Thai Fact-finding Committee Falls Short

CONTRIBUTOR Thai Fact-finding Committee Falls Short By POKPONG LAWANSIRI Monday, June 28, 2010 The appointment of Kanit na Nakorn, a former attorney general as the head of the independent fact-finding committee tasked by the government to investigate the two-month long violence in Bangkok, could be seen by most political observers as a good step forward towards bringing out truth surrounding the worst violence that the country has witnessed in three decades. However, since his appointment serious questions concerning the committee's independence and its stated mission have been raised, and many independent observers have called the investigative process flawed and insincere on the part of the Democrat-led government. The crisis in April-May 2010 led to the death of 89 people, a majority of whom were civilians, and at least 2,000 people were injured. Late last month, the Mirror Foundation, which documented cases of disappearances, reported that 39 people have gone missing after the crackdown. Technically speaking, the work of the Khanit committee should have been conducted by the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT), an agency tasked by the constitution to look into human rights violations committed by the government and non-state actors. The NHRCT has faced much criticism for its lack of expertise in human rights and impartiality. Five members of the sub-committee that have been set up to investigate the violence surrounding the events on April 10, 2010, which resulted in the deaths of 25 people, recently resigned. Sombat Boonngam-anong, a social activist who heads the Mirror Foundation and was one of the five former members of the sub-committee, told the writer early this month that the response so far from the NHRCT is unacceptable as it fails to criticize the use of force by the government. “I feel that by having my name in the subcommittee which so far has just organized one meeting and has not been doing anything else will be a waste of my time. I do not want to associate myself with this agency. The NHRCT has become irrelevant. The ordinary people cannot rely on it anymore as they have to protect our own rights,” Sombat said. For Khanit’s committee, the key question that was raised is to what extent the committee can genuinely be independent and impartial. Also, does it have a mandate to conduct its work in a professional manner akin to international standards, which includes the power to submit the findings to the court to persecute the wrongdoers. The mandate of Khanit’s committee is unclear and arbitrary. This is not to mention that the statement by Khanit earlier this month that the committee will not seek to find out who was right or wrong, but will seek to promote forgiveness is already problematic. The UN, under the tenure of Kofi Annan, had highlighted many times that the success in national reconciliation and post-conflict reconstruction is accompanied with truth and justice. Truth alone with impunity for the wrongdoers, in this case whether they are government officials or militant Redshirts, will not serve the country well in the long-term. Arbitrary arrest and detention of the Redshirt protesters in a non-transparent manner, as the government did, will not bring the country forward, but will create more hatred and anger against the government. During the 14th UN Human Rights Council (HRC) session in Geneva, Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom and Spain (on behalf of Spain), had pressed Thailand to establish a committee which will be vested with human rights expertise to investigate whether there had been human rights violations committed by the government and the Redshirts during the two-month long seige violence. Ambassador Sihasak Phuangketkeow, the Thai ambassador to the UN, referred to the Khanit commission during his address to the council. However, when we look at the Khanit’s committee, it seems as if it is not vested with a rights-based approach. Khanit, a career lawyer, is not a human rights expert. The independence of this committee has already been jeopardized given that Khanit did not come from a transparent selection process involving academics, human rights groups and the broader civil society, but was appointed by PM Abhisit Vejajiva, who is also seen as one of the key perpetrators in this conflict. What is a good model for a successful committee? Dr.Sriprapha Petchamesree, the representative of Thailand to the Asean Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights, in May “requested [Thailand] to allow the fact finding team composed of regional or international members to investigate and constitute the facts and human rights violations during the violence on April 10 and May repression.” Sriprapha also highlighted that any committee “appointed by the government shall not enjoy any credibility.” As a member of the UNHRC, Thailand could show its transparency by requesting the visits of the UN independent experts known as the “special procedures” to investigate the alleged human rights violations during the past two months. The UN has requested for nine special procedures to visit the country. If Thailand is sincere about its commitments, it could accept the requests and allow a fact-finding mission to be conducted by a team of experts, for instance a combination of the mandate holders on rights to freedom of expression, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution, and arbitrary detention. It could also seek the assistance of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on this matter. There are also critical conditions that continue to be imposed in Thailand that could jeopardize the functioning of such a fact finding mission. Dr. Tyrell Haberkorn of the School of International, Political and Strategic Studies at Australian National University, has highlighted that “the persistence of media censorship and intimidation of those deemed dissident [is a major concern]. How can there be an independent investigation in a climate in which citizens cannot freely express their views? How can there be an independent investigation while the Emergency Decree is still in force and citizens can be arbitrarily detained without the presentation of evidence?” Abhisit’s government, if it is sincere to solve the current crisis, must effectively and efficiently addressed these concerns. Any committee that is partisan and vested with no power will jeopardize its efforts in addressing justice for all. If the government does not want to change the trends of its methods, which have been largely criticized as being insincere, and allow a truly independent fact finding committee that is acceptable to all sides, it must know that this process of national reconciliation will be labeled a failure and could lead to more mass protests. More importantly, if justice is not provided to the dead, Thailand will surely await a larger crisis than in April-May.

