The line in the sand on human rights

There’s an interesting and revealing report at the Bangkok Post. Interesting and significant for the admissions made and revealing of the admission on the limits of human rights. The report draws on a U.N. Human Rights Council report (clicking downloads a large PDF) and the associated Thai government response.

The UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression report is here. (PPT will spend some time on this document over the next few days as it includes information on nearly 60 lese majeste/computer crimes cases, including cases against 11 foreign nationals.)

The Thai government’s response is here.

The admissions made:

Thailand has conceded to issues raised by a UN special rapporteur as alleged malpractice regarding freedom of expression and migrant labour, and to the fatal harassment of human rights defenders.

The admission is in a document included in 108 pages of communications involving special rapporteurs of the United Nations recently made available ahead of the 23rd session of the UN Human Rights Council.

This admission appears to PPT to be a significant advance as an admission could, with the right political will, lead to some policy changes.

The limits:

On page 24, there is a short reply dated Dec 26, 2012 from the Thai government to UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression Frank La Rue to questions about cases in Thailand.

Thailand replied that the 2007 Constitution of Thailand contains the clause: The King shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated.

No person shall expose the King to any sort of accusation or action, the official reply from Thailand said.

It is the reply that sets out the “reasons” for limiting freedom of speech related to the monarchy that draws a line in the sand.

While admitting that Article 112 was:

largely applied in a manner and with a frequency which raises some concerns. The severity of the punishments received, the absence of exemptions on constitutional or legal grounds, and the force it exerts over the judicial system adds to the chilling effect on free speech…,

the state defends all of this in the name of protecting a”special” monarchy. It is done with a quasi-religious zeal and rhetoric.

PPT plans more posts on these related reports.

The monarchy, freedom and democracy

The US Department of State has released its Human Rights Report for 2012. PPT was alerted to this by a story at the Bangkok Post that referred to this report as “a highly critical report detailing … Thailand’s human rights failings.” It added that: “Observers noted this year’s report was more rounded and detailed, especially regarding the southern insurgency.”

Indeed, on our first skim of the report, released a week ago, it does seem somewhat better than its somewhat bland and repetitive reports of recent years. PPT has been especially critical of the State Department’s reports for their failure on lese majeste and the existence of political prisoners. Indeed, last year we commented on a:

hopelessly, probably deliberately, deceitful U.S. “human rights” report for Thailand in 2011. If it wasn’t deliberately deceitful, then we imagine that everyone on the Thailand desk at the Department of State and in the Embassy in Bangkok has been lobotomized to the extent that they are deaf, dumb and blind on lese majeste and other political prisoners in Thailand.

This year there is a change. As in previous years, there are useful comments on a range of issues including officials’ impunity, the use of emergency and other special laws and a range of abuses by security forces and local defence volunteers in the south. That list is disturbing reading. As the Post has it:

Security forces, the report said, were guilty of using excessive force, including killing, torturing and otherwise abusing suspects, detainees and prisoners.

PPT wants to highlight some of the report’s comments on politics, monarchy, lese majeste and political prisoners, which we think represents an attempt to break out of the previous genuflecting to the royalist propagandists and flunkies who have previously shaped American official discourses on Thailand. We will just quote and highlight (with some of the headings added by us):

Red shirts: According to an advocacy group, as of December, 16 protesters jailed after the 2010 United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD or “Red Shirts”) protests remained in pretrial detention, charged with protest-related crimes such as rioting and arson. Lawyers affiliated with the UDD movement continued to pursue bail for these remaining detainees held in several provinces. According to a UDD-affiliated information center, of the 1,857 arrests related to the 2010 protests, authorities prosecuted 1,664 individuals as of December, and the courts dismissed 91 cases, sentenced 850 individuals to probation and/or fines, and imprisoned 220 for less than one year, 63 for one to three years, 10 for three to five years, 10 for five to 10 years, and 27 for more than 10 years. According to the Department of Special Investigations, of the 270 protest-related cases under its jurisdiction, it completed 216 investigations as of December, and trials in 62 cases continued at year’s end.

