Useless

We missed an important article a few days ago, at Asia Sentinel, authored by human rights activist Pokpong Lawansiri, that details the sorry tale of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRC).

Pokpong begins by noting:

NHRC head Amara Pongsapich and friend: opposing human rights

During the administration of the then-Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, was dubbed the most helpful and most relevant independent agency in the eyes of ordinary Thais. That is no longer true.

While Pokpong notes that, under Yingluck Shinawatra, the NHRC has become irrelevant, the process of de-fanging the NHRC has been a post-2006 coup phenomenon. This is because the military junta and the Abhisit Vejjajiva regime that gave the NHRC extra powers, they used it as a political tool and stacked it with political flunkies:

This explains why the former civil servants from the Royal Thai Police, Ministry of Social Development and Human Security, Drink Don’t Drive Foundation campaigner, and a businessman were selected instead of veteran human rights activists….

While the Constitution stresses explicitly that the commissioners need to have knowledge and experience in the field of human rights, the current batch do not know what are and what are not human rights….

The NHRC has repeatedly delayed the “publication of its fact-finding report on the April–May 2010 crackdown after 37 months have passed,” although no one expects such a report to be sincere or comprehensive.

Pokpong calls for “the Pheu Thai Party … to seriously consider the need to reform the NHRC.”

If the government did consider reform for the NHRC, it would need to demonstrate a serious concern for human rights. While Abhisit and the military royalists might have neutered it, a useless the Commission may well suit the current government.

 

Somyos appeals

A reader points out a story PPT had missed and should have noted. At The Nation it is reported that former National Human Rights commissioner and director of the Institute of Jurists and Human Rights Vasant Panich is to take Somyos Prueksakasemsuk’s lese majeste appeal to the Appeal Court.

This is a surprise as “Vasant is a well-known outspoken critic of the ousted fugitive former PM Thaksin Shinawatra, while Somyos was the editor of the now-defunct ‘Voice of Taksin’ [it continues as 'Red Power'] magazine.” Indeed, back in mid-2006, there was a claim that Vasant was targeted for abduction and fingers were pointed at the Thaksin government.

Vasant states that “his decision to represent Somyos was a matter of principle, as he believed the man is innocent and should at least be granted bail.” He explained that:

… Somyos’ wife Sukanya had asked him to represent her husband and he had agreed to do so because he believed Somyos should not have been jailed, especially since the Printing Act, which requires editors to be responsible for all articles, has not been in existence since 2007.

He added that Somyos had made it clear in his testimony that the person behind the nom de plume of Jit Polachan was Jakraphob Penkhae, a former PM’s Office minister who is now on a self-imposed exile. He also cited other staff members from the magazine as telling the court that Somyos most probably did not read the two articles before publication. Besides, Vasant said, he does not see anything that violates the lese majeste law in the articles.

Updated: Political prisoners

Update: This post is also available in French.

For those who haven’t seen it, Red Shirts blog includes a post regarding the official red shirts calling on the government to make an “immediate transfer of 10 Red Shirt and lèse majesté prisoners to Laksi prison which is reserved for political offenders. The list includes noted 112 prisoners Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, Thantawut Thaweevarodomkul, and Daranee Chanchengsillapakul, who are currently imprisoned alongside violent criminals.”

This call is made as the amnesty “discussion” drags on and as requests for royal pardons seem to be ignored.

While this call is appropriate, it is a measure of how odd Thailand’s politics has become when UDD leader Thida Tawornsate Tojirakarn,  has to express the request in these terms:

The manner in which Thailand is treating its political prisoners is contrary to basic democratic principals. Even the Sarit [Thanarat] dictatorship recognized a distinction between political offenders and other prisoners. Now that we are more democratic we can’t even meet such low standards.

In fact, it goes against democratic principles to have any political prisoners at all. Realistically, and sadly, PPT notes that some democracies have held political prisoners and some still do.

Thida argues that “while political prisoners are deprived of their freedom, they still have the right to information, education, health care, and fair visiting hours.”

She also “called on the National Human Rights Commission to fight for the bail rights of prisoners that are trying to fight their cases from behind bars.” This right is one that is regularly abused in lese majeste cases, but apparently not when political crimes are committed by yellow shirts; they regularly get bail for all kinds of alleged crimes.

On the amnesty issue, the comment attributed to Jatuporn Promphan is worth repeating:

Thaksin and the Red Shirt leaders will not be granted amnesty, but the democrats [Democrat Party] are still playing stupid. They keep claiming that it’s for Thaksin. This has nothing to do with Thaksin or UDD leaders. It’s for the people. Releasing political prisoners is essential for progress in Thailand.

