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
วันอาทิตย์ที่ 26 เมษายน พ.ศ. 2552
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. # # #
Bangkok's first casualty of political war
AWZAR THI
Column: Rule of Lords, UPI Asia Online HONG KONG, China,
April 16, 2009
As troops and antigovernment protestors clashed on Bangkok’s streets again this week, a furious battle also played out in the media over casualties. Government spokespersons and army officers insisted that bullets had not been fired into the crowds.
Their opponents said the opposite. Soldiers had at times pointed their weapons at people, and some of the red-shirted demonstrators had been shot, but there were few reliable details of who was hurt, how, where and why. Staff at the prime minister’s office blamed Red Shirts on motorbikes for a melee with local residents that left two dead.
Other sources were less certain about the identities of the protagonists, but doubtful voices were drowned out as local outlets obligingly reported the official version. Meanwhile, emailed narratives of battles around the city had it that the Red Shirts’ rivals were in some areas backing up the army, but there was no immediate evidence to support this claim either.
What all this goes to show is not which side is to blame for the street blockades and bloodshed of the last few days, but how difficult it has become to believe Thailand’s media.
Since 2006, when domestic news agencies and many overseas ones fell over each other to enthuse about the army’s latest power grab, the biases of newspapers, magazines and broadcasters have become more pronounced, their coverage more partisan, and their opinion-makers seemingly more sure of themselves even as things get less certain. In normal times, the impoverished domestic journalism which has become a hallmark of Bangkok has made following current affairs there difficult; with the city under siege and a state of emergency declared, it has made following them all but impossible.
Blinded by seething hatred of ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, many journalists have transformed him from the authoritarian bully that he is into a superhuman bogeyman on whom everything and anything can be blamed.
Thaksin obviously provoked his supporters to violence this week, as he has done in the past.
There is no need for the point to be made repeatedly. What is needed is to situate what has happened in a meaningful trajectory with which to make sense of it and to figure out what might occur next.
But instead of offering useful analysis, most newspaper space has been taken up with headlines jeering at the Red Shirts’ failed putsch accompanied by content-free commentary that has at best been infantile and at worst shameful. A columnist for the Bangkok Post shrilled that Thaksin was responsible for turning the city into a war zone and for the death of a young man whose brother she heard speak on television.
“Does Thaksin have a soul?” she cried out theatrically. The paper’s main editorial was little better, branding the former prime minister’s crimes “heinous” and heaping praise on the incumbent, Abhisit Vejjajiva, who came to power on the back of more prolonged violence of the same type last year.
By the time the Post was published, the government had closed the satellite station that the protest organizers were using for increasingly vociferous broadcasts. Whether or not the shutdown can be justified, the same has not been done to the Yellow Shirts’ mouthpiece.
It continues to churn out propaganda even as the leaders of last year’s Government House and airport takeovers run around on bail, while a number of their red-shirted counterparts have either been locked up or are in hiding.
Perhaps the yellow-shirted bosses have not felt the need to go on the run because no one is actually chasing them.
And while the authorities have moved against their adversaries’ use of modern technology, they have also been working overtime against sources of news that might have filled some of the gaps, corrected some of the errors, and exposed some of the lies in the big media and authorized accounts.
The Prachatai website has been on the back foot since its director was hit last month with a volley of ambiguous charges over supposedly unlawful comments that readers – not the service itself – had posted. It continues to put out news and views that cannot be found elsewhere, such as a recent careful critique of the prejudiced and simplistic television coverage of the newest battles in Bangkok. But its weekly radio feature has fallen silent.
Many bloggers have been trying their best to keep abreast of things, but they can’t make up for the paucity of trustworthy periodicals and professional broadcasters.
The bureaucracy has been fighting a war against them too, blocking the domestic audience from reading thousands of web pages since the start of this year alone on spurious grounds relating to the monarchy or national security.
A few foreign correspondents who have worked on and in Thailand for some years have filed informed and critical stories of what has been going on, but they are in the minority, and their reporting does not have much reach back inside the country where it would count the most. During Thaksin’s time as prime minister, police and bureaucrats routinely harassed journalists and media advocates: searching premises, issuing warrants and making threats. He and his government rightly attracted censure for their efforts to intimidate and silence critics, and for their misuse of state agencies toward these ends.
But in Thaksin’s time there was at least a struggle for freedom of opinion and expression that extended across different parts of the media. Since 2006, it has fallen to small committed groups like Prachatai to keep that effort alive, often at considerable risk to those involved. None of the mainstream print and broadcast outlets can today be counted as defenders of the right to speak freely.
This last week is proof of that. “The first casualty when war comes,” U.S. Senator Hiriam Johnson once famously said, “is truth.” While both sides in the latest battle for Thailand’s future were arguing furiously about how many lives and limbs they had claimed, the first casualty went uncounted.
Its passing is now more obvious than ever, its presence sorely missed. --
(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/2009/04/16/bangkoks_first_casualty_of_political_war/8748/
Column: Rule of Lords, UPI Asia Online HONG KONG, China,
April 16, 2009
As troops and antigovernment protestors clashed on Bangkok’s streets again this week, a furious battle also played out in the media over casualties. Government spokespersons and army officers insisted that bullets had not been fired into the crowds.
Their opponents said the opposite. Soldiers had at times pointed their weapons at people, and some of the red-shirted demonstrators had been shot, but there were few reliable details of who was hurt, how, where and why. Staff at the prime minister’s office blamed Red Shirts on motorbikes for a melee with local residents that left two dead.
Other sources were less certain about the identities of the protagonists, but doubtful voices were drowned out as local outlets obligingly reported the official version. Meanwhile, emailed narratives of battles around the city had it that the Red Shirts’ rivals were in some areas backing up the army, but there was no immediate evidence to support this claim either.
What all this goes to show is not which side is to blame for the street blockades and bloodshed of the last few days, but how difficult it has become to believe Thailand’s media.
