Toothless Thai Human Rights Commission

[webfact]

Toothless Thai Human Rights Commission

Written by Pavin Chachavalpongpun

An important agency is rendered toothless by its Quisling chairwoman

BANGKOK: -- Amara Pongsapich, the chairperson of Thailand’s National Human Rights Commission. must have felt frustrated to hear that former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva had been charged with murder in connection with his role in a military crackdown against pro-Thaksin protesters in 2010.

That is not because as the commission’s head she wanted to punish Abhisit for ordering brutal attacks on protesters during the April-May 2010 protests that wracked central Bangkok as part of her duty to defend human rights. It may be because she saw the need to protect Abhisit, the face of the Thai upper class of which she is a part.

Thailand’s human rights situation has been in dire straits, particularly since the military coup of 2006. Amara was selected to chair the newly established human rights body at a critical time in Thai politics where violence had been repeatedly used against the people, but she has been a disappointment for many in Thailand.

The Human Rights Commission was established in 2009 and its members were appointed, rather than elected, thus raising questions pertaining to its accountability, impartiality and transparency. The commission was established during the Abhisit administration, suggesting that her appointment could have been politically motivated.

Full story: http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5048&Itemid=185

-- Asia Sentinel 2012-12-17

[MaxLee]

Human rights are abused by the rich and powerful Thai elite who can even get away with murder for the sake of money and Face

[fareastguy]

3 words that are often written or spoken about but never but never administered.. accountability, impartiality and transparency

a bit like "human rights in Thailand"

[Freedomhunter]

Excellent article. Transparent and non partial like most article are. In interview after interview Abhisit always refer to the "independent investigations" he set up and let the "rule of law" run ints course. Of course, these instututions are the very few under their control. They are hardly independent though.

I am so tired of reading about farrangs supporting Abhisit and justifying him, blaming all acts of terror on Thaksin. The man may be a douche, but has it ever crossed your minds that the crime he is sentenced for is conflict of interest. I would say 95% of Thai politicians and department chiefs are involved in these kind of activities. So its hardly the jail sentence they oppose.

However, all these things are just a way to clean themseleves. But these are never really independent are they?

I am not pro-thakisin nor pro-abhisit. But I do get so tired of the bullying that goes on in thai politics day after day.

Who are these politicians serving? The people or themselves and their sponsors...?

In a society where 74 out of 150 senators in the upper house are chosen not elected it will always be the case that 'red' supporters win the lower house and the 'elitist amart' win the upper house.

It is a dead race.

The top 100 persons on each side must swallow their pride and apologize to the fantastic 69 million people in Thailand who's future these political douchebags are playing with

[chainarong]

Its doubtful whether this department was ever meant to do anything but please the UN and some of Thailand's powerfull allies, in a seen to be doing something , but doing nothing category, Alas in recent years human rights violations have increased ,nearly back to the junta days, but the government seems to be on a one track course in trying to get one of the biggest violators in recent years of human rights ,back into the country, Just ask the united Nations , there's pages written of the goings on, while this person was in charge of the country.

[ratcatcher]

Excellent article. Transparent and non partial like most article are. In interview after interview Abhisit always refer to the "independent investigations" he set up and let the "rule of law" run ints course. Of course, these instututions are the very few under their control. They are hardly independent though.

I am so tired of reading about farrangs supporting Abhisit and justifying him, blaming all acts of terror on Thaksin. The man may be a douche, but has it ever crossed your minds that the crime he is sentenced for is conflict of interest. I would say 95% of Thai politicians and department chiefs are involved in these kind of activities. So its hardly the jail sentence they oppose.

However, all these things are just a way to clean themseleves. But these are never really independent are they?

I am not pro-thakisin nor pro-abhisit. But I do get so tired of the bullying that goes on in thai politics day after day.

Who are these politicians serving? The people or themselves and their sponsors...?

In a society where 74 out of 150 senators in the upper house are chosen not elected it will always be the case that 'red' supporters win the lower house and the 'elitist amart' win the upper house.

It is a dead race.

The top 100 persons on each side must swallow their pride and apologize to the fantastic 69 million people in Thailand who's future these political douchebags are playing with

"Who are these politicians serving? The people or themselves and their sponsors...?"

Welcome to TVF. The answer to your question is highlighted above. Standard procedure for politicians worldwide. The words 'civil servant' are oxymoron since these people are often neither civil nor provide service."

[jaltsc]

What's with all this criticism? The Human Rights Commission is every bit as effective as the Anti-Corruption Commission

[noitom]

This Thai department, commission, and their work is a complete sham. Too ludicrous to even be discussed constructively. It would be interesting to have an opportunity to question the head of this commission on her work during the past years to reverse Thailand's trafficking in woman, illegal migrant workers, child labor, abuse of law and the rights of underclass Thais and foreigners as well.

