Parinya Sirisarakarn is associated with human rights violations which are so evident that the Department of Primary Industries and Mines, Ministry of Industry, has ordered the shutdown of a salt mining factory, and compensation for damages to be paid to communities.

A sanctioned violator of human rights is appointed to the Human Rights Commission.

What conclusion must we draw from this act? We must conclude that the purpose of the commission is to protect the "rights" of the abusers of human rights, to make sure that they have a free hand to abuse human rights in the future and that their "right" to abuse their fellow humans will not be interfered with in any way.

I think this is the polar opposite of what the ordinary human would assume. I assert that any ordinary human would assume that the duty of the Human Rights Commission would be to protect the rights of humans from abuse and to penalize abusers of human rights.

It seems there is a very basic misunderstanding of the purpose of government with respect to human rights.

We must have a poll.

A. I believe it is the job of government to protect the abusers and exploiters of humanity from undue publicity, criticism, penalty, or discomfort.

B. I believe it is the job of government to protect those suffering abuse of their human rights from those abusing them.

So far we have three explicit votes :

1) The Senate Speaker votes for A, and asks that HM King Bhumipol Adulyadej join him.

2) Kuhn Sulak Sivaraksa, a notorious criminal guilty of lese majeste according to the "authorities", and myself vote for B and ask, not that the Senate Speaker be charged with lese majeste as might some others, but merely that he be prevented from asking HM the King to appoint someone who shares his mistaken view of the purpose of the Human Rights Commission.

So what might to be done to remove confusion in this case?

1) The name of the commission might be changed to the Human Rights Abusers' Protection Commission and HM the King enjoined to laud its goals and purposes and to appoint its commissioners.

2) The present name might be kept but other commissioners appointed who will look after the rights of the abused and deal appropriately with the abusers of human rights.

I would vote for number 2, if were able to vote in Thailand.