Thailand imposes new restrictions on media

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

Skip to main contentAn 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

Suzanne Tamim

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)Print
Friday, 08 May 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
AHRC-OLT-017-2009

An Open Letter to the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for Human Rights by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)

Jennifer Lynch 
Chairperson 
International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
c/o Canadian Human Rights Commission
344 Slater Street, 8th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1E1, 
CANADA

Tel: +1 613 995 11 51
Fax: +1 613 996 9661
Email:  info.com@chrc-ccdp.ca

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-012-2009AHRC-OLT-013-2009AHRC-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. 

Yours sincerely

Basil Fernando
Executive Director
Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong

Cc:
1. Professor Kyong Whan Ahn, Vice-Chairperson, ICC of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
2. Dr. Heiner Bielefeldt, Chairperson, Sub-Committee on Accreditation, ICC of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
3. Ms. Katharina Rose, Interim Representative, ICC of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Geneva
4. Mr. Abhisist Vejjajiva, Prime Minister of Thailand
5. Ms. Margaret Sekaggaya, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders
6. Mr. Homayoun Alizadeh, Regional Representative, OHCHR, Bangkok 
7. Mr. Kieren Fitzpatrick, Director, Secretariat, Asia-Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions

Last Updated ( Saturday, 09 May 2009 )
 Filed under: ahrc-thailand.net

To support human rights, NHRC should resign (2009-05-04)

To support human rights, NHRC should resign (2009-05-04)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
AHRC-STM-093-2009 
A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission

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-012-2009AHRC-OLT-013-2009AHRC-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.

# # # 

About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

Last Updated ( Monday, 04 May 2009 )
 Filed under: ahrc-thailand.net

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 
AHRC-OLT-015-2009

Prasobsuk Boondech
President
Senate of Thailand 
Office of the Senate Secretariat
499 Sukpraprueit Building
Prachachuein Road
Bangsue, Bangkok 10800
THAILAND

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. 

Yours sincerely

Basil Fernando
Executive Director
Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong

Cc:
1. Mr. Abhisist Vejjajiva, Prime Minister of Thailand
2. Ms. Jennifer Lynch, Chairperson, International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
3. Ms. Margaret Sekaggaya, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders
4. Mr. Homayoun Alizadeh, Regional Representative, OHCHR, Bangkok

-----------------------------
Asian Human Rights Commission
19/F, Go-Up Commercial Building,
998 Canton Road, Kowloon, Hongkong S.A.R.
Tel: +(852) - 2698-6339 Fax: +(852) - 2698-6367
Last Updated ( Monday, 04 May 2009 )
 Filed under: ahrc-thailand.net

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

An Open Letter to the Senate of Thailand by the Asian Human Rights
Commission (AHRC)

Prasobsuk Boondech

President

Senate of Thailand

Office of the Senate Secretariat

499 Sukpraprueit Building

Prachachuein Road

Bangsue, Bangkok 10800

THAILAND

Fax: +662 831 9211

**EXTREMELY URGENT **

Dear Mr. Prasobsuk

THAILAND: Senate must delay vote on NHRC

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is writing to you out of
grave concern that if the Senate proceeds with a vote on the seven
persons nominated as commissioners of the National Human Rights
Commission (NHRC) of Thailand at the sitting on this Friday, May 1 as
the Senate Secretariat announced today, April 29, the new commission
will violate international standards on the procedure for selecting a
national human rights institution.

The AHRC already in a letter of April 25 to the chairperson of the
Senate selection committee for the new NHRC (copied to you) pointed
out that the selection process of the new commissioners has been
rushed, non-transparent, undemocratic and contrary to the basic
principles that the NHRC is supposed to represent. While we agree
that the appointment of new commissioners is a priority, it should
not be at the expense of public debate and measures to get the right
people for the job.

