FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 4, 2009ALRC-CWS-11-08-2009 Language(s): English only
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Eleventh sessionA written statement submitted by the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC), a non-governmental organisation with general consultative status
THAILAND: NHRC not independent nor composed according to international standards
1. In its previous written submission to the Human Rights Council, the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) pointed to the resurgence of regressive anti-human rights forces in Thailand in the wake of the 2006 military coup as a grave threat to human rights in that country.
It identified the repeated overthrow of elected governments by antidemocratic forces, large-scale criminal activity not followed with investigations or prosecutions, Internet censorship, use of the draconian criminal law to hunt critics of government and monarchy and threats to human rights defenders as just some of the challenges in the current period.
2. A specific consequence of the increasing disregard for human rights and human rights institutions in Thailand that has emerged since the last session of the Council, and one which should be of special concern to the global human rights community, is the appointment of new commissioners to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of Thailand in disregard to the Principles Relating to the Status of National Institutions on Human Rights (The Paris Principles).
a. Briefly, the terms of the previous commissioners in fact lapsed during 2007, under the interim military-appointed government; however, most of the commissioners continued in their posts under the NHRC Act (1999), which provided that they were to do so until a new commission was appointed.
b. After the 2007 Constitution was brought into effect, two persons petitioned the courts for the former commissioners to vacate their posts, even though a new NHRC Act had not passed through parliament to regulate the process. On 30 January 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court held that the new commission could be established according to the terms of the latest national constitution, without a specific law governing its activities.
c. Accordingly, on 11 March 2009 the NHRC secretary invited applications for new commissioners, giving a period of one week for applications, from March 14 to 20. The Selection Committee, consisting of the presidents of the three top courts, two persons chosen by two assemblies of judges, and the president of the lower house of parliament met to consider the applications on April 8. The seventh member of the committee, from the political opposition, was not involved apparently due to the political uncertainty gripping Thailand.
d. On April 10 the committee sent the names and documents of its seven nominees to the Senate for consideration and approval, being those of: Police General Vanchai Srinuwalnad, assistant commissioner general of the Royal Thai Police; Mr. Parinya Sirisarakarn, managing director of a salt extraction and processing company, Kijsubudom Co. Ltd., and former member of the Constitution Drafting Assembly of Thailand (2007); Mr. Paibool Varahapaitoorn, secretary to the Office of the Constitution Court; Ms. Visa Penjamano, ministerial inspector, Ministry of Social Development and Human Security; Mr. Taejing Siripanich, secretary, Don't Drive Drunk Foundation; Mr. Nirand Pithakwachara, former elected senator and member of Senate committees of inquiry into human rights abuses; and, Professor Amara Pongsapich, former dean, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.
e. On April 20 the Senate established a committee to review the nominees and the following day it announced that it would give until April 27 for public comment on the seven. Thereafter, on May 1 the Senate voted to appoint all seven as commissioners.
3. In letters to the Senate and subsequently to the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights the sister organization of the ALRC, the Asian Human Rights Commission, pointed out that the procedure of selection and appointment of these seven commissioners would cause the NHRC to fall out of compliance with the Paris Principles, specifically section 1 of the principles on composition and guarantees of independence and pluralism, which reads that:
"The composition of the national institution and the appointment of its members, whether by means of an election or otherwise, shall be established in accordance with a procedure which affords all necessary guarantees to ensure the pluralist representation of the social forces (of civilian society) involved in the protection and promotion of human rights, particularly by powers which will enable effective cooperation to be established with, or through the presence of, representatives of: (a) Non-governmental organizations responsible for human rights and efforts to combat racial discrimination, trade unions, concerned social and professional organizations, for example, associations of lawyers, doctors, journalists and eminent scientists..."
4. The centrality of pluralistic composition and independence to the working of a national human rights institution under the Paris Principles is also made clear in paragraph 8 of the Nairobi Declaration at the Ninth International Conference of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in 2008, that "the independence and autonomy of NHRIs, their pluralistic representation, as well as their interaction with a broad range of stakeholders, is necessary for their compliance with international standards and their effectiveness at the national, regional and international levels".
5. However, the new NHRC of Thailand is neither pluralistic nor independent, as its selection and appointment process was non-transparent, undemocratic, secretive and conducted contrary to human rights principles from start to finish.
a. No effort was made to publicize the process, whether by radio, television, Internet or other media, and the invitation to comment was made only via a formal government announcement. The website where persons were supposed to make comments did not even have a form or page upon which to do so. And the whole process took place against the backdrop of intense political turmoil in Thailand that led to the closure of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit on April 8 and the declaration of a State of Emergency in Bangkok from April 12 to 24. Therefore, there was no public or media attention brought to it at all.
b. Aside from the failure to invite public involvement in the selection and appointment of the NHRC, the formalities of the process under the undemocratic 2007 Constitution, and the uninterested and irresponsible manner with which the persons charged with the selection and appointment of the new commission carried out their task effectively denied pluralist and independent representation. The Selection Committee did not bother to interview any of the candidates, basing its nominations solely on the documentation it had received. In its report to the Senate it did not give any reasoning for its selection of the seven nominees, giving details only of the votes for and against each candidate that led to his or her nomination. The seven also were not subjected to any rigorous inquiries at the Senate, merely making some brief remarks and answering a few questions, when a number of the candidates demonstrated a superior ignorance rather than knowledge of human rights.
6. That the majority of Thailand's new national human rights commissioners don't understand human rights is also manifest from their backgrounds. Out of the seven, only two have actual experience and broad knowledge on rights issues, while one has experience on specific economic and social rights. The other four, the majority of the commission, have no experience at all. Not one of the seven persons is a representative of non-governmental organizations responsible for human rights, trade unions or concerned social and professional organizations, despite the fact that there were many applicants from these backgrounds who were not selected for reasons that remain unknown.
a. Specific serious objections have been raised in Thailand and abroad about one of the seven, Parinya Sirisarakarn, a businessman who was himself named in a report of the former NHRC as among businesspersons responsible for environmental degradation in the northeast. The naming of Parinya as a human rights violator in an official document of the former commission apparently was not sufficient an obstacle to his appointment to the post. Nor, it seems, were his remarks before senators prior to his election that if made a commissioner he would not necessarily welcome international intervention on human rights issues in Thailand because this might be intended to interfere in the country's internal affairs. Likewise, that his many business interests could bring him into obvious conflicts with the goals of the commission apparently did not trouble the majority of senators.
b. That three of the seven new appointees are coming to the NHRC direct from state agencies also raises serious concerns about the independence of the commission. The inclusion of a senior policeman is of special concern as the Royal Thai Police are the top violators of human rights in Thailand, for which they enjoy complete impunity. Police who have served on agencies where inquiries have been held into police abuses have in most instances acted out of institutional loyalty to cover up violations of rights rather than expose them. The inclusion of the court administrator is of concern too given that the appointee's former boss was among those responsible for his appointment to the post, and given the numerous non-judicial roles across government that the judiciary holds under the 2007 Constitution.
7. In light of the above, the sister organization of the ALRC has called for an immediate review of Thailand's "A" Status under the accreditation system based upon the Paris Principles, and the downgrading of the NHRC to "C" Status, non-compliant with the Principles. The ALRC greatly regrets the need for Thailand's NHRC to be ejected from international human rights forums but sees no alternative lest the global human rights community be tarnished by the human rights fraud that the NHRC Thailand has become. It also feels that a strong message needs to be sent not only to the Government of Thailand but also to all other governments that seek to undermine the work of the national human rights institutions that these Principles must be fully upheld if a country expects to be taken seriously in its rhetorical commitments to human rights institutions. This is especially so given that the authorities in Thailand received warnings and complaints on the process of selection and appointment prior to the election of these persons in the Senate but chose to ignore them and carry on with a human rights charade.
8. Although the willful non-compliance with the Paris Principles is a cause for special concern of the Human Rights Council, the Asian Legal Resource Centre notes that it is only one manifestation of the worsening human rights situation in Thailand: a decline that began under the ousted prime minister, Police Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra, but accelerated dramatically after the 2006 coup.
The selection and appointment of this new National Human Rights Commission in a manner contrary to the very principles that the commission is supposed to represent speaks both to the current administration's disinterest in having a functioning national human rights institution and to the low respect for and knowledge about human rights among the authorities there.
Not only has the NHRC been relegated to a third-class agency of little importance to the state, but also government agencies in Thailand continue to treat human rights as at best irrelevant and more often than not as obstacles to their work. The manner of selection and appointment of the new NHRC as well as its composition are indicators of the deep anti-human rights culture that pervades official institutions in Thailand, now including, it would seem, the National Human Rights Commission itself.
The unfortunate consequence is that the NHRC is today not only of little significance to the Government of Thailand, but also to the people of Thailand on behalf of whom and for whose rights it is supposed to act.
# # # About the ALRC:
The Asian Legal Resource Centre is an independent regional non-governmental organisation holding general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is the sister organisation of the Asian Human Rights Commission.
The Hong Kong-based group seeks to strengthen and encourage positive action on legal and human rights issues at the local and national levels throughout Asia.
-----------------------------Asian Human Rights Commission
19/F, Go-Up Commercial Building,998 Canton Road, Kowloon, Hongkong S.A.R.
Tel: +(852) - 2698-6339 Fax: +(852) - 2698-6367
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
วันศุกร์ที่ 12 มิถุนายน พ.ศ. 2552
วันเสาร์ที่ 9 พฤษภาคม พ.ศ. 2552
THAILAND:NHRC no longer complies with Paris Principles, must lose status in United Nations forums
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 8, 2009
AHRC-OLT-017-2009
An Open Letter to the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for Human Rights
by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
Jennifer Lynch
Chairperson
International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
c/o Canadian Human Rights Commission344 Slater Street, 8th FloorOttawa, Ontario K1A 1E1, CANADA
Tel: +1 613 995 11 51Fax: +1 613 996 9661
Email: info.com@chrc-ccdp.ca
Dear Ms. Lynch
THAILAND:
NHRC no longer complies with Paris Principles, must lose status in United Nations forums
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is writing to you to request an immediate review of the status of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of Thailand on the basis that it no longer complies with the Principles Relating to the Status of National Institutions on Human Rights (The Paris Principles) and must be downgraded so that it is unable to participate in the United Nations.
As you will be aware from the contents of three previous open letters that the AHRC addressed to the Senate of Thailand and copied to you (AHRC-OLT-012-2009; AHRC-OLT-013-2009; AHRC-OLT-015-2009), the Senate was to vote on the seven nominees to the commission on last Friday, May 1. Regrettably, the Senate proceeded with the vote and all seven of the nominees were approved for appointment as commissioners.
It is the opinion of the AHRC that the selection and composition of this NHRC fails in every respect to comply with the Paris Principles, specifically, section 1 of the principles on composition and guarantees of independence and pluralism, which reads that:
"The composition of the national institution and the appointment of its members, whether by means of an election or otherwise, shall be established in accordance with a procedure which affords all necessary guarantees to ensure the pluralist representation of the social forces (of civilian society) involved in the protection and promotion of human rights, particularly by powers which will enable effective cooperation to be established with, or through the presence of, representatives of: (a) Non-governmental organizations responsible for human rights and efforts to combat racial discrimination, trade unions, concerned social and professional organizations, for example, associations of lawyers, doctors, journalists and eminent scientists..."
None of the components of this section have been complied with in the selection and appointment of the seven new commissioners, for reasons given as follows.
1. Procedure for nomination and appointment did not afford any necessary guarantees to ensure pluralist representation.
The selection process was delayed since 2007 as a case was pending in the courts (Supreme Administrative Court Black Case No. 54/2551, Red Case No. 830/2551) seeking the appointment of new commissioners even though a new law governing NHRC activities had not been readied in accordance with the Constitution of Thailand BE 2550 (2007). After the court issued a verdict allowing appointment of new commissioners without the revised law, the process of selection and appointment was rushed through in March and April 2009 without any publicity and amid political turmoil and violent unrest. One week was given for applicants to the new commission to submit their documents (March 14-20), and another week purportedly given for public comment (April 20-27).
In fact, no effort was made to publicize the process of selection and appointment to the commission, whether by radio, television, Internet or other media, and the invitation to comment was made only via a formal government announcement on April 21. That the Senate was not actually interested in receiving comments was made clear to the AHRC when it accessed the Senate website in order to submit a letter and found that there was no form or other location on the site made available for this purpose. Only on the afternoon of April 27 was a form briefly put up after the AHRC complained by fax that it had been unable to find one, which was then promptly removed again first thing the next morning.
The selection and appointment process occurred against the backdrop of intense political turmoil in Thailand that led to the closure of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit on April 8 and the declaration of a State of Emergency in Bangkok from April 12 to 24. Therefore, there was no public or media attention brought to the secretive selection and appointment process.
Aside from the above, the formalities of the process under the undemocratic 2007 Constitution, and the uninterested and irresponsible manner with which the persons charged with the selection and appointment of the new commission carried out their task, effectively denied pluralist and independent representation.
Under section 256 of the 2007 Constitution, the Selection Committee consists of the presidents of the Supreme Court, Constitution Court, and Supreme Administrative Court, the President of the House of Representatives, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives and two other persons appointed from the Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court respectively. On this occasion, as a consequence of the political unrest there was no opposition leader, and the other representative from the House of Representatives belongs to a party that was not elected to government but was brought to power by virtue of a court decision. Thus, not one member of the Selection Committee can be said to have been a democratically chosen public representative. Nor is the Senate of Thailand, which vetted and voted on the seven nominees, a fully elected body, but under the 2007 Constitution a committee of judges and bureaucrats appoints 74 of its 150 members. Thus, unelected officials controlled the entire process of selection and appointment of the new NHRC.
The Selection Committee appears to have shown no interest in its duty to appoint a new commission. Remarkably, it did not even bother to interview any of the candidates, basing its nominations solely on the documentation it had received. Even then, in its report to the Senate it did not give any reasoning for its selection of the seven nominees, giving details only of the votes for and against each candidate that led to his or her nomination. Given the contents of the report and the short time for which the committee met, it doesn't appear to have debated the qualities of the respective nominees at all, merely going through a series of votes, without any discussion, to come up with the seven who were referred to the Senate. These seven also were not subjected to any rigorous inquiries at the Senate prior to their election there, merely making some brief speeches and answering a few questions by Senators, during which a number of the candidates demonstrated a superior ignorance rather than knowledge of human rights, and one over whom the AHRC has raised specific objections openly demonstrated contempt for the international human rights community, as discussed further in point 2.
It must also briefly be noted that all of this stands in marked contrast to the procedure for selection and appointment of the previous commission under the 1997 Constitution, which involved many persons from a variety of sectors and civic groups, and required short-listed candidates to appear for interviews and also give speeches to the Senate, then a fully-elected body, prior to their appointment: facts of which the ICC is fully apprised by virtue of its earlier accrediting of that NHRC.
2. The new commission is neither pluralist nor independent and does not consist of social forces involved in the protection and promotion of human rights.
The seven new commissioners are: Police General Vanchai Srinuwalnad, assistant commissioner general of the Royal Thai Police; Mr. Parinya Sirisarakarn, managing director of a salt extraction and processing company, Kijsubudom Co. Ltd., and former member of the Constitution Drafting Assembly of Thailand (2007) established after the military coup of 2006; Mr. Paibool Varahapaitoorn, secretary to the Office of the Constitution Court; Mr. Taejing Siripanich, secretary, Don't Drive Drunk Foundation; Ms. Visa Penjamano, ministerial inspector, Ministry of Social Development and Human Security; Mr. Nirand Pithakwachara, former elected senator for Ubol Ratchathani and member of Senate commissions of inquiry into human rights abuses; and, Professor Amara Pongsapich, former dean, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.
