Sulak Sivaraksa petitions King’s Principal Private Secretary to examine complaints against nominated Human Rights Commissioner
On May 29, social critic Sulak Sivaraksa sent a letter to the HM the King’s Principal Private Secretary, asking him to look into the case of nominated human rights commissioner Parinya Sirisarakarn, owner of a salt mining business in Nakhon Ratchasima which has been the subject of complaints about its impact on the livelihoods of local communities.
Sulak quotes in the letter a resolution of the previous National Human Rights Commission that says, ‘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.’
This Parinya’s unethical record is explicitly in breach of the constitution and the National Human Rights Commission Act, the letter says.
Sulak asks whether it is appropriate to ask HM the King to appoint this person on the advice of the Senate, and what responsibility the Senate Speaker, who countersigns the appointment, will take, if, after receiving the royal signature, citizens, Members of Parliament or Senators ask the Senate to impeach Parinya on the basis of his violations of human rights?
Sulak expresses his concern about the consequences that might arise if no attempt is made to examine the attributes of Parinya as to whether he is qualified for a royal appointment. And if the unethical behaviour of Parinya is verified as stated by the complainants and concluded by the National Human Rights Commission, Sulak is afraid that the appointment may cause vexation to HM the King, and opportunists might exploit this issue to do harm to the institution.
Print version
Send to friend
Comments
Parinya Sirisarakarn is
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.
if you dont know the truth.
if you dont know the truth. Please dont give a suggestion with your own opinion.
This story is so ironic on so
This story is so ironic on so many levels
How to build a shed