Since 2006, when domestic news agencies and many overseas ones fell over each other to enthuse about the army’s latest power grab, the biases of newspapers, magazines and broadcasters have become more pronounced, their coverage more partisan, and their opinion-makers seemingly more sure of themselves even as things get less certain. In normal times, the impoverished domestic journalism which has become a hallmark of Bangkok has made following current affairs there difficult; with the city under siege and a state of emergency declared, it has made following them all but impossible.
Blinded by seething hatred of ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, many journalists have transformed him from the authoritarian bully that he is into a superhuman bogeyman on whom everything and anything can be blamed.
Thaksin obviously provoked his supporters to violence this week, as he has done in the past.
There is no need for the point to be made repeatedly. What is needed is to situate what has happened in a meaningful trajectory with which to make sense of it and to figure out what might occur next.
But instead of offering useful analysis, most newspaper space has been taken up with headlines jeering at the Red Shirts’ failed putsch accompanied by content-free commentary that has at best been infantile and at worst shameful. A columnist for the Bangkok Post shrilled that Thaksin was responsible for turning the city into a war zone and for the death of a young man whose brother she heard speak on television.
“Does Thaksin have a soul?” she cried out theatrically. The paper’s main editorial was little better, branding the former prime minister’s crimes “heinous” and heaping praise on the incumbent, Abhisit Vejjajiva, who came to power on the back of more prolonged violence of the same type last year.
By the time the Post was published, the government had closed the satellite station that the protest organizers were using for increasingly vociferous broadcasts. Whether or not the shutdown can be justified, the same has not been done to the Yellow Shirts’ mouthpiece.
It continues to churn out propaganda even as the leaders of last year’s Government House and airport takeovers run around on bail, while a number of their red-shirted counterparts have either been locked up or are in hiding.
Perhaps the yellow-shirted bosses have not felt the need to go on the run because no one is actually chasing them.
And while the authorities have moved against their adversaries’ use of modern technology, they have also been working overtime against sources of news that might have filled some of the gaps, corrected some of the errors, and exposed some of the lies in the big media and authorized accounts.
The Prachatai website has been on the back foot since its director was hit last month with a volley of ambiguous charges over supposedly unlawful comments that readers – not the service itself – had posted. It continues to put out news and views that cannot be found elsewhere, such as a recent careful critique of the prejudiced and simplistic television coverage of the newest battles in Bangkok. But its weekly radio feature has fallen silent.
Many bloggers have been trying their best to keep abreast of things, but they can’t make up for the paucity of trustworthy periodicals and professional broadcasters.
The bureaucracy has been fighting a war against them too, blocking the domestic audience from reading thousands of web pages since the start of this year alone on spurious grounds relating to the monarchy or national security.
A few foreign correspondents who have worked on and in Thailand for some years have filed informed and critical stories of what has been going on, but they are in the minority, and their reporting does not have much reach back inside the country where it would count the most. During Thaksin’s time as prime minister, police and bureaucrats routinely harassed journalists and media advocates: searching premises, issuing warrants and making threats. He and his government rightly attracted censure for their efforts to intimidate and silence critics, and for their misuse of state agencies toward these ends.
But in Thaksin’s time there was at least a struggle for freedom of opinion and expression that extended across different parts of the media. Since 2006, it has fallen to small committed groups like Prachatai to keep that effort alive, often at considerable risk to those involved. None of the mainstream print and broadcast outlets can today be counted as defenders of the right to speak freely.
This last week is proof of that. “The first casualty when war comes,” U.S. Senator Hiriam Johnson once famously said, “is truth.” While both sides in the latest battle for Thailand’s future were arguing furiously about how many lives and limbs they had claimed, the first casualty went uncounted.
Its passing is now more obvious than ever, its presence sorely missed. --
(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/2009/04/16/bangkoks_first_casualty_of_political_war/8748/
THAILAND: A long road back to human rights and the rule of law
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AS-196-2007August 20, 2007
A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission
Predictably, the military junta in Thailand has coerced, threatened, bought and cajoled part of the electorate into passing its 309-article constitution on August 19.
From results to date, just over 14 million people out of the country's 45 million eligible voters crossed the box in favor of the charter. As only 25 million bothered to turn up at the poll booths, despite the saturating propaganda campaign in the weeks beforehand, this number was sufficient to carry the draft.
The number of voters was far lower than in previous recent elections, which have all been at least 62 per cent. In fact, the last time that there was a less than 60 per cent voter turnout was in the March 1992 general election that was hosted by the previous military dictatorship; its leader then took over as prime minister and was ousted by massive street protests a couple of months later, precipitating the period of nascent democracy and moves towards genuine constitutionalism of the 1990s, culminating in the abrogated 1997 Constitution.
Unsurprisingly, the low percentage of votes cast has been played down, lest it suggest a heavy skepticism about the referendum and weariness about the persistent presence of the military in Thailand's politics and public affairs. The conditions under which the constitution was passed bode ill for the days and months ahead. Martial law remained in effect across half the country. Opponents of the draft were intimidated and materials confiscated from houses and post offices. Protestors against the coup have been charged with criminal offences.
Villagers were reportedly paid to attend government-backed rallies: precisely the sort of practice that the interim administration accused its predecessors of using to win elections. The army and bureaucracy were mobilized to see that the document, jacketed in yellow as an unmistakable reference to the monarchy, was accepted.
The entire event was conducted under a heavy anti-democratic atmosphere: precisely the sort of referendum that dictators have used throughout history to give the false impression of public endorsement for their actions. History also has many lessons about the types of repressive regimes and social turmoil that emerge from such deceitful public rituals.
The people of Thailand are now caught in strange and contradictory circumstances. On the one hand, the social and economic life of their country is undeniably in the 21st century. On the other hand, its political and legal life has now been firmly thrown back to the 1980s. As a result, many good persons will likely withdraw from those areas completely, while others who may have contributed to them will now be reluctant or unwilling to do so.