Out of the seven, only the last two persons have actual experience and broad knowledge on human rights issues, while the third last has experience on specific economic and social rights. The other four, the majority of the commission, not only have no experience at all but also from their applications to become commissioners and from the contents of the short speeches and answers to questions at the Senate prior to their election evidently have no conception of human rights either.
Out of the seven, three are from state agencies, one of who is a senior police officer, another of who is a judicial administrator. The appointment of these three persons direct from their posts in other parts of government raises serious doubts about the independence of the new commission. The inclusion of a senior policeman is of special concern to the AHRC as the Royal Thai Police are the top violators of human rights in Thailand, for which they enjoy complete impunity: a statement that the AHRC can back with voluminous documentation over many years of work on the situation of human rights in the country. The inclusion of the court administrator is also of concern given that the appointee's former boss was among those responsible for his appointment to the post, and given the numerous non-judicial roles across government that the judiciary holds under the 2007 Constitution. Neither of these appointees has any qualities or experience to lend himself to the role of human rights commissioner. On the contrary, both men are among those who clearly misunderstand the role and responsibilities of the commission and lack even basic understanding of human rights.
The AHRC has also raised special concern over the appointment of Parinya Sirisarakarn. Parinya is an industrialist who was himself named in a report of the former NHRC (No. 74/2550) as among businesspersons responsible for environmental degradation in the northeast. The naming of Parinya as a human rights violator in an official document of the former commission apparently was not sufficient an obstacle to his appointment to the post. Nor, it seems, were his outrageous comments to Senators prior to his election, including that if made a commissioner he would not necessarily welcome international intervention on human rights issues in Thailand because this might be intended to interfere in the country's internal affairs; he then illustrated the point by alleging that the Falun Gong is backed by the CIA to interfere on human rights issues in China. He added that other countries are also violating the rights of the military regime in Burma, with which he is demonstrated great sympathy, by using human rights discourse to isolate the country.
Finally, none of the seven persons are representatives of non-governmental organizations responsible for human rights, trade unions or concerned social and professional organizations, despite the fact that there were applicants from these backgrounds to the commission whose names were not selected.
The above is a brief outline of some of the most obvious departures from the Paris Principles in the selection and appointment of the new NHRC of Thailand. The AHRC has collected all of the publicly accessible documentation on the process and is able to amplify and provide further details on any of the facts presented upon request.
The AHRC takes note that pluralistic composition and independence are integral features of a national human rights institution for compliance with the Paris Principles. They are not optional. It recalls paragraph 8 of the Nairobi Declaration at the Ninth International Conference of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in 2008, that "the independence and autonomy of NHRIs, their pluralistic representation, as well as their interaction with a broad range of stakeholders, is necessary for their compliance with international standards and their effectiveness at the national, regional and international levels".
The AHRC further notes that in November 2008 the NHRC of Thailand had its "A" accreditation status renewed by the International Coordinating Committee (ICC) for compliance with the Paris Principles, entitling it to participate fully in United Nations forums as a national human rights institution.
In view of the selection and appointment process and composition of the new National Human Rights Commission of Thailand, the Asian Human Rights Commission hereby calls upon the ICC to review immediately Thailand's status and downgrade the NHRC to "C" status, non-compliant with the Paris Principles, until such a time as a new commission is selected and appointed that brings the NHRC back into agreement with international standards. We are confident that the ICC will be concerned to adhere scrupulously to the principles that it is assigned to uphold, lest the body itself and deserving A-accredited institutions cooperate with the human rights fraud that has now been perpetrated in Thailand by way of this illegitimate NHRC.
Finally, the AHRC wishes to add that the selection and appointment of this new National Human Rights Commission in a manner contrary to the very principles that the commission is supposed to represent speaks both to the utter disinterest in the work of Thailand's national human rights institution among people in the country's current administration as well as those in successive governments of recent times, and to the very low respect for and knowledge about human rights among the authorities there. Not only has the NHRC been relegated to a third-class institution of little relevance to the workings of the state, but also government agencies in Thailand continue to treat human rights as at best irrelevant and more often than not as obstacles to their work. The manner of selection and appointment of the new NHRC as well as its composition are indicators of the deep anti-human rights culture that pervades all official institutions in Thailand, now including, it would seem, the National Human Rights Commission itself.
Yours sincerely
Basil Fernando
Executive Director
Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong
Cc:1. Professor Kyong Whan Ahn, Vice-Chairperson, ICC of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
2. Dr. Heiner Bielefeldt, Chairperson, Sub-Committee on Accreditation, ICC of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
3. Ms. Katharina Rose, Interim Representative, ICC of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Geneva
4. Mr. Abhisist Vejjajiva, Prime Minister of Thailand
5. Ms. Margaret Sekaggaya, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders
6. Mr. Homayoun Alizadeh, Regional Representative, OHCHR, Bangkok
7. Mr. Kieren Fitzpatrick, Director, Secretariat, Asia-Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions
-----------------------------
Asian Human Rights Commission
19/F, Go-Up Commercial Building,998 Canton Road, Kowloon, Hongkong S.A.R.
Tel: +(852) - 2698-6339 Fax: +(852) - 2698-6367
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
May 8, 2009
AHRC-OLT-017-2009
An Open Letter to the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for Human Rights
by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
Jennifer Lynch
Chairperson
International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
c/o Canadian Human Rights Commission344 Slater Street, 8th FloorOttawa, Ontario K1A 1E1, CANADA
Tel: +1 613 995 11 51Fax: +1 613 996 9661
Email: info.com@chrc-ccdp.ca
Dear Ms. Lynch
THAILAND:
NHRC no longer complies with Paris Principles, must lose status in United Nations forums
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is writing to you to request an immediate review of the status of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of Thailand on the basis that it no longer complies with the Principles Relating to the Status of National Institutions on Human Rights (The Paris Principles) and must be downgraded so that it is unable to participate in the United Nations.
As you will be aware from the contents of three previous open letters that the AHRC addressed to the Senate of Thailand and copied to you (AHRC-OLT-012-2009; AHRC-OLT-013-2009; AHRC-OLT-015-2009), the Senate was to vote on the seven nominees to the commission on last Friday, May 1. Regrettably, the Senate proceeded with the vote and all seven of the nominees were approved for appointment as commissioners.
It is the opinion of the AHRC that the selection and composition of this NHRC fails in every respect to comply with the Paris Principles, specifically, section 1 of the principles on composition and guarantees of independence and pluralism, which reads that:
"The composition of the national institution and the appointment of its members, whether by means of an election or otherwise, shall be established in accordance with a procedure which affords all necessary guarantees to ensure the pluralist representation of the social forces (of civilian society) involved in the protection and promotion of human rights, particularly by powers which will enable effective cooperation to be established with, or through the presence of, representatives of: (a) Non-governmental organizations responsible for human rights and efforts to combat racial discrimination, trade unions, concerned social and professional organizations, for example, associations of lawyers, doctors, journalists and eminent scientists..."
None of the components of this section have been complied with in the selection and appointment of the seven new commissioners, for reasons given as follows.
1. Procedure for nomination and appointment did not afford any necessary guarantees to ensure pluralist representation.
The selection process was delayed since 2007 as a case was pending in the courts (Supreme Administrative Court Black Case No. 54/2551, Red Case No. 830/2551) seeking the appointment of new commissioners even though a new law governing NHRC activities had not been readied in accordance with the Constitution of Thailand BE 2550 (2007). After the court issued a verdict allowing appointment of new commissioners without the revised law, the process of selection and appointment was rushed through in March and April 2009 without any publicity and amid political turmoil and violent unrest. One week was given for applicants to the new commission to submit their documents (March 14-20), and another week purportedly given for public comment (April 20-27).
In fact, no effort was made to publicize the process of selection and appointment to the commission, whether by radio, television, Internet or other media, and the invitation to comment was made only via a formal government announcement on April 21. That the Senate was not actually interested in receiving comments was made clear to the AHRC when it accessed the Senate website in order to submit a letter and found that there was no form or other location on the site made available for this purpose. Only on the afternoon of April 27 was a form briefly put up after the AHRC complained by fax that it had been unable to find one, which was then promptly removed again first thing the next morning.
The selection and appointment process occurred against the backdrop of intense political turmoil in Thailand that led to the closure of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit on April 8 and the declaration of a State of Emergency in Bangkok from April 12 to 24. Therefore, there was no public or media attention brought to the secretive selection and appointment process.
Aside from the above, the formalities of the process under the undemocratic 2007 Constitution, and the uninterested and irresponsible manner with which the persons charged with the selection and appointment of the new commission carried out their task, effectively denied pluralist and independent representation.
Under section 256 of the 2007 Constitution, the Selection Committee consists of the presidents of the Supreme Court, Constitution Court, and Supreme Administrative Court, the President of the House of Representatives, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives and two other persons appointed from the Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court respectively. On this occasion, as a consequence of the political unrest there was no opposition leader, and the other representative from the House of Representatives belongs to a party that was not elected to government but was brought to power by virtue of a court decision. Thus, not one member of the Selection Committee can be said to have been a democratically chosen public representative. Nor is the Senate of Thailand, which vetted and voted on the seven nominees, a fully elected body, but under the 2007 Constitution a committee of judges and bureaucrats appoints 74 of its 150 members. Thus, unelected officials controlled the entire process of selection and appointment of the new NHRC.
The Selection Committee appears to have shown no interest in its duty to appoint a new commission. Remarkably, it did not even bother to interview any of the candidates, basing its nominations solely on the documentation it had received. Even then, in its report to the Senate it did not give any reasoning for its selection of the seven nominees, giving details only of the votes for and against each candidate that led to his or her nomination. Given the contents of the report and the short time for which the committee met, it doesn't appear to have debated the qualities of the respective nominees at all, merely going through a series of votes, without any discussion, to come up with the seven who were referred to the Senate. These seven also were not subjected to any rigorous inquiries at the Senate prior to their election there, merely making some brief speeches and answering a few questions by Senators, during which a number of the candidates demonstrated a superior ignorance rather than knowledge of human rights, and one over whom the AHRC has raised specific objections openly demonstrated contempt for the international human rights community, as discussed further in point 2.
It must also briefly be noted that all of this stands in marked contrast to the procedure for selection and appointment of the previous commission under the 1997 Constitution, which involved many persons from a variety of sectors and civic groups, and required short-listed candidates to appear for interviews and also give speeches to the Senate, then a fully-elected body, prior to their appointment: facts of which the ICC is fully apprised by virtue of its earlier accrediting of that NHRC.
2. The new commission is neither pluralist nor independent and does not consist of social forces involved in the protection and promotion of human rights.
The seven new commissioners are: Police General Vanchai Srinuwalnad, assistant commissioner general of the Royal Thai Police; Mr. Parinya Sirisarakarn, managing director of a salt extraction and processing company, Kijsubudom Co. Ltd., and former member of the Constitution Drafting Assembly of Thailand (2007) established after the military coup of 2006; Mr. Paibool Varahapaitoorn, secretary to the Office of the Constitution Court; Mr. Taejing Siripanich, secretary, Don't Drive Drunk Foundation; Ms. Visa Penjamano, ministerial inspector, Ministry of Social Development and Human Security; Mr. Nirand Pithakwachara, former elected senator for Ubol Ratchathani and member of Senate commissions of inquiry into human rights abuses; and, Professor Amara Pongsapich, former dean, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.
Out of the seven, only the last two persons have actual experience and broad knowledge on human rights issues, while the third last has experience on specific economic and social rights. The other four, the majority of the commission, not only have no experience at all but also from their applications to become commissioners and from the contents of the short speeches and answers to questions at the Senate prior to their election evidently have no conception of human rights either.
Out of the seven, three are from state agencies, one of who is a senior police officer, another of who is a judicial administrator. The appointment of these three persons direct from their posts in other parts of government raises serious doubts about the independence of the new commission. The inclusion of a senior policeman is of special concern to the AHRC as the Royal Thai Police are the top violators of human rights in Thailand, for which they enjoy complete impunity: a statement that the AHRC can back with voluminous documentation over many years of work on the situation of human rights in the country. The inclusion of the court administrator is also of concern given that the appointee's former boss was among those responsible for his appointment to the post, and given the numerous non-judicial roles across government that the judiciary holds under the 2007 Constitution. Neither of these appointees has any qualities or experience to lend himself to the role of human rights commissioner. On the contrary, both men are among those who clearly misunderstand the role and responsibilities of the commission and lack even basic understanding of human rights.
The AHRC has also raised special concern over the appointment of Parinya Sirisarakarn. Parinya is an industrialist who was himself named in a report of the former NHRC (No. 74/2550) as among businesspersons responsible for environmental degradation in the northeast. The naming of Parinya as a human rights violator in an official document of the former commission apparently was not sufficient an obstacle to his appointment to the post. Nor, it seems, were his outrageous comments to Senators prior to his election, including that if made a commissioner he would not necessarily welcome international intervention on human rights issues in Thailand because this might be intended to interfere in the country's internal affairs; he then illustrated the point by alleging that the Falun Gong is backed by the CIA to interfere on human rights issues in China. He added that other countries are also violating the rights of the military regime in Burma, with which he is demonstrated great sympathy, by using human rights discourse to isolate the country.
Finally, none of the seven persons are representatives of non-governmental organizations responsible for human rights, trade unions or concerned social and professional organizations, despite the fact that there were applicants from these backgrounds to the commission whose names were not selected.
The above is a brief outline of some of the most obvious departures from the Paris Principles in the selection and appointment of the new NHRC of Thailand. The AHRC has collected all of the publicly accessible documentation on the process and is able to amplify and provide further details on any of the facts presented upon request.
The AHRC takes note that pluralistic composition and independence are integral features of a national human rights institution for compliance with the Paris Principles. They are not optional. It recalls paragraph 8 of the Nairobi Declaration at the Ninth International Conference of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in 2008, that "the independence and autonomy of NHRIs, their pluralistic representation, as well as their interaction with a broad range of stakeholders, is necessary for their compliance with international standards and their effectiveness at the national, regional and international levels".
The AHRC further notes that in November 2008 the NHRC of Thailand had its "A" accreditation status renewed by the International Coordinating Committee (ICC) for compliance with the Paris Principles, entitling it to participate fully in United Nations forums as a national human rights institution.
In view of the selection and appointment process and composition of the new National Human Rights Commission of Thailand, the Asian Human Rights Commission hereby calls upon the ICC to review immediately Thailand's status and downgrade the NHRC to "C" status, non-compliant with the Paris Principles, until such a time as a new commission is selected and appointed that brings the NHRC back into agreement with international standards. We are confident that the ICC will be concerned to adhere scrupulously to the principles that it is assigned to uphold, lest the body itself and deserving A-accredited institutions cooperate with the human rights fraud that has now been perpetrated in Thailand by way of this illegitimate NHRC.
Finally, the AHRC wishes to add that the selection and appointment of this new National Human Rights Commission in a manner contrary to the very principles that the commission is supposed to represent speaks both to the utter disinterest in the work of Thailand's national human rights institution among people in the country's current administration as well as those in successive governments of recent times, and to the very low respect for and knowledge about human rights among the authorities there. Not only has the NHRC been relegated to a third-class institution of little relevance to the workings of the state, but also government agencies in Thailand continue to treat human rights as at best irrelevant and more often than not as obstacles to their work. The manner of selection and appointment of the new NHRC as well as its composition are indicators of the deep anti-human rights culture that pervades all official institutions in Thailand, now including, it would seem, the National Human Rights Commission itself.
