Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva last week assured journalists in the country that his government respected freedom of the press and would facilitate their work.
Speaking at the Pattaya campus of Thammasart University, Abhisit said, “The government wants to see media freedom and will facilitate the operations of members of the media to achieve freedom of expression.”
The speech, titled, “Media Lessons: The Power of the State, the Power of Capital, and the Power of the People,” was part of a seminar held jointly by the Thai Journalists Association, the Thai Broadcast Journalists Association, the Press Council of Thailand and other organizations. Touted as a forum for media professionals to “expand their networks and cooperation,” the real purpose of the event seemed to be to ensure that Thailand’s media toed the line in its reporting.
Although the Thai government is supposedly democratic, the Democrat-led government has done no more than murmur when police have raided human rights offices, and demurred comment when innocent citizens and foreigners have been arrested for suspected insults to the monarchy – these considered not only offensive but also a “threat to national security.”
Each succeeding Thai government, whether professing to be democratic or nationalistic, “concerned for its citizens” or dealing with “difficult circumstances,” has seen fit to close down newspapers, shut down radio and television broadcasts and arrest journalists and others who were creating “inaccurate” images of what was happening in the kingdom.
To help ensure that such actions are reduced and newspapers and other media are not forcibly closed, they are now being given strict guidelines and informed how they can cooperate with the government to ensure national security, so the kingdom can achieve reconciliation and harmony. In other words, news reports of government activities, personalities, corruption and the undermining of democratic institutions are likely to diminish, as the new rules will clearly prescribe just how far inquiry can proceed and what scope it will be permitted to encompass.
The new rules have already been sharply defined and are being reinforced with criminal law provisions. The kingdom’s computer crime law, for example, has already been used to stamp a 10-year prison sentence on Suwicha Thakor, an Internet user who allegedly spread defamatory remarks about the monarchy online.
More recently the Thai government amazed human rights and democracy watchers worldwide by announcing last week that it would demand the power to approve all programming before it is broadcast.
The announcement by Sathit Wongnongtoey, the minister in charge of the prime minister’s office, indicated that new regulations would permit “authorities” to act against broadcasters airing content “deemed” to undermine democracy.
Sathit said, “Once the regulations take effect, any broadcast station airing content deemed to be politically incendiary will not be allowed to operate.”
It’s very difficult to differentiate between what’s politically incendiary and what is not. Obviously the Thai government feels there is no need to define such differences, because it has taken it upon itself to deem and define. In this ability to act almost without restraint in the name of national security, the government now parallels its Chinese, Burmese, Lao, Cambodian and Burmese counterparts in quashing almost anything it deems needs quashing.
These worrisome developments in Thailand, part of a general trend toward limiting, inch by inch, the power of the people in the name of national security, seem to have gone unnoticed by Thailand’s friends and neighbors. Perhaps this is because they are mostly either trading partners or brothers-in-crime, involved in exploiting natural resources or other deals.
The prognosis for the future of democracy in Thailand is not good. Despite the promises of press freedom, there are rumors of leaders meeting in secret sessions in Parliament and the Cabinet to deliberate how to retain power while keeping the media quiet.
For the time being Thailand’s relations with the West will likely remain relatively cordial, but as time goes on, the attitude of the internal state security apparatus may eventually work its way outward to identify once close allies as enemies of the state. The Thai people themselves, however, have already become the first victims of this new regime.
Filed under: upiasia.com
Death sentences for Suzanne Tamim murderers
An Egyptian billionaire and former top political figure has been sentenced to death in Cairo for the 2008 murder of Lebanese pop star Suzanne Tamim.Hisham Talaat Moustafa was found guilty of paying $2m to an ex-policeman to kill the singer. The killer Muhsin Sukkari was also sentenced to hang.
Ms Tamim reportedly broke off a secret love affair with Moustafa months before she was stabbed to death in Dubai.
The tale of sex, politics, money and show business gripped the Arab world.
The courtroom descended into chaos after the judge read out a short statement and ordered the sentences referred to the religious authorities for confirmation - as is normal in Egypt. The defendants looked shocked at the verdict and relatives of Hisham Talaat Moustafa jostled with reporters to prevent them photographing his reaction.
Female relatives burst into tears and one of them fainted in the pandemonium.
