The Aftermath of the Red Shirts protests against the Thai Government in Bangkok

On 19 May the Thai army and Police proceeded into the large area in Bangkok's shopping district occupied by the Red Shirts. Since more than a month the Red Shirts, a movement fighting for 'democracy' and early new elections, had occupied the Ratchaprasong Intersection and the roads leading into the shopping district. The government finally decided to clear the area, and encircled their compound. In the days and weeks preceeding the final crackdown, there were armed skirmishes along the perimeters, mainly along Rama IV road. The Red Shirts at one time invaded the Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, making it necessary to evacuate all patients from the hospital.

A large chunk of CentralWorld (Zen Department Store) in Bangkok's shopping district was burned down in the aftermath of the crack-down on the Red Shirts.

The leaders of the Red Shirts surrendered soon after midday. It is worth recalling that initially there were likely to be as much as a 100,000 Red Shirt protesters. However, at the end there were maybe just 3,000 to 5,000 hard core members left. The timeline of all that happened afterwards on 19 and 20 May is at present unclear. In any case, many buildings in central Bangkok were set on fire by arsonists. These included CentralWorld, Bangkok's largest shopping mall and the Siam Theatre. In total more than 30 buildings were damaged or destroyed. While the Red Shirts leaders had surrendered, it is clear some of their followers (or the famous Thai 'Third Hand' Movement) decided to ransack and burn down property. Where were the army and police at the time? Possibly they kept a low profile to avoid confrontation, but this policy permitted major property damage. The fact that property was destroyed, may well turn out to be the one thing people will remember afterwards. But let's not forget than more than 80 people died as a result of violence during this latest political crisis.

Afterthoughts

Side view of Zen Department Store

1. The Red Shirts were (are) a violent political movement in Thailand. This became already clear in April 2009 when major riots broke out in Bangkok during Songkran.
They were instructed by one of their leaders to make thousands of petrol bombs to use against the army and police. They occupied illegally a large area of Bangkok, bringing economic activity there to an end, and causing hardship to thousands of people living and working in central Bangkok. While they did not parade around with heavy weaponry, they erected barricades using sharpened (easily lethal) bamboo sticks, and were ready for a fight.
At least one of their leaders was a Member of Parliament (of the opposition party) and the major opposition party (Phua Thai) openly supported the Red Shirts. They were also encouraged by frequent phone-ins from former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, though not in the later stages of their protest.

The Siam movie theatre for some reason was also targeted. Siam was one of the few (old) stand-alone movie theatres in Bangkok.

2. One of the main function of any government (and its police and army) is to provide law and order in the country under their rule. If necessary, they may need to use violence for this purpose. Since law and order had broken down, and illegal actions took place, the Thai government was entitled to use violence to crack down on the Red Shirts' movement.

2. The Red Shirts wanted early elections and the present prime minister Abhisit out of office. Thailand is a parliamentary democracy. The government controls the majority of seats in parliament. Therefore the present government is democratic, notwithstanding the many shenanigans inherent to Thai politics, that created the governing coalition.
During negotiations in the early stages of the Red Shirts protest, the Prime Minister was agreeable to early elections in 9 months time. It is worth noting that this proposal was rejected, as well as later similar proposals. Wasn't it worth to wait 9 months, thereby avoiding the casualties later on.

After the crack down, quite a few street markets were organized to allow street vendors and small businesses to generate some well needed cash. Henri Dunant street, 5 June 2010.

3. The international media like BBC and CNN did a poor job of covering the events in Thailand. Their reporters were dropped in the country and seemed to have no background knowledge of political events in Thailand. Embedded into the Red Shirts' encampment, they symphatized with the movement and their fight for democracy. Their simple line of thought apparently was that any poor rebel is a good soul and worth believing.
Local information was plentiful (though surely not uncovering all) with many discussions and talk shows on the many government controlled TV channels. The Red Shirts' controlled TV station was put off air. What was clearly lacking in the many programs, was some discussion about the causes of the crisis (besides the fact that Thaksin was involved). Clearly since all the channels were controlled by the goverment or the military, the information was biased, but still way more reliable than the reports by the BBC and CNN.

Most of CentralWorld is still standing though.

4. Time will tell whether information about the handling of the crisis will be forthcoming. An urgent question is : who were the armed people who shot grenades on multiple occasions, targeting both innocent bystanders, the army and police, and buildings. Fortunately at least one large bunch of armed militants were captured in two high-rise buildings. But likely the masterminds behind will remain unknown.

5. While the Red Shirts were after 'democracy' and new elections, the deep rooted problem is the wealth inequality in Thailand. Most of the Red Shirts were recruited in the Northeast and North of the country. They benefited from the populist government of Thaksin Shinawatra. Most of the programs launched by Thaksin, are actually being continued by the present government. So the poor of the Northeast now have a taste for more goodies, and are constantly reminded by the TV soap operas how well off people are in Bangkok and the Central Region of Thailand.
Much is being made of the GINI index, that gives an indication of wealth inequality in different countries. Inequality is a problem in Thailand, but many countries are worse off. What is forgotten however, is the regional distribution of wealth. Data from the Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) indicate the the GDP of the North Eastern Region in 2008 was just short of 43,000 baht per capita, while the GDP of Bangkok (and vicinity) was 327,000 baht. This difference in wealth between the capital area and the Northeast is simply astounding, and this explains provincial discontent.

What makes a solution particularly difficult is that most of the poor are farmers. Agriculture employs 42.6% of the labor force while generating only 11.4% of GDP. Rice farming is not a profitable job and that's what a lot of people do in the Northeast of Thailand. Improving their economic situation would rely on much better prices for their food production.
In short : it is unlikely that this problem can be solved in a very short time. It can only be mitigated. Some people clearly should move out of farming, find better jobs, relying on better education. Prime Minister Abhisit does not want to create a European-style welfare state (we heard him say), but some redistribution of wealth might be needed in Thailand to reduce the risks of further violent clashes. Inheritance and property taxes are now being considered (yes, Thailand at present does not have inheritance taxes!!). 'Populist' measures need to continue. Possibly a wealth tax for Bangkok's elite and redistribution of the money to tax-exempt farmers, can be considered.

Thai flag at the end of the Siam skytrain station.

6. We can refer to Buddhism and the Karma concept. Despite all the wording against it, we think there are still different classes in Thailand. There are a relatively small number of families running the country, and wealth is distributed poorly. What happened lately in Bangkok is a case of 'bad karma'. The poor of the Northeastern provinces have been long neglected and marginalized. Surely it was to be expected that at some point some of them would not take in anymore. [We explain but do not justify]

7. Thaksin Shinawatra's party (with its ever changing name) became a home for the disenchanted. How a business tycoon and Thailand's poor embraced each other is a long story. However, it would be so much better if the farmers and laborers had their own political party, and looked after themselves, rather than being cared for by 'outsiders' with their own agenda.
Whatever the result of new elections, it would be of interest to the country that all regions are represented. The Democrat Party has hardly any representatives in the North or Northeast. The Phua Thai party has almost no representatives from the South, and might have very few in Bangkok after new elections. In a way, both are rather regional parties, rather than national parties. Any new government needs to find a way to represent the whole of the country, rather than just the majority of the regions.