Truth and rights panels must stay neutral

Key players in the political strife have irreconcilable views on the 2010 bloodshed and attempts to uncover the truth appear to inflame rather than resolve the conflict.

As long as the country is trapped in the blame game, it is futile to expect reconciliation.

The National Human Rights Commission has recently found itself in the limelight due to its leaked report on the political disturbances involving the red shirts.

Judging from negative reactions to the NHRC, the same fate might be awaiting the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand if and when it releases its final report.

The NHRC and the TRCT are independent bodies tasked to look into the violence. Even before the official release of their investigative reports, many are gearing up to reject the work of the two bodies.

The critical issue at the heart of the political divide is the inalienable right to public assembly. Critics say the NHRC has failed to factor in this right before drawing a biased conclusion against the red shirts.

If the TRCT follows the NHRC model in examining the violence, its conclusion too would draw flak.

Of course the Democrats have rallied behind the NHRC and would likely welcome the TRCT report if it comes up with a similar conclusion to the NHRC. The red shirts would definitely unleash their fury.

If the two independent bodies tailor their respective reports in a partisan manner, then the political animosity will never end.

Fortunately, writers of the reports still have time to put the facts into proper context before presenting their findings to the public.

As violence linked to the protests involving the red shirts escalated, the NHRC received complaints and stepped in to investigate alleged human rights violations.

Opponents of the red shirts complained about what they saw as unruly protests. Protesters aired grievances about the brutal crackdown.

The NHRC assigned its adviser Choochai Supawongse to head the investigative panel. The Choochai panel concluded preliminary findings last year but was instructed to collect more evidence.

Last month the NHRC, still dissatisfied with the panel’s findings, ordered a new round of hearings to get statements from human rights academics. Based on the fragmented report leaked to the press, the Choochai panel may have erred in attributing blame on the red shirts for rallying in a belligerent way and condoning crowd control operations despite high casualties.

The panel seemed to have made an unacceptable generalisation in portraying the red shirts as non-peaceful protesters. It failed to distinguish between protesters sanctioned by the Constitution for peaceful assembly and armed guards. 

The NHRC made a right decision to withhold the panel’s report pending further hearings on what constitutes a peaceful public assembly.

Hopefully the TRCT will not repeat the blunder of the Choochai panel. True facts on political violence are not about passing blame between the Democrats and the red shirts but discovering what caused the blood to be spilled and how to prevent it being repeated.

The fallen protesters and security forces, as well as victims who were injured, should serve as a tragic reminder of what happens when a power struggle spirals out of control. To take sides in the conflict would just add insult to injury.