The parliament, courts and legal profession will likely lose good people, as the former returns to an elite bureaucratic mode of government and the latter become more and more politically compromised and corrupted. Fewer persons also will seek to obtain redress for grievances through these institutions, and will instead turn to outside avenues and feudal remedies in order to gain partial satisfaction, rather than get nothing at all.
The coming general election too will do nothing to solve the country's problems. The junta will undoubtedly continue to manipulate and malign others throughout the coming period. The military has re-cemented its position at the centre of key institutions and regardless of whatever else happens it will use its renewed authority to full effect.
Political parties will have only a small window for organizing and campaigning.
Those that sided with the regime can be expected to obtain the greatest advantages in the lead-up to the vote, while meanwhile over a hundred executives from the former ruling party have had their political rights revoked for five years under an order of the coup leader, shamefully endorsed by the proxy constitutional court set up after last September.
In view of the current circumstances, the European Union and others would be wrong to send observers as has been proposed, as they would only serve to lend credence to another sham.
The Asian Human Rights Commission deeply regrets the passing of this regressive charter, not only for the people of Thailand but the people of the entire region. In the 1990s Thailand emerged as a place of hope and possibility for persons concerned with human rights and the rule of law in Asia. It set an example that encouraged others in more repressed societies. While the former government did much to damage this positive atmosphere, it took the army to destroy it completely.
To rescue their country, the people of Thailand now have another long road ahead of them.
For the sake not only of themselves but for the people in every other part of Asia that looked to them for inspiration and guidance, they should find the stomach and determination to carry on.
A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission
Predictably, the military junta in Thailand has coerced, threatened, bought and cajoled part of the electorate into passing its 309-article constitution on August 19.
From results to date, just over 14 million people out of the country's 45 million eligible voters crossed the box in favor of the charter. As only 25 million bothered to turn up at the poll booths, despite the saturating propaganda campaign in the weeks beforehand, this number was sufficient to carry the draft.
The number of voters was far lower than in previous recent elections, which have all been at least 62 per cent. In fact, the last time that there was a less than 60 per cent voter turnout was in the March 1992 general election that was hosted by the previous military dictatorship; its leader then took over as prime minister and was ousted by massive street protests a couple of months later, precipitating the period of nascent democracy and moves towards genuine constitutionalism of the 1990s, culminating in the abrogated 1997 Constitution.
Unsurprisingly, the low percentage of votes cast has been played down, lest it suggest a heavy skepticism about the referendum and weariness about the persistent presence of the military in Thailand's politics and public affairs. The conditions under which the constitution was passed bode ill for the days and months ahead. Martial law remained in effect across half the country. Opponents of the draft were intimidated and materials confiscated from houses and post offices. Protestors against the coup have been charged with criminal offences.
Villagers were reportedly paid to attend government-backed rallies: precisely the sort of practice that the interim administration accused its predecessors of using to win elections. The army and bureaucracy were mobilized to see that the document, jacketed in yellow as an unmistakable reference to the monarchy, was accepted.
The entire event was conducted under a heavy anti-democratic atmosphere: precisely the sort of referendum that dictators have used throughout history to give the false impression of public endorsement for their actions. History also has many lessons about the types of repressive regimes and social turmoil that emerge from such deceitful public rituals.
The people of Thailand are now caught in strange and contradictory circumstances. On the one hand, the social and economic life of their country is undeniably in the 21st century. On the other hand, its political and legal life has now been firmly thrown back to the 1980s. As a result, many good persons will likely withdraw from those areas completely, while others who may have contributed to them will now be reluctant or unwilling to do so.
The parliament, courts and legal profession will likely lose good people, as the former returns to an elite bureaucratic mode of government and the latter become more and more politically compromised and corrupted. Fewer persons also will seek to obtain redress for grievances through these institutions, and will instead turn to outside avenues and feudal remedies in order to gain partial satisfaction, rather than get nothing at all.
The coming general election too will do nothing to solve the country's problems. The junta will undoubtedly continue to manipulate and malign others throughout the coming period. The military has re-cemented its position at the centre of key institutions and regardless of whatever else happens it will use its renewed authority to full effect.
Political parties will have only a small window for organizing and campaigning.
Those that sided with the regime can be expected to obtain the greatest advantages in the lead-up to the vote, while meanwhile over a hundred executives from the former ruling party have had their political rights revoked for five years under an order of the coup leader, shamefully endorsed by the proxy constitutional court set up after last September.
In view of the current circumstances, the European Union and others would be wrong to send observers as has been proposed, as they would only serve to lend credence to another sham.
The Asian Human Rights Commission deeply regrets the passing of this regressive charter, not only for the people of Thailand but the people of the entire region. In the 1990s Thailand emerged as a place of hope and possibility for persons concerned with human rights and the rule of law in Asia. It set an example that encouraged others in more repressed societies. While the former government did much to damage this positive atmosphere, it took the army to destroy it completely.
To rescue their country, the people of Thailand now have another long road ahead of them.
For the sake not only of themselves but for the people in every other part of Asia that looked to them for inspiration and guidance, they should find the stomach and determination to carry on.
EYES ON COUP
Canada - In a press release, Minister of Foreign Affairs Peter MacKay said, “Canada is deeply concerned by these developments. We urge a peaceful solution to this crisis in conformity with the country’s constitution. Thailand has made marked progress in terms of respect for human rights and the rule of law, and Canada urges all parties to continue to uphold these values.”[2]
USA
The State Department initially announced that it was “monitoring the situation with concern.”[3] A spokesman said, “We look to the Thai people to resolve their political differences in a peaceful manner and in accord with the principles of democracy and the rule of law.”[4]
Later on, the US’s criticism increased in severity, with State Department Deputy Spokesman Tom Casey saying, “There’s no justification for a military coup in Thailand or in anyplace else, and we certainly are extremely disappointed by this action. It’s a step backward for democracy in Thailand. We very much urge that democratic elections are held as soon as possible, which is a commitment military officials have made. That commitment needs to be met, and it needs to be respected. There are also consequences when these kinds of actions take place, and obviously, in light of what’s happened, in light of this coup, there are aspects of our relationship that we’re going to have to review.”[5] Casey later noted that the US would like to see elections held earlier than the one-year timetable set by the coup leaders.