Lawyer Samir Shishtawi called the verdict "severe", adding: "I want to assure Talaat Moustafa's family that this verdict will be overturned by the appeals court".
Newly married
The indictment had accused the security guard who worked at a hotel owned by Moustafa of killing Suzanne Tamim, 30, with a knife at her luxury Dubai apartment last July.
SUZANNE TAMIM
- Born in Lebanon, September 1977
- Winner of Studio El Fan talent show in 1996
- Married former classmate Ali MOuzannar (divorced in 2002), followed by music producer Adel Matouk
Murder that gripped the Middle East
Clothes found at the apartment carried his DNA, and he was identified after being caught on film by a security camera.
Telephone conversations between Sukkari and Moustafa also formed part of the prosecution's case.
The indictment had accused Moustafa, former head of the Talaat Moustafa Group property empire, of participating in the murder through "incitement, agreement and assistance".
The court heard that he had ordered the killing after twice-married Ms Tamim ended their relationship in favour of an Iraqi kick-boxing champion, Riyad al-Azzawi, whom she had met in London.
Sukkari then followed Suzanne Tamim to the United Arab Emirates and staked out her flat. He gained entry by saying he worked for the building owner and killed her as she opened her front door.
Elite
As well as serving in the upper house of the Egyptian parliament, Hisham Talaat Moustafa is known to have been close to President Hosni Mubarak's politically powerful son Gamal.
He sat on the ruling National Democratic Party's policy committee.
Members of the Egyptian elite are often viewed in the country as being above the law, and there was massive public interest in the case.
The Dubai authorities applied such pressure on the Egyptians to bring the case to trial that he was eventually stripped of his parliamentary immunity.
But reporting of the case was banned in Egypt after the opening statements - a ruling which brought sharp criticism from the opposition.
Reporters from Tamim's home area in the Lebanese capital Beirut said her family was "grateful for the verdict".
Suzanne Tamim had risen to stardom throughout the Middle East as the winner of a pop idol contest in Lebanon in 1996.
But her career was marred by reports of a troubled private life.
What are your memories of Suzanne Tamim?
Related to this story:
Murder that gripped the Middle East (21 May 09 | Middle East )
Paradox of power in ailing Egypt (03 Nov 08 | Middle East )
Country profile: Egypt (10 Mar 09 | Country profiles )
Tycoon denies murdering pop star (18 Oct 08 | Middle East )
Blackout imposed on Tamim trial (17 Nov 08 | Middle East )
Lebanese singer 'killed in Dubai' (30 Jul 08 | Middle East )
NHRC no longer complies with Paris Principles,must lose status in United Nations forums(2009-05-08)
| NHRC no longer complies with Paris Principles,must lose status in United Nations forums(2009-05-08) |  |
| Friday, 08 May 2009 | |
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Jennifer Lynch Tel: +1 613 995 11 51 Dear Ms. Lynch THAILAND: NHRC no longer complies with Paris Principles, must lose status in United Nations forums The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is writing to you to request an immediate review of the status of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of Thailand on the basis that it no longer complies with the Principles Relating to the Status of National Institutions on Human Rights (The Paris Principles) and must be downgraded so that it is unable to participate in the United Nations. As you will be aware from the contents of three previous open letters that the AHRC addressed to the Senate of Thailand and copied to you (AHRC-OLT-012-2009; AHRC-OLT-013-2009; AHRC-OLT-015-2009), the Senate was to vote on the seven nominees to the commission on last Friday, May 1. Regrettably, the Senate proceeded with the vote and all seven of the nominees were approved for appointment as commissioners. It is the opinion of the AHRC that the selection and composition of this NHRC fails in every respect to comply with the Paris Principles, specifically, section 1 of the principles on composition and guarantees of independence and pluralism, which reads that: "The composition of the national institution and the appointment of its members, whether by means of an election or otherwise, shall be established in accordance with a procedure which affords all necessary guarantees to ensure the pluralist representation of the social forces (of civilian society) involved in the protection and promotion of human rights, particularly by powers which will enable effective cooperation to be established with, or through the presence of, representatives of: (a) Non-governmental organizations responsible for human rights and efforts to combat racial discrimination, trade unions, concerned social and professional organizations, for example, associations of lawyers, doctors, journalists and eminent scientists..." None of the components of this section have been complied with in the selection and appointment of the seven new commissioners, for reasons given as follows. 