Lese majeste: A July 10 royal pardon allowed the release of dual-national Joe Gordon (also known as Lerpong Wichaikhammat), who was sentenced in December 2011 to two and one-half years’ in prison for lese-majeste offenses. On August 16, a mass pardon in honor of the birthdays of the crown prince (July 28) and the queen (August 12) led to the release of approximately 30,000 prisoners. On August 24, in honor of the queen’s birthday, Suchart Narkbangsai and Suriyan Kokpuai, who were both serving three-year sentences for lese-majeste convictions, received royal pardons and were released.

PPT isn’t quite sure how releasing lese majeste convicts a bit early is an “honor” for the anyone. Thailand’s royals should be ashamed – not honored – that this feudal law remains in place; they could easily have it done away with if they had sufficient honor.

Trials: While most trials are public, the court may order a closed trial, particularly in cases involving national security, the royal family, children, or sexual abuse.

PPT can’t help but wonder why the State Department didn’t point out that closing courts infringes Section 40 of the current constitution. In other words, a court may close its proceedings but in doing so is infringing Thailand’s basic law.

Political Prisoners and Detainees: There were no government reports of political prisoners or detainees; however, sources estimated that seven to 18 persons remained detained under lese-majeste laws that outlaw criticism of the monarchy…. Some of those cases involved persons exercising their rights of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

While this statement is something of a step forward for the State Department, it still makes serious errors. For example, the claim that there are no government reports of political prisoners is simply a stupid claim. After all, the government has established a special prison for political prisoners at Laksi. Indeed, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra mentioned political prisoners in a speech this week.

Freedom of Speech and Press: The international and independent media operated freely, except in coverage of matters deemed a threat to national security or offensive to the monarchy…. Journalists generally were free to comment on government activities and institutions without fear of official reprisal. Nonetheless, they occasionally practiced self-censorship, particularly with regard to the monarchy and national security. For example, in April the Thai distributor of The Economist magazine withheld one issue because of a story about lese-majeste prosecutions…. The government imposed some restrictions on access to the Internet and reportedly monitored Internet chat rooms and social media without judicial oversight. Individuals and groups generally engaged in the peaceful expression of views via the Internet, including by e-mail, although there were several limitations on content, such as lese majeste, pornography, and gambling…. The RTP Electronic Crime Suppression Division reported receiving 776 computer-related complaints during 2011 that resulted in 442 investigations–a complaint rate markedly greater than the 47 in 2009 or 285 in 2010. Most cases involved alleged defamation, lese majeste, and illegal activity such as gambling and pornography. Separately, the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology operated the Cyber Security Operations Center to monitor and block Web sites. According to a report by the NGO iLaw, court orders officially blocked nearly 21,000 Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) during the year, 80 percent of which were related to lese majeste. Since passage of the 2007 Computer Crime Act, authorities blocked more than 102,000 URLs, 76 percent related to lese majeste.

From this list it is crystal clear that the major impediment to free speech is the monarchy, lese majeste and national security. Indeed, “national security” is usually defined n terms of the monarchy as well. Can it be said that, apart from the monarchy, Thailand is relatively free? It certainly seems that way.

And finally, this: The constitution provides citizens the right to change their government peacefully through periodic, free, and fair elections based on universal, compulsory suffrage.

How true is this? Yes, there are periodic elections, but there are also periodic military and judicial coups…. More to the point, Section 68 of the constitution effectively makes it illegal to advocate for a republic in Thailand. Again, the monarchy is an obstacle to full democratic freedoms.

On being pushed back out to sea

A report in The Australian states that a “Thai navy official in Bangkok said more than 200 Rohingya were found on Tuesday about 40 kilometres off the Thai mainland.” He added: “We took them food and water before pushing them towards a third country…”.