Debating lese majeste and responses to it

Saksith Saiyasombut at Siam Voices has a very useful post summarizing the debates that have arisen regarding lese majeste since the sentencing of Somyos Prueksakasemsuk.

He mentions the strong international reaction, including one by the U.S. State Department that PPT hadn’t previously seen. Also mentioned is the spineless response by those in Thailand who should be concerned, including the  such as the National Human Rights Commission and the Thai Journalists’ Association.

Picture from Siam Voices, where the credit is: via Twitter/@Anuthee.

He also mentions some of the domestic reaction, including the widely publicized demonstration at the:

… football match between the universities of Thammasat and Chulalongkorn on Saturday, students (including Somyot’s son) from both sides were seen showing a large banner in the stands saying “FREE SOMYOT” and protesting around the stadium. The public protest happened in the opening ceremony – from which they were forbidden to participate – where giant paper-mache figures lampoon political figures, which was obviously this year prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

Add to this the actions by Chiang Mai students similarly demonstrating and a range of other protests, including a constant barrage of events and actions seen at Facebook and other social media, and it is seen that outrage is being expressed quite vigorously.

Saksith also mentions the debate over lese majeste at and about the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand. On the debate held there, a useful link is made to a transcript of the statement by the self-lampooning royalist Tul Sitthisomwong. On the raging controversy regarding the FCCT itself, Saksith states:

There’s been some controversy that the FCCT did not issue a statement on the Somyot verdict – understandable, since the club board has been targeted with a lèse majesté complaint in the past that was utterly politically motivated. However, the club itself defended their decision on the night of the panel discussion by saying that the FCCT is a club and not a journalist’s association.

For PPT the most basic point is that the FCCT has sidestepped its own claims on freedom of expression. Being part-time defenders of this freedom sets a dangerous precedent and, as royalist Tul explains in his comments linked above, it gives succor to the lese majeste defenders:

I am Dr. Tul Sittisomwong from the group of „Citizen Protecting Homeland“ including the monarchy that the Thai people love…. I want to be here, invited by the FCCT and (I am) so relieved that the FFCT [sic]. won’t have any statement about this sensitive issue. That will be a big thing after the EU.

The debate on the FCCT continues at New Mandala and at ZenJournalist, where even PPT is chastised for recalling that “the FCCT bravely put on talks by lese majeste opponents,” while posting about the FCCT sadly ducking the issue of freedom of expression and the draconian sentencing of Somyos.

Shackling and fettering

Somyos Prueksakasemsuk shackled in 2012

There’s a brief story at The Nation that caught PPT’s attention. In it, National Human Rights Commissioner Niran Pithakwatchara has “voiced concern about the use of fettering and its impact on human dignity.”

Apparently the “rules” that are currently used demand that “the fettering of all male inmates aged not over 60 to prevent any attempt at jailbreak or suicide.”

Niran seemed to think that  there was concern “[a]t the international level.” All lese majeste prisoners under 60 years are shackled on every court appearance.

Niran also raised issues regarding the health care provided to inmates, noting that lese majeste convict Ampol Tangnopakul died in jail earlier in 2012.

Joe Gordon in chains in 2011

He also mentioned the case of Ampon Tangnoppakul, who died while serving a jail term for a lese-majeste offence earlier this year: “Niran pointed out that the Corrections Department might have failed to take care of Ampon’s health well enough.”

Harry Nicolaides in leg irons in 2009

The Corrections Department’s senior executive Lawan Ornsamlee “explained that prisoners were only handcuffed at correctional facilities.” In 2011, the U.S. State Department stated: “Authorities also used heavy leg irons to control prisoners who were deemed escape risks or possibly dangerous to other prisoners.” She added that: “Only convicts held on grave offences are fettered by both ankles and wrists…”.

She continued to explain that: “Other prisoners were fettered in the same way only when they travelled out of correctional facilities.”

Lese majeste is deemed not a libel or a defamation but a “grave offense.” As the Constitutional Court has it, lese majeste is so serious that it threatens the very foundations of the state!

Updated: Failed on human rights

In yet another op-ed, Pavin Chachavalpongpun comes to the conclusion that many drew at the time of her appointment as chief of Thailand’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) back in 2009:  the NHRC has been “rendered toothless by its Quisling chairwoman” Amara Pongsapich.