1. Procedure for nomination and appointment did not afford any necessary guarantees to ensure pluralist representation. The selection process was delayed since 2007 as a case was pending in the courts (Supreme Administrative Court Black Case No. 54/2551, Red Case No. 830/2551) seeking the appointment of new commissioners even though a new law governing NHRC activities had not been readied in accordance with the Constitution of Thailand BE 2550 (2007). After the court issued a verdict allowing appointment of new commissioners without the revised law, the process of selection and appointment was rushed through in March and April 2009 without any publicity and amid political turmoil and violent unrest. One week was given for applicants to the new commission to submit their documents (March 14-20), and another week purportedly given for public comment (April 20-27). In fact, no effort was made to publicize the process of selection and appointment to the commission, whether by radio, television, Internet or other media, and the invitation to comment was made only via a formal government announcement on April 21. That the Senate was not actually interested in receiving comments was made clear to the AHRC when it accessed the Senate website in order to submit a letter and found that there was no form or other location on the site made available for this purpose. Only on the afternoon of April 27 was a form briefly put up after the AHRC complained by fax that it had been unable to find one, which was then promptly removed again first thing the next morning. The selection and appointment process occurred against the backdrop of intense political turmoil in Thailand that led to the closure of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit on April 8 and the declaration of a State of Emergency in Bangkok from April 12 to 24. Therefore, there was no public or media attention brought to the secretive selection and appointment process. Aside from the above, the formalities of the process under the undemocratic 2007 Constitution, and the uninterested and irresponsible manner with which the persons charged with the selection and appointment of the new commission carried out their task, effectively denied pluralist and independent representation. Under section 256 of the 2007 Constitution, the Selection Committee consists of the presidents of the Supreme Court, Constitution Court, and Supreme Administrative Court, the President of the House of Representatives, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives and two other persons appointed from the Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court respectively. On this occasion, as a consequence of the political unrest there was no opposition leader, and the other representative from the House of Representatives belongs to a party that was not elected to government but was brought to power by virtue of a court decision. Thus, not one member of the Selection Committee can be said to have been a democratically chosen public representative. Nor is the Senate of Thailand, which vetted and voted on the seven nominees, a fully elected body, but under the 2007 Constitution a committee of judges and bureaucrats appoints 74 of its 150 members. Thus, unelected officials controlled the entire process of selection and appointment of the new NHRC. The Selection Committee appears to have shown no interest in its duty to appoint a new commission. Remarkably, it did not even bother to interview any of the candidates, basing its nominations solely on the documentation it had received. Even then, in its report to the Senate it did not give any reasoning for its selection of the seven nominees, giving details only of the votes for and against each candidate that led to his or her nomination. Given the contents of the report and the short time for which the committee met, it doesn't appear to have debated the qualities of the respective nominees at all, merely going through a series of votes, without any discussion, to come up with the seven who were referred to the Senate. These seven also were not subjected to any rigorous inquiries at the Senate prior to their election there, merely making some brief speeches and answering a few questions by Senators, during which a number of the candidates demonstrated a superior ignorance rather than knowledge of human rights, and one over whom the AHRC has raised specific objections openly demonstrated contempt for the international human rights community, as discussed further in point 2. It must also briefly be noted that all of this stands in marked contrast to the procedure for selection and appointment of the previous commission under the 1997 Constitution, which involved many persons from a variety of sectors and civic groups, and required short-listed candidates to appear for interviews and also give speeches to the Senate, then a fully-elected body, prior to their appointment: facts of which the ICC is fully apprised by virtue of its earlier accrediting of that NHRC. 2. The new commission is neither pluralist nor independent and does not consist of social forces involved in the protection and promotion of human rights. The seven new commissioners are: Police General Vanchai Srinuwalnad, assistant commissioner general of the Royal Thai Police; Mr. Parinya Sirisarakarn, managing director of a salt extraction and processing company, Kijsubudom Co. Ltd., and former member of the Constitution Drafting Assembly of Thailand (2007) established after the military coup of 2006; Mr. Paibool Varahapaitoorn, secretary to the Office of the Constitution Court; Mr. Taejing Siripanich, secretary, Don't Drive Drunk Foundation; Ms. Visa Penjamano, ministerial inspector, Ministry of Social Development and Human Security; Mr. Nirand Pithakwachara, former elected senator for Ubol Ratchathani and member of Senate commissions of inquiry into human rights abuses; and, Professor Amara Pongsapich, former dean, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University. Out of the seven, only the last two persons