Readily available reference sources indicate that this Thai National Human Rights Commission was established in 2001 not in 2009 as indicated in this article. Maybe its current shape is some sort of manipulative version of the original commission. Who really knows anything about this? If the leading academic writing this article can't even document the origin date properly, who can really relate to anything about this bogus commission and its evasive function and total failure. The entire idea of human rights representation and squaring in Thailand is a farce and everyone knows it.

The newspaper here, The Nation, is merely reprinting articles appearing in other journals without even any basic fact checking whatsoever. It appears that the editors of The Nation have little or no knowledge of the history of Thai human rights doings.

[Baloo22]

This article presents a false equivalency between the April-May 2010 Red-Shirt protests and the recent Pitak Siam protest. One, the 2010 Red-Shirt "protest" included the multi-month violent occupation in the center of Bangkok, arson of several buildings, and the use of grenades that resulted in death and injuries to both soldiers and civilians. The other, the Pitak Siam protest, was a one-day event that did not involve the firing/throwing of grenades, arson, or death and injuries to both soldiers and civilians.

The two events were nowhere near equivalent and the justifiable level of force needed by the government to maintain/regain public order and public safety was also nowhere near equivalent. I have not seen any accounts of the Pitak Siam protesters shooting bullets or firing grenades at the police. Also, face facts; The challenged roadblock(s) during the Pitak Siam rally served one purpose and that was to increase the difficulty of access to the rally so as to decrease the numbers of people protesting the current government.

I believed in 2010, and still hold the opinion today, that Prime Minister Abhisit demonstrated remarkable patience and restraint during the April-May 2010 protests/occupation. He restrained the military and attempted negotiations/talks for weeks. While that was occurring, I was continually surprised that the government was allowing such an occupation in the center of the capital city to continue for so long.

[muttley]

This article presents a false equivalency between the April-May 2010 Red-Shirt protests and the recent Pitak Siam protest. One, the 2010 Red-Shirt "protest" included the multi-month violent occupation in the center of Bangkok, arson of several buildings, and the use of grenades that resulted in death and injuries to both soldiers and civilians. The other, the Pitak Siam protest, was a one-day event that did not involve the firing/throwing of grenades, arson, or death and injuries to both soldiers and civilians.

The two events were nowhere near equivalent and the justifiable level of force needed by the government to maintain/regain public order and public safety was also nowhere near equivalent. I have not seen any accounts of the Pitak Siam protesters shooting bullets or firing grenades at the police. Also, face facts; The challenged roadblock(s) during the Pitak Siam rally served one purpose and that was to increase the difficulty of access to the rally so as to decrease the numbers of people protesting the current government.

I believed in 2010, and still hold the opinion today, that Prime Minister Abhisit demonstrated remarkable patience and restraint during the April-May 2010 protests/occupation. He restrained the military and attempted negotiations/talks for weeks. While that was occurring, I was continually surprised that the government was allowing such an occupation in the center of the capital city to continue for so long.

"The two events were nowhere near equivalent and the justifiable level of force needed by the government to maintain/regain public order and public safety was also nowhere near equivalent."

The New York based HRC maintained in their report Descent into Chaos that they think otherwise

"The high death toll and injuries resulted from excessive and unnecessary lethal force on the part of security forces, including firing of live ammunition at protesters, sometimes by snipers."

They also point out that

"The extensive casualties also resulted from deliberate attacks by militant armed elements of the UDD", "The heavily armed “Black Shirt” militants, apparently connected to the UDD and operating in tandem with it, were responsible for deadly attacks on soldiers, police, and civilians.

But that does not detract from the reference to the excessive and unnecessary lethal force being used by the armed forces, in fact the by reference to the casualties caused by the black shirts (none proven so far) it makes the message even stronger so they and I disagree with you.

The challenged road blocks in 2010 had a two fold purpose - to prevent more red shirts reaching (or returning to) the main rally site and to provide a non legally tested precedent of setting up killing zones.

Abhisit held back from going in because Gen Anupong refused to crackdown on the UDD claiming the government was putting too much pressure on to the army for a crackdown. Anupong wanted to plan it properly to avoid unnecessary loss of life. . This ultimately led to Prayuth being given the job and we all know the result.

[chainarong]

What's with all this criticism? The Human Rights Commission is every bit as effective as the Anti-Corruption Commission

Sorry

[chainarong]

This article presents a false equivalency between the April-May 2010 Red-Shirt protests and the recent Pitak Siam protest. One, the 2010 Red-Shirt "protest" included the multi-month violent occupation in the center of Bangkok, arson of several buildings, and the use of grenades that resulted in death and injuries to both soldiers and civilians. The other, the Pitak Siam protest, was a one-day event that did not involve the firing/throwing of grenades, arson, or death and injuries to both soldiers and civilians.

