Laws needed to govern gatherings

Tragic losses occurred in 1973, 1976, 1992, 2008 and 2010. Despite the obvious lesson to be learned from each episode, more and more people were killed or maimed in successive tragedies.

The street protests will continue to wreak havoc in the absence of legislation that strikes the right balance between the people’s right to public assembly and the state’s obligation to maintain peace and social order. For far too long, parties concerned have neglected to come to an understanding on clear and acceptable guidelines for public assembly.

In 1973, the excitement at overthrowing the military dictatorship led to a false assumption that democracy is a cure-all for political violence.

The bloodshed in 1976 occurred because right-wingers played with their gloves off in order to defeat the leftists. Many of the country’s best and brightest became disillusioned and fled to the jungle. It took years to mend fences.

Again, optimism about the resumption of democracy put the issue of public assembly on the back burner.

Following the 1992 Black May incident, former PM Anand Panyarachun led a public inquiry into the political mayhem.

The Anand report was the first comprehensive examination into bloodshed stemming from politically motivated violence. Since 1992, the police force has been tasked with crowd control. Hundreds of millions of baht were earmarked for anti-riot equipment.

In the 2004 Tak Bai incident in Narathiwat, troops armed with live bullets had to be deployed to restore peace because anti-riot police were not ready for work in Bangkok, let alone anywhere else.

It is inexplicable that all successive governments have failed to detect and rectify the flawed preparations to deal with protesters.

In 2008, the government gave the green light for police to crack down on the yellow shirts after the escalation of protests to blockade Parliament.

Police unfortunately inflicted high casualties due to the botched firing of tear gas canisters, which were supposed to be non-lethal.

In 2010, the government opted to focus on invoking the law to shield itself and anti-riot forces rather than pay proper attention to the trajectory of bullets fired.

Tragedies happened again and again, regardless of political affiliation or which government is in power.

If the rival camps take time off from playing the blame game, then they will find that the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand has made some 13 proposals to ensure a balancing act between public assembly and social order.

The legislation regarding public assembly has been on the drawing board for more than a decade. It fails to make headway because provisions drafted by police appear to be too draconian.

As the red and yellow shirts have first-hand experience in organising protests – as well as of being on the receiving end of anti-riot operations – they should both help chart the future course on public assembly. Their input, given separately or collectively, might prevent more senseless violence.

Public participation in drawing up guidelines for street protests is essential to remind future rally organisers to be mindful of distinguishing between rabble-rousing and the exercising of a universal right to public assembly.

The authorities will also benefit from clear instructions on what they can, or cannot, do in terms of crowd control.

And no future government, be it democratic or undemocratic, can mobilise anti-riot forces for the purpose of denying the people’s aspirations.