On the Rohinga, a reader sent us this, from a French report, suggesting that being pushed back to sea may be better than getting caught in :

In Thailand, we sell Rohingya refugees

Original article in French written by Umm Michket

Burmese refugees who come to Thailand to escape persecution they suffered in Burma are facing equally horrible situation. After run away from the mistreatment of the Burmese authorities, they now face those of Thai authorities. Once intercepted by the Thai authorities, the Rohingya refugees are sold by Thai police to human traffickers. This human trafficking was revealed by BBC, and shows how the authorities, shamelessly, take advantage of the helplessness of those refugees.

Ahmed was sold for 1300 dollars

Rohingyas are trying to reach places where they hope to live in safety. For example, this is the case of Ahmed, who fled Burma in a makeshift boat with 60 people on board. After sailing for 13 days, their boat was intercepted and arrested by the Thai navy. The refugees were transferred to a police van, and then, they were separated between several vehicles, crammed in the back.

It is only later that they discovered that they were the subject of a sale to human traffickers in Malaysia. Then, they were transported to a city border between Malaysia and Thailand. Ahmed recounts their catastrophic lives: “They dug a hole for us to use as a toilet. We ate, slept and excreted in the same place. ” It also discusses the abuse they have suffered, and how they were tortured.

The price that the traffickers paid to acquire Ahmed was 1300 dollars. To get back his freedom, the Rohingya must pay back this amount to the traffickers. Alarmed, Ahmed’s wife sold their cow but the amount was not enough. A Rohingya friend finally paid the remaining amount to the traffickers to release Ahmed.

Human traffic, a “natural” solution

According to some Thai officials, the sale of Burmese Muslim refugees is a “natural” solution to solve the problem of those newcomers. In fact, they believe that the best solution is to sell the Rohingyas to Malaysians who are Muslims like them. It would also be a way to get rid of them without going through the steps of deportation.

After the revelation of this vast human trafficking, the Thai Government has planned to launch soon an investigation about this human trafficking.

Boat People Rohingya refugees, including men, women and children, arrive almost every day on Thai territory. Those refugees face enormous difficulties to gain acceptance in the neighboring countries, like Bangladesh for example. Thailand went further in developing a human traffic.

The states bordering Burma, but also the international community, should stand up for the issue of Rohingya refugees, and also for the persecutions and massacres within Burma itself.

Ironically, the Labour Minister is saying he wants to import Bangladeshi workers for the equivalent of satanic mills, being Thailand’s fishing industry, where the Burmese have apparently grown tired of of murder, scurvy and other human rights abuses.

Further updated: Still mistreating Rohinga

When reading a Voice of America report we were reminded of then Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva’s claims in 2009, published in The Guardian:

Thailand’s prime minister acknowledged yesterday that officials had towed migrants from Burma back out to sea, but insisted human rights were not violated. Many Rohingya, who are denied citizenship in their native land, have tried to land in Thailand in recent months, only to be turned away. Rescued migrants said the Thai navy towed them out to the high seas in boats with no engines. Hundreds died as a result. The prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, said the boats “were towed out so they can land at a different destination”. He did not deny that sending them away was government policy.

The report at the VOA says that perhaps “hundreds” died under the Abhisit policy of shoving them back out to sea.

In recent days “a boat-load of Rohingya Muslim refugees allegedly fleeing sectarian violence and persecution in western Burma…” arrived in Thailand and the Yingluck Shinawatra administration has determined that they “must be sent back to their homeland.”

Thai authorities intercepted “a small, overcrowded boat” with “73 migrants, including women and children, … drifting … off the Thai resort town of Phuket, well short of their final destination of Malaysia.” The authorities reportedly “provided the refugees with food and supplies” and then arrested them for deportation back to “Burma by land.”

That may seem a step forward from the Abhisit policy of towing the boats back to sea and setting them adrift. However, sending them back to Burma, where they are subject to violent persecution in Arakan state is barely a step anywhere in terms of human rights.

Updates 1 & 2: There are now reports that this group has indeed been sent back out to sea. These reports were later refuted, and it was reported that the group had been trucked back to Burma.