Unfortunately, as explained in that letter, everything seems to have
been done to keep the entire process and the names and backgrounds of
the selected candidates hidden from view. In the few days since, there
have been a few small steps taken to allow very limited public
awareness and comment on the nominees, steps that can only be
described as pathetic. For instance, after it was pointed out that
there was no form on the Senate website for members of the public to
post comments, on the afternoon of the last day given for the making
of comments, a form did in fact briefly appear on the site, only to
be removed before the following morning. By way of another example,
we have read news that the seven nominees will this afternoon be
presented to the media at the Senate premises. These sorts of paltry
measures do nothing to make the selection process meaningful and only
raise further doubts that the Senate will try to create the impression
that the process was in some way accountable when in fact it was the
very opposite.

The AHRC is aware that citizens  groups in Thailand have already
voiced opposition to some of the candidates and the manner of their
selection and notes that these groups too were not kept informed of
the selection process or invited to comment. This is hardly
surprising given that the selection committee itself apparently did
not even meet the candidates before selecting them, and nor does its
report to the Senate contain any reasoning on the choice of these
seven over any other of the 133 applicants. For this reason the AHRC
iterates its concern that the manner of selection and composition of
the candidates stands in breach of the Paris Principles on National
Human Rights Institutions, adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly in 1993, 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..."

That the procedure for selection of candidates to the NHRC violated
this provision is manifest from the backgrounds of the seven
nominees, only one of whom has any manifest practical human rights
experience. The other six consist of persons with little if anything
to lend them to the job, among whom is a police general, a civil
servant, a judicial administrator and an industrialist. Furthermore,
three of these people are still serving in other parts of government,
and their appointment to the commission appears to violate the terms
of the Paris Principles that members of government departments, if
included in the NHRC "should participate in the deliberations only in
an advisory capacity".

Violation of the Paris Principles in selection and appointment of
nominees to the NHRC would have real consequences for Thailand. The
Senate should be aware that were the status of the NHRC under the
principles reviewed, The commission could be downgraded and lose its
rights to participate as a national human rights institution in
international forums, such as has happened to the Human Rights
Commission of Sri Lanka. Aside from this, it would further undermine
Thailand's already greatly diminished credibility on human rights
issues worldwide.

Finally, the AHRC notes along with domestic groups that the manner of
selection and backgrounds of particular candidates may be in breach of
provisions both under the Constitution of Thailand BE 2550 (2007) and
the National Human Rights Commission Act BE 2542 (1999).

In this period of political and social turmoil in Thailand, there has
simply not been enough time given or attention paid to the process of
selecting these candidates for the National Human Rights Commission.
If the Senate proceeds to a vote on Friday, May 1, then it will be
doing so contrary to both international and even domestic standards
on human rights and will throw the future of the entire commission
into doubt. Above all, it will be doing a great disservice to the
people of Thailand. We strongly urge you to postpone this vote until
such a time as the matter has obtained the public attention that it
deserves and a coherent debate on the role of the NHRC and the
candidates for commissionerships has followed.

Yours sincerely

Basil Fernando

Executive Director

Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong

Cc:

1. Mr. Abhisist Vejjajiva, Prime Minister of Thailand

2. Ms. Jennifer Lynch, Chairperson, International Coordinating
Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection
of Human Rights

3. Ms. Margaret Sekaggaya, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights
defenders

4. Mr. Homayoun Alizadeh, Regional Representative, OHCHR, Bangkok

-----------------------------
Asian Human Rights Commission
19/F, Go-Up Commercial Building,
998 Canton Road, Kowloon, Hongkong S.A.R.
Tel: +(852) - 2698-6339 Fax: +(852) - 2698-6367

Last Updated ( Thursday, 30 April 2009 )
 Filed under: ahrc-thailand.net

An Open Letter to the Senate of Thailand by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)

Theerajit Sathirotamawong 
Chairperson 
Senate Committee to assess NHRC nominees 
Office of the Senate Secretariat 
499 Sukpraprueit Building 
Prachachuein Road 
Bangsue, Bangkok 10800 
THAILAND 

Fax: +662 831 9211 


Dear Mr. Theerajit

THAILAND: Senate must give more time for debate on new NHRC

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is writing to you out of concern that the selection process for a new National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of Thailand is being rushed through in a highly undemocratic manner, without any public consultation or accountability and contrary to the basic principles that the NHRC is supposed to represent. We urge you to delay the selection process to allow more time for discussion and debate, or risk violating international standards on National Human Rights Institutions, which may affect the NHRC’s official status in global forums not to mention undermine its credibility in the eyes of the general public of Thailand. 