Yours sincerely
Basil Fernando
Executive Director
Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong
Cc:1. Professor Kyong Whan Ahn, Vice-Chairperson, ICC of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
2. Dr. Heiner Bielefeldt, Chairperson, Sub-Committee on Accreditation, ICC of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
3. Ms. Katharina Rose, Interim Representative, ICC of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Geneva
4. Mr. Abhisist Vejjajiva, Prime Minister of Thailand
5. Ms. Margaret Sekaggaya, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders
6. Mr. Homayoun Alizadeh, Regional Representative, OHCHR, Bangkok
7. Mr. Kieren Fitzpatrick, Director, Secretariat, Asia-Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions
-----------------------------
Asian Human Rights Commission
19/F, Go-Up Commercial Building,998 Canton Road, Kowloon, Hongkong S.A.R.
Tel: +(852) - 2698-6339 Fax: +(852) - 2698-6367
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
วันจันทร์ที่ 4 พฤษภาคม พ.ศ. 2552
Thailand's new rights commission a joke?
AWZAR THI
Column: Rule of Lords,
UPI Asia Online HONG KONG, China, April 30, 2009
This week the Asian Human Rights Commission issued three open letters on the selection of candidates for the new National Human Rights Commission of Thailand. The regional body has warned that if the Senate goes ahead and accepts the seven current nominees then the commission may cease to meet international standards, causing it to lose its status before the United Nations.
The seven candidates have been thrust forward after a hurried selection process about which almost no one in Thailand knows anything. The process began only in March after a long delay. It is set to be completed Friday, when the country's upper house of military and bureaucratic yes-men will consider making the appointments.
While few people in Thailand know that new commissioners have been nominated, few of the nominees know about human rights.
Only one of the seven aspirants, Nirand Pithakwachara, formerly an elected senator under the repealed 1997 Constitution, has practical experience. Nirand has worked with environmental and citizens' groups on a variety of issues, and was on Senate committees that inquired into rights abuses prior to the 2006 military coup.
The other six include Police General Vanchai Srinuwalnad, who states that he has conducted various human rights training courses but does not indicate from where he has obtained his knowledge on the topic; Constitution Court Secretary Paibool Varahapaitoorn, who claims to have participated in the making of judgments favorable to human rights, even though his role is administrative, not judicial; and Taejing Siripanich, head of a group that does good work in discouraging drunken driving but which has little if any relevance to the job for which he is applying.
The worst of the lot is Parinya Sirisarakarn, an industrialist who was a part of the undemocratic assembly that drafted the regressive 2007 Constitution. Not only does he have nothing to suggest himself to the post of rights commissioner, he was himself named in a 2007 NHRC investigative report as responsible for causing environmental damage in the northeast, where he holds a license to extract salt.
The dirty facts about Parinya only came to light after his name was presented to the Senate. In the meantime, the six days given for comment on the nominees had passed, in which no attempt was made to inform the public about what was going on. Even an announcement that remarks could be left on the Senate website proved bogus: there was no online form provided until the afternoon of the last day before the cutoff date.
These facts also did not come to the notice of the selection committee because it did nothing to verify the details that each applicant gave it. Nor did it bother to interview them, instead just choosing them on the basis of the documents they had submitted. The committee itself seems to have met only briefly and conducted its business by some quick shows of hands. There are no details given in the report that it submitted to the Senate explaining why it chose these seven people over the 126 others who had put their names forward.
The former human rights commission, which has now stepped down to make way for the new nominees, could hardly be described as a success story. It was often out of step with the times as well as within itself, unable or unwilling to tackle the big issues. While the Thaksin Shinawatra regime launched its bloody "war on drugs," the NHRC campaigned on genetic papaya. When the army seized control of the government for the umpteenth time in 2006, its chairman tacitly supported the power grab. A commissioner who went to join protestors against the new junta was forced to resign.
But among its members were hardworking people with a demonstrated understanding of human rights and genuine commitment to their values. It was these individuals and those working with them in the agency's subcommittees who kept the commission going, against the odds and despite the vested interests stacked up against them.
The noticeable absence of such persons among the seven new nominees, bar one, places the future of the commission in serious doubt. If indeed these seven persons are passed through the Senate on Friday, the NHRC of Thailand will cease to be anything worthy of its name.
What all this goes to show is that the emphasis once put on the establishing of governmental human rights agencies in Asia was misplaced. The setting up of human rights commissions has done little if anything to address the region's immense and growing abuses of rights. In some countries, these agencies have been nothing more than cynical exercises in the manipulating of international donors. In others, they have been used to deflect criticism of abuses, rather than highlight them.
From Sri Lanka to South Korea, reactionary forces are now moving against the region's national rights bodies. Whether or not these institutions have the stamina to carry on with their work depends on the extent to which they can get public support and find suitable mandate-holders who will fight to make their voices heard.
Where the procedure for nominating and appointing commissioners is subverted and defeated and where public debate is denied, as in Thailand today, there is little hope for a future human rights commission. All that can realistically be expected is a human rights joke. Under these circumstances, people will have to look elsewhere for the ways and means to defend their common dignity and advance their shared interests.
(Thai-language documents related to the selecting of the new NHRC of Thailand used in the writing of this article are available at: http://nhrcthai.wordpress.com/).
--
(Awzar Thi is the pen name of a member of the Asian Human Rights Commission with over 15 years of experience as an advocate of human rights and the rule of law in Thailand and Burma. His Rule of Lords blog can be read at http://ratchasima.net)
http://www.upiasia.com/Human_Rights/2009/04/30/thailands_new_rights_commission_a_joke/3301/
-----------------------------
Asian Human Rights Commission
19/F, Go-Up Commercial Building,998 Canton Road,
Kowloon, Hongkong S.A.R.
Tel: +(852) - 2698-6339 Fax: +(852) - 2698-6367
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Column: Rule of Lords,
UPI Asia Online HONG KONG, China, April 30, 2009
This week the Asian Human Rights Commission issued three open letters on the selection of candidates for the new National Human Rights Commission of Thailand. The regional body has warned that if the Senate goes ahead and accepts the seven current nominees then the commission may cease to meet international standards, causing it to lose its status before the United Nations.
The seven candidates have been thrust forward after a hurried selection process about which almost no one in Thailand knows anything. The process began only in March after a long delay. It is set to be completed Friday, when the country's upper house of military and bureaucratic yes-men will consider making the appointments.
While few people in Thailand know that new commissioners have been nominated, few of the nominees know about human rights.
Only one of the seven aspirants, Nirand Pithakwachara, formerly an elected senator under the repealed 1997 Constitution, has practical experience. Nirand has worked with environmental and citizens' groups on a variety of issues, and was on Senate committees that inquired into rights abuses prior to the 2006 military coup.
The other six include Police General Vanchai Srinuwalnad, who states that he has conducted various human rights training courses but does not indicate from where he has obtained his knowledge on the topic; Constitution Court Secretary Paibool Varahapaitoorn, who claims to have participated in the making of judgments favorable to human rights, even though his role is administrative, not judicial; and Taejing Siripanich, head of a group that does good work in discouraging drunken driving but which has little if any relevance to the job for which he is applying.
The worst of the lot is Parinya Sirisarakarn, an industrialist who was a part of the undemocratic assembly that drafted the regressive 2007 Constitution. Not only does he have nothing to suggest himself to the post of rights commissioner, he was himself named in a 2007 NHRC investigative report as responsible for causing environmental damage in the northeast, where he holds a license to extract salt.
The dirty facts about Parinya only came to light after his name was presented to the Senate. In the meantime, the six days given for comment on the nominees had passed, in which no attempt was made to inform the public about what was going on. Even an announcement that remarks could be left on the Senate website proved bogus: there was no online form provided until the afternoon of the last day before the cutoff date.
These facts also did not come to the notice of the selection committee because it did nothing to verify the details that each applicant gave it. Nor did it bother to interview them, instead just choosing them on the basis of the documents they had submitted. The committee itself seems to have met only briefly and conducted its business by some quick shows of hands. There are no details given in the report that it submitted to the Senate explaining why it chose these seven people over the 126 others who had put their names forward.
The former human rights commission, which has now stepped down to make way for the new nominees, could hardly be described as a success story. It was often out of step with the times as well as within itself, unable or unwilling to tackle the big issues. While the Thaksin Shinawatra regime launched its bloody "war on drugs," the NHRC campaigned on genetic papaya. When the army seized control of the government for the umpteenth time in 2006, its chairman tacitly supported the power grab. A commissioner who went to join protestors against the new junta was forced to resign.
But among its members were hardworking people with a demonstrated understanding of human rights and genuine commitment to their values. It was these individuals and those working with them in the agency's subcommittees who kept the commission going, against the odds and despite the vested interests stacked up against them.
The noticeable absence of such persons among the seven new nominees, bar one, places the future of the commission in serious doubt. If indeed these seven persons are passed through the Senate on Friday, the NHRC of Thailand will cease to be anything worthy of its name.
What all this goes to show is that the emphasis once put on the establishing of governmental human rights agencies in Asia was misplaced. The setting up of human rights commissions has done little if anything to address the region's immense and growing abuses of rights. In some countries, these agencies have been nothing more than cynical exercises in the manipulating of international donors. In others, they have been used to deflect criticism of abuses, rather than highlight them.
From Sri Lanka to South Korea, reactionary forces are now moving against the region's national rights bodies. Whether or not these institutions have the stamina to carry on with their work depends on the extent to which they can get public support and find suitable mandate-holders who will fight to make their voices heard.
Where the procedure for nominating and appointing commissioners is subverted and defeated and where public debate is denied, as in Thailand today, there is little hope for a future human rights commission. All that can realistically be expected is a human rights joke. Under these circumstances, people will have to look elsewhere for the ways and means to defend their common dignity and advance their shared interests.
(Thai-language documents related to the selecting of the new NHRC of Thailand used in the writing of this article are available at: http://nhrcthai.wordpress.com/).
--
(Awzar Thi is the pen name of a member of the Asian Human Rights Commission with over 15 years of experience as an advocate of human rights and the rule of law in Thailand and Burma. His Rule of Lords blog can be read at http://ratchasima.net)
http://www.upiasia.com/Human_Rights/2009/04/30/thailands_new_rights_commission_a_joke/3301/
-----------------------------
Asian Human Rights Commission
19/F, Go-Up Commercial Building,998 Canton Road,
Kowloon, Hongkong S.A.R.
Tel: +(852) - 2698-6339 Fax: +(852) - 2698-6367
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
THAILAND: To support human rights, NHRC should resign
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AHRC-STM-093-2009 May 4, 2009
A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission
THAILAND: To support human rights, NHRC should resign
Last Friday, May 1, the appointee Senate of Thailand elected seven new persons as the country's National Human Rights Commission. They are, Police General Vanchai Srinuwalnad, assistant commissioner general of the Royal Thai Police; Mr. Parinya Sirisarakarn, former member of the Constitution Drafting Assembly of Thailand (2007); Mr. Paibool Varahapaitoorn, secretary to the Office of the Constitution Court; Ms. Visa Penjamano, ministerial inspector, Ministry of Social Development and Human Security; Mr. Taejing Siripanich, secretary, Don't Drive Drunk Foundation; Mr. Nirand Pithakwachara, former elected senator for Ubol Ratchathani; and, Professor Amara Pongsapich, former dean, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.
In a series of open letters (AHRC-OLT-012-2009; AHRC-OLT-013-2009; AHRC-OLT-015-2009), the Asian Human Rights Commission already urged the Senate to postpone the process of selection to allow for public participation and debate on the appropriateness or otherwise of the seven candidates. Unfortunately, the Senate proceeded with its vote and chose to accept all seven nominees, despite the fact that the majority of them have no conception of human rights, the alleged rights violations of one of the seven, and the undemocratic and non-transparent process that lead to their nominations.
If any of the seven appointees genuinely understands and supports the human rights principles that their commission is supposed to represent then they should now resign. The reason is that their commission stands in violation of both domestic and international human rights standards. It is not pluralist, and it was not selected in accordance with the procedure laid out in the Paris Principles on National Human Rights Institutions. It is doubtful that it even meets the standards of the undemocratic 2007 Constitution of Thailand, or the act governing the commission. As a consequence of this double-failure, the credibility of the NHRC at home is already at an all-time low, and internationally Thailand now seriously risks losing its status in United Nations' forums on human rights.
The Asian Human Rights Commission wishes to make explicit that the appointment of this commission and the manner in which it was appointed is a slap in the face of human rights defenders in Thailand and across Asia. It is a statement of the contempt with which human rights are held among the authorities there. It is laughable that while the government of Thailand has been hosting a "human rights caravan" to travel around the country informing citizens of generic universal rights, it has allowed the appointment to the NHRC of the likes of Parinya Sirisarakarn, a man whose views on human rights, in as much as he has any at all, resemble those of Burma's military regime than those of a nascent human rights commissioner.
Whereas the AHRC had cordial relations with commissioners and staff of the former NHRC, it deems the new body a non-human rights organization and has no option other than to ostracize it in the global human rights community. It again urges any among the seven commissioners who does not wish to participate in a human rights charade to resign immediately, out of respect for the principles that they are supposed to represent. It would also encourage any person resigning to again stand for the post when arrangements are made for election to the commission in a manner that permits widespread public awareness and debate, and complies with international standards.
# # # About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.
-----------------------------Asian Human Rights Commission19/F, Go-Up Commercial Building,998 Canton Road, Kowloon, Hongkong S.A.R.Tel: +(852) - 2698-6339 Fax: +(852) - 2698-6367Please consider the environment before printing this email.
AHRC-STM-093-2009 May 4, 2009
A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission
THAILAND: To support human rights, NHRC should resign
Last Friday, May 1, the appointee Senate of Thailand elected seven new persons as the country's National Human Rights Commission. They are, Police General Vanchai Srinuwalnad, assistant commissioner general of the Royal Thai Police; Mr. Parinya Sirisarakarn, former member of the Constitution Drafting Assembly of Thailand (2007); Mr. Paibool Varahapaitoorn, secretary to the Office of the Constitution Court; Ms. Visa Penjamano, ministerial inspector, Ministry of Social Development and Human Security; Mr. Taejing Siripanich, secretary, Don't Drive Drunk Foundation; Mr. Nirand Pithakwachara, former elected senator for Ubol Ratchathani; and, Professor Amara Pongsapich, former dean, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.
In a series of open letters (AHRC-OLT-012-2009; AHRC-OLT-013-2009; AHRC-OLT-015-2009), the Asian Human Rights Commission already urged the Senate to postpone the process of selection to allow for public participation and debate on the appropriateness or otherwise of the seven candidates. Unfortunately, the Senate proceeded with its vote and chose to accept all seven nominees, despite the fact that the majority of them have no conception of human rights, the alleged rights violations of one of the seven, and the undemocratic and non-transparent process that lead to their nominations.
If any of the seven appointees genuinely understands and supports the human rights principles that their commission is supposed to represent then they should now resign. The reason is that their commission stands in violation of both domestic and international human rights standards. It is not pluralist, and it was not selected in accordance with the procedure laid out in the Paris Principles on National Human Rights Institutions. It is doubtful that it even meets the standards of the undemocratic 2007 Constitution of Thailand, or the act governing the commission. As a consequence of this double-failure, the credibility of the NHRC at home is already at an all-time low, and internationally Thailand now seriously risks losing its status in United Nations' forums on human rights.
