Despite an outcry over methods of crowd control through a heated week of political protests on the streets of Bangkok, experts and analysts say the Yingluck administration has exercised restraint in its riot-control methods.
DEEP PURPLE: Anti-government protesters flee as riot police use water cannon during clashes at the metropolitan police headquarters on Monday.
While scores have been injured since violence erupted last Sunday, the riot police have not taken an offensive stance against protesters. This is in marked contrast to past protests, such as in 2008 _ when a yellow shirt supporter was killed by a canister of tear gas fired at close-range _ and the notoriously violent prolonged demonstrations in 2010 which resulted in more than 90 deaths.
"The government has adopted a decidedly defensive strategy to avoid any kind of bloodshed. It's gone overboard to exercise self-restraint in the face of complications," says Thitinan Pongusdhirak, the director of Chulalongkorn University's Institute of Security and International Studies. While an investigation is pending into the incident last Sunday that left five dead after clashes at Ramkhamhaeng University, Human Rights Watch (HRW) maintains that the police and Thai authorities were not involved in any of the deaths.
A freelance journalist who was at the scene, who prefers to remain anonymous, tells Spectrum, "As far as I could tell, the police have been using a lot of restraint."
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
During periods of civil unrest, the Centre for the Administration of Peace and Order (Capo) formulates guidelines for crowd control with the authorities.
When the protests escalated last weekend, Capo sent out clear rules of engagement which reflect "international standards in crowd control", says Sunai Phasuk, senior researcher on Thailand in HRW's Asia division. "Under the rules of engagement issued by Capo, measures deployed by authorities to control the crowd have been non-lethal and in line with international standards."
According to the guidelines, riot police should not resort to using live ammunition _ a measure to encourage dialogue and negotiation with protesters. For Capo, verbal engagement is the first rule of crowd engagement. Should this fail, the second rule is to march on to the sites; the third, to wield shields and batons.
Capo first revealed its general measures for crowd control in August, when the Pitak Siam group, led by Gen Boonlert Kaewprasit, or Seh Ai, rallied to protest against the government and critics of the monarchy.
Last Monday, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra assigned Foreign Minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul to take charge of Capo after tear gas was deployed by police the day before. Mr Surapong says that the government would exercise restraint and adhere to peaceful means and legal principles in handling the protests, based on international standards of practice.
Protesters claimed that police had hurled rocks and hard objects at them on Sunday, an act which is not mandated by Capo's guidelines for crowd engagement.
COLOURING AGENT
After a defensive line of police armed with shields and batons, the next level of engagement in crowd control, as stipulated by Capo guidelines, is the use of water cannon. These were trained on protesters on Sunday to hold the police line at various points.
Witnesses reported that the water was dyed purple, a common method used to identify protesters.
"It [the water] contains either a colouring agent to see who's involved or it may also be a discomforting agent. But clearly it hasn't violated any international procedures or any internationally recognised procedures," says a defence analyst anonymously.
FEELING THE STING: A ‘Bangkok Post’ photographer suffered a blister wound after being exposed to tear gas and water cannon fire. PHOTO: PATIPAT JANTHONG
A report released by the Disease Control Department on Tuesday says that the water used was not a chemical weapon; it says the agents that dye the water were not sufficiently diluted and therefore caused skin and conjunctival irritation.
The next level of engagement with demonstrators is the implementation of a long range acoustic device (Lrad), which emits high audio frequencies to disorientate protesters. The Lrad was deployed several times during recent protests, according to sources interviewed by the Bangkok Post.
At Makkhawan Rangsan bridge, the base of the Network of Students and People for Thailand's Reform _ a more aggressive and often confrontational group closely allied with protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban _ said that the noise was so piercing they asked the police to stop using it.
The police acquiesced to the protesters' demands.
LESS LETHAL WEAPONS
Capo's crowd control measures stipulate that officers must warn protesters in advance before moving up on its soft-to-hard measures from the Lrad, says deputy police chief Pol Gen Worapong Chiewpreecha.