By way of background, the AHRC is aware that even though the terms of the former NHRC commissioners expired in 2007, as there was at that time an interim military-installed government operating under a temporary constitution, they stayed on in their positions under the terms of the law governing the commission's work. However, after the Constitution of Thailand BE 2550 (2007) came into effect, in October 2007 two persons approached the Administrative Court to have new commissioners elected under the altered terms of the new charter. In a ruling prepared on 12 December 2008 that was read on 30 January 2009, the Supreme Administrative Court held that the former commissioners should vacate their seats and that it was not necessary to delay appointment of new commissioners until a new NHRC law was prepared by parliament. 

Accordingly, on 11 March 2009 the NHRC secretary invited applications for new commissioners, giving a period of one week for applications, from March 14 to 20. Applications had to be submitted in person at the NHRC office in Bangkok. The office received 133 applications. The Selection Committee, consisting of the presidents of the three top courts, two persons chosen by two assemblies of judges, and the president of the lower house of parliament met to consider the applications on April 8. The seventh member of the committee, from the political opposition, was not involved apparently due to the political uncertainty gripping Thailand. 

On April 10 the committee sent the names and documents of its seven nominees to the Senate for consideration and approval. The seven are: Police General Vanchai Srinuwalnad, assistant commissioner general of the Royal Thai Police; Mr. Parinya Sirisarakarn, former member of the Constitution Drafting Assembly of Thailand (2007); Mr. Paibool Varahapaitoorn, secretary to the Office of the Constitution Court; Ms. Visa Penjamano, ministerial inspector, Ministry of Social Development and Human Security; Mr. Taejing Siripanich, secretary, Don’t Drive Drunk Foundation; Mr. Nirand Pithakwachara, former elected senator for Ubol Ratchathani; and, Professor Amara Pongsapich, former dean, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University. 

On April 20 the Senate established a committee to review the nominees and the following day it announced that it would give until April 27 for public comment on the seven, that is, until this coming Monday. 

The AHRC would like to point to just a few of the most obvious problems with the selection process so far: 

1. Inadequate time for candidates to come forward and for public debate: From mid-2007 to March 2009 there was no action on the selection of new commissioners. Then a period of only one week was given for applicants to present themselves at the office in Bangkok and submit forms and supporting documents for candidacy. After that, this second period of only one week, announced on the second day of the week, from April 21 to 27, was given for members of the public to make comments via a post office box at the Senate. 

2. No attempt to encourage public debate or awareness: The announcements for candidates and for comment on nominees have been made through official websites and government channels. There have been no attempts, to the knowledge of the AHRC, to inform the general public about the process or encourage debate on commissioners, either through television, radio or print media. No fax numbers have been provided for prompt submission of comments in the week provided. Nor has an attempt been made to use the Internet so that people can make comments easily. Although public submissions were invited via the Senate website, when the AHRC visited the website we could not find any dedicated page or form for the submitting of comments. 

3. Selection process itself patently flawed: The Selection Committee chose the seven nominees based solely upon the written forms and supporting documents that they submitted. Unlike the nominees to the previous commission, they were not interviewed and nor were they required to give a speech to the Senate before approval. It is hard to see how the committee could make informed decisions about these candidates without even meeting with them. This is of special concern given the undemocratic composition of the new Selection Committee, itself comprising of judges, judge appointees, and one representative of the incumbent party in government, by contrast to the body that selected the former commission under the terms of the Constitution of Thailand BE 2540 (1997), which included representatives of civil society, the media and other sectors. 