U.S. Ambassador to the UN John R. Bolton noted that “We have press reports and I think for now the important thing is to look for the sustaining of constitutional processes in Thailand.”[6]
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said that “We’re disappointed in the coup. We hope those who mounted it will make good and make good swiftly on their promises to restore democracy.” Snow also hinted that currently inconclusive talks with Bangkok on a Free Trade Agreement, might also depend on a return to democratic rule. “Once you have democracy restored, we’ll also be in a position to move forward on a free trade agreement with them.”[7]
Tom Casey also warned that certain US aid to Thailand could be reviewed, figures appear to be referring to some categories of assistance dependent on democracy being maintained. [8] Casey later noted that the US is also reviewing its aid to Thailand. Under the so-called Foreign Operations Assistance Act, the United States has budgeted about 14 million dollars in bilateral assistance, including four million dollars in the military area, to Thailand in fiscal 2006.[9]
The US also warned the junta from taking actions for political purposes, like investigating or seizing the assets of Thaksin Shinawatra.[10]
The United States later cut off $24 million in aid, including foreign military financing, international military education and training, and peacekeeping operations. “We look forward to being able to reinstate these programs after a democratically-elected government takes office,” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. Official US military trips to Thailand were also suspended and US military personnel in Thailand were recalled.[11]
Costa Rica - Finance Minister Guillermo Zúñiga lamented the fact that some people think “these types of ways [coups] can solve problems.”[12]
Asia
People’s Republic of China - Beijing brushed off Thailand’s military coup as an internal affair and wished the country “harmony and prosperity”. “It’s Thailand’s own internal affair. The PRC has consistently upheld the principle of non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs,” the foreign ministry said in a statement posted on its website. [13][14][15]
Hong Kong - Security secretary Ambrose Lee said on 20 September that Hong Kong residents in Thailand should take care of themselves, their property and their personal safety. The Security Bureau reminded Hong Kong residents going to Thailand that they should keep themselves abreast of the latest developments and pay attention to personal safety, and said the government would continue to closely monitor the situation. [16] [17]
India - New Delhi issued a statement urging all Indian citizens in Thailand to contact the embassy in Bangkok. The foreign ministry condemns any act that hinders democracy and also hopes that there will be a smooth transition of power from the military to the representatives of the last election, which itself is mired in controversy.
Indonesia - The Indonesian government, through its foreign ministry spokesman Desra Percaya, states that Indonesia “expects that the principles of democracy … would be further upheld, … [and] further hopes that the political crisis in Thailand could be resolved amicably and democratically for the greater interest of the people of Thailand.” [18][19]
Japan - Japan’s Foreign Minister said the military coup in Thailand was regrettable and urged efforts to quickly restore democracy.[20]
South Korea - a Foreign Ministry spokesman said, “We hope Thailand will restore peace according to legal procedures.”[2]
Laos - Lao Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Yong Chantalangsy, has said “These are interior affairs of Thailand. No comment, we are following the situation very closely.” No border points have been closed between the two countries. “Everything is normal and flights are operating as usual,” the Yong Chantalangsy said. [21]
Malaysia - Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi of Malaysia expressed shock over the coup. He said, ‘I was taken aback. This is not the way for a change in government that people like to see. By right, there should be an election.’ He said he hoped that an election would take place soon and that the country would eventually be ruled by a democratically elected government.[22] Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar added that, ‘A change in government through a military coup is not an accepted way.’ [23]
Pakistan - a Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said, “We hope for calm and avoidance of violence.” and further added “We want to see political stability in Thailand which is a very important member of ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) and has made important contributions to ASEAN’s development,” [24]
Philippines - President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and several lawmakers have said that they are concerned about the coup in Thailand. In addition, they are confident in the loyalty of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. President Arroyo is monitoring the situation from the UN headquarters in New York.[25] Although the government has not issued an official statement, Senator Richard Gordon said that he calls for President Arroyo to lash at Sonthi Boonyaratglin for launching the coup.[26]
Singapore - Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Singapore hopes all parties involved will work towards a positive outcome.” The ministry “hopes the situation there will return to normal as soon as possible.”[27] Foreign Minister George Yeo has expressed his shock and deep concern over the recent coup in Thailand. He said that Singapore called on all parties involved to seek reconciliation and restore constitutional Government as soon as possible. [28]
Republic of China (Taiwan) - The Republic of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs advised recent travellers to Thailand to be alert due to safety concerns.[29]
[edit]
Europe
European Union - A spokesman for the President of the European Council and Prime Minister of Finland, Matti Vanhanen, noted his “grave concern” and added, “It is highly regrettable that democratic institutions seem to have been taken over by military force. Prime Minister Vanhanen emphasises the need to revert to democratic order without delay.”[30]
Netherlands - Herman van Gelderen, spokesman for the Dutch Foreign Minister, said the minister was “very worried” but could not comment further for want of information.[31]
Norway - Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre stated, “The armed forces must step down to allow the return of the democratically elected government. I hope the situation will be resolved peacefully, and that the country returns to democratic order as soon as possible.” [32]
Sweden - Minister for Foreign Affairs and former President of the United Nations General Assembly Jan Eliasson stated, “I am very concerned about the information from Bangkok tonight that a military coup d’état has taken place. The situation is not yet clear, but it is imperative that political differences are resolved within the framework of the constitution, peacefully and in accordance with democratic principles and with respect for human rights. We are naturally following developments in Bangkok very closely”.[33]
Denmark - Foreign minister Per Stig Møller denounced the coup, calling it “banana republic-like, that the military seizes power while the PM is out of the country. But it’s not over yet, there’s no conclusion yet. Thaksin has a lot of support outside Bangkok. So we’ll have to see what happens when he returns home. I just hope it does not end in violence. I hope that democracy will be re-established in Thailand.” [34]
United Kingdom - Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett stated, “We are never happy about military attempts to overthrow a government, if that is what is happening. But we very much hope there will be peace and the situation will be resolved and that some peaceful way out of the problem will be determined.” [2] A Foreign Office spokeswoman later added, “There are elections scheduled for October and November and we are actively trying to find out whether those elections will go ahead or not. Obviously, we believe they should.”[35]
A group of Thai students called “Oxford Initiative” (OI) was in the process of issuing a statement after a meeting on Thursday to express disagreement with the coup. A leading member of the group speaking on condition of anonymity said he regretted that the Thai military had chosen to achieve political ends through non-democratic means. He added that views of OI members are not necessarily representative of the entire community of Thai students in Oxford who are more or less divided over the current coup[36].
