Organization: Central Michigan University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.seasia-l
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 10:14:34 EDT
From:         Elliott Parker <3ZLUFUR@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
Subject:      TH: May Govt report made public

                       [Original corrpupted]
=======================  Forwarded  Message  ===========================
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 02:08:40+0700
From: kamol@munnari.oz.au (Kamol Hengkietisak)


DEPLOYMENT of upcou7:9^H].kMQ=EU11Q!AI=QMQ%9  9-=-%95e9)the
 execution of Pairee Pinas (Enemy Destruction) plan without proper
control of the use of force were blamed for the bloodshed, according to a
government enquiry report into the May event which was released on Friday.

The report also blamed the distortion of facts by state-owned media for
encouraging people who were denied of access to factual information about
the event to go to the protest site to "see with their own eyes".

However, the report did not put the blame on any particular individual
involved in the crackdown of the protest, but noted that Gen Suchinda
Kraprayoon, then prime minister and defence minister, had acknowledged and
approved the execution of Pairee Pinas plan at every step.

The report said even though there were instructions to avoid the use of
weapons to quell the protest and to take measures from lenient to tough,
the troops deployed could open fire without having to seek approval from
WWkKM%Q!e!     Q=MQ=AQ!Q!IQ      A=M eQ!)demonstrators.

While recognising the legitimate right of the people to hold rallies, the
report said that the movement of a large number of protesters from one
place to another as was the movement of demonstrators from Sanam Luang to
Rajdamnoen Avenue during the May event was provocative as it could lead to
confusion, riot and violence.

The enquiry report concluded that the May protests stemmed from public
dissent against the Constitution which appeared to perpetuate the power of
the now defunct National Peace-keeping Council and Gen Suchinda's failure
to honour his pledge that he would not accept the premiership.

Gen Suchinda's uncompromising stand in the face of the protests against him
and his refusal to negotiate with the protesters caused the public to feel
that he was not responsive to the aspiration of the people, said the
rY\KQ9)
The approval of the use of Pairee Pinas plan by ACM Kaset Rojananil, then
the supreme commander, to cope with the protesters was a major factor
contributing to increased public resistance, the report said.

The arson of Phu Khao Thong police station of the Fire Brigade, the Nang
Lerng police station and the Youth and Juvenile Welfare Sub-division led to
the use of the force by the military to quell the protest, according to the
findings.

The report also noted the confusion in the line of the command of the
police force during the protests.  It said even though Pol Lt-Gen Chalerm
Rojanapradit, commissioner of the police force, was responsible to deal
with the protests in accordance with the Pairee Pinas plan, a senior police
officer which the report only identified as Vor still issued orders to the
police force despite the fact that Vor was no longer chief of the police
task force.

Even Police Director-General Sawat Amornvivat was powerless and could not
issue orders to his men, said the report.

The report attributed the seriousness of the crackdown to the deployment of
upcountry troops who were not fully informed about the protests.  These
soldiers were aggressive and were tough with the protesters at the
beginning, but when they became acquainted with the protesters, they became
less aggressive, said the report, quoting a witness.

The report also quoted a statement by another witness, New Aspiration Party
leader Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, who maintained that there were sufficient
troops who were trained in riot control to deal with the demonstrators
without having to resort to armed crackdown.

"The protests originated from a political struggle.  The use of police and
troops to solve the problem was not appropriate.

"The execution of Pairee Pinas plan which was hatched on May 7 was
inappropriate for the situation.  Even though it could be claimed that (the
troops and police) simply performed their duties, the use of force was not
properly controlled.

"Troops had no experience in mob control and police did not have the
capability to control the situation.  Although provoked, challenged or
assaulted and government buildings destroyed, the shooting of demonstrators
was not intended to stop the rampage.

"The shooting, intentional or unintentional, was a mistake....," concluded
the report.

The 219-page report chronicled events leading up to the protests between
May 17-20.  It contained accounts given by numerous witnesses who included
the protesters as well as officials involved in the crackdown.

Details about damage, casualties and recommendations to prevent recurrence
of the tragedy were also shown in the report.

The report said the May event had inflicted extensive damage estimated at
about 33,350 million baht.  These included 1,967 million baht of state
properties, 266 million baht in loss of revenue of private and government
sectors and 32,890 million baht in decreased productivity, lost investment
and tourism, exports and services.

Kamol notes: Vor in the report refers to Pol Gen Viroj Pao-in, a Class 5 and is
 Suchinda's friend. He resigned from the police to take up deputy interior
minister in Suchinda govt. He was said to be behind the brutal police crackdown
of the demonstrators and issue commands not to protect the police station a
against the arsonists (rumoured to be instigated by Army's provocatours).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.seasia-l