It is in these respects that the AHRC is concerned that the selection process as it stands at present may result in the election of an NHRC that violates both the 2007 Constitution as well as the Paris Principles on National Human Rights Institutions. 

With regards to the first, under section 256 of the 2007 Constitution the NHRC should comprise of persons "having apparent knowledge and experiences in the protection of rights and liberties of the people, having regard also to the participation of representatives from private organisations in the field of human rights". However, the selection process in 2009 has resulted in a body of seven candidates with little manifest knowledge and experience in the protection of human rights, among whom none are representatives of private organisations in the human rights field. This is despite the fact that there were applicants for the position from such organisations and others with very considerable knowledge and experience who were not selected. 

With regards to the second issue, section 1 of the Principles Relating to the Status of National Institutions on human rights (The Paris Principles) (adopted United Nations General Assembly resolution 48/134 of 20 December 1993) on composition states that, 

"The composition of the national institution and the appointment of its members, whether by means of an election or otherwise, shall be established in accordance with a procedure which affords all necessary guarantees to ensure the pluralist representation of the social forces (of civilian society) involved in the protection and promotion of human rights, particularly by powers which will enable effective cooperation to be established with, or through the presence of, representatives of: (a) Non-governmental organizations responsible for human rights and efforts to combat racial discrimination, trade unions, concerned social and professional organizations, for example, associations of lawyers, doctors, journalists and eminent scientists..." 

However, the selection process for the NHRC of Thailand in 2009 has been marked by an absence of procedures to afford necessary guarantees to ensure pluralist representation of the sort envisaged in the Paris Principles. Nor do the seven nominees include among them anyone from a non-governmental organization responsible for human rights, trade unionists or others from a diverse range of social backgrounds, which is manifestly a consequence of the manner in which they have been chosen. 

Furthermore, the AHRC notes that under section 1(e) on the composition of an institution under the Paris Principles, it is explicitly stated that members of government departments, if included in the NHRC "should participate in the deliberations only in an advisory capacity". However, three of the seven nominees for the commissioners' posts are in fact serving in other parts of government (the police, judicial administration and a ministry). Their candidacy, if approved, would appear to violate this section. 

At present the NHRC of Thailand holds full accreditation status with the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights; however, that status is subject to review, and if it is found that the country has not complied with international standards in the selection and composition of the NHRC it may be downgraded and lose its rights and privileges in international forums. This happened to the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka after that country's president failed to comply with the correct procedure in appointing new commissioners. The Senate of Thailand too should take that as a warning of what may follow if it is too hasty in its appointment of the seven nominees, without regard to the international standards to which the NHRC is expected to comply if it wishes to be treated seriously in forums on human rights abroad. 

In light of the above, the Asian Human Rights Commission urges the Senate Committee for assessment of the new National Human Rights Commission of Thailand and the Senate as a whole to postpone the appointment process of the new commissioners to allow more time for public debate on the seven nominees. The debate should be accompanied with wide publicity to invite public comment through as many means as possible, including online and by fax. The Senate itself, when reviewing the nominees and considering whether to accept or reject them, should take into account not only the personal qualities and backgrounds of the candidates but also the process of selection and consider whether or not it is possible for appropriate commissioners to be identified without so much as an interview. 

At a time of intense debate and conflict in Thailand over the country's future, the role of the NHRC should be one of special importance. If suitable persons are selected to serve as commissioners they could contribute towards bringing Thailand into a new and more progressive and prosperous future. If not, the commission will be rightly dismissed as a sham and a failure, not only among people in Thailand but also in the global community. More time is needed to make the right decisions and chart the course between these two alternatives.