Russia - The Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement, “We hope that a way out of the current situation will be found with a rapid return to the path of constitutional rule and by the reinforcement of the democratic process with the participation of all political forces.”[37] Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also noted that his “opinion is that everybody should be governed by the need to strengthen the constitutional regime in the country.” [38]
Ireland - The Irish Department of Foreign Affairs stated that it was monitoring the situation and has asked Irish people there to exercise utmost caution. [39]
[edit]
Oceania
Australia - Foreign Minister of Australia Alexander Downer stated, “We want to see a return to democratic rule. It’s of grave concern for us that the government has been overthrown in this way. There was an expectation in Thailand that there would be an election towards the end of this year and it is of concern to us that the military appear to have simply seized power.” The Australian Labor Party’s foreign affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd, noted that the coup “needs to be condemned and condemned unequivocally,” adding that “The way to resolve these crises is through democratic and constitutional means. A coup d’etat is a direct assault on democracy itself. The region cannot stand idly by and leave such actions uncondemned.”[40]
New Zealand - New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark condemned the coup, saying that New Zealand “condemns any process which seeks to overturn a government by unconstitutional and undemocratic means.” She added that “New Zealand urges all political and military players to resolve their differences peacefully and to act in accordance with Thailand’s constitution and democratic principles,” and that she was “deeply disturbed” by reports from Thailand.[41]
[edit]
International
UN - United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan told CNN, “I don’t have the details but this is not a practice to be encouraged.” He also said, “As the African Union, for example, has indicated, they do not support those who come to power through the barrel of a gun,” and, “Over the past decade or so, they have established a solid democracy and institutions under the leadership of the King. I’m sure they will be able to restore that institution and go back to a democratic system as soon as possible.”[42]
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights noted that the coup contravened human rights conventions and urged the junta to “to ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and reinstate the country’s human rights commission.” Although the National Human Rights Commission was not disbanded, it did support the coup.[43][44]
International Monetary Fund - IMF Managing Director Rodrigo Rato stated at the IMF’s annual meeting in Singapore that, “We are following developments very closely and look forward for the evolution and benefit of democracy and stability in the country.”[45]
[edit]
International media
The Economist came out against the coup: “Military coups, like wars, are easy to start but hard to end… The generals’ error is to assume that a coup will solve anything. Whenever an election is held, Mr Thaksin’s rural, populist Thai Rak Thai party will surely do well, whether or not he is allowed back into the country to lead it. And the principle of changing governments by street protest and military putsch has been re-established, undoing all the progress of the past decade, which had seen Thailand slowly emerge from the shadow of the barracks and the royal palace. More instability, not less, is the likely outcome. Nor is turmoil likely to help clean up political life.” The piece continued to state how the general lack of international condemnation for the coup might embold military leaders or reinforce authoritative tendancies in neighboring countries.[46]
The New York Times also criticized the coup, noting that “With the coup, Thailand became one more Southeast Asian nation that has reinterpreted democracy in undemocratic terms, either manipulating or sidestepping constitutional processes to achieve political ends… Now both Thailand and the Philippines, the region’s two exemplars of democracy, have ousted democratically elected leaders. [As for other Southeast Asian nations,] each nation argues that its departures from democracy are a necessary response to local conditions.”[47]
[edit]
References
^ Hariraksapitak, Pracha. “Thai army declares nationwide martial law“, Reuters, 19 September 2006.
^ a b c Khaleej Times Online (2006). Annan, world leaders urge return to democracy in Thailand. Retrieved 20 September 2006.
^ International Herald Tribune, U.S. concerned about Thai coup but not rushing to judgment, 19 September 2006
^ Bloomberg.com (2006). Thai Military, Police Say They Have Seized Bangkok (Correct). Retrieved 20 September 2006.