The Asian Human Rights Commission wishes to make explicit that the appointment of this commission and the manner in which it was appointed is a slap in the face of human rights defenders in Thailand and across Asia. It is a statement of the contempt with which human rights are held among the authorities there. It is laughable that while the government of Thailand has been hosting a "human rights caravan" to travel around the country informing citizens of generic universal rights, it has allowed the appointment to the NHRC of the likes of Parinya Sirisarakarn, a man whose views on human rights, in as much as he has any at all, resemble those of Burma's military regime than those of a nascent human rights commissioner.
Whereas the AHRC had cordial relations with commissioners and staff of the former NHRC, it deems the new body a non-human rights organization and has no option other than to ostracize it in the global human rights community. It again urges any among the seven commissioners who does not wish to participate in a human rights charade to resign immediately, out of respect for the principles that they are supposed to represent. It would also encourage any person resigning to again stand for the post when arrangements are made for election to the commission in a manner that permits widespread public awareness and debate, and complies with international standards.
# # # About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.
-----------------------------Asian Human Rights Commission19/F, Go-Up Commercial Building,998 Canton Road, Kowloon, Hongkong S.A.R.Tel: +(852) - 2698-6339 Fax: +(852) - 2698-6367Please consider the environment before printing this email.
วันอาทิตย์ที่ 26 เมษายน พ.ศ. 2552
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 25, 2009
AHRC-OLT-007-2009
An Open Letter to the Senate of Thailand by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
Theerajit Sathirotamawong
Chairperson Senate Committee to assess NHRC nominees
Office of the Senate Secretariat
499 Sukpraprueit Building Prachachuein Road Bangsue, Bangkok 10800 THAILAND Fax: +662 831 9211
Dear Mr. Theerajit
THAILAND:
Senate must give more time for debate on new NHRC
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is writing to you out of concern that the selection process for a new National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of Thailand is being rushed through in a highly undemocratic manner, without any public consultation or accountability and contrary to the basic principles that the NHRC is supposed to represent. We urge you to delay the selection process to allow more time for discussion and debate, or risk violating international standards on National Human Rights Institutions, which may affect the NHRC’s official status in global forums not to mention undermine its credibility in the eyes of the general public of Thailand.
By way of background, the AHRC is aware that even though the terms of the former NHRC commissioners expired in 2007, as there was at that time an interim military-installed government operating under a temporary constitution, they stayed on in their positions under the terms of the law governing the commission's work. However, after the Constitution of Thailand BE 2550 (2007) came into effect, in October 2007 two persons approached the Administrative Court to have new commissioners elected under the altered terms of the new charter. In a ruling prepared on 12 December 2008 that was read on 30 January 2009, the Supreme Administrative Court held that the former commissioners should vacate their seats and that it was not necessary to delay appointment of new commissioners until a new NHRC law was prepared by parliament.
Accordingly, on 11 March 2009 the NHRC secretary invited applications for new commissioners, giving a period of one week for applications, from March 14 to 20. Applications had to be submitted in person at the NHRC office in Bangkok. The office received 133 applications. The Selection Committee, consisting of the presidents of the three top courts, two persons chosen by two assemblies of judges, and the president of the lower house of parliament met to consider the applications on April 8. The seventh member of the committee, from the political opposition, was not involved apparently due to the political uncertainty gripping Thailand.
On April 10 the committee sent the names and documents of its seven nominees to the Senate for consideration and approval. The seven are: Police General Vanchai Srinuwalnad, assistant commissioner general of the Royal Thai Police; Mr. Parinya Sirisarakarn, former member of the Constitution Drafting Assembly of Thailand (2007); Mr. Paibool Varahapaitoorn, secretary to the Office of the Constitution Court; Ms. Visa Penjamano, ministerial inspector, Ministry of Social Development and Human Security; Mr. Taejing Siripanich, secretary, Don’t Drive Drunk Foundation; Mr. Nirand Pithakwachara, former elected senator for Ubol Ratchathani; and, Professor Amara Pongsapich, former dean, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.
On April 20 the Senate established a committee to review the nominees and the following day it announced that it would give until April 27 for public comment on the seven, that is, until this coming Monday.
The AHRC would like to point to just a few of the most obvious problems with the selection process so far:
1. Inadequate time for candidates to come forward and for public debate:
From mid-2007 to March 2009 there was no action on the selection of new commissioners. Then a period of only one week was given for applicants to present themselves at the office in Bangkok and submit forms and supporting documents for candidacy. After that, this second period of only one week, announced on the second day of the week, from April 21 to 27, was given for members of the public to make comments via a post office box at the Senate.
2. No attempt to encourage public debate or awareness:
The announcements for candidates and for comment on nominees have been made through official websites and government channels. There have been no attempts, to the knowledge of the AHRC, to inform the general public about the process or encourage debate on commissioners, either through television, radio or print media. No fax numbers have been provided for prompt submission of comments in the week provided. Nor has an attempt been made to use the Internet so that people can make comments easily. Although public submissions were invited via the Senate website, when the AHRC visited the website we could not find any dedicated page or form for the submitting of comments.
3. Selection process itself patently flawed:
The Selection Committee chose the seven nominees based solely upon the written forms and supporting documents that they submitted. Unlike the nominees to the previous commission, they were not interviewed and nor were they required to give a speech to the Senate before approval. It is hard to see how the committee could make informed decisions about these candidates without even meeting with them. This is of special concern given the undemocratic composition of the new Selection Committee, itself comprising of judges, judge appointees, and one representative of the incumbent party in government, by contrast to the body that selected the former commission under the terms of the Constitution of Thailand BE 2540 (1997), which included representatives of civil society, the media and other sectors.
It is in these respects that the AHRC is concerned that the selection process as it stands at present may result in the election of an NHRC that violates both the 2007 Constitution as well as the Paris Principles on National Human Rights Institutions.
With regards to the first, under section 256 of the 2007 Constitution the NHRC should comprise of persons "having apparent knowledge and experiences in the protection of rights and liberties of the people, having regard also to the participation of representatives from private organisations in the field of human rights". However, the selection process in 2009 has resulted in a body of seven candidates with little manifest knowledge and experience in the protection of human rights, among whom none are representatives of private organisations in the human rights field. This is despite the fact that there were applicants for the position from such organisations and others with very considerable knowledge and experience who were not selected.
With regards to the second issue, section 1 of the Principles Relating to the Status of National Institutions on human rights (The Paris Principles) (adopted United Nations General Assembly resolution 48/134 of 20 December 1993) on composition states that,
"The composition of the national institution and the appointment of its members, whether by means of an election or otherwise, shall be established in accordance with a procedure which affords all necessary guarantees to ensure the pluralist representation of the social forces (of civilian society) involved in the protection and promotion of human rights, particularly by powers which will enable effective cooperation to be established with, or through the presence of, representatives of: (a) Non-governmental organizations responsible for human rights and efforts to combat racial discrimination, trade unions, concerned social and professional organizations, for example, associations of lawyers, doctors, journalists and eminent scientists..."
However, the selection process for the NHRC of Thailand in 2009 has been marked by an absence of procedures to afford necessary guarantees to ensure pluralist representation of the sort envisaged in the Paris Principles. Nor do the seven nominees include among them anyone from a non-governmental organization responsible for human rights, trade unionists or others from a diverse range of social backgrounds, which is manifestly a consequence of the manner in which they have been chosen.
Furthermore, the AHRC notes that under section 1(e) on the composition of an institution under the Paris Principles, it is explicitly stated that members of government departments, if included in the NHRC "should participate in the deliberations only in an advisory capacity". However, three of the seven nominees for the commissioners' posts are in fact serving in other parts of government (the police, judicial administration and a ministry). Their candidacy, if approved, would appear to violate this section.
At present the NHRC of Thailand holds full accreditation status with the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights; however, that status is subject to review, and if it is found that the country has not complied with international standards in the selection and composition of the NHRC it may be downgraded and lose its rights and privileges in international forums. This happened to the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka after that country's president failed to comply with the correct procedure in appointing new commissioners. The Senate of Thailand too should take that as a warning of what may follow if it is too hasty in its appointment of the seven nominees, without regard to the international standards to which the NHRC is expected to comply if it wishes to be treated seriously in forums on human rights abroad.
In light of the above, the Asian Human Rights Commission urges the Senate Committee for assessment of the new National Human Rights Commission of Thailand and the Senate as a whole to postpone the appointment process of the new commissioners to allow more time for public debate on the seven nominees. The debate should be accompanied with wide publicity to invite public comment through as many means as possible, including online and by fax. The Senate itself, when reviewing the nominees and considering whether to accept or reject them, should take into account not only the personal qualities and backgrounds of the candidates but also the process of selection and consider whether or not it is possible for appropriate commissioners to be identified without so much as an interview.
At a time of intense debate and conflict in Thailand over the country's future, the role of the NHRC should be one of special importance. If suitable persons are selected to serve as commissioners they could contribute towards bringing Thailand into a new and more progressive and prosperous future. If not, the commission will be rightly dismissed as a sham and a failure, not only among people in Thailand but also in the global community. More time is needed to make the right decisions and chart the course between these two alternatives.
Yours sincerely
Basil Fernando
Executive Director
Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong
Cc: 1. Mr. Abhisist Vejjajiva, Prime Minister of Thailand
2. Mr. Prasobsuk Boondech, President, Senate of Thailand
3. Ms. Jennifer Lynch, Chairperson,
International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
4. Ms. Margaret Sekaggaya, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders
5. Mr. Homayoun Alizadeh, Regional Representative, OHCHR, Bangkok
-----------------------------
Asian Human Rights Commission
19/F, Go-Up Commercial Building,
998 Canton Road, Kowloon, Hongkong S.A.R.
Tel: +(852) - 2698-6339 Fax: +(852) - 2698-6367
AHRC-OLT-007-2009
An Open Letter to the Senate of Thailand by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
Theerajit Sathirotamawong
Chairperson Senate Committee to assess NHRC nominees
Office of the Senate Secretariat
499 Sukpraprueit Building Prachachuein Road Bangsue, Bangkok 10800 THAILAND Fax: +662 831 9211
Dear Mr. Theerajit
THAILAND:
Senate must give more time for debate on new NHRC
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is writing to you out of concern that the selection process for a new National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of Thailand is being rushed through in a highly undemocratic manner, without any public consultation or accountability and contrary to the basic principles that the NHRC is supposed to represent. We urge you to delay the selection process to allow more time for discussion and debate, or risk violating international standards on National Human Rights Institutions, which may affect the NHRC’s official status in global forums not to mention undermine its credibility in the eyes of the general public of Thailand.
By way of background, the AHRC is aware that even though the terms of the former NHRC commissioners expired in 2007, as there was at that time an interim military-installed government operating under a temporary constitution, they stayed on in their positions under the terms of the law governing the commission's work. However, after the Constitution of Thailand BE 2550 (2007) came into effect, in October 2007 two persons approached the Administrative Court to have new commissioners elected under the altered terms of the new charter. In a ruling prepared on 12 December 2008 that was read on 30 January 2009, the Supreme Administrative Court held that the former commissioners should vacate their seats and that it was not necessary to delay appointment of new commissioners until a new NHRC law was prepared by parliament.
Accordingly, on 11 March 2009 the NHRC secretary invited applications for new commissioners, giving a period of one week for applications, from March 14 to 20. Applications had to be submitted in person at the NHRC office in Bangkok. The office received 133 applications. The Selection Committee, consisting of the presidents of the three top courts, two persons chosen by two assemblies of judges, and the president of the lower house of parliament met to consider the applications on April 8. The seventh member of the committee, from the political opposition, was not involved apparently due to the political uncertainty gripping Thailand.
On April 10 the committee sent the names and documents of its seven nominees to the Senate for consideration and approval. The seven are: Police General Vanchai Srinuwalnad, assistant commissioner general of the Royal Thai Police; Mr. Parinya Sirisarakarn, former member of the Constitution Drafting Assembly of Thailand (2007); Mr. Paibool Varahapaitoorn, secretary to the Office of the Constitution Court; Ms. Visa Penjamano, ministerial inspector, Ministry of Social Development and Human Security; Mr. Taejing Siripanich, secretary, Don’t Drive Drunk Foundation; Mr. Nirand Pithakwachara, former elected senator for Ubol Ratchathani; and, Professor Amara Pongsapich, former dean, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.
On April 20 the Senate established a committee to review the nominees and the following day it announced that it would give until April 27 for public comment on the seven, that is, until this coming Monday.
The AHRC would like to point to just a few of the most obvious problems with the selection process so far:
1. Inadequate time for candidates to come forward and for public debate:
From mid-2007 to March 2009 there was no action on the selection of new commissioners. Then a period of only one week was given for applicants to present themselves at the office in Bangkok and submit forms and supporting documents for candidacy. After that, this second period of only one week, announced on the second day of the week, from April 21 to 27, was given for members of the public to make comments via a post office box at the Senate.
2. No attempt to encourage public debate or awareness:
The announcements for candidates and for comment on nominees have been made through official websites and government channels. There have been no attempts, to the knowledge of the AHRC, to inform the general public about the process or encourage debate on commissioners, either through television, radio or print media. No fax numbers have been provided for prompt submission of comments in the week provided. Nor has an attempt been made to use the Internet so that people can make comments easily. Although public submissions were invited via the Senate website, when the AHRC visited the website we could not find any dedicated page or form for the submitting of comments.
3. Selection process itself patently flawed:
The Selection Committee chose the seven nominees based solely upon the written forms and supporting documents that they submitted. Unlike the nominees to the previous commission, they were not interviewed and nor were they required to give a speech to the Senate before approval. It is hard to see how the committee could make informed decisions about these candidates without even meeting with them. This is of special concern given the undemocratic composition of the new Selection Committee, itself comprising of judges, judge appointees, and one representative of the incumbent party in government, by contrast to the body that selected the former commission under the terms of the Constitution of Thailand BE 2540 (1997), which included representatives of civil society, the media and other sectors.
It is in these respects that the AHRC is concerned that the selection process as it stands at present may result in the election of an NHRC that violates both the 2007 Constitution as well as the Paris Principles on National Human Rights Institutions.
With regards to the first, under section 256 of the 2007 Constitution the NHRC should comprise of persons "having apparent knowledge and experiences in the protection of rights and liberties of the people, having regard also to the participation of representatives from private organisations in the field of human rights". However, the selection process in 2009 has resulted in a body of seven candidates with little manifest knowledge and experience in the protection of human rights, among whom none are representatives of private organisations in the human rights field. This is despite the fact that there were applicants for the position from such organisations and others with very considerable knowledge and experience who were not selected.
With regards to the second issue, section 1 of the Principles Relating to the Status of National Institutions on human rights (The Paris Principles) (adopted United Nations General Assembly resolution 48/134 of 20 December 1993) on composition states that,
"The composition of the national institution and the appointment of its members, whether by means of an election or otherwise, shall be established in accordance with a procedure which affords all necessary guarantees to ensure the pluralist representation of the social forces (of civilian society) involved in the protection and promotion of human rights, particularly by powers which will enable effective cooperation to be established with, or through the presence of, representatives of: (a) Non-governmental organizations responsible for human rights and efforts to combat racial discrimination, trade unions, concerned social and professional organizations, for example, associations of lawyers, doctors, journalists and eminent scientists..."