Yours sincerely 

Basil Fernando 
Executive Director 
Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong 

Cc: 
1. Mr. Abhisist Vejjajiva, Prime Minister of Thailand 
2. Mr. Prasobsuk Boondech, President, Senate of Thailand 
3. Ms. Jennifer Lynch, Chairperson, International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights 
4. Ms. Margaret Sekaggaya, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders 
5. Mr. Homayoun Alizadeh, Regional Representative, OHCHR, Bangkok

-----------------------------
Asian Human Rights Commission
19/F, Go-Up Commercial Building,
998 Canton Road, Kowloon, Hongkong S.A.R.
Tel: +(852) - 2698-6339 Fax: +(852) - 2698-6367
Last Updated ( Monday, 27 April 2009 )
 Filed under: ahrc-thailand.net

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”



       เหตุการณ์กระทรวงพาณิชย์ส่ง หน่วยเฉพาะกิจจับกุมสินค้าละเมิดลิขสิทธิ์บุกเข้าจับกุมกลุ่มพ่อค้าแม่ค้าผู้ขายสินค้าของปลอมเลียนแบบที่ย่านถนนพัฒนพงษ์ เมื่อคืนวันที่ 6 พฤษภาคม ที่ผ่าน จนเกิดการปะทะกันดุเดือดถึงขั้นเลือดตกยางออก แต่ยังนับว่าโชคดีที่เหตุตะลุมบอนระหว่างกลุ่มพ่อค้าแม่ค้ากับเจ้าหน้าที่กระทรวงพาณิชย์ ไม่มีใครต้องสังเวยชีวิต

       เท่าที่ดูภาพข่าวการเข้าจับกุมของหน่วยเฉพาะกิจกระทรวงพาณิชย์ ส่อให้เห็นว่า พฤติการณ์เจ้าหน้าที่หน่วย ฉก.ชุดนี้ มุ่งใช้กำลังและความรุนแรงเข้าจัดการกับกลุ่มพ่อค้าแม่ค้าที่กระทำเกินกว่าเหตุ ทั้งยังแสดงให้เห็นว่ามีเจตนาไม่ปฏิบัติตามขั้นตอนกฎหมาย อันพบได้จาก
       
       
การไม่แสดงตัวเป็นเจ้าหน้าที่ และแจ้งการเข้าตรวจค้นจับกุมให้พ่อค้าแม่ค้าได้รู้ก่อน เพื่อให้เป็นไปตามข้อบังคับตามกฎหมายวิธีพิจารณาความอาญา
       
       
แต่กลับใช้กำลังคนที่ไม่มีสัญลักษณ์ หรือเครื่องแบบที่จะแสดงให้รู้ว่าเป็นเจ้าหน้าที่ที่มีอำนาจตามกฎหมาย มิหนำซ้ำเจ้าหน้าที่ ฉก.ชุดนี้ ล้วนเป็นชายหน้าตาเหมือนโจรทั้งนั้น
       
       
เข้าไปยึดทรัพย์สินของเขา ซึ่งก็สมน้ำหน้าที่ตอนนี้โดนแจ้งข้อหาหนัก ลักทรัพย์ และปล้นทรัพย์
       
       
เรื่องนี้กำลังจะลุกลามบานปลายเป็นเหตุซึ่งจะพัวพันเป็นคดีความระหว่างทั้งสองฝ่ายต่อไป เพราะดูแล้วไม่มีใครยอมใครแน่ หลังเหตุปะทะจบไป ต่างฝ่ายต่างใช้สิทธิตามกฎหมาย นำเรื่องความเสียหายที่เกิดขึ้นในคืนวันนั้นเข้าแจ้งกล่าวหากัน
       
       
เป็นทั้งคดีอาญา และคดีแพ่ง ที่จะต้องต่อสู้กันอีกนานในชั้นศาล
       
       
นอกจากการเป็นคดีความแล้ว สังคมก็ควรที่จะทำการตรวจสอบเค้นหาความจริงในเหตุเกิดที่พัฒน์พงษ์ ว่าเบื้องหน้าเบื้องหลังการทำงานของหน่วยฉก.กระทรวงพาณิชย์ มีความจริงใจในการปราบปรามสินค้าละเมิดลิขสิทธิ์ และขบวนการค้าของเถื่อนเหล่านั้นจริงหรือไม่ ?
       
