• 
• 

The NHRC report will form a basis for the graft inquiry by the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC) on alleged abuse of power relating to the bloodshed and the high casualties.

Hopefully the NCCC can and will close any loopholes found in the NHRC report. Otherwise, the tragic incident is likely to fade without culpability.

At first glance, the NHRC appears to have handed down a damning verdict on the Somchai Wongsawat government. But the respective roles of then Prime Minister Somchai and his deputy Chavalit Yongchaiyud were outlined from conjecture rather than evidence.

The NHRC report did blame Somchai and Chavalit as the main culprits for the crackdown on the protesters led by the People's Alliance for Democracy.

Based on the testimony of national police chief General Patcharawat Wongsuwan, the report said Somchai gave a specific instruction for police to disperse the crowd no later than 5am in order to pave the way for the government to announce its policy statement before Parliament.

Somchai assigned Chavalit as the political overseer of the crowd control measures.

The report draws a firm conclusion to apportion blame between Somchai and Chavalit for failing to halt the violent crackdown when it became clear blood had been shed after the firing of tear gas canisters.

It failed, however, to uncover evidence to back up how Somchai and Chavalit were involved in the decision to authorise the use of tear gas to disperse the crowds.

In his rebuttal, Somchai insisted he did not condone violence and that his instruction was meant for crowd control through peaceful means.

The report singled out some 20 police officers responsible for the tear gas debacle but apparently stopped short of naming the politicians for authorising the measures which turned lethal.

Even though the findings included several testimonies suggesting Somchai and Chavalit might have made off-the-record instructions through a selected number of senior officers, the NHRC did not pursue the lead.

It also neglected to cover the planning session chaired by Chavalit at the Metropolitan Police Bureau. There was no mention how and why police formed a decision to deploy tear gas.

Patcharawat said in news reports that he lost contact with Metropolitan Police commissioner Lt General Suchart Muenkaew during the anti-riot operations. The report omitted to shed light on the line of communications between the command centre and the scene.

Chavalit left the command centre at around 2am. There was no explanation about his abrupt departure at the critical juncture before the crowd control operations. He resigned within hours after what he described as measures that had gone astray.

Although it was widely speculated government leaders kept tap on the operations through their aides who relayed instructions to Suchart, who was the officer in charge, the report left out the issue completely.

By focusing on the police handling of the tear gas, instead of the decision leading to the debacle, the report made it appear the police had formed their own conclusion to condone violence without any political prodding.

The NHRC outlined clearly how police recklessly carried on firing the tear gas despite the high casualties. It gave a superficial treatment to the political oversight.

If this is the case, then politicians will likely get off the hook while police officers face the music for their criminal culpability.

Justice will not be served if masterminds are allowed to elude the law after engineering for their henchmen to take the fall.