However, the selection process for the NHRC of Thailand in 2009 has been marked by an absence of procedures to afford necessary guarantees to ensure pluralist representation of the sort envisaged in the Paris Principles. Nor do the seven nominees include among them anyone from a non-governmental organization responsible for human rights, trade unionists or others from a diverse range of social backgrounds, which is manifestly a consequence of the manner in which they have been chosen.
Furthermore, the AHRC notes that under section 1(e) on the composition of an institution under the Paris Principles, it is explicitly stated that members of government departments, if included in the NHRC "should participate in the deliberations only in an advisory capacity". However, three of the seven nominees for the commissioners' posts are in fact serving in other parts of government (the police, judicial administration and a ministry). Their candidacy, if approved, would appear to violate this section.
At present the NHRC of Thailand holds full accreditation status with the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights; however, that status is subject to review, and if it is found that the country has not complied with international standards in the selection and composition of the NHRC it may be downgraded and lose its rights and privileges in international forums. This happened to the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka after that country's president failed to comply with the correct procedure in appointing new commissioners. The Senate of Thailand too should take that as a warning of what may follow if it is too hasty in its appointment of the seven nominees, without regard to the international standards to which the NHRC is expected to comply if it wishes to be treated seriously in forums on human rights abroad.
In light of the above, the Asian Human Rights Commission urges the Senate Committee for assessment of the new National Human Rights Commission of Thailand and the Senate as a whole to postpone the appointment process of the new commissioners to allow more time for public debate on the seven nominees. The debate should be accompanied with wide publicity to invite public comment through as many means as possible, including online and by fax. The Senate itself, when reviewing the nominees and considering whether to accept or reject them, should take into account not only the personal qualities and backgrounds of the candidates but also the process of selection and consider whether or not it is possible for appropriate commissioners to be identified without so much as an interview.
At a time of intense debate and conflict in Thailand over the country's future, the role of the NHRC should be one of special importance. If suitable persons are selected to serve as commissioners they could contribute towards bringing Thailand into a new and more progressive and prosperous future. If not, the commission will be rightly dismissed as a sham and a failure, not only among people in Thailand but also in the global community. More time is needed to make the right decisions and chart the course between these two alternatives.
Yours sincerely
Basil Fernando
Executive Director
Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong
Cc: 1. Mr. Abhisist Vejjajiva, Prime Minister of Thailand
2. Mr. Prasobsuk Boondech, President, Senate of Thailand
3. Ms. Jennifer Lynch, Chairperson,
International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
4. Ms. Margaret Sekaggaya, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders
5. Mr. Homayoun Alizadeh, Regional Representative, OHCHR, Bangkok
-----------------------------
Asian Human Rights Commission
19/F, Go-Up Commercial Building,
998 Canton Road, Kowloon, Hongkong S.A.R.
Tel: +(852) - 2698-6339 Fax: +(852) - 2698-6367
วันเสาร์ที่ 25 เมษายน พ.ศ. 2552
Letterfrom Thai senior civilian to UN
April 25 th , 2009
Mr. Ban Ki-moon
Secretary-General
UN Headquarters
1 st Avenue at 46th Street ,N.Y.C.,New York,U.S.A. 10017
Dear Sir:
We urge you to consider to take back the sovereignty to our Thai world citizen. Since June 24 th, 1932(B.E.2475) King Rama 7 handled a sovereignty to all the whole Thai people, our country has been governed from absolute monarchy regime to be a constitution monarchy regime. But it has never reached a mature democracy as your personal native country (South Korea) even though it has been getting lesser democracy than constitution monarchy. Right now our Thai movement and peaceful unarmed demonstrations spread throughout the whole country to take back our latest almost democratic constitution1997 (B.E.2540)which was robbed by a small group of bad armed soldiers on September 19 th,2006 and P.M.Thaksin Shinawat was ousted illegally abroad.
The valid P.M.Thaksin Shinawat did not decide to claim for our government and did not settle up abroad government because he probable concerned the present constitution monarchy regime. But it has been worse that the surrounded high rank soldiers ,juries including the person that we call a blind hand outside constitution have involved and sunk down the human right ,just for protection of their interests.
Today they are going to be a huge blood casualty all over the country.Do Mr. Secretary- General want to let Thailand ,your U.N. member , to reach a mature democracy as other developed human right countries and your native country as well? There will be less chance in resolving the critical crisis of democracy in Thailand, please act right now to put U.N. pressures as follows,
1/ to this fraud-u-lent government of P.M.Aphisit Vejchacheewa (not address a government policy at the congress house office) to declare to use the valid constitution 1997 and push the congress to evolve the new code to be a direct election for a prime minister in one step along the whole accepted power of legislative part of sovereignty in democracy.
2/ for U.N. to manage and operate in voting of such new election along no.1 or as U.N. did recently for a direct democracy election in Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste .Right now the whole world is already global for democracy, we do not accept any government which is derived from the Coup d’ etat of bad armed soldiers as this fraud-u-lent government .
Sincerely yours,
Dr.Chow Arromdee,M.D.
On behalf of senior officials and civilians ally for sovereignty to our children
Mr. Ban Ki-moon
Secretary-General
UN Headquarters
1 st Avenue at 46th Street ,N.Y.C.,New York,U.S.A. 10017
Dear Sir:
We urge you to consider to take back the sovereignty to our Thai world citizen. Since June 24 th, 1932(B.E.2475) King Rama 7 handled a sovereignty to all the whole Thai people, our country has been governed from absolute monarchy regime to be a constitution monarchy regime. But it has never reached a mature democracy as your personal native country (South Korea) even though it has been getting lesser democracy than constitution monarchy. Right now our Thai movement and peaceful unarmed demonstrations spread throughout the whole country to take back our latest almost democratic constitution1997 (B.E.2540)which was robbed by a small group of bad armed soldiers on September 19 th,2006 and P.M.Thaksin Shinawat was ousted illegally abroad.
The valid P.M.Thaksin Shinawat did not decide to claim for our government and did not settle up abroad government because he probable concerned the present constitution monarchy regime. But it has been worse that the surrounded high rank soldiers ,juries including the person that we call a blind hand outside constitution have involved and sunk down the human right ,just for protection of their interests.
Today they are going to be a huge blood casualty all over the country.Do Mr. Secretary- General want to let Thailand ,your U.N. member , to reach a mature democracy as other developed human right countries and your native country as well? There will be less chance in resolving the critical crisis of democracy in Thailand, please act right now to put U.N. pressures as follows,
1/ to this fraud-u-lent government of P.M.Aphisit Vejchacheewa (not address a government policy at the congress house office) to declare to use the valid constitution 1997 and push the congress to evolve the new code to be a direct election for a prime minister in one step along the whole accepted power of legislative part of sovereignty in democracy.
2/ for U.N. to manage and operate in voting of such new election along no.1 or as U.N. did recently for a direct democracy election in Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste .Right now the whole world is already global for democracy, we do not accept any government which is derived from the Coup d’ etat of bad armed soldiers as this fraud-u-lent government .
Sincerely yours,
Dr.Chow Arromdee,M.D.
On behalf of senior officials and civilians ally for sovereignty to our children
วันศุกร์ที่ 24 เมษายน พ.ศ. 2552
Thai courts' use of legal double standards encourages
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Thai courts' use of legal double standards encourages extralegal means by opposition
7:26 AM ET
Awzar Thi
[Member, Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong]:
"At a meeting of lawyers and jurists in Hong Kong this week a participant from Thailand identified the key issue for her country's legal system as political control of the judiciary. Her statement was remarkable not because it revealed something that other participants didn't already know, but because just a few years ago few professionals from Thailand willingly admitted that their laws and courts operate according to double standards. Now, few can deny it.
The double standards have been all too apparent this month. Following protests that forced leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and partner countries to flee from a summit venue in Pattaya, the incumbent prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, imposed a state of emergency as blockades and violence spread in Bangkok. The army deployed. A court promptly issued arrest warrants for the red-shirted demonstrators' leaders. Some were quickly rounded up and detained, while others went into hiding.
By contrast, the yellow shirts that took over Government House and two international airports for an extended period last year were allowed to stay put until the government was forced out through a court ruling on a narrow question under the army-imposed 2007 Constitution. No soldiers came to eject them. The legal process took weeks to move against the organizers. When the new prime minister was questioned on the authorities' inactivity he disingenuously said that it was a matter for the police, not him. The criminal inquiries have been repeatedly postponed and at no time have the yellow shirts' leaders been held in custody. One of them, businessman Sondhi Limthongkul, last week survived a shooting attack on his car.
Although the ousted Thaksin Shinawatra regime undermined the work of the upper courts, it was the 2006 military coup that brought them back firmly and openly under executive control. The coup leaders shut down a senior court, appointed a tribunal in its stead, had it go after the former premier, declared themselves immune from prosecution and proclaimed all their orders lawful. After voters re-elected Thaksin allies to the lower house of parliament (top judges are now responsible for the upper), it took two absurd legal cases against successive prime ministers for the coup-makers to finally get a government after their own heart, rather than one that the electorate wanted. The judges responsible for the verdicts included men who owed their jobs to the generals.
The double legal standards in the handling of rival political camps have done nothing to diminish the likelihood of further bloodshed and uncertainty in the near future. On the contrary, the obvious differences in how the yellow shirts and red shirts have been treated will only encourage government opponents to resort to increasingly extralegal means to get their way. Both sides and their backers have the aptitude and means for violence. Thanks to the politicizing of Thailand's courts, now they have more appetite for it too."
Opinions expressed in JURIST's Hotline are the sole responsibility of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, or the University of Pittsburgh.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2009/04/thai-courts-use-of-legal-double.php
Thai courts' use of legal double standards encourages extralegal means by opposition
7:26 AM ET
Awzar Thi
[Member, Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong]:
"At a meeting of lawyers and jurists in Hong Kong this week a participant from Thailand identified the key issue for her country's legal system as political control of the judiciary. Her statement was remarkable not because it revealed something that other participants didn't already know, but because just a few years ago few professionals from Thailand willingly admitted that their laws and courts operate according to double standards. Now, few can deny it.
The double standards have been all too apparent this month. Following protests that forced leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and partner countries to flee from a summit venue in Pattaya, the incumbent prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, imposed a state of emergency as blockades and violence spread in Bangkok. The army deployed. A court promptly issued arrest warrants for the red-shirted demonstrators' leaders. Some were quickly rounded up and detained, while others went into hiding.
By contrast, the yellow shirts that took over Government House and two international airports for an extended period last year were allowed to stay put until the government was forced out through a court ruling on a narrow question under the army-imposed 2007 Constitution. No soldiers came to eject them. The legal process took weeks to move against the organizers. When the new prime minister was questioned on the authorities' inactivity he disingenuously said that it was a matter for the police, not him. The criminal inquiries have been repeatedly postponed and at no time have the yellow shirts' leaders been held in custody. One of them, businessman Sondhi Limthongkul, last week survived a shooting attack on his car.
Although the ousted Thaksin Shinawatra regime undermined the work of the upper courts, it was the 2006 military coup that brought them back firmly and openly under executive control. The coup leaders shut down a senior court, appointed a tribunal in its stead, had it go after the former premier, declared themselves immune from prosecution and proclaimed all their orders lawful. After voters re-elected Thaksin allies to the lower house of parliament (top judges are now responsible for the upper), it took two absurd legal cases against successive prime ministers for the coup-makers to finally get a government after their own heart, rather than one that the electorate wanted. The judges responsible for the verdicts included men who owed their jobs to the generals.
The double legal standards in the handling of rival political camps have done nothing to diminish the likelihood of further bloodshed and uncertainty in the near future. On the contrary, the obvious differences in how the yellow shirts and red shirts have been treated will only encourage government opponents to resort to increasingly extralegal means to get their way. Both sides and their backers have the aptitude and means for violence. Thanks to the politicizing of Thailand's courts, now they have more appetite for it too."
Opinions expressed in JURIST's Hotline are the sole responsibility of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, or the University of Pittsburgh.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2009/04/thai-courts-use-of-legal-double.php
วันอังคารที่ 21 เมษายน พ.ศ. 2552
A Letter from UDD to the United Nations' General Secretary
National United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD)
Kingdom of Thailand
20th April 2009
Mr. Ban Ki-moonSecretary-General
UN Headquarters First Avenue at 46th Street New York, NY 10017
United States of America
Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
We are writing to solemnly beg you to condemn the Government of Mr. Abhisit Vejjajiva, the present government of Thailand, for its recent brutal crackdown on unarmed civilian demonstrators peacefully seeking a true democracy under a constitutional monarchy.
On the 14th of April, Mr. Abhisit announced an Emergency Decree so that he could use military force to crush a gathering of unarmed civilians clad in red shirts known as the National United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) or as the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD). Hundreds of red shirts where killed and many others severely injured. This barbaric act inflicted by the current Thai Government on its own people was totally blocked from the eyes of the domestic and international public. This deception was possible because the Government cut off all types of communication signals and gateways, especially those used among the red shirts.
Nonetheless, many horrific and brutal acts were captured by the cameras of individual participants of the demonstration. Moreover, we trust that you may have seen some of the barbarous acts recorded by the major international networks, namely CNN and the BBC among others. We, the red shirts, are not violent and the cause that hundreds of thousands of us are peacefully pursuing is the restoration of a true democracy based on parliamentary elections.
Alas, our worthy cause and our employment of civil and political freedoms as guaranteed by the Constitution of Thailand, the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, all of which Thailand as a member of the United Nations has signed and ratified, were met by heavy military force by the order of the unelected and military-appointed Abhisit Government.
Factually, what we want to emphasize is as follows:
We, the red shirts from all walks of life are peace-loving and law-abiding. On many occasions since late 2008 we have gathered in great numbers to voice our sincere demand for the restoration of true democracy in Thailand. We have come unarmed and these gatherings have all been completely free of violence. The violence in Pattaya, where the recent ASEAN Summit Plus 6 Meeting was held and the subsequent Fourth East Asian Summit was to be held, and in Bangkok on the 14th of April, was instigated by an outside group some of whom were disguised in red and navy blue shirts and whom we believe to be affiliated with the Abhisit Government. Mr. Newin Chidchob, a key supporter of the current Government, commanded the actual attack against the unarmed red shirts wearing a navy blue shirt. The red shirts were there only to express before our fellow ASEAN Members and the other six countries our objection to the Abhisit Government. The violent situation was fabricated in order to put blame on the red shirts in order to justify the announcement of the first Emergency Decree and the use of military force. This fact illustrates that the Abhisit Government is not prepared to respect the freedom of peaceful expression guaranteed by both the Thai Constitution and international law pertaining to human rights.
It is known nationally and internationally that the Abhisit Government was brought into office by the military and powerful, unelected groups within Thai society. This shameful means of protecting power and privilege are against the will of the majority of the Thai people. Must we be forced against our will to accept a government we did not choose?
We would like to emphasize that our plea for true Democracy is not because we want to have power over the existing Government or anyone else. We believe and trust that everyone whether they are red shirts or yellow shirts (members of the People’s Alliance for Democracy or PAD) are equal under a true Democracy and must be treated accordingly. Thus, we are calling for the Abhisit Government to dissolve Parliament and to return the power to choose our Government back to the Thai people. By doing so, we demand the Abhisit Government use the popular and democratic Constitution of 1997, which was torn up and replaced by the 2006 military coup leaders in their attempt to reduce the power of the Thai electorate. Are we asking too much from the Abhisit Government that claims to be the government of the Thai people?
