skip to main |
skip to sidebar
MAY 13, 2009
(New York) - The newly appointed members of Thailand's National Human Rights Commission, whose selection process violated constitutional requirements and international standards, should resign to restore the commission's credibility, Human Rights Watch said today.
Upcoming constitutional reforms should include a new selection process that will ensure independence, transparency, public scrutiny, and broad-based participation.The seven new members approved by the Senate on May 1, 2009, in a closed session, include one who was a subject of a commission investigation and several with no experience in human rights. Several highly qualified candidates were rejected."Thailand is facing grave human rights challenges and needs a serious and committed commission to work on them," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "Instead,
inexperienced and unqualified people were placed on this commission in a way that clearly broke the rules. The best thing these members can do for human rights is to step down."On March 11, the secretary of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) invited applications for new commissioners after the terms of the previous commissioners had expired.
The commission received 133 applications. The selection committee, consisting of five senior judges and the president of the parliament, met to consider the applications on April 8. On April 10, the committee sent seven nominees, including one who has been the subject of a commission
investigation, to the Senate for consideration and approval. The Senate effectively rubber-stamped the committee's nominees.The seven nominees were: Police General Vanchai Srinuwalnad, assistant commissioner general of the Royal Thai Police; Parinya Sirisarakarn, former member of the Constitution Drafting
Assembly of Thailand (2007) and a prominent industrialist; Paibool Varahapaitoorn, secretary to the Office of the Constitutional Court; Visa Penjamano, inspector-general, Ministry of Social
Development and Human Security; Taejing Siripanich, secretary, Don't Drive Drunk Foundation; Nirand Pithakwachara, former elected senator for Ubon Ratchathani; and Professor Amara Pongsapich, former dean, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.
The new commissioners do not come from a diverse range of social backgrounds, nor do any of them represent human rights groups.
More important, local human rights groups have protested that the new commissioners lack necessary first-hand experience in protecting and promoting human rights.
Vanchai, Parinya, Paibool, and Visa, in particular, have no experience at all and have no public record of demonstrating basic understanding of human rights.In 2007, Parinya was named in a commission investigation as responsible for causing environmental damage in Thailand's northeastern region, where he holds a license to extract salt.
Parinya's lack of commitment to promoting universal human rights was evident in an oral presentation to the Thai Senate in which he dismissed "Western criticisms of Burma" as "foreign
interference" in domestic affairs. In that light, if made a commissioner, he stated that he would not welcome international intervention on human rights issues in Thailand.Human Rights Watch said that candidates who have solid records in defending human rights were rejected, including: the Muslim activist Angkhana Neelapaijit, from the Working Group on
Justice for Peace, who has spent many years documenting and exposing abuses in the southern border provinces; Wallop Tangkananurak, a prominent child rights defender; and Pairoj Polpetch, who monitors compliance of Thai laws with international human rights standards."None of the new human rights commissioners has a reputation for working on human rights," said Adams. "The prominent human rights professionals who applied were ignored, calling into
question whether the commission will be serious or has been set up to serve entrenched interests."Human Rights Watch said that the government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has committed itself to the protection of human rights and to differentiate itself from its recent
predecessors, including the abusive government of Thaksin Shinawatra and the military junta. But neither the government nor the opposition party has made any effort to discuss the need to
ensure the selection of independent and qualified human rights commissioners as part of planned constitutional reforms.Under section 256 of the 2007 Constitution of Thailand, the NHRC commissioners should be 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 organizations in the field of human rights."The Principles Relating to the Status of National Institutions on human rights ("The Paris Principles"), which were adopted by United Nations General Assembly in 1993, state 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." The Paris Principles state
that members of government departments, if included in a national human rights commission, "should participate in the deliberations only in an advisory capacity.""The commissioners should resign to make it possible for a new selection," said Adams. "To prevent the same mistakes from being made again, the constitution should be amended to establish a selection process that ensures independence, transparency, public scrutiny, and broad-based participation in the selection of NHRC commissioners."The selection of the previous commission was made under the terms of the 1997 Constitution and was based on the active involvement of representatives of civil society, the media, and other
social sectors, unlike the exclusive panel of judges and one representative of the incumbent party that made the new selections under the military-junta-sponsored constitution of 2007.This new selection committee chose the seven nominees based solely upon the written forms and supporting documents that they submitted.