have actual experience and broad knowledge on human rights issues, while the third last has experience on specific economic and social rights. The other four, the majority of the commission, not only have no experience at all but also from their applications to become commissioners and from the contents of the short speeches and answers to questions at the Senate prior to their election evidently have no conception of human rights either. Out of the seven, three are from state agencies, one of who is a senior police officer, another of who is a judicial administrator. The appointment of these three persons direct from their posts in other parts of government raises serious doubts about the independence of the new commission. The inclusion of a senior policeman is of special concern to the AHRC as the Royal Thai Police are the top violators of human rights in Thailand, for which they enjoy complete impunity: a statement that the AHRC can back with voluminous documentation over many years of work on the situation of human rights in the country. The inclusion of the court administrator is also of concern given that the appointee's former boss was among those responsible for his appointment to the post, and given the numerous non-judicial roles across government that the judiciary holds under the 2007 Constitution. Neither of these appointees has any qualities or experience to lend himself to the role of human rights commissioner. On the contrary, both men are among those who clearly misunderstand the role and responsibilities of the commission and lack even basic understanding of human rights. The AHRC has also raised special concern over the appointment of Parinya Sirisarakarn. Parinya is an industrialist who was himself named in a report of the former NHRC (No. 74/2550) as among businesspersons responsible for environmental degradation in the northeast. The naming of Parinya as a human rights violator in an official document of the former commission apparently was not sufficient an obstacle to his appointment to the post. Nor, it seems, were his outrageous comments to Senators prior to his election, including that if made a commissioner he would not necessarily welcome international intervention on human rights issues in Thailand because this might be intended to interfere in the country's internal affairs; he then illustrated the point by alleging that the Falun Gong is backed by the CIA to interfere on human rights issues in China. He added that other countries are also violating the rights of the military regime in Burma, with which he is demonstrated great sympathy, by using human rights discourse to isolate the country. Finally, none of the seven persons are representatives of non-governmental organizations responsible for human rights, trade unions or concerned social and professional organizations, despite the fact that there were applicants from these backgrounds to the commission whose names were not selected. The above is a brief outline of some of the most obvious departures from the Paris Principles in the selection and appointment of the new NHRC of Thailand. The AHRC has collected all of the publicly accessible documentation on the process and is able to amplify and provide further details on any of the facts presented upon request. The AHRC takes note that pluralistic composition and independence are integral features of a national human rights institution for compliance with the Paris Principles. They are not optional. It recalls paragraph 8 of the Nairobi Declaration at the Ninth International Conference of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in 2008, that "the independence and autonomy of NHRIs, their pluralistic representation, as well as their interaction with a broad range of stakeholders, is necessary for their compliance with international standards and their effectiveness at the national, regional and international levels". The AHRC further notes that in November 2008 the NHRC of Thailand had its "A" accreditation status renewed by the International Coordinating Committee (ICC) for compliance with the Paris Principles, entitling it to participate fully in United Nations forums as a national human rights institution. In view of the selection and appointment process and composition of the new National Human Rights Commission of Thailand, the Asian Human Rights Commission hereby calls upon the ICC to review immediately Thailand's status and downgrade the NHRC to "C" status, non-compliant with the Paris Principles, until such a time as a new commission is selected and appointed that brings the NHRC back into agreement with international standards. We are confident that the ICC will be concerned to adhere scrupulously to the principles that it is assigned to uphold, lest the body itself and deserving A-accredited institutions cooperate with the human rights fraud that has now been perpetrated in Thailand by way of this illegitimate NHRC. Finally, the AHRC wishes to add that the selection and appointment of this new National Human Rights Commission in a manner contrary to the very principles that the commission is supposed to represent speaks both to the utter disinterest in the work of Thailand's national human rights institution among people in the country's current administration as well as those in successive governments of recent times, and to the very low respect for and knowledge about human rights among the authorities there. Not only has the NHRC been relegated to a third-class institution of little relevance to the workings of the state, but also government agencies in Thailand continue to treat human rights as at best irrelevant and more often than not as obstacles to their work. The manner of selection and appointment of the new NHRC as well as its composition are indicators of the deep anti-human rights culture that pervades all official institutions in Thailand, now including, it would seem, the National Human Rights Commission itself. Basil Fernando Cc:  | |