If the Abhisit Government is truly the government of the Thai people, why is it afraid to return power back to the people? We would be prepared to accept Mr. Abhisit as our Prime Minister, if he had been chosen by the democratic process. In this respect we contrast strongly with the yellow shirts, who sought to destroy the Thai economy in order to remove three democratically elected prime ministers and who, with the aid of the powerful military and civilian figures were successful in their undemocratic agenda.
It is clear to the Thai public that the current President of the Privy Council, General Prem Tinsulanonda, and certain other privy councilors have interfered in Thai politics all along. The political chaos in Thailand over the past four (4) years is no exception. Their interference has thwarted the administration of democratically elected governments. General Prem and the other councilors are not directly responsible to the Thai people nor are they granted such powers by the Constitution of Thailand, yet they have effectively undermined the ability of the elected governments to work for the Thai people as a whole. Their only legitimate role as defined in the Constitution is as the King’s advisers. As it is obvious that the current President of the Privy Council has not performed his role in good faith, we demand that he and certain of his fellow privy councilors resign.We are not in the least anti-monarchist as has been claimed by the Abhisit Government and its yellow shirt supporters. We regard the Monarchy as a precious national institution that has held the Thai nation together for centuries. Indeed, it is because of our love for the Monarchy that we must speak out against the unconstitutional role played by the President of the Privy Council and some of his fellow privy councilors. It is their illegal actions that risk impeding true democracy in Thailand, as well as tarnishing the image of our beloved King.
Thus, when we are speaking against the acts of the current President of the Privy Council and some of his fellow councilors we do not in any shape or form criticize His Majesty the King. The Privy Council, though close to the King for the purpose of giving its opinion when asked, is not in any way regarded as the Monarchy itself.Points 4 and 5 above may seem to be internal affairs that do not concern the international community. However, we feel that it is crucial to state our position internationally so that we are not misrepresented to the world.
During PM Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra’s democratically elected Government it was Mr. Abhisit, the then leader of the opposition party, together with the yellow shirts that made the scandalous and unfounded claim that PM Thaksin was not loyal to the King. The allegation gathered momentum such that, with no time to prove otherwise, the Thaksin Government was brought to an end by a military coup on the 19th of September, 2006. Staging the coup to oust the democratically elected government was an obnoxious abuse of power based on a lie.
Should we as peace-loving, law-abiding citizens of the world allow or accept the use of military force to suppress the general free will of the people in this 21st century?
From a legal standpoint, we ask that you consider the following in light of international law:
The Abhisit Government is acting in contravention to/or against the rules and principles set out in the Thai Constitution, the Charter of the United Nations, and the International Bill of Rights, which includes the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, all of which documents Thailand as a member nation of the United Nations has signed and ratified.The acts of the Abhisit Government and of its allied groups (including the Government of General Surayud Chulanont – the military appointed government formed after the 2006 coup) that helped the current Government come to power is clearly against the determination of the Members of the UN to establish “conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained”.
The judiciary has been misused by the Abhisit Government to get rid of political rivals. The Thai Rak Thai Party (TRT), led by former PM Thaksin, which received landslide votes in two consecutive general elections, was dissolved. The legal grounds used by the Constitutional Court of Thailand to dissolve the TRT could equally have been applied to Mr. Abhisit’s Democrat Party, but the Democrat Party was not dissolved. The People’s Power Party (PPP), the successor to the TRT led by Mr. Samak Sundaravej, won the first general election after the coup despite all attempts by the army and courts to alienate this party. The PPP however suffered the same fate as the TRT. PM Samak was ordered by the Constitutional Court to leave office for moonlighting by hosting a private cooking show on Thai TV. Factually, PM Samak received a nominal amount of money to buy ingredients for the show, but this is apparently prohibited by law (as written by military appointed counsel) and he was forced to resign. To arrive at this harsh decision which defies the spirit of the law, the Constitutional Court made reference to a dictionary to clarify the legal situation instead of using the relevant labor laws, as it should have. Had the reference been made to the relevant labor laws as taught in Thai law schools, PM Samak would have been exonerated. These examples of legal double standards illustrate the desperate lengths that the establishment and opposition are prepared to go in their attempts to undermine democracy in Thailand.
We also find it ironic that while Mr. Samak was forced to leave the prime ministerial post following the decision of the Constitutional Court, at least one member of the Court, though we suspect many more, also moonlight for private companies in a professional capacity and continues to do so with impunity to this day. The use of such double standards cannot form the basis of a transparent and equitable society.
PM Somchai Wongsawat who succeeded PM Samak shared a similar fate when the PPP was dissolved by what many independent observers have diplomatically referred to as “bizarre court decisions”. Once again, the Democrat Party could also have been dissolved under the terms of the Constitutional Court’s decision but it was not touched. With the three leading parties of the governing coalition (PPP, Chart Thai & Machima Thipataya) swept out of the way the Democrats became the Government by default. Ironically, the Court ruling dissolving the PPP was delivered against the backdrop of the illegal seizure of the Suvarnabhumi Airport by the Democrat-backed yellow shirts. It seems unfair that such criminal actions on the part of the yellow shirts and their Democrat Party backers should be rewarded so blatantly. Such an outcome painfully reiterates the entrenched forces of privilege and class in this country to the detriment of the majority of the Thai electorate.All this could not have been possible in a society where the legal system was based on equal rights for all as enshrined in international law such as Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Under the Abhisit Government, ALL are NOT equal under the law. This stance by the current Government flies in the face of international norms.
If being equal under the law means that everyone, regardless of who he or she is, must be tried fairly with due process for their violation of the law, then this is not the meaning the Abhisit Government takes. While the process of bringing the yellow shirts, who committed many serious crimes against the Thai nation, to justice has been excruciatingly slow to the point that even a reputable foreign journal like the Economist believes that justice may not be done or that it may be compromised, the process of bringing the red shirts to justice has been extremely quick.
We do not believe that any credible legal system would regard as trivial the illegal seizure of two major international airports by the yellows shirts. Yet somehow the Abhisit Government expects us and the world to exonerate the yellow shirts. In fact, Mr. Abhisit even appointed one of the main instigators of the illegal seizure of the Suvarnabhumi Airport as his foreign minister! This appointment of a known terrorist to an important ministerial post does not bode well for Thai Democracy.
The Abhisit Government does not respect the idea of free human beings to enjoy civil and political freedom as proclaimed by both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
More specifically, his Government takes no heed of different opinions and in fact regards those holding different opinions as his enemies. The current Government segregates the Thai people according to their political views. Worst of all Mr. Abhisit recently announced that the red shirts are the enemy of the nation. This stance is not the action of a leader who unites his country.
If the unarmed and peaceful red shirts are the enemy of the country as Mr. Abhisit is claiming, is he then suggesting that the heavily armed and violent yellow shirts who seized the international airports and stranded many thousands of tourists and Thais alike are the good friends of the country?
The Abhisit Government fails to respect the right to freedom of peaceful assembly specified under Article 20(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The peaceful and unarmed gathering of the red shirts is seen as a threat to the Abhisit Government. If there is anything “threatening” about the red shirts, it would be the gigantic number of ordinary people who come from nearly every part of Thailand and who come peacefully to demand the dissolution of Parliament. Thus, if we were to be a threat at all, we would only be a threat to the unelected Government of Mr. Abhisit and not the country or the Thai people. Therefore, the acts of the Abhisit Government to suppress the red shirts are in fact a significant threat to fundamental human rights (i.e., to enjoy civil and political freedom as guaranteed by the Thai Constitution and many international conventions which Thailand has signed and ratified). It is the acts of the Abhisit Government that are a threat to the Thai Nation and the Thai People.
We, the red shirts, have made firm commitments that our movements or gatherings must comply with the rights granted by the Thai Constitution (i.e., peaceful, unarmed and lawful gatherings). We hold such commitments in our hearts and have consistently followed the law. We genuinely believe that the voice of hundreds of thousands of law-abiding and peace-loving red shirts would be heard, but for the brutal and inhumane response of the Abhisit Government. You may have noticed that the gathering of hundreds of thousands of the red shirts since 26th March in the tropical heat was without violence until the early morning of 14th April when the army began shooting, which inevitably led to a riot and the full suppression of unarmed red shirts by armed military forces.
In light of the above facts, we are asking you to condemn the Abhisit Government for its announcement of the Emergency Decree in order that it could use military force to bloodily suppress the peaceful and unarmed gathering of the true Democracy loving people of Thailand. We also implore you to urge the Abhisit Government to dissolve Parliament in order to arrange a general election under the 1997 Constitution.We are making this urgent appeal to you because we lack the means to tell the world that our fundamental human rights are being brutally crushed and we cannot rely on internal legal institutions to help us at this time as they have been corrupted to one degree or another. Please, please Mr. Secretary-General, do what you can to help us.Thank you very much for your valuable time and attention.
Yours sincerely,
Kingdom of Thailand
20th April 2009
Mr. Ban Ki-moonSecretary-General
UN Headquarters First Avenue at 46th Street New York, NY 10017
United States of America
Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
We are writing to solemnly beg you to condemn the Government of Mr. Abhisit Vejjajiva, the present government of Thailand, for its recent brutal crackdown on unarmed civilian demonstrators peacefully seeking a true democracy under a constitutional monarchy.
On the 14th of April, Mr. Abhisit announced an Emergency Decree so that he could use military force to crush a gathering of unarmed civilians clad in red shirts known as the National United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) or as the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD). Hundreds of red shirts where killed and many others severely injured. This barbaric act inflicted by the current Thai Government on its own people was totally blocked from the eyes of the domestic and international public. This deception was possible because the Government cut off all types of communication signals and gateways, especially those used among the red shirts.
Nonetheless, many horrific and brutal acts were captured by the cameras of individual participants of the demonstration. Moreover, we trust that you may have seen some of the barbarous acts recorded by the major international networks, namely CNN and the BBC among others. We, the red shirts, are not violent and the cause that hundreds of thousands of us are peacefully pursuing is the restoration of a true democracy based on parliamentary elections.
Alas, our worthy cause and our employment of civil and political freedoms as guaranteed by the Constitution of Thailand, the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, all of which Thailand as a member of the United Nations has signed and ratified, were met by heavy military force by the order of the unelected and military-appointed Abhisit Government.
Factually, what we want to emphasize is as follows:
We, the red shirts from all walks of life are peace-loving and law-abiding. On many occasions since late 2008 we have gathered in great numbers to voice our sincere demand for the restoration of true democracy in Thailand. We have come unarmed and these gatherings have all been completely free of violence. The violence in Pattaya, where the recent ASEAN Summit Plus 6 Meeting was held and the subsequent Fourth East Asian Summit was to be held, and in Bangkok on the 14th of April, was instigated by an outside group some of whom were disguised in red and navy blue shirts and whom we believe to be affiliated with the Abhisit Government. Mr. Newin Chidchob, a key supporter of the current Government, commanded the actual attack against the unarmed red shirts wearing a navy blue shirt. The red shirts were there only to express before our fellow ASEAN Members and the other six countries our objection to the Abhisit Government. The violent situation was fabricated in order to put blame on the red shirts in order to justify the announcement of the first Emergency Decree and the use of military force. This fact illustrates that the Abhisit Government is not prepared to respect the freedom of peaceful expression guaranteed by both the Thai Constitution and international law pertaining to human rights.
It is known nationally and internationally that the Abhisit Government was brought into office by the military and powerful, unelected groups within Thai society. This shameful means of protecting power and privilege are against the will of the majority of the Thai people. Must we be forced against our will to accept a government we did not choose?
We would like to emphasize that our plea for true Democracy is not because we want to have power over the existing Government or anyone else. We believe and trust that everyone whether they are red shirts or yellow shirts (members of the People’s Alliance for Democracy or PAD) are equal under a true Democracy and must be treated accordingly. Thus, we are calling for the Abhisit Government to dissolve Parliament and to return the power to choose our Government back to the Thai people. By doing so, we demand the Abhisit Government use the popular and democratic Constitution of 1997, which was torn up and replaced by the 2006 military coup leaders in their attempt to reduce the power of the Thai electorate. Are we asking too much from the Abhisit Government that claims to be the government of the Thai people?
If the Abhisit Government is truly the government of the Thai people, why is it afraid to return power back to the people? We would be prepared to accept Mr. Abhisit as our Prime Minister, if he had been chosen by the democratic process. In this respect we contrast strongly with the yellow shirts, who sought to destroy the Thai economy in order to remove three democratically elected prime ministers and who, with the aid of the powerful military and civilian figures were successful in their undemocratic agenda.
It is clear to the Thai public that the current President of the Privy Council, General Prem Tinsulanonda, and certain other privy councilors have interfered in Thai politics all along. The political chaos in Thailand over the past four (4) years is no exception. Their interference has thwarted the administration of democratically elected governments. General Prem and the other councilors are not directly responsible to the Thai people nor are they granted such powers by the Constitution of Thailand, yet they have effectively undermined the ability of the elected governments to work for the Thai people as a whole. Their only legitimate role as defined in the Constitution is as the King’s advisers. As it is obvious that the current President of the Privy Council has not performed his role in good faith, we demand that he and certain of his fellow privy councilors resign.We are not in the least anti-monarchist as has been claimed by the Abhisit Government and its yellow shirt supporters. We regard the Monarchy as a precious national institution that has held the Thai nation together for centuries. Indeed, it is because of our love for the Monarchy that we must speak out against the unconstitutional role played by the President of the Privy Council and some of his fellow privy councilors. It is their illegal actions that risk impeding true democracy in Thailand, as well as tarnishing the image of our beloved King.
Thus, when we are speaking against the acts of the current President of the Privy Council and some of his fellow councilors we do not in any shape or form criticize His Majesty the King. The Privy Council, though close to the King for the purpose of giving its opinion when asked, is not in any way regarded as the Monarchy itself.Points 4 and 5 above may seem to be internal affairs that do not concern the international community. However, we feel that it is crucial to state our position internationally so that we are not misrepresented to the world.
During PM Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra’s democratically elected Government it was Mr. Abhisit, the then leader of the opposition party, together with the yellow shirts that made the scandalous and unfounded claim that PM Thaksin was not loyal to the King. The allegation gathered momentum such that, with no time to prove otherwise, the Thaksin Government was brought to an end by a military coup on the 19th of September, 2006. Staging the coup to oust the democratically elected government was an obnoxious abuse of power based on a lie.
Should we as peace-loving, law-abiding citizens of the world allow or accept the use of military force to suppress the general free will of the people in this 21st century?
From a legal standpoint, we ask that you consider the following in light of international law:
The Abhisit Government is acting in contravention to/or against the rules and principles set out in the Thai Constitution, the Charter of the United Nations, and the International Bill of Rights, which includes the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, all of which documents Thailand as a member nation of the United Nations has signed and ratified.The acts of the Abhisit Government and of its allied groups (including the Government of General Surayud Chulanont – the military appointed government formed after the 2006 coup) that helped the current Government come to power is clearly against the determination of the Members of the UN to establish “conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained”.