In contrast, the nominees to the previous commission were thoroughly examined by the Senate before approval.
There was virtually no attempt in the process used this year to inform the public about what was going on, let alone to allow public scrutiny and debate on the appropriateness of the short-listed candidates.
An online form to leave questions on the Senate website was not available until the afternoon before the cutoff date.Competence, efficiency, and independence have been the main challenges facing the human rights body from its inception.
Former Prime Minister Thaksin had encouraged government officials and the security forces to disregard investigations and recommendations of the commission concerning state-sanctioned abuses.
These included the 2003 "war on drugs" and extrajudicial tactics used by various police and security units in the context of counterinsurgency in Thailand's southern border provinces. Annual budget allocations for the commission had also been restricted by the government.Yet some commissioners and staff worked hard to monitor and investigate abuses across Thailand.
Some of their interventions in the southern border provinces saved the lives of victims of arbitrary arrests and torture.
Similarly, they had exposed and stopped a number of government and private projects that severely endangered public safety and the environment across the country.
see ควรเปลียนคณะกรรมการทีมีมลทิน
CHIANG MAI, Thailand -- Thailand calls itself the Land of Smiles, and is known for its tropical beaches, beautiful mountains, good food and friendly people. But that may soon change. While
the happy-go-lucky image of Thailand may be hard for many to shake, political observers -- and the government -- are beginning to take the possibility of a civil
war much more seriously. On April 21, Jakrapob Penkair -- a key leader of the opposition United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) and reputedly the man behind this month's violent protests in
Bangkok and Pattaya -- announced in a BBC interview that the struggle was not over. The UDD, Jakrapob said, would begin using different tactics, possibly even armed attacks.
"I believe the room for unarmed and non-violent means to resolve Thailand's problem is getting smaller every day," he told the BBC. He went on to call for new general elections to allow a democratically elected government to take power. ...
World Politics Review
ฝ่ายตรงข้ามปลุกผีสงครามกลางเมือง
MAY 13, 2009
(New York) - The newly appointed members of Thailand's National Human Rights Commission, whose selection process violated constitutional requirements and international standards, should resign to restore the commission's credibility, Human Rights Watch said today.
Upcoming constitutional reforms should include a new selection process that will ensure independence, transparency, public scrutiny, and broad-based participation.
The seven new members approved by the Senate on May 1, 2009, in a closed session, include one who was a subject of a commission investigation and several with no experience in human rights. Several highly qualified candidates were rejected.
"Thailand is facing grave human rights challenges and needs a serious and committed commission to work on them," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch.
"Instead, inexperienced and unqualified people were placed on this commission in a way that clearly broke the rules.
The best thing these members can do for human rights is to step down."
On March 11, the secretary of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) invited applications for new commissioners after the terms of the previous commissioners had expired. The commission received 133 applications.
The selection committee, consisting of five senior judges and the president of the parliament, met to consider the applications on April 8. On April 10, the committee sent seven nominees, including one who has been the subject of a commission investigation, to the Senate for consideration and approval.
The Senate effectively rubber-stamped the committee's nominees. The seven nominees were: Police General Vanchai Srinuwalnad, assistant commissioner general of the Royal Thai Police;
Parinya Sirisarakarn, former member of the Constitution Drafting Assembly of Thailand (2007) and a prominent industrialist; Paibool Varahapaitoorn, secretary to the Office of the
Constitutional Court; Visa Penjamano, inspector-general, Ministry of Social Development and Human Security; Taejing Siripanich, secretary, Don't Drive Drunk Foundation; Nirand
Pithakwachara, former elected senator for Ubon Ratchathani; and Professor Amara Pongsapich, former dean, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.