^ Bangkok Post, “United States: Thai coup ‘unjustified’”, 21 September 2006
^ The Nation, Foreign countries express concerns on military takeover, 21 September 2006
^ ChannelNewAsia.com, “Disappointed US condemns Thai coup”, 21 September 2006
^ ChannelNewAsia.com, “Disappointed US condemns Thai coup”, 21 September 2006
^ ChannelNewAsia.com, “US reviewing aid to Thailand due to coup”, 22 September 2006
^ The Nation, US cautions Thai generals against taking politically-motivated actions, 26 September 2006
^ The Nation, US cuts off millions in military aid to Thailand, 29 September 2006
^ Bangkok Post, IMF closely watching Thailand, 20 September 2006
^ http://world.people.com.cn/BIG5/1029/42354/4835168.html
^ ChannelNewAsia.com, China says Thai coup is ‘internal affair’, 20 September 2006
^ Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The PRC, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Qin Gang’s Comment on the Current Situations of Thailand, 20 September 2006
^ “S for S urges Hong Kong residents in Thailand to be careful”, Hong Kong Government press release, September 20, 2006
^ “Hong Kong residents reminded about situation in Thailand”, Hong Kong Government press release, September 20, 2006
^ Foreign Ministry of the Republic of Indonesia, Statement by the Government of the Republic of Indonesia on the Development in Thailand, 20 September 2006
^ ANTARA News, Indonesia hopes that Thailand will resolve the crisis democratically, 20 September 2006
^ Mainichi Daily News, Thai coup leader says it was necessary to end rifts in society, 20 September 2006
^ “Laos monitoring situation in Thailand”, Haveeru Daily, 20 September, 2006
^ The Star, Monitor Thai Situation Before Going, 20 September 2006
^ The Star, PM: Nobody Is Marginalised In Malaysia, 23 September 2006
^ Geo Television NetworkPakistan hopes for political stability in Thailand, 20 September 2006
^ Philippine Daily Inquirer, Arroyo in ‘firm control’ of government military - Palace, 20 September 2006
^ Philippine Daily Inquirer, RP nixes possibility of ‘copycat coup’ Arroyo in ‘firm control’ — Palace., 21 September 2006
^ ChannelNewsAsia.com (2006). Singapore watching developments in post-coup Thailand with concern (Correct). Retrieved 20 September 2006.
^ ChannelNewsAsia.com, Foreign Minister George Yeo expresses deep concern over recent coup in Thailand. 22 September 2006.
^ Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of China (Taiwan), 外交部提醒近日計畫赴泰國人注意安全
^ The Bangkok Post, Europe criticises military takeover, 20 September 2006
^ The Bangkok Post, Europe criticizes military takeover, 20 September 2006
^ Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway condemns Thai military coup, 20 September 2006
^ Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Jan Eliasson on developments in Bangkok, 20 September 2006
^ “Per Stig: Kup er bananstats-agtigt“, Politiken, 20 September 2006.(Danish)
^
^ The Nation, [1], Thai students at Oxford regret coup
^ The Nation, Moscow calls for a return to democracy in Thailand, 22 September 2006
^ “Lavrov calls for stronger constitutional regime in Thailand”, Interfax, September 21, 2006
^ Thai military takes power after coup RTE News, 19 September 2006 22:47
^ The Australian, Thai coup ‘assault on democracy’: Labor, 20 September 2006
^ http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=27179
^ People’s Daily Online (2006). UN chief discourages military coup in Thailand. Retrieved 20 September 2006.
^ The Bangkok Post, UN says Thai coup violating human rights, 25 September 2006
^ The Nation, Activists to hold anti-coup gathering, 22 September 2006
^ The Nation, IMF closely watching Thailand, 20 September 2006
^ The Economist, Thailand’s coup, 21 September 2006
^ The New York Times, Thailand Reinterprets the Rules of Democracy, Again, 21
USA
The State Department initially announced that it was “monitoring the situation with concern.”[3] A spokesman said, “We look to the Thai people to resolve their political differences in a peaceful manner and in accord with the principles of democracy and the rule of law.”[4]
Later on, the US’s criticism increased in severity, with State Department Deputy Spokesman Tom Casey saying, “There’s no justification for a military coup in Thailand or in anyplace else, and we certainly are extremely disappointed by this action. It’s a step backward for democracy in Thailand. We very much urge that democratic elections are held as soon as possible, which is a commitment military officials have made. That commitment needs to be met, and it needs to be respected. There are also consequences when these kinds of actions take place, and obviously, in light of what’s happened, in light of this coup, there are aspects of our relationship that we’re going to have to review.”[5] Casey later noted that the US would like to see elections held earlier than the one-year timetable set by the coup leaders.
U.S. Ambassador to the UN John R. Bolton noted that “We have press reports and I think for now the important thing is to look for the sustaining of constitutional processes in Thailand.”[6]
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said that “We’re disappointed in the coup. We hope those who mounted it will make good and make good swiftly on their promises to restore democracy.” Snow also hinted that currently inconclusive talks with Bangkok on a Free Trade Agreement, might also depend on a return to democratic rule. “Once you have democracy restored, we’ll also be in a position to move forward on a free trade agreement with them.”[7]
Tom Casey also warned that certain US aid to Thailand could be reviewed, figures appear to be referring to some categories of assistance dependent on democracy being maintained. [8] Casey later noted that the US is also reviewing its aid to Thailand. Under the so-called Foreign Operations Assistance Act, the United States has budgeted about 14 million dollars in bilateral assistance, including four million dollars in the military area, to Thailand in fiscal 2006.[9]
The US also warned the junta from taking actions for political purposes, like investigating or seizing the assets of Thaksin Shinawatra.[10]
The United States later cut off $24 million in aid, including foreign military financing, international military education and training, and peacekeeping operations. “We look forward to being able to reinstate these programs after a democratically-elected government takes office,” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. Official US military trips to Thailand were also suspended and US military personnel in Thailand were recalled.[11]
Costa Rica - Finance Minister Guillermo Zúñiga lamented the fact that some people think “these types of ways [coups] can solve problems.”[12]
Asia
People’s Republic of China - Beijing brushed off Thailand’s military coup as an internal affair and wished the country “harmony and prosperity”. “It’s Thailand’s own internal affair. The PRC has consistently upheld the principle of non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs,” the foreign ministry said in a statement posted on its website. [13][14][15]
Hong Kong - Security secretary Ambrose Lee said on 20 September that Hong Kong residents in Thailand should take care of themselves, their property and their personal safety. The Security Bureau reminded Hong Kong residents going to Thailand that they should keep themselves abreast of the latest developments and pay attention to personal safety, and said the government would continue to closely monitor the situation. [16] [17]
India - New Delhi issued a statement urging all Indian citizens in Thailand to contact the embassy in Bangkok. The foreign ministry condemns any act that hinders democracy and also hopes that there will be a smooth transition of power from the military to the representatives of the last election, which itself is mired in controversy.