       
หรือว่า เป็นการทำงานเพื่อหาประโยชน์ และสนองประโยชน์ให้กับใคร ?
       
       เพราะการเกิดขึ้นของหน่วยเฉพาะกิจเพื่อการปราบปรามการกระทำผิดใดๆ ที่เคยมีนั้น หนีไม่พ้นต่อการมี วาระซ่อนลึก มีผลประโยชน์ซ่อนเร้นจากการทำงานของหน่วยเฉพาะกิจกระทรวงพาณิชย์ ก็น่าสงสัย เพราะลักษณะการทำงานชี้ว่า เป็นการทุบตีเพื่อล่าเมืองขึ้น
       
       
ยิ่งการปฏิบัติการเข้มข้นรุนแรง ก็ยิ่งมือหนัก รับอัดฉีดกันครั้งละหลายปึก
       
       
ดังนั้นเมื่อมีเรื่อง ส่วยเป็นเป้าหมาย ฉก.ชุดนี้จึงต้องใช้อำนาจบาตรใหญ่ ใช้กำลังและความรุนแรงเข้าข่มเหงรังแกประชาชนพ่อค้าแม่ค้าที่ย่านพัฒนพงษ์ เพื่อขู่ให้ยอมจ่ายโดยง่าย
       
       
ทั้งๆที่ พ่อค้าแม่ค้าพวกนี้ไม่มีอำนาจ หรือสิ่งใดที่จะไปขัดขวางต่อสู้การเข้าจับกุมของเจ้าหน้าที่ได้ ถ้าจะทำการตรวจค้นจับกุมตามกฎหมาย โดยวิธีสันติและละมุนละม่อม ก็ย่อมทำได้
       
       
แต่ก็เลือกใช้วิธีการ ป่าเถื่อน
       
       
ทั้งที่รัฐบาลของนายกรัฐมนตรี
 อภิสิทธิ์ เวชชาชีวะ ย้ำนักย้ำหนาว่า การบริหารบ้านเมืองจะต้องมีการบังคับใช้กฎหมายแก่ประชาชนทุกชั้นชนอย่างเสมอภาค และเป็นธรรม ซึ่งประชาชนฟังแล้วก็อุ่นใจที่รัฐบาลพรรคประชาธิปัตย์มีนโยบายเช่นนั้น
       
       
แต่รัฐมนตรีช่วยพาณิชย์
 นายอลงกรณ์ พลบุตร จากพรรคประชาธิปัตย์ ของท่านเองกลับไม่ได้ยิน และทำในสิ่งที่สวนทาง
       
       
ส่งสมุนมาทุบตีคนทำมาหากินข้างถนน จนเลือดสาดหัวร้างข้างแตก แค่มีความผิดขายของละเมิดลิขสิทธิ์ (ถ้าสงสัยว่าทำไมต้องเลือกวิธีการป่าเถื่อนรุนแรง ขอให้ย้อนกลับขึ้นไปอ่านข้างต้นอีกรอบ)
       
       
ทีคดีอุกฉกรรจ์ท้าทายกฎหมายบ้านเมืองอย่างอุกอาจกลางเมืองหลวง จนเสียภาพพจน์ของประเทศไปทั่วโลกแล้ว อย่าง
       
       
คดีลอบสังหาร คุณสนธิ ลิ้มทองกุล แห่งสำนัก ASTVผู้จัดการ ไม่เห็นจะมีเจ้าหน้าที่ของรัฐหน้าไหน รวมทั้งรัฐบาลออกมาแสดงความใส่ใจ และอำนวยความเป็นธรรมให้คุณสนธิอย่างเข้มแข็งเลย
       
       
เท่าที่เห็นมาถึงตอนนี้ เหตุการณ์ผ่านไปเกือบหนึ่งเดือนแล้ว ก็มีแต่ปัดความรับผิดชอบ ไม่มีคนกล้าออกมาทำหน้าที่ในคดีคุณสนธิ เลย
       