Triumph unionists on trial

PPT is a little late posting this, but it is important. The Human Rights Lawyers Association asks that observers attend the trial of Triumph International Labour Union members. We have posted before on this case. See posts here and here.

23-24 and 28-30 August 2012 at the Court Room no. 809, Criminal Court, Bangkok

Any interested persons are invited to attend the trial of the case stemming from the demonstration of Triumph International Labour Union members. Its prosecution witness examination will be conducted from 23 August 2012 and 24 August 2012(morning), and defence witness examination on 24 August (afternoon) and 28 – 30 August 2012 at Court Room 809, Criminal Court, Ratchadapisek, Bangkok.

Ms. Jitra Kotchadej, Ms. Boonrod Saiwong and Ms. Sunthorn Boonyod, three unionists, are prosecuted by the Special Criminal Litigation Division, Office of Attorney General, for assembling of ten people upwards to commit any act that has breached public order. They are accused of being core members who have stimulated other people to commit the crime. Also, they are accused of resisting the order of officials to stop the wrongdoings (violation of Sections 85, 215 and 216, Penal Code).

The demonstration took place on 27 August 2009 in front of the Government House and Parliament as a protest against the massive layoff of workers by the company. The government was urged to address the workers’ grievances.

On that day, the police used Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) making very loud noises in an attempt to disperse the defiant demonstrators. Such a harsh response to the demonstration has yielded strong condemnation from fellow activists and a demand was made for the revocation of the arrest warrants against the workers. The government and the National Human Rights Commission were urged to carry out an inquiry into the alleged abuse committed by the police officers. Instead, the public prosecutors have decided to press ahead with prosecution against the labour activists. The witness examination shall commence on the aforementioned date, time and venue.

For more information, please contact:

Khoomklao songsomboon: +66 86 785 6665

Human Rights Lawyers Association (HRLA): +66 2 693 0682

Five human rights defenders

PPT passes on this emailed message as received:

Somchai Neelapajit Memorial Fund reveals Five Human Rights Defenders Shortlisted for its Award

(9 July 2012) The five shortlisted candidates for the 2012 Somchai Neelapajit Award are: 1. Ms Jittra Kotchadej Labour rights and political rights activist 2. Mr Rasada Manurasada Human rights lawyer for victims of violence in Southern Thailand and in other parts of the country 3. Mr Somyot Prueksakasemsuk Labor rights activist and political activist (currently detained in prison) 4. Mr Adisorn Kerdmongkol Expert on the rights of migrant workers 5. Udon Thani Environment Group Grassroots network of villagers that are defending the community rights from Potash Industry.

Out of these names, there will be one person/ group which will receive the 2012 Somchai Neelaphajit Award together with 50,000 Thai Baht. The other four will receive Outstanding Human Rights Defender Award with prize money of 10,000 Thai Baht.

Jon Ungpakorn, a Committee member and Founder of Somchai Neelapaijit Memorial Fund, said that Thailand has been suffering from problems concerning human rights violations from both state agencies as well as from state mechanisms. The five names that are shortlisted for this award are those that have fought to protect human rights bravely, vigorously, and at times they have put themselves in danger in order to defend human rights just like the disappeared human rights lawyer Somchai Neelapaijit. Somchai had fought on behalf of human rights principles until he was a victim of enforced disappearance. This award aims to honor and support human rights defenders who have dedicated their lives in working to protect human rights. It also aims to communicate to Thai society to recognize the important roles that these individuals/group play as well as to shed light on the human rights problems in Thailand.

The award giving ceremony will take place from 9.30am to 12.00pm on 11 July 2012 at Conference Room, 4th Floor, Thai Volunteer Service, Soi Rohitkul, Pracharat Bampen Road (Huay Kwang station MRT stop). Apart from the ceremony, there will be a panel discussion on the topic of “The road of struggle and experiences of Thai human rights defenders” by all five shortlisted individuals as well as a closing remark by Dr Charnvit Kasetsiri.

