Too much invested in compensation for protest injury

The government has resolved to pay compensation to injured protesters and families of those killed in the political unrest of 2013 and 2014. The Cabinet last week endorsed a plan to pay Bt120 million to 862 people affected by the uprising against the Yingluck Shinawatra administration.

Violence during the six months of demonstrations led by the People’s Democratic Reform Committee left 28 people dead and 834 injured. The compensation ranges from Bt20,000 for “slight injury” to Bt200,000 for permanent disability and Bt400,000 for death. The rate is based on comparable laws, such as those covering criminal damages, road accidents, natural disasters and injury stemming from the insurgency in the southern provinces.

Security forces clashing with protesters left hundreds of people dead or maimed during the Yingluck, Somchai Wongsawat and Abhisit Vejjajiva administrations. Yingluck’s Pheu Thai-led government resolved in 2012 to pay Bt1.9 billion in compensation to people injured in political unrest and the families of those killed: Bt7.75 million for each death, Bt4.5 million for disability, Bt1.125 million for “serious injury” and Bt675,000 for “non-serious injury”.

Most of those benefiting from the plan had taken part in the 2009-2010 protests when red-shirt supporters of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra took to the streets against Abhisit’s administration. More than 90 people were killed over the course of several months in 2010, including passers-by, soldiers, policemen and foreign journalists, as well as protesters.

The generous compensation by the Yingluck government was heavily criticised as an attempt to bolster its support at the expense of the taxpayer. Yingluck and 33 members of her Cabinet are now facing legal action by the National Anti-Corruption Commission for allegedly approving the compensation for political gain.

State compensation paid to people affected by political unrest is an unnecessary budget burden for the country. The money would be better spent on development projects that benefit more citizens.

Generally speaking, it is wise to avoid political events at which violence is likely to occur, though we acknowledge that rival political camps are adept at mobilising their supporters for street protests. Given the nation’s polarisation, it is now hard to imagine a public demonstration evolving spontaneously as large groups assemble to show their dissatisfaction with a ruling party or policy.

Under the current regime’s ban on public gatherings, it is next to impossible to organise street protests, a grim fact of life that at least carries the merit of curbing violence. In any case, authorities should always avoid using force to quell protest. Aggressive crowd dispersal should be the last resort, used only if the demonstration becomes turbulent or weapons appear in protesters’ hands.

However, if damage is caused and compensation must be paid, the government should at least be fair to all sides, and the amount of compensation should be reasonable. Paying too much not only burdens the country financially, but can be viewed as a means of “rewarding” supporters for risking their lives and safety to rise up against the opposite camp.

Overly generous compensation, as well, might even encourage more protests in the future.