A Thai Rath cartoon of Amara’s close relationship with Abhisit and the army

Writing at the Asia Sentinel, Pavin is angered that Amara has not had the NHRC do much of anything on some of the major human rights issues that have emerged during her tenure as chair. He mentions lese majeste, the deaths at the hands of the Army of red shirts in 2010 and the death in custody of lese majeste victim Ampol Tangnopakul.

Back in mid-2010, PPT commented:

PPT has serious doubts about the NHRC and its effectiveness. We’re not even sure that the NHRC even has the capacity to understand the significance of, and deal with difficult, human rights issues in a society that is divided by political conflict. Amara has been totally ineffective and compromised by her links to royalists and Privy Councilor Prem Tinsulanonda.

Amara gets chummy with the Democrat Party leadership at an army base during the red shirt uprising in 2010

Pavin notes that Amara has been especially supportive of Abhisit Vejjajiva, who was the premier who appointed her. PPT has no doubt that Abhisit appointed her precisely because he knew she was prepared to be a human rights charlatan.

Readers can view several posts over the past three years that are similarly critical of Amara: AHRC on the National Human Rights Commission, AHRC on the new NHRC, We do not lie. Of course they do, King, country, chaos?, NHRC compromised (again), How many are detained?, Somyos and another chance for the NHRC, Is dialogue possible on human rights?, and On the NHRC’s lese majeste procrastination.

Where Pavin’s piece is useful is in pointing out the double standards employed by Amara while she has been at the head of what is meant to be an important protector of human rights. He observes, as PPT has, that “Amara has never been politically neutral since the beginning. Her inclinations and sympathy toward the People’s Alliance for Democracy, the royalist Yellow Shirts…”.

One example of double standards is seen in her recent actions:

When the Yingluck Shinawatra government decided to employ teargas to disperse crowds in the latest anti-government rally led by an elderly former general in late November, Amara and her NHRC were fuming. She immediately released a statement reproaching the government’s measures in dealing with the demonstrators…. “The government was over-reacting and the use of teargas was unacceptable,” she said.*

NHRC’s Amara with Abhisit: opposing human rights

Another is in the arena of political prisoners, of which there were hundreds during the Abhisit regime: “The NHRC has shown a marked lack of interest in many other cases involving political prisoners, as well as harassment against Thai academics in Thailand who spoke critically of the monarchy.”

Pavin concludes with an observation that is a perfect demonstration of Amara’s bias and disdain for real human rights. He notes that she:

has offered human rights awards to a number of dubious personalities, ranging from a celebrity monk, a controversial [royalist] forensic pathologist and a[n ultra-royalist and ultra-nationalist] detainee in a Phnom Penh prison who was arrested by Cambodia for provoking a conflict between the two countries.

The demise of the NHRC under Amara’s “leadership” is a travesty, but it was what Abhisit intended when he appointed her, and she has not disappointed Abhisit or the royalist elite.

Update: *Bangkok Pundit suggests this attribution to Amara is incorrect.

Ji on Thaksin and red shirts

Ji Ungpakorn has sent around another of his popular assessments of Thai politics. PPT reproduces it here, with the only changes being where we added what we think are useful links. We should add that we disagree with his statement that the “Government has increased the use of lèse majesté…”; unless Ji has data we haven’t seen, that is not the case when compared with the previous Abhisit Vejjajiva regime. We agree that the Yingluck Shinawatra government has been entirely spineless on lese majeste:

The Parallel War: Taksin and the Red Shirts

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

Six years after the 19^th September coup d’état, it is possible to look back and assess the impact of the crisis on Thai politics and society.

One way of understanding the “dialectical” relationship between Taksin and the Red Shirts is to borrow the concept of a “parallel war” from Donny Gluckstein’s book on the Second World War [A People's History of the Second World War. Resistance Versus Empire, Pluto Press, London, 2012]. According to Gluckstein there were two parallel wars against the Axis Powers. One was an Imperialist War, waged by the ruling classes of Britain, the United States and Russia for their own interests, while the other war was a People’s War against Fascism, waged by ordinary working people, many of them socialists. The two wars often overlapped in the minds of millions, but their aims were very different. We can see a kind of “parallel war” in the Red Shirt/UDD struggles against the military-royalist elites, where thousands of ordinary Red Shirts struggled for democracy, dignity and social justice, while Taksin and his political allies waged a very different campaign to regain the political influence that they had enjoyed before the 2006  coup d’état.