The new commissioners do not come from a diverse range of social backgrounds, nor do any of them represent human rights groups.
More important, local human rights groups have protested that the new commissioners lack necessary first-hand experience in protecting and promoting human rights.
Vanchai, Parinya, Paibool, and Visa, in particular, have no experience at all and have no public record of demonstrating basic understanding of human rights.
In 2007, Parinya was named in a commission investigation as responsible for causing environmental damage in Thailand's northeastern region, where he holds a license to extract salt.
Parinya's lack of commitment to promoting universal human rights was evident in an oral presentation to the Thai Senate in which he dismissed "Western criticisms of Burma" as "foreign interference" in domestic affairs.
In that light, if made a commissioner, he stated that he would not welcome international intervention on human rights issues in Thailand.
Human Rights Watch said that candidates who have solid records in defending human rights were rejected, including: the Muslim activist Angkhana Neelapaijit, from the Working Group on Justice for Peace,
who has spent many years documenting and exposing abuses in the southern border provinces; Wallop Tangkananurak, a prominent child rights defender; and Pairoj Polpetch, who monitors compliance of Thai laws with international human rights standards.
"None of the new human rights commissioners has a reputation for working on human rights," said Adams. "The prominent human rights professionals who applied were ignored, calling into question whether the commission will be serious or has been set up to serve entrenched interests."
Human Rights Watch said that the government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has committed itself to the protection of human rights and to differentiate itself from its recent predecessors, including the abusive government of Thaksin Shinawatra and the military junta.
But neither the government nor the opposition party has made any effort to discuss the need to ensure the selection of independent and qualified human rights commissioners as part of planned constitutional reforms.
Under section 256 of the 2007 Constitution of Thailand, the NHRC commissioners should be 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 organizations in the field of human rights."
The Principles Relating to the Status of National Institutions on human rights ("The Paris Principles"), which were adopted by United Nations General Assembly in 1993, state 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."
The Paris Principles state that members of government departments, if included in a national human rights commission, "should participate in the deliberations only in an advisory capacity."
"The commissioners should resign to make it possible for a new selection," said Adams. "To prevent the same mistakes from being made again, the constitution should be amended to establish a selection process that ensures independence, transparency, public scrutiny, and broad-based participation in the selection of NHRC commissioners."
The selection of the previous commission was made under the terms of the 1997 Constitution and was based on the active involvement of representatives of civil society, the media, and other social sectors, unlike the exclusive panel of judges and one representative of the incumbent party that made the new selections under the military-junta-sponsored constitution of 2007.
This new selection committee chose the seven nominees based solely upon the written forms and supporting documents that they submitted. In contrast, the nominees to the previous commission were thoroughly examined by the Senate before approval.
There was virtually no attempt in the process used this year to inform the public about what was going on, let alone to allow public scrutiny and debate on the appropriateness of the short-listed candidates.
An online form to leave questions on the Senate website was not available until the afternoon before the cutoff date.
Competence, efficiency, and independence have been the main challenges facing the human rights body from its inception. Former Prime Minister Thaksin had encouraged government officials and the security forces to disregard investigations and recommendations of the
commission concerning state-sanctioned abuses. These included the 2003 "war on drugs" and extrajudicial tactics used by various police and security units in the context of counterinsurgency in Thailand's southern border provinces. Annual budget allocations for the commission had also been restricted by the government.
Yet some commissioners and staff worked hard to monitor and investigate abuses across Thailand. Some of their interventions in the southern border provinces saved the lives of victims of arbitrary arrests and torture.
Similarly, they had exposed and stopped a number of government and private projects that severely endangered public safety and the environment across the country.
May. 02 2009
2bangkok.com reported a few days ago "A source informs us that the Special Branch police are at this moment raiding BBC offices in Bangkok, looking for evidence against Jakrapob".