The two events were nowhere near equivalent and the justifiable level of force needed by the government to maintain/regain public order and public safety was also nowhere near equivalent. I have not seen any accounts of the Pitak Siam protesters shooting bullets or firing grenades at the police. Also, face facts; The challenged roadblock(s) during the Pitak Siam rally served one purpose and that was to increase the difficulty of access to the rally so as to decrease the numbers of people protesting the current government.

I believed in 2010, and still hold the opinion today, that Prime Minister Abhisit demonstrated remarkable patience and restraint during the April-May 2010 protests/occupation. He restrained the military and attempted negotiations/talks for weeks. While that was occurring, I was continually surprised that the government was allowing such an occupation in the center of the capital city to continue for so long.

Agreed and if it happened in Sydney , New York , London, or any other Western country the riot police and every Tom, Dick n Harry would have arrived, within the first 24hrs to break it up

[Baloo22]

This article presents a false equivalency between the April-May 2010 Red-Shirt protests and the recent Pitak Siam protest. One, the 2010 Red-Shirt "protest" included the multi-month violent occupation in the center of Bangkok, arson of several buildings, and the use of grenades that resulted in death and injuries to both soldiers and civilians. The other, the Pitak Siam protest, was a one-day event that did not involve the firing/throwing of grenades, arson, or death and injuries to both soldiers and civilians.

The two events were nowhere near equivalent and the justifiable level of force needed by the government to maintain/regain public order and public safety was also nowhere near equivalent. I have not seen any accounts of the Pitak Siam protesters shooting bullets or firing grenades at the police. Also, face facts; The challenged roadblock(s) during the Pitak Siam rally served one purpose and that was to increase the difficulty of access to the rally so as to decrease the numbers of people protesting the current government.

I believed in 2010, and still hold the opinion today, that Prime Minister Abhisit demonstrated remarkable patience and restraint during the April-May 2010 protests/occupation. He restrained the military and attempted negotiations/talks for weeks. While that was occurring, I was continually surprised that the government was allowing such an occupation in the center of the capital city to continue for so long.

"The two events were nowhere near equivalent and the justifiable level of force needed by the government to maintain/regain public order and public safety was also nowhere near equivalent."

The New York based HRC maintained in their report Descent into Chaos that they think otherwise

"The high death toll and injuries resulted from excessive and unnecessary lethal force on the part of security forces, including firing of live ammunition at protesters, sometimes by snipers."

They also point out that

"The extensive casualties also resulted from deliberate attacks by militant armed elements of the UDD", "The heavily armed “Black Shirt” militants, apparently connected to the UDD and operating in tandem with it, were responsible for deadly attacks on soldiers, police, and civilians.

But that does not detract from the reference to the excessive and unnecessary lethal force being used by the armed forces, in fact the by reference to the casualties caused by the black shirts (none proven so far) it makes the message even stronger so they and I disagree with you.

The challenged road blocks in 2010 had a two fold purpose - to prevent more red shirts reaching (or returning to) the main rally site and to provide a non legally tested precedent of setting up killing zones.

Abhisit held back from going in because Gen Anupong refused to crackdown on the UDD claiming the government was putting too much pressure on to the army for a crackdown. Anupong wanted to plan it properly to avoid unnecessary loss of life. . This ultimately led to Prayuth being given the job and we all know the result.

It's good to hear that this HRC also assigns blame to the Red Shirts/UDD and acknowledges that they were "responsible for deadly attacks on soldiers, police, and civilians."

As far as criticizing the government for the use of live ammunition; When the rioters (let's face it, that's what they were) are using lethal weapons and explosive grenades (M79/M203 types), you are not left with much choice.

IMO, when faced with these types of situations, what the Thai government needs is a police element with proper riot-control equipment and training. And also Police Command that will enforce the law, maintain public order and public safety irregardless of the political orientation of the rioters. That is essential to get the type of response that the HRC and most people would prefer.

The reason is the different training and responses to threats from police officers and soldiers. Properly trained police are trained to control and arrest. The soldier's response to a threat, especially an armed threat, is very simple; kill it and move on. That's what soldiers are trained to do. That's why it is generally a bad idea to use soldiers in crowd control/police operations.

[Ragzilb]

The worst this is, that I believe things have to get alot worse before anything starts to get better. We need a new leader which is impossible to find, we need to stand together which also is impossible because of trust issues. Sad sad

[DocN]

Human rights....Thailand....'nuff said!

[zyphodb]

What's with all this criticism? The Human Rights Commission is every bit as effective as the Anti-Corruption Commission

+5