The judiciary has been misused by the Abhisit Government to get rid of political rivals. The Thai Rak Thai Party (TRT), led by former PM Thaksin, which received landslide votes in two consecutive general elections, was dissolved. The legal grounds used by the Constitutional Court of Thailand to dissolve the TRT could equally have been applied to Mr. Abhisit’s Democrat Party, but the Democrat Party was not dissolved. The People’s Power Party (PPP), the successor to the TRT led by Mr. Samak Sundaravej, won the first general election after the coup despite all attempts by the army and courts to alienate this party. The PPP however suffered the same fate as the TRT. PM Samak was ordered by the Constitutional Court to leave office for moonlighting by hosting a private cooking show on Thai TV. Factually, PM Samak received a nominal amount of money to buy ingredients for the show, but this is apparently prohibited by law (as written by military appointed counsel) and he was forced to resign. To arrive at this harsh decision which defies the spirit of the law, the Constitutional Court made reference to a dictionary to clarify the legal situation instead of using the relevant labor laws, as it should have. Had the reference been made to the relevant labor laws as taught in Thai law schools, PM Samak would have been exonerated. These examples of legal double standards illustrate the desperate lengths that the establishment and opposition are prepared to go in their attempts to undermine democracy in Thailand.
We also find it ironic that while Mr. Samak was forced to leave the prime ministerial post following the decision of the Constitutional Court, at least one member of the Court, though we suspect many more, also moonlight for private companies in a professional capacity and continues to do so with impunity to this day. The use of such double standards cannot form the basis of a transparent and equitable society.
PM Somchai Wongsawat who succeeded PM Samak shared a similar fate when the PPP was dissolved by what many independent observers have diplomatically referred to as “bizarre court decisions”. Once again, the Democrat Party could also have been dissolved under the terms of the Constitutional Court’s decision but it was not touched. With the three leading parties of the governing coalition (PPP, Chart Thai & Machima Thipataya) swept out of the way the Democrats became the Government by default. Ironically, the Court ruling dissolving the PPP was delivered against the backdrop of the illegal seizure of the Suvarnabhumi Airport by the Democrat-backed yellow shirts. It seems unfair that such criminal actions on the part of the yellow shirts and their Democrat Party backers should be rewarded so blatantly. Such an outcome painfully reiterates the entrenched forces of privilege and class in this country to the detriment of the majority of the Thai electorate.All this could not have been possible in a society where the legal system was based on equal rights for all as enshrined in international law such as Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Under the Abhisit Government, ALL are NOT equal under the law. This stance by the current Government flies in the face of international norms.
If being equal under the law means that everyone, regardless of who he or she is, must be tried fairly with due process for their violation of the law, then this is not the meaning the Abhisit Government takes. While the process of bringing the yellow shirts, who committed many serious crimes against the Thai nation, to justice has been excruciatingly slow to the point that even a reputable foreign journal like the Economist believes that justice may not be done or that it may be compromised, the process of bringing the red shirts to justice has been extremely quick.
We do not believe that any credible legal system would regard as trivial the illegal seizure of two major international airports by the yellows shirts. Yet somehow the Abhisit Government expects us and the world to exonerate the yellow shirts. In fact, Mr. Abhisit even appointed one of the main instigators of the illegal seizure of the Suvarnabhumi Airport as his foreign minister! This appointment of a known terrorist to an important ministerial post does not bode well for Thai Democracy.
The Abhisit Government does not respect the idea of free human beings to enjoy civil and political freedom as proclaimed by both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
More specifically, his Government takes no heed of different opinions and in fact regards those holding different opinions as his enemies. The current Government segregates the Thai people according to their political views. Worst of all Mr. Abhisit recently announced that the red shirts are the enemy of the nation. This stance is not the action of a leader who unites his country.
If the unarmed and peaceful red shirts are the enemy of the country as Mr. Abhisit is claiming, is he then suggesting that the heavily armed and violent yellow shirts who seized the international airports and stranded many thousands of tourists and Thais alike are the good friends of the country?
The Abhisit Government fails to respect the right to freedom of peaceful assembly specified under Article 20(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The peaceful and unarmed gathering of the red shirts is seen as a threat to the Abhisit Government. If there is anything “threatening” about the red shirts, it would be the gigantic number of ordinary people who come from nearly every part of Thailand and who come peacefully to demand the dissolution of Parliament. Thus, if we were to be a threat at all, we would only be a threat to the unelected Government of Mr. Abhisit and not the country or the Thai people. Therefore, the acts of the Abhisit Government to suppress the red shirts are in fact a significant threat to fundamental human rights (i.e., to enjoy civil and political freedom as guaranteed by the Thai Constitution and many international conventions which Thailand has signed and ratified). It is the acts of the Abhisit Government that are a threat to the Thai Nation and the Thai People.
We, the red shirts, have made firm commitments that our movements or gatherings must comply with the rights granted by the Thai Constitution (i.e., peaceful, unarmed and lawful gatherings). We hold such commitments in our hearts and have consistently followed the law. We genuinely believe that the voice of hundreds of thousands of law-abiding and peace-loving red shirts would be heard, but for the brutal and inhumane response of the Abhisit Government. You may have noticed that the gathering of hundreds of thousands of the red shirts since 26th March in the tropical heat was without violence until the early morning of 14th April when the army began shooting, which inevitably led to a riot and the full suppression of unarmed red shirts by armed military forces.
In light of the above facts, we are asking you to condemn the Abhisit Government for its announcement of the Emergency Decree in order that it could use military force to bloodily suppress the peaceful and unarmed gathering of the true Democracy loving people of Thailand. We also implore you to urge the Abhisit Government to dissolve Parliament in order to arrange a general election under the 1997 Constitution.We are making this urgent appeal to you because we lack the means to tell the world that our fundamental human rights are being brutally crushed and we cannot rely on internal legal institutions to help us at this time as they have been corrupted to one degree or another. Please, please Mr. Secretary-General, do what you can to help us.Thank you very much for your valuable time and attention.
Yours sincerely,
'I'm Like a Rat'
INTERVIEW WITH EXILED FORMER THAI LEADER THAKSIN
In a SPIEGEL interview, former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, 59, discusses the uprising of his supporters against the government in Bangkok and the role the king should play in resolving the lasting conflict in the tumultuous southeast Asian nation.
SPIEGEL: Dr. Thaksin, the news emerged from Bangkok on Friday that Sonhi Limthongkul, the leader of the government loyal Yellow Shirts, barely survived an assassination attempt. He has always been one of your most dogged opponents.
Thaksin Shinawatra: It was the government that declared a state of emergency. Even though there was an election, the government used its power in an even worse way than a putsch government. It controls every place, it can seize and search without any warrants, and they don't care about human rights. It's a government that has been given the license to kill. And I have the impression that the phase of "cut-off killings" has begun -- in other words, they are eliminating anyone who knows too much about the conspiracy of those in power against me.
SPIEGEL: Officially, two people died in the latest riots and 123 were injured. Do you dispute these figures?
Thaksin: It is an absolute lie.
SPIEGEL: Do you have proof of that?
Thaksin: After they said there were only two dead, we found two Red Shirts who had been tied with their hands behind their backs and were found in the Chao Praya River. We are still looking for others.
SPIEGEL: The world is very alarmed by the developments in your country. What is the reason for the lasting crisis?
Thaksin: The political elite are very worried because I and my associates have remained popular and powerful, as they were before. They would like to shift the power to the the other camp, the Democrats, but they cannot do it through democratic means. Now they are using all kinds of other means. They unsuccessfully tried to assassinate me. They also sparked protests, which were not successful -- but it was still enough for them to use it as an excuse to conduct the coup d'etat. After the coup, they politicized the justice system and convicted me and my family. Then they created an illegal constitution. Despite all that, the people still vote for my camp. This really upsets Bangkok. That's why the latest uprising happened.
SPIEGEL: How can Thailand pull itself out of this plight?
Thaksin: As long as the power struggle is not transparent and is not conducted by democratic means, everything will remain stuck. We will not be able to move. The justice system has been used to shore up a double standard -- it is lenient to one side and brutal to the other. Reconciliation is the only solution.
SPIEGEL: You have urged King Bhumibol to intervene and stop the crisis. Why hasn't he done anything yet?
Thaksin: I don't know. I cannot say anything about the royal monarchy.
SPIEGEL: But the word of the king is clearly decisive.
Thaksin: I would say that he is the only person who can reconcile. I don't think other people can. I have been watching my country from the outside for three years already. Nothing has improved.
SPIEGEL: Is Thailand's crisis also a crisis of the monarchy?
Thaksin: His majesty is 81 years old. We wish him a long life. And we also wish that he will continue to enjoy the respect of all Thais. As a Thai, it is difficult for me to say more. Thais don't have much freedom of speech.
SPIEGEL: But you are sitting here in Dubai, not Thailand, and you are completely free to say whatever you want.
Thaksin: But I have to be very, very careful, as a Thai and a former prime minister. I really respect his majesty.
SPIEGEL: You were once considered to be a close confidant of the king.
Thaksin: Yes, but I have been hated by the people who surround him. The president of the Privy Council (eds: a panel of appointed advisors to the monarchy) and the former prime minister under the military junta tried to topple me through the coup d'etat.
SPIEGEL: And you now hold these men responsible for the current crisis?
Thaksin: My government was democratically elected and won by a landslide. Now I am like a rat who stays in the house. They want to catch me so badly that they would dare to burn down the whole house to do so.
SPIEGEL: Your opponents claim that it was you who caused the latest conflagration by calling for the protests from abroad.
Thaksin: I have to give the people moral support. But when we say that we want a revolution, we mean that we want it through peaceful means. We in Thailand have long suffered under a democracy that is valid only for a few: the political elite in Bangkok.
SPIEGEL: In broad swaths of the population, you still enjoy great popularity. That means you also carry responsibility. Couldn't you be doing more to calm the current situation?
Thaksin: No way. The only choice is a broad reconciliation. We use peaceful means. The violence in Thailand comes from the government-supported armed forces. These are people who mix in with the protesters, kill people and create chaos.
SPIEGEL: What are you personally planning to do now?
Thaksin: I travel a lot and I don't normally stay in a place for longer than two weeks. I have business to take care of. The Red Shirt Committees work independently and make their own decisions. Sometimes they call me for advice, but they don't have to believe in me. I don't support them financially because my assets in Thailand have been frozen and I don't have much money.
SPIEGEL: The government has stripped you of your passport -- how do you travel now?
Thaksin: I have passports from other countries. Friends and leaders from many countries have offered me honorary citizenship, a passport or travel documents. Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega is strongly behind me and his country has given me a diplomatic passport.
SPIEGEL: How can lasting peace be achieved in Thailand?
Thaksin: Both sides have committed wrong doings. It's time to reconcile by forgiving each other, forgetting the past and looking forward. We should become one nation and one people. But I will not recognize the current prime minister and the other side will not accept me. The king must help. He must draw up a democratic constitution and then we need new elections.
ABOUT THAKSIN SHINAWATRA
REUTERS
Thaksin Shinawatra comes from a Chinese family of silk and rice traders. He became rich in computer sales and established his popularity with the country's poor with the help of his own TV station. After his party's election victory in 2001, Thaksin took over the helm of the government. In 2006, Thaksin, who has also been accused of violating human rights, saw his government fall in a coup. Thaksin went into exile and has since lived in Dubai and Hong Kong. In 2007, his supporters won the election again, but the government, run by Thaksin's confidants, was stripped of power by the Bangkok elite under pressure from thousands of Yellow Shirt- wearing protesters. The week before last, Thaksin's Red Shirt supporters took to the streets in massive protests. In the end, though, they retreated.
Interview conducted by Bernhard Zand.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,619943,00.html
In a SPIEGEL interview, former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, 59, discusses the uprising of his supporters against the government in Bangkok and the role the king should play in resolving the lasting conflict in the tumultuous southeast Asian nation.
SPIEGEL: Dr. Thaksin, the news emerged from Bangkok on Friday that Sonhi Limthongkul, the leader of the government loyal Yellow Shirts, barely survived an assassination attempt. He has always been one of your most dogged opponents.
Thaksin Shinawatra: It was the government that declared a state of emergency. Even though there was an election, the government used its power in an even worse way than a putsch government. It controls every place, it can seize and search without any warrants, and they don't care about human rights. It's a government that has been given the license to kill. And I have the impression that the phase of "cut-off killings" has begun -- in other words, they are eliminating anyone who knows too much about the conspiracy of those in power against me.
SPIEGEL: Officially, two people died in the latest riots and 123 were injured. Do you dispute these figures?
Thaksin: It is an absolute lie.
SPIEGEL: Do you have proof of that?
Thaksin: After they said there were only two dead, we found two Red Shirts who had been tied with their hands behind their backs and were found in the Chao Praya River. We are still looking for others.
SPIEGEL: The world is very alarmed by the developments in your country. What is the reason for the lasting crisis?
Thaksin: The political elite are very worried because I and my associates have remained popular and powerful, as they were before. They would like to shift the power to the the other camp, the Democrats, but they cannot do it through democratic means. Now they are using all kinds of other means. They unsuccessfully tried to assassinate me. They also sparked protests, which were not successful -- but it was still enough for them to use it as an excuse to conduct the coup d'etat. After the coup, they politicized the justice system and convicted me and my family. Then they created an illegal constitution. Despite all that, the people still vote for my camp. This really upsets Bangkok. That's why the latest uprising happened.
SPIEGEL: How can Thailand pull itself out of this plight?
Thaksin: As long as the power struggle is not transparent and is not conducted by democratic means, everything will remain stuck. We will not be able to move. The justice system has been used to shore up a double standard -- it is lenient to one side and brutal to the other. Reconciliation is the only solution.
SPIEGEL: You have urged King Bhumibol to intervene and stop the crisis. Why hasn't he done anything yet?
Thaksin: I don't know. I cannot say anything about the royal monarchy.
SPIEGEL: But the word of the king is clearly decisive.
Thaksin: I would say that he is the only person who can reconcile. I don't think other people can. I have been watching my country from the outside for three years already. Nothing has improved.
SPIEGEL: Is Thailand's crisis also a crisis of the monarchy?
Thaksin: His majesty is 81 years old. We wish him a long life. And we also wish that he will continue to enjoy the respect of all Thais. As a Thai, it is difficult for me to say more. Thais don't have much freedom of speech.
SPIEGEL: But you are sitting here in Dubai, not Thailand, and you are completely free to say whatever you want.
Thaksin: But I have to be very, very careful, as a Thai and a former prime minister. I really respect his majesty.
SPIEGEL: You were once considered to be a close confidant of the king.
Thaksin: Yes, but I have been hated by the people who surround him. The president of the Privy Council (eds: a panel of appointed advisors to the monarchy) and the former prime minister under the military junta tried to topple me through the coup d'etat.
SPIEGEL: And you now hold these men responsible for the current crisis?
Thaksin: My government was democratically elected and won by a landslide. Now I am like a rat who stays in the house. They want to catch me so badly that they would dare to burn down the whole house to do so.
SPIEGEL: Your opponents claim that it was you who caused the latest conflagration by calling for the protests from abroad.
Thaksin: I have to give the people moral support. But when we say that we want a revolution, we mean that we want it through peaceful means. We in Thailand have long suffered under a democracy that is valid only for a few: the political elite in Bangkok.
SPIEGEL: In broad swaths of the population, you still enjoy great popularity. That means you also carry responsibility. Couldn't you be doing more to calm the current situation?
Thaksin: No way. The only choice is a broad reconciliation. We use peaceful means. The violence in Thailand comes from the government-supported armed forces. These are people who mix in with the protesters, kill people and create chaos.
SPIEGEL: What are you personally planning to do now?
Thaksin: I travel a lot and I don't normally stay in a place for longer than two weeks. I have business to take care of. The Red Shirt Committees work independently and make their own decisions. Sometimes they call me for advice, but they don't have to believe in me. I don't support them financially because my assets in Thailand have been frozen and I don't have much money.
SPIEGEL: The government has stripped you of your passport -- how do you travel now?