| Last Updated ( Saturday, 09 May 2009 ) |
To support human rights, NHRC should resign (2009-05-04)
| To support human rights, NHRC should resign (2009-05-04) |
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE THAILAND: To support human rights, NHRC should resign Last Friday, May 1, the appointee Senate of Thailand elected seven new persons as the country's National Human Rights Commission. They are, Police General Vanchai Srinuwalnad, assistant commissioner general of the Royal Thai Police; Mr. Parinya Sirisarakarn, former member of the Constitution Drafting Assembly of Thailand (2007); Mr. Paibool Varahapaitoorn, secretary to the Office of the Constitution Court; Ms. Visa Penjamano, ministerial inspector, Ministry of Social Development and Human Security; Mr. Taejing Siripanich, secretary, Don't Drive Drunk Foundation; Mr. Nirand Pithakwachara, former elected senator for Ubol Ratchathani; and, Professor Amara Pongsapich, former dean, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University. In a series of open letters (AHRC-OLT-012-2009; AHRC-OLT-013-2009; AHRC-OLT-015-2009), the Asian Human Rights Commission already urged the Senate to postpone the process of selection to allow for public participation and debate on the appropriateness or otherwise of the seven candidates. Unfortunately, the Senate proceeded with its vote and chose to accept all seven nominees, despite the fact that the majority of them have no conception of human rights, the alleged rights violations of one of the seven, and the undemocratic and non-transparent process that lead to their nominations. If any of the seven appointees genuinely understands and supports the human rights principles that their commission is supposed to represent then they should now resign. The reason is that their commission stands in violation of both domestic and international human rights standards. It is not pluralist, and it was not selected in accordance with the procedure laid out in the Paris Principles on National Human Rights Institutions. It is doubtful that it even meets the standards of the undemocratic 2007 Constitution of Thailand, or the act governing the commission. As a consequence of this double-failure, the credibility of the NHRC at home is already at an all-time low, and internationally Thailand now seriously risks losing its status in United Nations' forums on human rights. The Asian Human Rights Commission wishes to make explicit that the appointment of this commission and the manner in which it was appointed is a slap in the face of human rights defenders in Thailand and across Asia. It is a statement of the contempt with which human rights are held among the authorities there. It is laughable that while the government of Thailand has been hosting a "human rights caravan" to travel around the country informing citizens of generic universal rights, it has allowed the appointment to the NHRC of the likes of Parinya Sirisarakarn, a man whose views on human rights, in as much as he has any at all, resemble those of Burma's military regime than those of a nascent human rights commissioner. Whereas the AHRC had cordial relations with commissioners and staff of the former NHRC, it deems the new body a non-human rights organization and has no option other than to ostracize it in the global human rights community. It again urges any among the seven commissioners who does not wish to participate in a human rights charade to resign immediately, out of respect for the principles that they are supposed to represent. It would also encourage any person resigning to again stand for the post when arrangements are made for election to the commission in a manner that permits widespread public awareness and debate, and complies with international standards. # # # | |
| Last Updated ( Monday, 04 May 2009 ) |
A Third Open Letter to the Senate of Thailand by the Asian Human Rights Commission (2009-04-30)
| A Third Open Letter to the Senate of Thailand by the Asian Human Rights Commission (2009-04-30) |
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Prasobsuk Boondech Fax: +662 831 9211 EXTREMELY URGENT Dear Mr. Prasobsuk THAILAND: Strongly oppose nomination of Parinya Sirisaragarn to the NHRC and again call for delay in process The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is writing to you to oppose the nomination of Parinya Sirisaragarn to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of Thailand on the basis that he has been named in a 2007 NHRC report as the licensee of a salt company that has degraded the environment, and due to potential conflicts of interest. The case of Mr. Parinya clearly illustrates the need for a delay in the process and proper study of the backgrounds of the candidates. The fact that one of the nominees for the NHRC has himself been named in an earlier report as an alleged rights violator speaks loudly to the dangers posed by rushing the selection procedure, to which we have already referred in our letter to you of April 29 and our letter of April 25 to the chairperson of the Senate selection committee. To the case details, the AHRC has obtained a copy of NHRC Report 74/2550, dated 5 April 2007, concerning environmental degradation