BP: Having checked with a few sources* who are familiar with what went on, BP feels confident to say there was a visit by the police to request information about Jakrapob (the BBC and a number of foreign journalists had interviewed Jakrapob a few days earlier).
It was not a raid and there was no search warrant. It was simply a couple of cops who showed up wanting the BBC interview with Jakrapob and information about Jakrapob. It was not clear to those present exactly what information the two coppers wanted. They went away empty-handed and were told to send a written request.
The amusing thing is that it was not long that those in the PM's Office became aware of what happened, but it seems they couldn't get any information from the coppers directly so they sent a senior police officer from the local police station to the BBC to ask what they first group of coopers wanted.
Am unable to find it confirm, but a Democrat spokesman has issued a statement where the government denies approving the "raid".
They have been frantically trying to clean up the mess and find out who sent the first group of coppers. However, the government may want to reflect on the message is it sending to government officers about the foreign media acting as though they serve Thaksin before being surprised about how the coppers act.
*Unfortuntately BP can't name them, but as this post does slightly defend the government, BP doubts anyone thinks this blog is on Abhisit's payroll. The sources have provided information which have proved accurate before. See
Thai courts' use of legal double standards encourages extralegal means by opposition 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."
Media caught in the middle of Thai conflic:
The media have become part and parcel of Thailand's intensifying political conflict: Two privately held satellite television news stations are openly aligned with competing political street movements, and state-controlled outlets are under opposition fire for allegedly misrepresenting recent crucial news events.
May 7, 2009
BANGKOK - Once-coherent forces are fragmenting in Thailand, promising to complicate standing political alliances while disintegrating others. As Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva strikes new conciliatory poses - including possible constitutional reforms and an amnesty for more than 100 banned politicians - the emerging realignment could ignite potent new sources of instability and foil his government's strategy to shore up itsdemocratic mandate at new polls next year.
Officials and analysts are still weighing the significance of last month's violent anti-government street protests and the military'scrackdown, which pitted forces aligned to exiled former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra against Abhisit's coalition government and its presumed backers in the military, bureaucracy
and royal Privy Council. Those clashes and the subsequent assassination attempt of an anti-Thaksin protest leader have opened new political fissures that have the potential to spark more upheaval and violence.
The main wildcard, the red-shirted United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) protest group, has fractured at the top after last month's crackdown and temporary detainment of its main leaders, according to a second-line UDD leader. Different co-leaders have in recent weeks forwarded divergent strategies for future resistance, with some promoting new mass protests while others have advocated a more radical move towards armed struggle.
Diplomats familiar with the situation say that UDD co-leader Veera Musikapong was instrumental in steering the situation away from a violent crescendo on April 13 when he agreed to disperse the remaining 3,000 protestors after the military had encircled the UDD's main protest site at
Government House in Bangkok. The same diplomats claim that certain UDD protesters on the site's perimeter were that day armed with homemade explosive devices, or ping pong bombs, which if launched could have easily escalated the situation towards retaliatory violence.
While UDD co-leaders Veera, Jatuporn Prompan, Weng Tojirakarn and Nattawut Saikuae have all called for new peaceful protests, analysts suggest that Thaksin is now looking for a new UDD leadership.
Thaksin's close aides and former Communist Party of Thailand members Prommin Lertsuridej and Phumtham Wechayachai were floated in recent media reports as possible candidates.
If so, the UDD would appear to be splitting into two distinct groups, with those favoring peaceful protests less aligned to Thaksin and those calling for armed struggle more clearly in the exiled former premier's inner circle.
One diplomat suggests that while the UDD lost the battle, by mobilizing 100,000 protesters on April 8 it successfully advanced a rallying call against entrenched inequality and injustice in Thai society.
The question, he suggests, will be whether the protest movement can break away from Thaksin's funds and symbolism and become a positive force for political reform, or instead intensify its destabilizing course of disruption and violence aimed solely at toppling Abhisit's government and restoring Thaksin's power.