Somchai Neelapaijit Fund had opened up the public nomination for individuals and organizations to nominate people and organizations from February to April 2012. There are 20 individuals and organizations that have been nominated. They represented broad and diverse groups of human right defenders ranging from those working on community development, volunteering, and combating injustice. Five names have been shortlisted while one out of the five will be given the award. There are four criteria for the selection namely: 1) The recipient(s) of the award works to promote and protect the human rights on issues that are related to the public interest; 2) The recipient(s) has outstanding record; 3) The recipient(s) has not been given an award on human rights before; 4) The recipient(s) works on issue of human rights that is contemporary and are still discussed in the society and he/she has risk from being attacked or violated for his/her /their human rights work.

Somchai Neelapaijit Memorial Fund starts to give out Somchai Neelapaijit Award with the intention to honor and give support to those who play important roles and has dedicated them to promote and protect human rights in Thailand. The Fund also aims to provoke Thai society to see the importance and recognize the roles that human rights defenders play. The award is an open process whereby anyone can make nomination. This is the first year that the award is given out.

How to get to the Venue:

If you travel by MRT, get off at Huay Kwang MRT Stop. Get of exit to Pracharat Bampen Road. Take a motorcycle taxi to Summer Mansion. Thai Volunteer Service Building is at the far end of the Soi.

Please register your attendance at:
http://bit.ly/PcbXyQ

For more information, please contact Ms Thaweeporn at 0898291167

See Google Map of the venue : 
http://goo.gl/maps/28De

Agenda of Somchai Neelaphaijit Awarding Ceremony 2012 

11 July 2012, 9.30am – 12.00pm

Conference Room, Fourth Floor, Thai Volunteer Service, Huay Kwang, Bangkok

9.30 – 10.00am: Registration

10.00-10.30am: Introduction by Master of Ceremony

•  Opening session by Ms Angkhana Neelaphaijit, Committee member of Somchai Neelaphaijit Memorial Fund

• History of Somchai Neelaphaijit’s fund and the Award by Jon Ungpakorn, Committee member of Somchai Neelaphaijit Memorial Fund

10.30 – 10.45am: Announcment and presentation of Somchai Neelapaijit Award and Certificates for Outstanding Human Rights Defenders

• Award presentation by Dr Charnvit Kasetsiri, historian professor and former Rector of Thammasat University

10.45am – 12.00pm: A panel discussion entiteld “On the Trail of Struggle: Lessons Learned from Human Rights Defenders” featuring:

• Awardee of Somchai Neelapaijit Award

• 4 Reciepients of Certificates for Outstanding Human Rights Defenders

• Moderated by Ruj Komonbut, assistant professor at the Faculty of Journalism and Mass Communication, Thammasat University and Committee member of Somchai Neelaphaijit Memorial Fund

12.00pm: Closing speech by Dr Charnvit Kasetsiri

US and UK governments and lese majeste

It has long been known that the Government of the United States couldn’t care less about lese majeste in Thailand. Not even when one of their own – Joe Gordon – is incarcerated for totally legal actions in the Unites States does the government get off its lazy, politicized and collective posterior and do or say anything principled.

PPT has posted on the recently published but hopelessly, probably deliberately, deceitful U.S. “human rights” report for Thailand in 2011. If it wasn’t deliberately deceitful, then we imagine that everyone on the Thailand desk at the Department of State and in the Embassy in Bangkok has been lobotomized to the extent that they are deaf, dumb and blind on lese majeste and other political prisoners in Thailand.

A reader points out a useful story at IPS News reflecting on the hopelessly unprincipled and contradictory approach to human rights by the U.S. The rport coincides with the release of the annual human rights reports.

The report quotes the head of Amnesty International’s Washington office who criticizes the U.S. for “selectively champion[ing] freedom and human rights when convenient…”. PPT entirely agrees.