This explains the betrayal of the Red Shirt struggle by Yingluk, Taksin and the Pua Thai Party. For anyone doubting the scale of betrayal one only has to look at the issues of lèse majesté, the political prisoners and the non-punishment of state officials for killing protestors. The Government has increased the use of lèse majesté and refused to countenance any reforms of the law or even the justice system. Lèse majesté political prisoners like Somyot Pruksakasemsuk, Surachai Darnwatanatrakun and Da Torpedo languish in jail and their plight as prisoners of conscience is ignored by the National Human Rights Commission and Amnesty International. Even Red Shirt prisoners who were not charged with lèse majesté, but merely jailed for taking part in street protests, are still locked up in the “political prison”. As for the punishment of politicians and military commanders for the cold-blooded murder of unarmed demonstrators in 2010, no significant progress has or will ever be made.

The reason for this disgraceful Pua Thai position is that Taksin and his allies see the struggle as one between them and their political opponents in the military and the Democrat Party. Taksin’s dispute with the military has been quietly buried, leaving the Democrat Party as the only official opponent. Taksin is equally keen to use the monarchy for his own legitimacy, just like the military, the top civil servants and other big business leaders. That is why he wishes to preserve the attack on the freedom of speech represented by lèse majesté. He has never been committed to Human Rights and under his government innocent civilians were murdered in the War On Drugs and in crushing protests in the South in 2004. The idea of holding any state officials and politicians to account for killing civilians is not on his agenda. Even on the issue of increasing living standards, the partial increase in the minimum wage to 300 Baht a day in some areas has now been coupled with a 2 year pay freeze.

Despite the fact that thousands of Red Shirts supported Taksin, their struggle was shaped by their own different agenda, an agenda for the freedom and equality of ordinary citizens. Only in Taksin’s egotistical dreams were the Red Shirts fighting for him alone. Many Red Shirts are bitter about what has happened since the Pua Thai election victory. Many others are not ready to conclude that there has been a terrible betrayal. They continue to make up excuses for the Government. These excuses usually depend on a mistaken belief that King Pumipon is all powerful and that he controls the military and therefore nothing can be done until he dies. There is an irony that the ruling elites want to promote this line of thought about the powerful monarchy while the effect of this belief among Red Shirts causes hatred against the King and the Royal Family.

Just like in Gluckstein’s parallel Second World War, the ability of “the people” or the Red Shirts to achieve their goals depends on the degree of political self-organisation, independent from the ruling class. There may be thousands of disappointed Red Shirts, but their inability to form a united progressive movement to fight for freedom and equality has allowed the UDD Red Shirt leaders to police the movement and make sure that it serves only the interests of the Pua Thai government. That is why Turn Left [องค์กรเลี้ยวซ้าย] has suggested that progressive Red Shirts need to come together to build some kind of radical socialist organisation, with clear links to the working class, in order to keep the aspirations of the Red Shirts alive. This idea has been opposed by Niti Eawsiwong and Somsak Jiamteerasakul. Niti hopes that Red shirts can influence the Pua Thai Party from within. But Pau Thai is a typical Thai capitalist party with no internal democracy. It is controlled by “people of influence”. Somsak claims that it is “unrealistic” to build a socialist organisation. He proposes a small NGO-style pressure group made up of intellectuals like himself, independent of the Red Shirts, with the aim of pushing Pua Thai into having better policies. But small groups of intellectuals with no mass base among either the working class or the Red Shirts can have no real influence in society and no bargaining power with the elites.

Lese majeste prisoners ask NHRC for help

As anyone watching the progress of lese majeste cases through the biased, royalist courts, the decisions made are arguably illegal, especially when bail is repeatedly refused. Now the Bangkok Post reports that lese majeste prisoners have asked the National Human Rights Commission has been asked “to address the rights violations affecting them by the court’s bail refusals.”

The political detainees met with Dr. Niran Pitakwatchara of the NHRC. The six are referred to as “the remaining six lese majeste prisoners,” although PPT considers this erroneous.

Niran stated: “We will try to work on it since we’ve realised that the Penal Code’s Article 112 has been used as a political tool all along…”. That’s a point PPT and others have made for several years.

Surachai Danwattananusorn said “he has to resort to seeking a royal pardon, which basically means negating the fight to defend his innocence under the current system since it was cumbersome and hopeless for him and his colleagues.”