Exiled motivations
Thaksin's lurch towards brinksmanship was at least partially motivated by the breakdown in secret negotiations that had been mediated from behind the scenes by a European interlocutor.
Those talks, which included elements of the military and monarchy, according to a Thaksin ally familiar with the situation, aimed to return Thaksin's US$2.2 billion in frozen funds in exchange for a vow he would not re-enter politics.
In an apparent bid to re-establish his diminished negotiating leverage, he has publicly accused certain privy councilors of orchestrating the 2006 coup and recently alleged in an interview with the Financial Times that King Bhumibol Adulyadej had foreknowledge of the putsch.
Before that, Thaksin is also known to have lost touch with Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn, reaffirming the notion that neither is the monarchy a static institution with its relationships.
According to diplomats and a well-placed palace source, Thaksin had on several occasions after returning from exile in 2008 met with Vajiralongkorn in Bangkok via his trusted associate, Sino Thai Engineering and Construction Company chairman Anutin Charnvirakul.
The two had also met on at least two separate occasions when Thaksin was in exile in London after the 2006 coup and Vajiralongkorn spent nine months of calendar 2007 in Europe.
It was lost on few seasoned observers that the UDD's April 12 assault on Prime Minister's Office secretary general Nipon Prompan's car at the Ministry of Interior had particular symbolic value because of the senior bureaucrat's known close ties to Vajiralongkorn, including formative years together at a European boarding school.
Some diplomats have interpreted that assault and the UDD's public criticisms of top privy councilors as a strong signal that Thaksin and his allies could complicate the impending royal succession, where Vajiralongkorn is the heir apparent to the throne.
At the same time, many believe Thaksin may have overstepped the mark by mentioning the widely revered 81-year-old Bhumibol in recent political remarks to the foreign media.
Meanwhile, the April 17 assassination attempt against media mogul and People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) protest group leader Sondhi Limthongkul could result in a more dramatic break of previously presumed aligned political forces.
Sondhi has publicly accused military officials with links to Thaksin of masterminding the failed attack, which was launched by assault rifle-toting assassins.
Sondhi told this correspondent while in hospital that he believed army commander General Anupong Paochinda, army chief of staff General Prayuth Chan-ocha and Defense Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan were bent on seizing political power from Abhisit.
Anupong has denied any foreknowledge or involvement in the plot on Sondhi, though he has acknowledged that bullet shells found at the crime scene were Thai army issue.
Sondhi has criticized the same military officials in recent press interviews and in an apparent shift suggested that the PAD's "new politics" reform agenda is in some ways similar to the political change advocated by the UDD.
PAD street protests paved the way for the 2006 military coup that ousted Thaksin's government and the movement was notably dormant during the military appointed administration that ruled in 2006 and 2007.
A second incarnation of the PAD last year paralyzed the workings of two Thaksin-aligned governments, which eventually fell through controversial court decisions, including a December 2 ruling that disbanded the then ruling People's Power Party.
Sondhi cloaked his yellow-shirted protest movement in royal symbolism and first drew crowds in late 2005 by accusing then prime minister Thaksin of disloyalty to the Thai crown - charges Thaksin has denied.
Loyal royals
By taking hard aim at Anupong and Prayuth, both established royalists who served in Queen Sirikit's Royal Guard Infantry Regiment, diplomats and analysts wonder whether Sondhi will continue to mobilize defense-of-the-monarchy themes at any future protests, including ones that potentially target top military officials or royal advisors.
Sondhi's Thai language daily newspaper openly supported the candidacy of former 3rd army division commander General Saprang Kalayanamitr over Anupong in the run-up to the 2007 military reshuffle that eventually elevated Anupong to the army'stop spot.
Anupong has since consolidated his power over important command positions, but has faced criticism from certain hardline military elements, and echoed by Sondhi, that he has failed to effectively purge Thaksin's lingering influence.
Aisa Time
MAY 13, 2009