Of course, we also wonder what AI does about its own selectivity on lese majeste in Thailand. What they criticize for the U.S. government has long been characteristic of AI Thailand’s selectivity and Benjamin Zawacki’s unprincipled position on lese majeste.

As the IPS story makes plain, the State Department has explained its unprincipled actions in terms of President Barack Obama’s “theory” of “principled engagement”, where human rights are contingent, limited and inconsistently prioritized.

All of that says quite a lot about lese majeste and political prisoners in Thailand. They are ignored because other interests – economic, military, ideological – hold sway.

But what about the Government of the U.K.? Readers may recall that a week or so ago, we briefly mentioned questions posed regarding lese majeste and political prisoners by the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kerry McCarthy Labour MP. The responses are instructive. Here they are:

Q. 1: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Thailand on the imprisonment and death of Ampon Tangnoppakul.

A. 1, by Jeremy Browne (Minister of State for South East Asia/Far East, Caribbean, Central/South America, Australasia and Pacific, Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Taunton Deane, Liberal Democrat):  In November 2011, following the sentencing of Ampon Tangnoppakul, the UK issued a statement jointly with our European Union partners to express concern about the court decision to convict and imprison Ampon for 20 years. The statement reiterated the importance attached by the EU to the rule of law, democracy and respect for human rights. The EU also urged the Thai authorities to ensure that the rule of law was applied in a non-discriminatory and proportional manner consistent with upholding basic human rights, including freedom of expression.

PPT: This is essentially a non-response, and completely ignores the question related to Ampol’s death in custody. As weak as this is, at least “concern” has been expressed.

Q. 2: … what recent assessment his Department has made of access to health care for prisoners in Thailand.

A. 2: Conditions in Thai prisons are generally poor. Prisons are old and often have run down infrastructure. However, basic medical treatment is available in all prisons in Thailand and prisoners may be transferred to a local hospital for more complex medical treatment.

As part of our consular responsibilities, embassy staff in Thailand visit British detainees every eight weeks. These visits are carried out by trained consular staff, who check the welfare of detainees. Any issues of concern can be then brought to the attention of the prison authorities, including any medical or dental problems a detainee might have.

PPT: This is essentially a non-response. At least conditions are described as “poor,” but then any visitor to a prison recognizes this within seconds, so not great insight. There seems no idea of how many prisoners die while incarcerated or of the actual availability of medical care to prisoners. The rampant corruption of prisons is not mentioned. Lese majeste detainee Darunee Charnchoensilpakul has been waiting some 4 years for proper dental treatment. Ampol died while in a prison “hospital.”

Q. 3: … what assessment his Department has made of the treatment of people (a) arrested and (b) convicted under lèse majesté laws in Thailand.

A. 3: The UK attaches great importance to human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right of every human being. We are closely following the development of freedom of expression in Thailand and are concerned by the significant increase of lese-majeste cases in the country and the application of the laws and length of sentences in recent cases.

With our European Union partners, the UK expressed concern last year at the conviction and imprisonment for 20 years of Ampon Tangnoppakul for violating the lese-majeste laws.

Our embassy in Bangkok continues to monitor the ongoing trials of high profile lese-majeste and freedom of expression on the internet cases. We have urged the Thai Government to ensure that the rule of law is applied in a non-discriminatory and proportionate manner consistent with upholding basic human rights, and will continue to take appropriate opportunities to do so.

During my visit to Thailand in 2010, I raised the issue of conditions for detainees in Thailand, referring specifically to the importance of access to exercise, proper food and medical facilities.

PPT: This is more like a real answer. Yes, the trite human rights response is repeated, but Browne indicates that there is concern for the development of freedom of expression in Thailand, about the large increase of lese majeste cases and the length of sentences. That the Embassy monitors trials is presumably useful. His representations on the conditions of detainees apparently had no impact at all.

Q. 4: … what assessment his [Browne's] Department has made of the compliance of lèse majesté laws in Thailand with Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and what representations he has made to the government of Thailand on freedom of expression and the lèse majesté laws.

