the international media, failed, almost completely, to represent the facts about Pitak Siam. This group had made it clear, repeatedly and publicly, their aim was to destroy democracy and freeze Thailand yet not one foreign correspondent reported that. Also that Abhisit’s Democrat Party tacitly supported these fascists, as they did with the PAD in 2008, is missing too. Why is that? What’s wrong with reporting some facts? Or do said facts get lost as correspondents desperately cling to some forlorn “balance” based on a highly dubious and contrived “neutrality”?
http://asiancorrespondent.com/92540/the-smear-campaign-against-pitak-siam/
Quality comment or not?
12
11
Nick says “but i believe that careful application of teargas does prevent worse injuries.”
Simply not true nor based in evidence.
In Bahrain tear gas has been linked to the deaths of 34 people, some of whom were not involved in any disturbances.
The Physicians for Human Rights released a report on this in March 2012.
http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/blog/tear-gas-or-lethal-gas.html
As said above no riot control measures are nice but to claim tear gas has no serious effects is simply not backed up by the evidence.
Everything needs to be proportionate balanced and lawful – we can’t just rely on the “beliefs” of a few certain individuals.
Quality comment or not?
13
9
Yes, and Andrew should read the articles properly he posts before citing from them, and over-dramatizing the issue:
“Last year PHR investigators in Bahrain found disconcerting evidence that Bahraini authorities may be using unidentified chemical agents in addition to tear gas. ”
Matter of fact is that there were no serious injuries during the rally, no deaths from teargas. CS-gas, the agent used by the police that day, and the most widely used gas nowadays, is considered less toxic than most other agents, and most studies have shown that is relatively harmless. This is quite a difference to the agents that seem to have caused the deaths in Bahrain.
I do not see that police could have stopped protesters there without the brief use of teargas, other than using heavy baton charges, or rubber bullets, both measures that would have left so many injured that rightly the protesters would have accused the police of brutality. This was a violent demonstration – it can hardly be countered with entirely peaceful measures.
But maybe Andrew should have been at the scene to see for himself the situation. Maybe instead of his armchair analyses he could then make suggestions to the police what measures they should have taken to stop the protesters from breaking through the barricades, as the application of the ISA itself and alone did obviously not stop the protesters from attacking the police.
Any ideas, Andrew, what the police should have done?
Quality comment or not?
17
7
I’m with Nick on this one. Watching the videos of the police-PS clash, it is immediately clear that the tear gas stopped the violence. As the truck was driving into the police, I can only imagine how much worse it could have been if the gas wasn’t used.
@Andrew, your emotions get ahead of you sometimes. We are all on the same side, jai yen yen na krap =)
Quality comment or not?
14
2
Nick
Think you’re taking my comments very very personally and you’re clearly not reading them.
If you had you’d have seen I wrote a couple days back -
“Having said that I still think that given the resources they have and the situation at hand the Thai authorities use of gas was proportionate.”
What I questioned was your line that somehow tear gas was always going to be some kind of more “humane” response. It isn’t as it can be very indiscriminate and can have bad effects on people’s health.
I also knew it would only be a matter of time before you’d revert to your usual shrill “shut up, I was there nur nur nur” line. You’re a bit too predictable Nick.
Quality comment or not?
6
22
Here’s an abstract of a British Medical Journal article on all manner of tear gas use. I don’t think they were at the Pitak Siam protest either so maybe their opinion can be considered as “armchair” too
“Tear gas and pepper spray used for crowd control are not without risks, particularly for people with pre-existing respiratory conditions.
Pulmonary, cutaneous, and ocular problems can result from exposure to these agents.
Treatment for the effects of exposure to tear gas requires chemical decontamination, including protective measures for healthcare staff.
Some people are at risk of delayed complications that can be severe enough to warrant admission to hospital and even ventilation support.
Despite the frequent use of riot control agents by European law enforcement agencies, limited information exists on this subject in the medical literature. The effects of these agents are typically limited to minor and transient cutaneous inflammation, but serious complications and even deaths have been reported. During the 1999 World Trade Organisation meeting and at the 2001 Summit of the Americas in Quebec, exposure to tear gas was the most common reason for medical consultations.1 2 Primary and emergency care physicians play a role in the first line management of patients as well as in the identification of those at risk of complications from exposure to riot control agents. In 1997 the National Poisons Information Service in England received 597 inquiries from doctors seeking advice about problems related to crowd control.3 Our article reviews the different riot control agents, including the most common tear gases and pepper sprays, and provides an up to date overview of related medical sequelae.”
http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b2283?sid=0d52f75f-d761-43d3-912c-bb77282a1d73
Despite the health concerns of tear gas use I’ll also reiterate my comment from November 28, 2012 at 11:26 PM – I believe use of both the ISA and gas was proportionate.
Quality comment or not?
6
11
Under prevailing deeply troubling Thai political circumstances, whoever (Yingluck or the opposition) is in power in Thailand should be prepared for rowdy protests and should be prepared to use whatever means to prevent such protests from sudden deterioration to violence and mayhem. Such is the divisive volatile color of Thai politics and that should terrify the Thai people and their friends.
The Thai leadership of every color and shade had failed and is failing the Thai people. I see my country more divided than ever.
Quality comment or not?
4
0
Furthermore Bravo Yingluck! PM Yingluck did exceptionally well in the handling of the Pitak protests. A firm determined PM hand is needed to keep the rowdiness and the provocateurs in check.
But for so long as the Yingluck regime put the ‘Thaksin issue’ as their top priority while they govern, I doubt the Pitak and similarly angered groups would be discouraged. Corruption rans rampant and blatant in the Yingluck regime. The ‘Paddy Price Subsidy Policy’ would threaten Yingluck’s term just because it is so deeply flawed, it is so untransparent, and it would saddle the Thai government with horrendous deficit that this government could not even tally much less honestly submit a true accounting of.
Good luck Yingluck.
Quality comment or not?
6
2
This forum post I found has even better images, Nick. You now have competition =P
http://forum.banrasdr.com/showthread.php?tid=17932
Quality comment or not?
1
0
I have seen it already yesterday, and cut, pasted and saved the images. Very interesting as these images are from the incident at Makhawan Bridge. This is very useful for me to get a more complete picture of that day.
Quality comment or not?
1
1
Nick,it was obviously the right decision to wear some “neutral” identification as a journalist:
Media personnel were told to wear green armbands issued by the Thai Journalists Association (TJA) while covering the Pitak Siam protest. But the two photographers were wearing yellow armbands issued by rally organisers, meaning police might have mistaken them for protesters who tried to break down the barricades and some of them also wore yellow armbands and headbands of protest.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/323378/police-defend-media-workers-arrest
Quality comment or not?
1
0
I can not wait for the day this is what Myanmar Citizenry can whine about instead of facing this:
http://www.mizzima.com/news/inside-burma/8471-80-injured-in-monywa-crackdown.html
Quality comment or not?
0
1
A salute to the Thai Police for a job well done. A group of violent thugs wanted to provoke an event and were foiled. Thumbs up.
Goverment house and the city of Bangkok are properly Protected by this govenment. NO SNIPERS, No fatalities, no illegitimate goverment hunkered down inside a military barraks.
Yeah.
And I am not a fan of Thaksin. I am a fan of RULE OF LAW!!! And Democracy though the ballot box.
Quality comment or not?
18
0