The next level of engagement after the use of water and the Lrad is tear gas, which was used at Panichayakarn intersection on Sunday. Authorities marked the zone with a sign before deployment.
The tear gas used by riot police came under scrutiny in the past for being especially harmful in demonstrations under former prime minister Somchai Wongsawat, as the canisters of tear gas imported from China _ containing high levels of explosives _ could be lethal at close range.
Throughout this year's protests, HRW has been collecting canisters of tear gas after they have been deployed. It has found that the tear gas, now imported from the US and Spain, is no longer "dangerous" and is "considered non-lethal".
"This tear gas doesn't cause much irritation and the police could have deployed a stronger-grade gas, but there was concern about casualties," says HRW's Mr Sunai.
According to Brig Ben Barry, senior fellow for land warfare at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, only children, the elderly and those with pre-existing medical conditions are at risk.
"The general principle is that there is no such thing as a 'non-lethal weapon', just 'less lethal' weapons, that when misused, or used on vulnerable people, can be lethal," he says.
The next and final level on Capo's set of rules of engagement is the use of rubber bullets, which were deployed on Monday afternoon.
"A rubber bullet is like a tear gas canister _ it's a projectile and it shouldn't be directly fired at anyone," says Mr Sunai. "It can be shot without causing lethal injury if it avoids the head, neck and stomach."
There were no reported fatalities from the use of rubber bullets on Monday.
NON-VIOLENT MEANS
As for international standards of crowd control, it is not clear what single premise Capo is invoking when making reference to best practices.
"I am not aware of any international standards for crowd and riot control," says Brig Barry, who was a British army officer stationed in Northern Ireland in the 1970s and '80s at the height of "the Troubles", a period of intense political and sectarian rioting.
"Riot control is difficult _ a factor often ignored by the media," he adds.
The rules of engagement issued by Capo make intermittent reference to the UN's Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, passed in 1990.
The document outlines provisions and procedures for policing lawful and unlawful assemblies, and stresses the need of applying "non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms".
Mr Sunai says that the UN document is the benchmark for nearly all human rights organisations when it comes to monitoring governments dealing with such situations, and that HRW urged Capo to adhere to the document.
Between Sunday and Tuesday, many protesters exposed to the high-pressure water canon reported severe skin irritation. Those exposed to tear gas suffered shortness of breath and eye irritation.
Bangkok Post photographer Patipat Jantong was among those sprayed with the police's high-pressure water near Chamai Maruchet bridge. His arms were burned and blistered afterwards. A doctor could not confirm if chemicals had caused the burns.
STILL NEEDS SCRUTINY
Mr Sunai says that at the least, there has been a clear attempt on the part of the government to adhere to the standards set out by the UN's Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.
However, "The actual deployment of crowd control measures still needs to be investigated," he says.
"It still needs scrutiny: The authorities need to report to Capo the deployment of crowd control officers, including how many were deployed, what measures were taken and how many were injured."
HRW is also urging that the relevant committees in parliament and the senate launch an inquiry into this to ensure the deployment is truly in line with international standards.
"What we can say is that on paper there has been a clear attempt to comply with international standards," Mr Sunai says.
Referring to the high number of casualties suffered during demonstrations under former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva in 2010, he adds, "The good news is that it is confirmed that that this time around, crowd control measures did not include the deployment of snipers and heavily armed soldiers.
"This time the government chose not to rely on the military."
As for the ability of riot police to maintain a strictly defensive posture, Anthony Davis, an analyst for IHS-Jane's, notes that "the inherent volatility of unrest in Bangkok means a descent into lethal violence can be swift".
"All it takes is for one protester _ or provocateur _ to have a handgun and use it, and then all bets are off."
WASHING UP: A man rinses tear gas from his eyes during Monday’s clash with riot control police. PHOTO: THITI WANNAMONTHA