A. 4: We understand the particular reverence the people of Thailand have for the monarchy. The Government attaches importance to the respect of fundamental human rights in line with the universal declaration of human rights. Specifically on article 19 which covers freedom of opinion and expression, the UK thinks that it should be possible to discuss constitutional reform without fear of coming under the purvue of laws that were designed for non political purposes. In October 2011 at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the human rights situation in Thailand was reviewed as part of the Universal Periodic Review process. The UK played an active role, including raising our concerns about freedom of expression and specifically recommending that the Thai Government seek to review its lese-majeste laws. The report of this session can be found online at the following link: http://www.upr-info.org/IMG/pdf/a_hrc_wg.6_12_l.6_thailand.pdf

Our ambassador in Bangkok has raised the issue of freedom of expression with the Thai authorities. I also raised the issue when I visited Thailand in September 2011. We will continue to take appropriate opportunities to do so.

PPT: A reasonable answer suggestive of the U.K. Government being concerned about the suppression of discussion of constitutional matters, including the position and role of the monarchy.

While the answers do sound like the usual parliamentary careful responses, if they are compared with the pathetic U.S. human rights report “there are no political prisoners” nonsense, then the U.K. response is downright explosive.

PPT can’t help thinking that readers can bring pressure on their local and national politicians to ask more questions of Thailand’s government and embassies about these issues. We have some links that readers might find useful here.

Why is the truth unacceptable?

In a recent post PPT focused on the most recent human rights report by the U.S. Department of State that made a case that there was not a single political prisoner in Thailand in 2011. This claim is made about a period when PPT would estimate that there were more than 300 political prisoners in the country. As we mentioned in that post, this claim by the United States is even contradicted by the Thai state.

Why is it that the United States cannot deal with (political) truth in Thailand? One reason is that Thailand is a major ally, and has been for a very long time. We know that the U.S. state is not as critical of major allies as it is of declared enemies. Hence, the Unites States can work hard to get an anti-abortion activist out of China, while Joe Gordon, a U.S. citizen convicted as a lese majeste political prisoner for alleged acts that were legal and carried out in Colorado, is left to rot in a Thai jail. In other words, the U.S. has not principled human rights position.

But the issue of truth and the inability to accept it is also evident in Thailand. The impunity enjoyed by state officials in murdering citizens is one cruel manifestation of this.

Another example of not being able to deal with the truth was seen at the time that the Abhisit Vejjajiva regime was cracking down on red shirt protesters in 2010, killing and injuring many. At the time, ultra-royalists organized a campaign against foreign correspondents for telling the world what was really happening. One example of a campaign is seen here. These complaints were rewarded with the support of Queen Sirikit.

Ironically, the silliest and least serious but probably the most publicized story – to 24 million on Twitter – on the failure to accept truth in Thailand comes from the Lady Gaga visit.  The singer said what everyone knows: fake Rolex watches (and every other brand one can think of) are sold on Bangkok’s streets.

Te predictable response from ultra-nationalists is that speaking the truth is a dastardly action. The Telegraph reports on the pathetic reaction:

Now she is stirring nationalist fervour in Thailand, where people tend to get upset when the country’s seedy underworld is highlighted by outsiders.

“We are more civilised than you think,” tweeted Thai DJ Surahit Siamwalla, who has a ticket to Friday’s show in Bangkok but said he plans to boycott.

“She came to our home, but instead of admiring us she insulted us,” said a commentator on popular Thai web board pantip.com.

So the truth is unspeakable, even on illegal knock-offs by a pop star. Imagine if Lady Gaga had said the king was a powerful political figure who has been actively engaged in ousting elected governments. She’d be in jail.

We at PPT imagine that she’ll need to tweet something pro-monarchist so those who feel their house has been slandered by the truth at least feel that the “father” is respected.

The truth really cannot be spoken. Many prefer to hear and purvey lies and fantasies.