How feudal monarchies use lese majeste to protect status, wealth and privilege

A dedicated reader pointed PPT in the direction of a lese majeste story from the feudal sultanate of Oman. Wikipedia tells us that “Oman is an absolute monarchy in which the Sultan of Oman exercises ultimate authority but its parliament has some legislative and oversight powers.” So in terms of government, Thailand’s political and social system should be far less feudal. But not, it seems, when it comes to lese majeste.

A recent report explains that:

One of the ten Lèse-majesté detainees was released on bail today by the Muscat Primary Court in al Khuwair, according to an activist. Last month authorities in Oman clamped down on a number of Netizens for slander against Sultan Qaboos Bin Saeed.

So far 10 activists, accused of defaming the country’s ruler by writing slanderous articles on social media or various web-based forums, have been sentenced by the Muscat Primary Court but released on bail pending their appeal in the higher court.

Of course, under the royalist Abhisit Vejjajiva regime, far more activists were locked up in order to “protect” the monarchy and the system of privilege and wealth that the royalist state manages. Abhisit’s political police attacked opponents with the same vigor and determination as Oman’s feudal rulers. And, they hardly ever bailed those accused of lese majeste!

Just like in Thailand, when family of the detainees tried to get help from the National Human Right Commission, that body turns out to be nothing other than a protector of feudal privilege.

And when protesters demand change, like in Thailand, the feudal forces choose to kill people. The protection of wealth and privilege seems to demand the deaths of citizens.

In reading the report, PPT has the impression that the ultra-royalists in Thailand are protecting a feudal-like monarchical system that is an anachronism. Despite its (modern) corporate wealth and the remarkable sums it receives from the state, the system of status, privilege and wealth is an anachronism that works well for the royalist elite but not for others, who are the vast majority.

Further updated: Madness, murder and lese majeste

Prachatai has reported on yet another allegation of lese majeste, which must rank among the most bizarre. As readers will see, this new complaint is up there with the Royal Health Rumor 4, the rumored charge many years ago against a minor royal who named his dogs Sirikit and Bhumibol, and the lese majeste delirium of Laksana Kornsin who brought a complaint against whole executive committee of the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand.

On 11 May, Chaiwat Limlikhit-aksorn, the head of a Phetburi national park filed a lese majeste complaint with police targeting National Human Rights Commissioner Niran Pithakwatchara and members of the NHRC subcommittee on the rights of ethnic minority groups and migrants.Chaiwat showed up to make his complaint with some 100 supporters, including park officials, in tow.

National Human Rights Commissioner Niran Phithakwatchara and members of an NHRC subcommittee have been accused of lèse majesté by the head of Kaeng Krachan National Park after they intervened in a project, which the park claims was implemented in honour of the King.

Park officials have been “in conflict with Karen communities who have lived in the forest area in the national park near the Thailand-Burma border.” These people have long been persecuted by the park officials who evict them and allegedly burnt down their houses.

When these people complained to the NHRC,

Niran and the NHRC subcommittee … had intervened in projects, implemented by the National Park, to cut down forest vines and grow plants to feed wild elephants and other wildlife in honour of the King. The subcommittee had resolved to order the National Park to cancel the projects and review its plan to expand the park in preparation for declaring it a world heritage site and to allow the participation of local and indigenous people for the protection of their rights.

To reasonable people, this might appear to make sense. But apparently Chaiwat got upset and has now

accused the NHRC members of, among others, supporting the destruction of forest reserves in the National Park and lèse majesté by ordering the project to be cancelled, thereby not respecting the King’s and Queen’s addresses to government officials to protect watershed areas and to prevent illegal logging in the province.

PPT guesses that the lese majeste had to get to this level, with every utterance, sensible or otherwise, becomes a license for all kinds of madness.

And Prachatai adds an interesting and important note. Chaiwat is on bail, granted by a court in Oct 2011,  implicated in the murder of Phetchaburi local activist and one-time Puea Thai candidate Thatkamon Ob-om. Thatkamon:

was shot dead in his home province on 10 Sept 2011. He had been active in helping the Karen people who were evicted, and as a result had been officially banned from entering the National Park for causing unrest and impeding development for the minority communities.

No doubt the Democrat Party, ASTV/Manager and various ultra-royalist groups will be supporting Chaiwat.

Update 1: A reader complains that we have made Chaiwat appear a “wacko.” That was not our intention. Rather, this case suggests the capacity for the nut cases as well as the downright nasty – like the military command and officials like Chaiwat – to cloak anything with the protection of lese majeste and monarchy. Of course, there is nothing new there as several political massacres have been conducted in the name of protecting the monarchy.

Update 2: Siam Voices has a useful account of this story.