       
มีแต่ตำรวจสองนายเท่านั้น คือ
 พล.ต.อ.ธานี สมบรูณ์ทรัพย์ กับ พล.ต.ท.อัศวิน ขวัญเมือง ทั้งๆ ที่ตำรวจที่กินเดือนเงินภาษีของประชาชนในประเทศนี้ ที่เป็นมือสืบสวนสอบสวนมือดี ก็มีมาก แต่ ผบ.ตร. พล.ต.อ.พัชรวาท วงษ์สุวรรณ ก็ไม่เคยคิดที่จะจัดหามาช่วยคลี่คลายคดี
       
       
แบบนี้อยู่ไปก็เปลืองเงินภาษีอากรประชาชนหรือเปล่า ?
       
       
ส่วนทหารผู้ใหญ่หลายคนที่มีอำนาจอยู่ในกองทัพ สมควรจะกระโดดเข้ามาช่วยอีกแรงหนึ่งด้วย เพราะคดีลอบสังหารคุณสนธิ เหตุเกิดในวันที่ทหารมีอำนาจในการดูแลรักษาความสงบในพื้นที่กรุงเทพฯ ตามอำนาจกฎหมายสถานการณ์ฉุกเฉิน แต่ก็นิ่งเฉย ทำท่าเหมือนจะบอกว่า
       
       
ไม่ใช่เรื่องของกู
       
       
โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่ง
 ทหารชั้นผู้ใหญ่บางคน นอกจากจะมีอำนาจตามที่กล่าวมาแล้ว ตนเองยังต้องเคลียร์ตัวเองออกจากคดีนี้ เนื่องจากถูกสังคมตั้งข้อสงสัย... ก็มีปฏิกิริยาที่ปัดความรับผิดชอบอย่างน่ารังเกียจ
       
       
มิหนำซ้ำยังมีการกระทำหลายครั้งหลายหลายประการที่ส่อเจตนาจะให้คดีคุณสนธิ ปิดไม่ลงอีกต่างหาก เช่นล่าสุดก็ออกมาขู่จะดำเนินคดีสื่อ ถ้าลงข่าวระบุ เขาเกี่ยวโยงกับคดีสังหารคุณสนธิ
       
       
บ้านนี้เมืองนี้ต้องจุดเทียนกลางวันเสียแล้ว เพราะมันมืดมนจริงๆ
       
       
ข้าราชการของรัฐไม่ใช่ที่พึ่งของประชาชนแล้ว ซ้ำยังออกมาข่มเหงรังแกประชาชน อย่างกรณีหน่วย ฉก.นายอลงกรณ์ ก็ถือเป็นตัวอย่างที่น่าอัปยศอดสูที่สุด ต่อการกระทำของเจ้าหน้าที่กับประชาชน
       
       
อย่างไรก็ตาม หากพ่อค้าแม่ค้าย่านพัฒน์พงษ์กระทำความผิด หรือจะเป็นการกระทำผิดกฎหมายของใคร เรื่องใดก็ตาม ก็ต้องจัดการภายใต้อำนาจหน้าที่ที่กฎหมายได้บัญญัติไว้เท่านั้น จะลุแก่อำนาจใช้อำนาจเกินกว่าขอบเขตนั้น เป็นเรื่องที่ต้องไม่ให้เกิดขึ้นในรัฐบาลที่พร่ำพูดถึงการปกครองโดยนิติรัฐ และปฏิบัติอย่างนิติธรรม
       
       
เมื่อการปฏิบัติการกรณี หน่วย ฉก.อลงกรณ์ยกทัพไปย่ำยีประชาชนย่านพัฒนพงษ์ ด้านหนึ่งย่อมเป็นคำตอบได้ว่า พรรคประชาธิปัตย์ ดีแต่ปาก!

Source: manager.co.th