caused by salt extraction in Samrong Subdistrict, Nonthai District of Nakhon Ratchasima Province. The report followed the complaint of a local resident to the NHRC in 2005. According to the report, eight salt extraction licensees in the subdistrict have over some years seriously damaged the local environment. The damage includes soil erosion, land subsidence and collapse, and the entry of salt into the water table, making water undrinkable and unsuited for agriculture. Mr. Parinya is identified in the report as one of the eight licensees (Licence No. Jor.3-103[1]-8/40NorMor). Even though his licence had expired on 2002 he had been permitted to continue extracting salt while an application for renewal was pending, up to the date of the report. The NHRC report recommended, among other things, that the eight licences be revoked within 30 days of the report being received by the relevant government department. However, the AHRC has confirmed that Mr. Parinya in his capacity as managing director of Kijsubudom Co. Ltd. is continuing to extract salt from the subdistrict. In addition to the above, which the AHRC notes has already been brought to the attention of the Senate by the Northeastern Natural Resources Protection Network in a letter last week, Mr. Parinya is involved in a variety of other commercial ventures that may bring him into conflicts of interest with the work of the NHRC. He has concerns in two companies, EMP Engineering (Thai-Singapore) industrial equipment company and Cartoonek (Thai) chemical industries, and he is a member of the Federation of Thai Industries Nakhon Ratchasima. He has also worked as a consultant for various private firms. In light of the NHRC report of 2007, not only should Mr. Parinya not have been nominated to the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand but furthermore, questions should be asked as to why he has continued to degrade the environment of Thailand through his commercial interests. The Asian Human Rights Commission therefore strongly opposes his candidacy, calls for him to be rejected from the list of nominees, and also calls for an investigation as to why his licence to extract salt in Nonthai was not revoked in accordance with the NHRC's prior recommendation. Beyond this, the AHRC is concerned that there may be other candidates among the seven who are also unsuited for the commission on the basis of past and present activities, but as the procedure for their nomination and screening has been grossly inadequate and no time has been allowed for civil society organizations to look into their records and come forward with information of the sort outlined above, details on their suitability or lack thereof is wanting. In fact, the AHRC can identify only one person among the seven who has practical human rights experience and is manifestly suitable for the job to which he has been nominated. We point to Mr. Parinya's case to again stress that by going ahead with the nomination process tomorrow, May 1, the Senate risks jeopardizing the status of the NHRC at home and abroad. The Senate should also be aware that in the event that it goes ahead with the process, the Asian Human Rights Commission will be left with no option but to call for the downgrading of the NHRC from an "A" Status institution under the Paris Principles on National Human Rights Institutions on the basis of the Senate's failure to comply with the minimum requirements for selection procedure and composition under the principles. This would, among other things, result in the NHRC being denied the right to participate actively in United Nations forums. The AHRC will also be forced to treat the NHRC of Thailand as a non-human rights organization. We thus urge you to seriously reconsider the selection and appointment of the NHRC candidates before proceeding with a vote tomorrow as planned. Basil Fernando Cc:  ----------------------------- | |
| Last Updated ( Monday, 04 May 2009 ) |
An Open Letter to the Senate of Thailand by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) (2009-04-29)
| An Open Letter to the Senate of Thailand by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) (2009-04-29) |
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE | |
| Last Updated ( Thursday, 30 April 2009 ) |
An Open Letter to the Senate of Thailand by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
Theerajit Sathirotamawong THAILAND: Senate must give more time for debate on new NHRC The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is writing to you out of concern that the selection process for a new National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of Thailand is being rushed through in a highly undemocratic manner, without any public consultation or accountability and contrary to the basic principles that the NHRC is supposed to represent. We urge you to delay the selection process to allow more time for discussion and debate, or risk violating international standards on National Human Rights Institutions, which may affect the NHRC’s official status in global forums not to mention undermine its credibility in the eyes of the general public of Thailand. Yours sincerely  -----------------------------Asian Human Rights Commission 19/F, Go-Up Commercial Building, 998 Canton Road, Kowloon, Hongkong S.A.R. Tel: +(852) - 2698-6339 Fax: +(852) - 2698-6367 | |
| Last Updated ( Monday, 27 April 2009 ) |
Thailand's anti-human rights commission