Indonesia - The Indonesian government, through its foreign ministry spokesman Desra Percaya, states that Indonesia “expects that the principles of democracy … would be further upheld, … [and] further hopes that the political crisis in Thailand could be resolved amicably and democratically for the greater interest of the people of Thailand.” [18][19]
Japan - Japan’s Foreign Minister said the military coup in Thailand was regrettable and urged efforts to quickly restore democracy.[20]
South Korea - a Foreign Ministry spokesman said, “We hope Thailand will restore peace according to legal procedures.”[2]
Laos - Lao Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Yong Chantalangsy, has said “These are interior affairs of Thailand. No comment, we are following the situation very closely.” No border points have been closed between the two countries. “Everything is normal and flights are operating as usual,” the Yong Chantalangsy said. [21]
Malaysia - Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi of Malaysia expressed shock over the coup. He said, ‘I was taken aback. This is not the way for a change in government that people like to see. By right, there should be an election.’ He said he hoped that an election would take place soon and that the country would eventually be ruled by a democratically elected government.[22] Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar added that, ‘A change in government through a military coup is not an accepted way.’ [23]
Pakistan - a Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said, “We hope for calm and avoidance of violence.” and further added “We want to see political stability in Thailand which is a very important member of ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) and has made important contributions to ASEAN’s development,” [24]
Philippines - President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and several lawmakers have said that they are concerned about the coup in Thailand. In addition, they are confident in the loyalty of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. President Arroyo is monitoring the situation from the UN headquarters in New York.[25] Although the government has not issued an official statement, Senator Richard Gordon said that he calls for President Arroyo to lash at Sonthi Boonyaratglin for launching the coup.[26]
Singapore - Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Singapore hopes all parties involved will work towards a positive outcome.” The ministry “hopes the situation there will return to normal as soon as possible.”[27] Foreign Minister George Yeo has expressed his shock and deep concern over the recent coup in Thailand. He said that Singapore called on all parties involved to seek reconciliation and restore constitutional Government as soon as possible. [28]
Republic of China (Taiwan) - The Republic of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs advised recent travellers to Thailand to be alert due to safety concerns.[29]
[edit]
Europe
European Union - A spokesman for the President of the European Council and Prime Minister of Finland, Matti Vanhanen, noted his “grave concern” and added, “It is highly regrettable that democratic institutions seem to have been taken over by military force. Prime Minister Vanhanen emphasises the need to revert to democratic order without delay.”[30]
Netherlands - Herman van Gelderen, spokesman for the Dutch Foreign Minister, said the minister was “very worried” but could not comment further for want of information.[31]
Norway - Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre stated, “The armed forces must step down to allow the return of the democratically elected government. I hope the situation will be resolved peacefully, and that the country returns to democratic order as soon as possible.” [32]
Sweden - Minister for Foreign Affairs and former President of the United Nations General Assembly Jan Eliasson stated, “I am very concerned about the information from Bangkok tonight that a military coup d’état has taken place. The situation is not yet clear, but it is imperative that political differences are resolved within the framework of the constitution, peacefully and in accordance with democratic principles and with respect for human rights. We are naturally following developments in Bangkok very closely”.[33]
Denmark - Foreign minister Per Stig Møller denounced the coup, calling it “banana republic-like, that the military seizes power while the PM is out of the country. But it’s not over yet, there’s no conclusion yet. Thaksin has a lot of support outside Bangkok. So we’ll have to see what happens when he returns home. I just hope it does not end in violence. I hope that democracy will be re-established in Thailand.” [34]
United Kingdom - Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett stated, “We are never happy about military attempts to overthrow a government, if that is what is happening. But we very much hope there will be peace and the situation will be resolved and that some peaceful way out of the problem will be determined.” [2] A Foreign Office spokeswoman later added, “There are elections scheduled for October and November and we are actively trying to find out whether those elections will go ahead or not. Obviously, we believe they should.”[35]
A group of Thai students called “Oxford Initiative” (OI) was in the process of issuing a statement after a meeting on Thursday to express disagreement with the coup. A leading member of the group speaking on condition of anonymity said he regretted that the Thai military had chosen to achieve political ends through non-democratic means. He added that views of OI members are not necessarily representative of the entire community of Thai students in Oxford who are more or less divided over the current coup[36].
Russia - The Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement, “We hope that a way out of the current situation will be found with a rapid return to the path of constitutional rule and by the reinforcement of the democratic process with the participation of all political forces.”[37] Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also noted that his “opinion is that everybody should be governed by the need to strengthen the constitutional regime in the country.” [38]
Ireland - The Irish Department of Foreign Affairs stated that it was monitoring the situation and has asked Irish people there to exercise utmost caution. [39]
[edit]
Oceania
Australia - Foreign Minister of Australia Alexander Downer stated, “We want to see a return to democratic rule. It’s of grave concern for us that the government has been overthrown in this way. There was an expectation in Thailand that there would be an election towards the end of this year and it is of concern to us that the military appear to have simply seized power.” The Australian Labor Party’s foreign affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd, noted that the coup “needs to be condemned and condemned unequivocally,” adding that “The way to resolve these crises is through democratic and constitutional means. A coup d’etat is a direct assault on democracy itself. The region cannot stand idly by and leave such actions uncondemned.”[40]
New Zealand - New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark condemned the coup, saying that New Zealand “condemns any process which seeks to overturn a government by unconstitutional and undemocratic means.” She added that “New Zealand urges all political and military players to resolve their differences peacefully and to act in accordance with Thailand’s constitution and democratic principles,” and that she was “deeply disturbed” by reports from Thailand.[41]
[edit]
International
UN - United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan told CNN, “I don’t have the details but this is not a practice to be encouraged.” He also said, “As the African Union, for example, has indicated, they do not support those who come to power through the barrel of a gun,” and, “Over the past decade or so, they have established a solid democracy and institutions under the leadership of the King. I’m sure they will be able to restore that institution and go back to a democratic system as soon as possible.”[42]
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights noted that the coup contravened human rights conventions and urged the junta to “to ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and reinstate the country’s human rights commission.” Although the National Human Rights Commission was not disbanded, it did support the coup.[43][44]
International Monetary Fund - IMF Managing Director Rodrigo Rato stated at the IMF’s annual meeting in Singapore that, “We are following developments very closely and look forward for the evolution and benefit of democracy and stability in the country.”[45]
[edit]
International media
The Economist came out against the coup: “Military coups, like wars, are easy to start but hard to end… The generals’ error is to assume that a coup will solve anything. Whenever an election is held, Mr Thaksin’s rural, populist Thai Rak Thai party will surely do well, whether or not he is allowed back into the country to lead it. And the principle of changing governments by street protest and military putsch has been re-established, undoing all the progress of the past decade, which had seen Thailand slowly emerge from the shadow of the barracks and the royal palace. More instability, not less, is the likely outcome. Nor is turmoil likely to help clean up political life.” The piece continued to state how the general lack of international condemnation for the coup might embold military leaders or reinforce authoritative tendancies in neighboring countries.[46]
The New York Times also criticized the coup, noting that “With the coup, Thailand became one more Southeast Asian nation that has reinterpreted democracy in undemocratic terms, either manipulating or sidestepping constitutional processes to achieve political ends… Now both Thailand and the Philippines, the region’s two exemplars of democracy, have ousted democratically elected leaders. [As for other Southeast Asian nations,] each nation argues that its departures from democracy are a necessary response to local conditions.”[47]
[edit]
References
^ Hariraksapitak, Pracha. “Thai army declares nationwide martial law“, Reuters, 19 September 2006.