Thaksin: I have passports from other countries. Friends and leaders from many countries have offered me honorary citizenship, a passport or travel documents. Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega is strongly behind me and his country has given me a diplomatic passport.
SPIEGEL: How can lasting peace be achieved in Thailand?
Thaksin: Both sides have committed wrong doings. It's time to reconcile by forgiving each other, forgetting the past and looking forward. We should become one nation and one people. But I will not recognize the current prime minister and the other side will not accept me. The king must help. He must draw up a democratic constitution and then we need new elections.
ABOUT THAKSIN SHINAWATRA
REUTERS
Thaksin Shinawatra comes from a Chinese family of silk and rice traders. He became rich in computer sales and established his popularity with the country's poor with the help of his own TV station. After his party's election victory in 2001, Thaksin took over the helm of the government. In 2006, Thaksin, who has also been accused of violating human rights, saw his government fall in a coup. Thaksin went into exile and has since lived in Dubai and Hong Kong. In 2007, his supporters won the election again, but the government, run by Thaksin's confidants, was stripped of power by the Bangkok elite under pressure from thousands of Yellow Shirt- wearing protesters. The week before last, Thaksin's Red Shirt supporters took to the streets in massive protests. In the end, though, they retreated.
Interview conducted by Bernhard Zand.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,619943,00.html
A DIVIDED NATION
'In Thailand, the Law of the Jungle Prevails'
In a SPIEGEL interview, Sukhumbhand Paribatra, the governor of Bangkok and a cousin of the king, condemns former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and criticizes the Thai Army. He says he is deeply concerned about the state of Thailand and the future of the monarchy.
SPIEGEL: Thailand doesn't seem to be able to return to normal, as the latest uprising in Bangkok proves. The riots we saw last week were the worst ones witnessed in years.
Sukhumbhand Paribatra: In terms of how widespread it was geographically, it was the worst the city has ever experienced. During the unrest of 1973, 1976 and 1992, there were more deaths …
SPIEGEL: … but in 1973 and 1976 we were primarily dealing with student protests.
Sukhumbhand: This time there was senseless violence in many parts of the city. People set fires and attacked each other.
In a SPIEGEL interview, Sukhumbhand Paribatra, the governor of Bangkok and a cousin of the king, condemns former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and criticizes the Thai Army. He says he is deeply concerned about the state of Thailand and the future of the monarchy.
SPIEGEL: Thailand doesn't seem to be able to return to normal, as the latest uprising in Bangkok proves. The riots we saw last week were the worst ones witnessed in years.
Sukhumbhand Paribatra: In terms of how widespread it was geographically, it was the worst the city has ever experienced. During the unrest of 1973, 1976 and 1992, there were more deaths …
SPIEGEL: … but in 1973 and 1976 we were primarily dealing with student protests.
Sukhumbhand: This time there was senseless violence in many parts of the city. People set fires and attacked each other.
SPIEGEL: Everything began the weekend before last, when the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship -- as the supporters of deposed ex-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra call themselves -- succeeded in halting the Asia summit in the coastal resort of Pattaya. Doesn't that indicate a total failure of your military and police forces?
Sukhumbhand: We have to admit that. The conference hotel is located on a hill and only three narrow roads lead to it. They should never have permitted this venue to be stormed. The police leadership downright refused to intervene and the armed forces only came to help at the last minute. By then Prime Minister Abhisit was trapped.
SPIEGEL: His car was attacked and his driver was hit. In other countries, bodyguards would have reached for their weapons. Why didn't they in Thailand?
Sukhumbhand: The instructions were not there to shoot. There was a vacuum, which allowed the protesters to do what we saw.
SPIEGEL: Earlier, Thailand was considered the epitome of a Buddhist tropical paradise. But today the country is mentioned in the same breath as civil war and chaos. How do you explain the polarization of your society?
Sukhumbhand: There has always been a division between the rich and the poor in Thai society, and there always was an extreme gap between the urban and the rural masses. But that has always been kept under control by an unstated consensus on the part of all political leaders that certain things should not be touched. There was a consensus that political leaders may quarrel among themselves, but they may not take their quarrel to the extent that it would have any impact on the monarchy or to the extent that it would aggravate these fractions in society.
SPIEGEL: But Thaksin suddenly did not play to the rules of the old political elites.
Sukhumbhand: What happened during the Thaksin period was that he didn't play according to that rule anymore. In fact, he tried to impose his own rules. That might have been for good reasons, I don't doubt that. But there was a rule that there are certain things that you don't do. It might partially be due to his personality and partially due to the extent of his three election victories. The consensus in our society broke down and there is no mechanism to put it back in place right now. This is also because the king is no longer as active as he was before.
SPIEGEL: The Red Shirts complain that there is no democracy and no justice in Thailand because their leaders have been arrested, but the Yellow Shirt leaders who blockaded Bangkok's international airport last year go free.
Sukhumbhand: The facts are obvious. There has always been injustice in Thai society. But under Thaksin, was there justice? This is one of the problems in Thailand -- there has been always the law of the jungle. Between 2002 and 2005, when Thaksin ruled, thousands of alleged drug traffickers and terrorists were killed. I don't say that Thaksin ordered that killings. But thousands were murdered. They disappeared and the media was silenced. What is better, that people who blocked an airport are not punished or that innocent people are murdered? I cannot condone any act of injustice. The sad truth is that in Thailand the law of the jungle prevails. It's also a fact that Thaksin's followers are no angels, and we Democrats aren't either.
SPIEGEL: In retrospect, was the military putsch that toppled Thaksin on Sept. 19, 2006 a failure?
Sukhumbhand: I don't condone military coups, and I was not in favor of that coup, either. But if the coup leader felt there has to be a coup, they should have carried it to its logical conclusion.
SPIEGEL: What do you mean?
Sukhumbhand: They weren't forceful enough. Ironically, first the coup leaders broke the most important law of the land, the constitution, and then they didn't dare to break the little laws. If the generals had smashed Thaksin's network right at the beginning, and if they would have confiscated his properties straightaway, we wouldn't be confronted with the chaos that we have today.
SPIEGEL: Why did the generals mess it up?
Sukhumbhand: Stupid, they are stupid. Thaksin's popularity was on the way down, anyway.
SPIEGEL: Thaksin's passport was only recently revoked. What would his supporters do if he were extradited to Bangkok to stand trial for corruption and inciting the uprising?
Sukhumbhand: They would go completely berserk.
SPIEGEL: Wouldn't new elections be the best solution for restoring peace?
Sukhumbhand: No. The outcome would be the same as before. We will be confronted with equally large blocs opposing each other. I think it will be better if the government stays in power to the end of this term. Then the voters should decide, but not on the streets. But no one has any magical solutions right now.
SPIEGEL: In times of crisis, His Majesty, the King of Thailand, has often spoken out as the moral authority of your country. Does that not indicate that Thailand's politicians are too immature to lead the country on their own?
Sukhumbhand: Actually, the king has not come out so often. He has only intervened in a few cases. But when he did, it was always important. But, clearly, we political leaders have proven to be immature in solving differences among ourselves. So the king is needed. But the fact that the king is there to help out in times of trouble allows us to be immature.
SPIEGEL: At some point, the king will no longer be there. Will Thailand then slip into chaos when he dies? Are you afraid of that?
Sukhumbhand: Of course I am afraid. I was not afraid before. But now, after a few years of political polarization, I think that this political polarization will become even more violent.
SPIEGEL: The king is 81 now. Normally, on his birthday he reads a speech to the nation each year. But last year was the first time he didn't read it himself. That might indicate that he is ill. Is there reason to worry and are you afraid?
Sukhumbhand: Everybody worries about the king. Even if he goes for a checkup, people panic. Yes, of course we are worried.
SPIEGEL: Is he seriously ill?
Sukhumbhand: Let me formulate it this way: He's not doing as well as he was 10 years ago.
SPIEGEL: Then isn't it time for him to reproach Thaksin before it's too late?
Sukhumbhand: The king has never failed, so his success has built up a myth around him that he could never do anything wrong. But it's not even certain that Thaksin would listen to him. If he didn't, then what? That's why he has to think very carefully about when and what he says.
SPIEGEL: Some say that the whole root cause of the problems in Thailand is based on the fact that Thaksin wants to become president and that he plans to get rid of the monarchy. How do you comment on that?
Sukhumbhand: I do not listen to things like that.
SPIEGEL: You are a cousin of the king. So you know the royal court's rules very well. How is the successor to the king actually selected?
Sukhumbhand: There are generally two possibilities. The king can pick his own successor ...
SPIEGEL: ... which King Bhumibol Adulyadej has not done yet ...
Sukhumbhand: As far as we know. If that hasn't happened, then a successor must be found according to the palace law of 1926. But that is subject to approval by the parliament.
SPIEGEL: So his son, Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn, or one of his daughters would become the successor?
Sukhumbhand: No, the palace law doesn't permit a female successor to the throne.
SPIEGEL: So the only choice would be Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn?
Sukhumbhand: That we know of, yes.
ABOUT SUKHUMBHAND PARIBATRA
Sukhumbhand Paribatra, 56, is a cousin of Thailand's King Bumibol Adulyadej and the governor of Bangkok. He studied in Oxford and is a member of the Democratic Party of Thailand.
Interview conducted by SPIEGEL Asia correspondent Jürgen Kremb.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,619905,00.html
วันอาทิตย์ที่ 19 เมษายน พ.ศ. 2552
THAILAND: Police must prosecute Government House occupiers
AHRC-STM-309-2008 December 5, 2008
A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission
Since the three-month occupation of Government House and week-long occupation of the two main airports in Bangkok ended on 3 December 2008 following the dissolution of three parties in Thailand’s ruling coalition, the extent of destruction that the occupiers have caused is now becoming clear. Leaving aside the indirect damage that the invasion caused to all people and institutions in Thailand, parts of these public buildings have reportedly been completely ransacked and vandalised.
Government House has suffered the worst. Early estimates of the damage there put it at about three-quarters of a million US dollars, and the amount is likely to climb much higher. Large quantities of valuables have gone missing, including televisions, cameras and religious amulets. Many of these were personal items that staff kept at their desks. Furniture has been wantonly slashed, wallpaper ripped down and windows smashed. Four vehicles were stolen, and so far only one is known to have been recovered.
It is not only material damage. A photograph in the Bangkok Post newspaper showed a computer terminal still on the desk with the hard drive ripped out. It is not yet known how much official data may have been removed and what sort of risks may be posed from it falling into private hands, but apparently many computers, drives and documents are missing. The loss of valuable information, even if not confidential, will greatly hamper the ability of bureaucrats to perform their jobs and further inconvenience the general public as well as anyone dealing with the government machinery.
Guns also have been taken from armouries and may be among the weapons used to fire upon government supporters, journalists and bystanders during various incidents in the last week.
Remarkably, the leaders of the persons responsible for all this have tried to negotiate with police that they not face prosecution. Police have, again according to news reports, not given any such guarantees and are at present proceeding with trespassing and other charges. So they must. The number of charges and number of persons against whom they are filed should steadily increase as investigators are able to further their inquiries.
There is a vast amount of video, photographic and audio material already in the public arena, in addition to that which the police will have been collecting themselves, from which it will be possible to identify those primarily responsible for what has gone on in Government House in these last few months, as well as at the airports.
The occupying and ransacking of the prime minister’s quarters is not merely a criminal act, but a criminal act that goes to the heart of the integrity of the state. If the state proves incapable of protecting its own resources and premises, if it is unable to prosecute persons responsible for the destruction of its own property, then what hope does it hold out to ordinary citizens seeking protection from and redress for mundane criminal acts? Failure to prosecute these persons will amount to an acknowledgement that it is not the law but sheer impunity that rules in Thailand today. And an acknowledgment of impunity is an invitation to violence and human rights abuse of the worst possible forms.
At a critical juncture for Thailand, with a dangerous period ahead in which none of the underlying political and social problems that gave rise to these raids have been resolved, it is imperative that the law-enforcement agencies perform their duties properly and effectively.
The Asian Human Rights Commission urges the police to fulfil their law-enforcement role and see that the ringleaders and primary perpetrators of the destruction at Government House, as well as those responsible for any similar damage at the two airports, be fully investigated, arrested and prosecuted without delay.
There must be no negotiation, nor, above all, evidence of influence and reassurances of protection from powerful persons inside or outside of the policing agency. Those responsible for these crimes have said that they have a legal fund ready for the purpose of fighting cases lodged against them. Now let them use it. # # #
A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission
Since the three-month occupation of Government House and week-long occupation of the two main airports in Bangkok ended on 3 December 2008 following the dissolution of three parties in Thailand’s ruling coalition, the extent of destruction that the occupiers have caused is now becoming clear. Leaving aside the indirect damage that the invasion caused to all people and institutions in Thailand, parts of these public buildings have reportedly been completely ransacked and vandalised.
Government House has suffered the worst. Early estimates of the damage there put it at about three-quarters of a million US dollars, and the amount is likely to climb much higher. Large quantities of valuables have gone missing, including televisions, cameras and religious amulets. Many of these were personal items that staff kept at their desks. Furniture has been wantonly slashed, wallpaper ripped down and windows smashed. Four vehicles were stolen, and so far only one is known to have been recovered.
It is not only material damage. A photograph in the Bangkok Post newspaper showed a computer terminal still on the desk with the hard drive ripped out. It is not yet known how much official data may have been removed and what sort of risks may be posed from it falling into private hands, but apparently many computers, drives and documents are missing. The loss of valuable information, even if not confidential, will greatly hamper the ability of bureaucrats to perform their jobs and further inconvenience the general public as well as anyone dealing with the government machinery.
Guns also have been taken from armouries and may be among the weapons used to fire upon government supporters, journalists and bystanders during various incidents in the last week.
Remarkably, the leaders of the persons responsible for all this have tried to negotiate with police that they not face prosecution. Police have, again according to news reports, not given any such guarantees and are at present proceeding with trespassing and other charges. So they must. The number of charges and number of persons against whom they are filed should steadily increase as investigators are able to further their inquiries.
There is a vast amount of video, photographic and audio material already in the public arena, in addition to that which the police will have been collecting themselves, from which it will be possible to identify those primarily responsible for what has gone on in Government House in these last few months, as well as at the airports.
The occupying and ransacking of the prime minister’s quarters is not merely a criminal act, but a criminal act that goes to the heart of the integrity of the state. If the state proves incapable of protecting its own resources and premises, if it is unable to prosecute persons responsible for the destruction of its own property, then what hope does it hold out to ordinary citizens seeking protection from and redress for mundane criminal acts? Failure to prosecute these persons will amount to an acknowledgement that it is not the law but sheer impunity that rules in Thailand today. And an acknowledgment of impunity is an invitation to violence and human rights abuse of the worst possible forms.
At a critical juncture for Thailand, with a dangerous period ahead in which none of the underlying political and social problems that gave rise to these raids have been resolved, it is imperative that the law-enforcement agencies perform their duties properly and effectively.
The Asian Human Rights Commission urges the police to fulfil their law-enforcement role and see that the ringleaders and primary perpetrators of the destruction at Government House, as well as those responsible for any similar damage at the two airports, be fully investigated, arrested and prosecuted without delay.
There must be no negotiation, nor, above all, evidence of influence and reassurances of protection from powerful persons inside or outside of the policing agency. Those responsible for these crimes have said that they have a legal fund ready for the purpose of fighting cases lodged against them. Now let them use it. # # #
สมัครสมาชิก:
บทความ (Atom)