Despite concerns from human rights defenders at home and abroad, Thailand’s upper house on May 1 approved the seven nominees for the country’s National Human Rights Commission. The seven consist of a top cop, a judicial administrator, a civil servant, an industrialist, an academic, a former senator and a road safety advocate. Only the ex-senator and academic have experience and knowledge to warrant their appointments, although critics observe that both also are tainted by their links with an army-installed government after the 2006 coup. The civil servant is a social worker who has some idea about children’s and women’s rights. The other four have no clue. The policeman says that due process in some cases should be balanced with crime control, like in the country’s restive south. As a representative of Thailand’s preeminent agency for human rights abuse, he is now situated to block inquiries into security forces that abduct, torture and kill people on this pretext, be they near the Malaysian border or anywhere else. The court administrator counts his human rights experience as having been involved in the drafting of a number of constitutions, including a couple written for the benefit of military dictators. He also reckons that he contributed to verdicts favorable to rights, although this is an odd and unsupportable claim from someone whose role is not supposed to include telling judges how to decide cases. The road safety guy seems unaware that the body to which he has been appointed is a human rights commission, not a rights and duties commission, as he has so far been unable to talk about one without remarking on the other. The businessman describes human rights as a tool for international groups to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, such as the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency backing the spiritual group Falun Gong to cause trouble for China. He also says that other countries are violating the rights of Burma’s military regime by imposing sanctions. And that’s not even the start of it. A more ugly lot of rights commissioners would be hard to find. But now they’re in, can anything be done to get them out again? Or is Thailand saddled with an anti-human rights commission for the next six years? Abroad, the rights agency will probably lose its place in the United Nations. At the moment, it holds full status as an official national human rights institution and is entitled to participate in various gatherings and work with its peers in other countries through a special worldwide committee. But its status is dependent on compliance with some minimum standards set down by the General Assembly, which are known as the Paris Principles. Under these, the choosing and appointing of members to a national rights body must be done in a way that results in it being pluralist and independent. The principles also specify that members should include people from human rights groups, trade unions and civil society. The new commission in Thailand obviously is not pluralist, does not include people from these backgrounds and is not independent either, given that three of the seven members are coming straight from other state agencies. For these and more reasons, the Hong Kong-based Asian Human Rights Commission has called on the committee governing official rights groups to downgrade Thailand’s commission to its lowest ranking. At home, the appointment of the seven even violates the regressive 2007 Constitution, in which the body should consist of persons “having apparent knowledge and experiences in the protection of rights and liberties of the people, having regard also to the participation of representatives from private organizations in the field of human rights.” The appointment of the businessman too could breach a separate law on the commission because his financial interests may conflict with human rights. Actually, they already have. The former commission named him as a human rights violator for causing environmental damage in the northeast. Even so, there is no obvious way for concerned citizens to get him or any of the others out. The 2007 charter superseded the terms of the law on the commission, and until a new act is passed there will be no clear-cut avenues for legislative removal of its members. In any case, the power to do so will ultimately rest with the same group of former army officers, judges, police and bureaucrats of the Senate who elected the commissioners in the first place. The only other way to challenge the appointments is in the courts. But there the same problem emerges. The committee that selected the commissioners consisted of five judges, including the heads of each of the three superior courts. Approaching the judiciary to overturn the new rights agency would amount to telling the judges who chose the seven that they screwed up and should try again. That there are no independent avenues for complaint against the electing of anti-human rights people to the human rights commission is not an accident. It is precisely what the 2006 coup-makers wanted, and what the flunkies who wrote their Constitution designed. Thailand’s superior courts are today intended to serve as proxies for entrenched military and elite interests. They are intended to obstruct people’s rights rather than protect them. Not surprisingly, they have assigned a National Human Rights Commission for the same ends. -- (Recordings of the new commissioners giving short talks and answering questions at the Senate prior to their selection, as well as other material on the new NHRC, can be found at: http://www.siampeace.net). From: upiasia.com |
จากเหตุเกิดที่พัฒนพงษ์ ถึงคดีลอบสังหาร “สนธิ”
| |
Source: manager.co.th |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)