Copyright © 2008 Irrawaddy Publishing Group | www.irrawaddy.org

Abhisit’s violence and Thaksin’s abuse of power

Thailand’s deteriorating political situation has made the “Land of Smiles” into an object of curiosity for my friends and colleagues in Britain. The country has started to “trend” online.

Thailand has become a topic of discussion in the international press that is equal in popularity to the New York bomb plot and Greek fiscal crisis. A person has to only pick up a copy of The Economist before realizing that the magazine has started to publish articles on the Thai crisis every week.

The government of Thailand, dominated by the Democrat Party, has jumped into the information fray. It is slugging it out with the world media.

Thai diplomats from Sydney to Kuala Lumpur have been writing letters to newspapers that insist that the situation in Thailand is peaceful.

However, the public — especially those who have closely followed Thai politics — know that the situation is far from a settlement. Astute observers realize that Thailand is still very much in the middle of a crisis.

Some media and political observer treat the crisis as a spectator sport. They overlook the crisis’ repercussions and the ways that it has transformed Thailand.

There are many reports of body counts that are accompanied by surreal music and footage from the protest sites. However, there is not enough coverage of the government’s role in managing the crisis.

While we are reading, observing, and reporting, a culture of fear and violence in Thailand is growing.

There is an emerging concern about the government’s excessive use of authority and its abuse of power.

Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva ordered a series of actions against the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD, also known as the “red shirts”) after antigovernment demonstrations began in March.

These actions, which are considered unacceptable under international standards, include bloody crackdowns on the UDD on April 10 (26 protestors killed, 850 injured) and April 14 (eight killed, 101 injured).

The government has attempted to justify the crackdowns by branding protesters as “terrorists”. This label was rejected by the US.

In a press statement, the State Department said that the demonstrations “[had appeared] to be motivated by domestic politics and did not appear to be acts of […] terrorism.”

The international community has continued to express its grave concern about the violence through visits by members of Bangkok’s diplomatic corps to the protest sites.

International rights groups such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International have said that the government’s excessive use of force contradicted the UN’s Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, which require that police use non-violent methods to resolve conflicts before resorting to force.

The government has also used an emergency decree to close “subversive” Internet websites and radio stations in the name of “national unity”.

Last week, the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology shut down at least 1,032 political websites at the order of the Center for Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES).

HRW has also raised concern about the use of the emergency decree as a pretext to summon hundreds of politicians, former government officials, academics, student activists and community radio operators to military barracks for investigation.

Last week, Suluck Lamubol, a member of the Student Federation of Thailand, and two of her friends, also student activists, were greeted at Suluck’s home by a half-dozen police officers. The police were ordered by the CRES to bring Suluck to the 11th Infantry Regiment.

The action is worrisome. Student activists in Bangkok were not threatened directly by the governments of Thaksin Shinawatra or General Surayud. The government’s treatment of protestors in the provinces or southern Thailand is a different story.

In August 2005, Abhisit railed against the emergency decree and said that it “violated the spirit of the Constitution”.

The emergency degree was vaguely written, gave excessive power to the prime minister and so would give prime ministers an opportunity to abuse power.

Abhisit had raised concern “over the fate of the country’s free press” in 2005, after the emergency decree gave the prime minister absolute authority to censor news that the government deemed a threat to national security. Ironically, now we see Abhisit has embraced use of the decree.

Abhisit’s actions have continued to distress international rights groups.

Friday, the New Delhi-based Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) warned that the prime minister could be held responsible by the International Criminal Court in Rome for ordering the April 10 crackdown.

Abhisit had promised a probe of last month’s violence, just as he promised to investigate allegations of violence against Rohingya refugees in 2009. One month later, people are still wondering if action will replace those empty words.

On May 11, 2010, David Dadge, director of Vienna-based International Press Institute, called for a full-and-transparent investigation of the killing of Hiro Muramoto, the Reuters journalist who was shot dead while covering the April 10 crackdown.

Dadge said that “the failure to identify the killer [will] create an environment” which promotes impunity.

Former senator Jon Ungpakorn previously established Prachatai.com, a news website, to counter Thaksin’s repression of the mainstream media. The website is funded by money Jon received after accepting the Magsaysay Award in 2005 and was blocked in Thailand after April 10.

Jon, a staunch critic of Thaksin, wrote an essay for Prachatai.com that compared the killing of the Muslim protesters at Tak Bai under Thaksin’s administration with the April 10 crackdown.

In both cases, he said, “there was absolutely no offer to take responsibility — either personally or collectively as a government — for the consequences.

“Every time Abhisit looks in the mirror, he will see the face of Thaksin,” he said.

When in the opposition, Abhisit was a critic of Thaksin’s hard-fisted style of government. He opposed Thaksin’s draconian laws, policies and abuse of power. Abhisit must now ask himself if power has transformed him into the type of person he most loathes.

This article first appeared in the Jakarta Post, http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/05/18/abhisit’s-violence-and-thaksin’s-abuse-power.html