Human rights NGOs on Ampol’s lese majeste death

The Asian Human Rights Commission has posted a forwarded message from a group of human rights NGOs in Thailand concerning the untimely death of lese majeste convict Ampol Tangnopakul. It can be read in full here in English and here in ไทย.

We provide excerpts below, signed by Human Rights Lawyers Association, Cross-Cultural Foundation, Human Rights and Development Foundation, Environmental Litigation and Advocacy for the Want, Union for Civil Liberty, Stateless Watch for Research and Development Institute of Thailand, Asian Human Rights Commission, Community Resource Centre, and People’s Empowerment Foundation.

On the effective torture of an old, sick and poor man through failing to provide bail:

According to the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt and be acquitted. An application for bail request was also given to the Court of Appeals with the deposit. The request included academic positions of seven senior lecturers, and submissions that Ah Kong was granted bail during the investigation level and that he had never made any attempt to run away as he never showed resistance during the apprehension. In addition, given his old age and his suffering from oral cancer, Ah Kong needed to go see a doctor regularly. Also, given his poverty and the fact that he lived with his wife and three small grandchildren, it would not be reasonable for him to jump bail.

… with regard to the claim about his illness, the Courts deemed that it was not yet life threatening and that the prison infirmary could provide for his medical needs.

On the need for bail:

The Human Rights Lawyers Association (HRLA) and human rights organizations whose names are listed below would like to offer our deepest condolences to the family of Ah Kong and other families affected by other lèse majesté cases. Many of them have failed to have their right to temporary release upheld to prepare themselves for the proper self-defence. We also deem that the death of Ah Kong in official custody reflects imminent problems concerning the right to temporary release of alleged offenders and the accused in lèse majesté cases and other criminal cases.

On the need for rule of law and justice:

The death of Ah Kong should serve as a lesson for Thailand and personnel in the justice process, lawyers, the government and concerned agencies. They should seriously ponder the lesson and make their effort in earnest to effectively eliminate any discrimination aided and abetted against political dissents through the pressing of severe charges and the restrictions on their personal rights and the right to justice process which are fundamental rights prescribed for in the Constitution of Thailand and international laws.

The betrayal of Joe Gordon

Joe Gordon is not forgotten.

Joe, an American citizen, was arrested on 26 May 2011 by the Department of Special Investigation on lese majeste, security and related computer crimes infringements. On 7 October 2011, frustrated by the continual refusal of bail and facing the prospect of a long and drawn out trial and a long period in jail (almost no one is found not guilty), Joe decided to plead guilty.

On 8 December 2011, following his guilty plea, Joe was sentenced to a two and a half year prison sentence, reduced from five for the guilty plea. When he is alleged to have insulted the monarchy, he was engaging in legal activity in the United States.

Joe reportedly stood calmly with his ankles shackled as the sentence was read out. He has remained in prison for almost 5 months since that guilty plea.

The United States Embassy and the Department of State have failed this American citizen. The latter’s human rights policies and practices are bizarre, as this post makes very clear.

Why is Joe still incarcerated? Why is the State Department publicly silent? We suspect it has something to do with the gutless advice provided some years ago by the Ambassador to the palace, PAD and privy council, Ralph “Skip” Boyce. He said: “If an AmCit were to be charged with lese majeste, it is likely that a low key approach outside the public eye would stand the best chance of success in getting him or her out of custody and out of Thailand.”

What he means is that one doesn’t rock the monarchy’s boat in a Thailand that is a trusted ally. It seems that “Skip” means skipping the duty to speak out on human rights. In our view, this poor advice is part of the reason why Joe Gordon remains incarcerated.

Joe apparently followed the advice of pleading guilty and waiting for the royal pardon that Boyce reckoned was the best way to deal with this for an “AmCit.” That the Embassy and State Department appear to be neglecting Joe adds insult to his now almost one year in jail.

PPT can’t wait to read the next State Department report in human rights to see how they deal with their abject failure on Joe’s case.

Anyone heard anything at all from Ambassador Kenney in recent months? She seemed to buckle at the first hint of controversy.