^ a b c Khaleej Times Online (2006). Annan, world leaders urge return to democracy in Thailand. Retrieved 20 September 2006.
^ International Herald Tribune, U.S. concerned about Thai coup but not rushing to judgment, 19 September 2006
^ Bloomberg.com (2006). Thai Military, Police Say They Have Seized Bangkok (Correct). Retrieved 20 September 2006.
^ Bangkok Post, “United States: Thai coup ‘unjustified’”, 21 September 2006
^ The Nation, Foreign countries express concerns on military takeover, 21 September 2006
^ ChannelNewAsia.com, “Disappointed US condemns Thai coup”, 21 September 2006
^ ChannelNewAsia.com, “Disappointed US condemns Thai coup”, 21 September 2006
^ ChannelNewAsia.com, “US reviewing aid to Thailand due to coup”, 22 September 2006
^ The Nation, US cautions Thai generals against taking politically-motivated actions, 26 September 2006
^ The Nation, US cuts off millions in military aid to Thailand, 29 September 2006
^ Bangkok Post, IMF closely watching Thailand, 20 September 2006
^ http://world.people.com.cn/BIG5/1029/42354/4835168.html
^ ChannelNewAsia.com, China says Thai coup is ‘internal affair’, 20 September 2006
^ Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The PRC, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Qin Gang’s Comment on the Current Situations of Thailand, 20 September 2006
^ “S for S urges Hong Kong residents in Thailand to be careful”, Hong Kong Government press release, September 20, 2006
^ “Hong Kong residents reminded about situation in Thailand”, Hong Kong Government press release, September 20, 2006
^ Foreign Ministry of the Republic of Indonesia, Statement by the Government of the Republic of Indonesia on the Development in Thailand, 20 September 2006
^ ANTARA News, Indonesia hopes that Thailand will resolve the crisis democratically, 20 September 2006
^ Mainichi Daily News, Thai coup leader says it was necessary to end rifts in society, 20 September 2006
^ “Laos monitoring situation in Thailand”, Haveeru Daily, 20 September, 2006
^ The Star, Monitor Thai Situation Before Going, 20 September 2006
^ The Star, PM: Nobody Is Marginalised In Malaysia, 23 September 2006
^ Geo Television NetworkPakistan hopes for political stability in Thailand, 20 September 2006
^ Philippine Daily Inquirer, Arroyo in ‘firm control’ of government military - Palace, 20 September 2006
^ Philippine Daily Inquirer, RP nixes possibility of ‘copycat coup’ Arroyo in ‘firm control’ — Palace., 21 September 2006
^ ChannelNewsAsia.com (2006). Singapore watching developments in post-coup Thailand with concern (Correct). Retrieved 20 September 2006.
^ ChannelNewsAsia.com, Foreign Minister George Yeo expresses deep concern over recent coup in Thailand. 22 September 2006.
^ Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of China (Taiwan), 外交部提醒近日計畫赴泰國人注意安全
^ The Bangkok Post, Europe criticises military takeover, 20 September 2006
^ The Bangkok Post, Europe criticizes military takeover, 20 September 2006
^ Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway condemns Thai military coup, 20 September 2006
^ Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Jan Eliasson on developments in Bangkok, 20 September 2006
^ “Per Stig: Kup er bananstats-agtigt“, Politiken, 20 September 2006.(Danish)
^
^ The Nation, [1], Thai students at Oxford regret coup
^ The Nation, Moscow calls for a return to democracy in Thailand, 22 September 2006
^ “Lavrov calls for stronger constitutional regime in Thailand”, Interfax, September 21, 2006
^ Thai military takes power after coup RTE News, 19 September 2006 22:47
^ The Australian, Thai coup ‘assault on democracy’: Labor, 20 September 2006
^ http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=27179
^ People’s Daily Online (2006). UN chief discourages military coup in Thailand. Retrieved 20 September 2006.
^ The Bangkok Post, UN says Thai coup violating human rights, 25 September 2006
^ The Nation, Activists to hold anti-coup gathering, 22 September 2006
^ The Nation, IMF closely watching Thailand, 20 September 2006
^ The Economist, Thailand’s coup, 21 September 2006
^ The New York Times, Thailand Reinterprets the Rules of Democracy, Again, 21
สมัครสมาชิก:
บทความ (Atom)