• 
• 
• 

Security cannot be compromised. But when Thai politics gets mixed up with national security, the outcome could be disastrous, especially when neither the political leaders nor the security chiefs want to be seen as the fall guys as things go wrong. And given the current political climate, a number of things can and have gone wrong.

Thailand has a bloated military and police force with a reputation for being trigger-happy and yet, when it comes to crowd control, they become too lenient. Because, the way they see it, the greeen light to bash people's heads with a baton or fire shots into the air, or their chests for that matter, must come from the political side of the house. So why the change of heart - from quick-draw, trigger-happy belligerents to a bunch of cool-headed guys?

To better understand this predicament, one has to go back a little more than a couple of years.

The fear of being accused of committing atrocities, or specifically, taking the fall for any of these incidents, has haunted the country's security apparatus for some time, especially in the aftermath of the October 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin Shinawatra from power.

To save their own hides, the military and police have basically refrained from drawing first blood until it is clear political risk will go to the politicians. That point became clear late last year when then prime minister Samak Sundaravej declared a state of emergency following a clash in front of the UN between the pro-Thaksin red and anti-Thaksin yellow shirts. Army chief General Anupong Paochinda responded to Samak's move by giving him soldiers without arms. Just helmets and flakjackets.

Indeed, the relationship between the two was not exactly a cosy one. The Army chief was one of the top brass behind the coup, while the government of Samak was basically a proxy for ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

And then, on October 7 last year in front of Parliament, the fear of the security apparatus came true. The police themselves became sole scapegoats for the bloody action while politicians were nowhere in sight. Big deal if the then deputy premier Chavalit Yongchaiyudh resigned to take responsibility for the incident. His resignation was a result of a bruised ego, as fellow Cabinet members would not give him the time of day.

Like anywhere else, maintaining security, whether it's for international leaders or part of crowd control, is much more than just knowing when to fire. It's about standard operating procedures and coming up with clearly defined rules of engagement. None of these elements were displayed at the Pattaya summit where more than a dozen world leaders were about to have their annual summit, or at the Interior Ministry on Sunday when a group of red shirts broke in and pounded mercilessly a car they thought was carrying the prime minister.

Another big mistake occurred when Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban permitted Newin Chidchob, himself a former red shirt, and his blue-shirt supporters, to have a hand in formulating security for the event knowing there was lots of bad blood between him and his old friends.

For them the logic was simple. Blood would be on the hands of the pro-government blue shirts, not the authorities.

But the encounter between the blue and red shirts in Pattaya did not result in bloodshed and the police and soldiers were left defending the front line without a proper mandate or instruction from their superiors as to what to do and if so, by what means.

Logically, the first line of defence should have been at the foothill of the hotel, about 1.5 kilometres from the hotel itself, not at the door where the leaders were about to have their lunch.

If the government of Abhisit Vejjajiva cares about security, it needs to give the mandate to draw up a security plan of action. Once a proper standard operating procedure is agreed upon, the government has to live by it, regardless of the consequences.

If anything, the attack against his vehicle is a revelation of the sorry state of the premier's security details. Let's face it. In most countries, the attackers would have had their heads blown off.

While it is understandable that Abhisit, like all leaders, wants to be seen as a benevolent guy with high moral standards, nevertheless, security is something that should not be up for compromise.