Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Danthong Breen's response to Awzar Thi's criticism on human rights activists in Thailand
Thu, 05/11/2009 - 16:47
In response to Awzar Thi's criticism of human rights advocates in Thailand, Danthong Breen, chairman of the Union for Civil Liberty, a leading human rights organization based in Bangkok, has sent an email to a group of activists. Prachatai sees this as a valuable contribution to the debate on the roles of human rights activists in Thailand, and has translated and published his email on Prachatai (Thai version) with the kind permission of Mr Breen. Here is his email and a response from Thongchai Winichakul, Thai academic at the University of Wisconsin in the US.
Dear Pen Name,
I am totally in agreement with you on your assessment of the new ASEAN human rights initiative. I am also all for breaking silences and challenging taboos. However, I also respect the opinion of other human rights activists who sincerely believe that they can work from within the system and seize whatever foothold is offered, however tenuous it may appear. I have avoided all meetings and initiatives on the ASEAN mechanism because I truly believe like you, that it will be fruitless. But, I am aware that I do not have access to total understanding on the issue and I am very certain that your understanding is also limited. If people whom I know and respect think they can succeed in another way, why then, good luck to them. Let the dialectic work. Scathing condemnation will not be effective in changing their totally legitimate viewpoint. All that you achieve by attacking them is to spread discouragement and division in our movement. You claim 15 years of experience as an advocate of human rights in Thailand. Your assumed right to criticise is hardly explained or justified by the 15 years. I can not only match you but claim even longer experience, including united front activity which based itself on finding common ground. May I gently recommend that you reconsider the tactic of denunciation.
AHRC provides an excellent service of cataloging and exposing injustice, both for those within Thailand itself and abroad, often drawing attention to abuses of which we were not aware. But please do not try to damage the working liaisons we have. You must know that each one has to choose an area of activity, it is hardly wise to expose oneself on every issue however strongly one might feel about them. We are continually assailed by accusations such as ‘You speak on issue x, how can you remain silent on issue y?’ As well accuse an army fighting on the eastern front, of neglecting the war on the western front!
I challenge you to circulate this letter to your readers and allow discussion on the issue. I know several people who no longer read your valuable emails because of the occasional ranting. May I also point to the anomaly of your writing anonymously, while urging action on those who cannot preserve nor wish anonymity in speaking out openly on contentious issues. Please declare yourself bravely for who you are and hear the opinions of others with the respect they deserve.
Danthong Breen,
Union for Civil Liberty, Bangkok
Thongchai Winichakul's response:
Dear Mr. Breen,
When there is a pattern in the selectiveness and omission of issues to fight for, and the pattern is in accordance with certain political camps, we call bias and partiality.
If a human rights advocate, like you, cannot make the distinction between practical limits (therefore need to set a priority of issues) and a bias/impartiality, if a human rights activist cannot see their own serious mistakes like impartiality, your human rights works may contribute to more injustice and the widespread hopelessness for justice. Human rights works then contribute to more divisiveness and potential to violence.
Is this criticism polite enough? I think Thi's article is not as strong as your reaction to him/her.
The above name is real, not a pen-name.
Print version
Send to friend
Web Feed
Activity
2010-03-10 (All day)
EarthRights International invites local activists to join training in its Mekong School
2010-02-10 09:00
ISIS seminar on "The Directions and Dynamics of Thai Foreign Policy"
2010-02-10 09:00
“Directions and Dynamics of Thai Foreign Policy”
2010-02-03 17:00
Malaysian Film: Sepet
2009-12-16 (All day)
FACT needs your help - a call for motivated volunteers
2009-12-11 08:30
The Phantasm in Southern Thailand: History Writings on Patani and the Islamic World
2009-12-10 15:00
The International Street Show in Bangkok
2009-11-29 15:00
Stillness, Spirituality and the Great Challenges Ahead: A presentation by Marshall Vian Summers
2009-11-28 13:00
Free Movie: Long Road to Heaven (2007): Indonesia
Comments
Fully agree, I regret to say
Fully agree, I regret to say that if the fruit of Danthong's efforts over more than 15 years has been fully gathered in then the basket is disappointingly light.
Danthong appears to fall into one of the many failings of Thai culture, that of equating good intentions with effectiveness. This is not the way forward, we must measure actual results when assessing effectiveness. Not the Thai way I know, but it's the Thai way that has brought us to the present parlous state of human rights.
It's a reasonable starting assumption in Thailand that good things are the result of accident or miscalculation, and bad things happen as a result of malice or incompetence. Thais are much more famous for talking a good game than they are for actually playing a good game, and this applies just as much to human rights as to the state of the roads and traffic. Sadly.
Rich
Awzar Thi’s original post was
Awzar Thi’s original post was inaccurate in some respects, which makes the subsequent debate with Danthong Breen and Thongchai Winichakul somewhat confused, since it is not clear that they are talking of the same event.
The rejection by of 5 civil society representatives (out of 10) by their governments from an interface with the 15th ASEAN Summit was not directly related to the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights. These representatives were selected by the ASEAN People’s Forum (APF), which took place before the Summit, and were tasked with presenting, at the interface with ASEAN leaders, the consensus views of that Forum, arrived at by open consultation and contained in a statement drafted at the Forum. It was decided by the Forum that the persons selected as representatives of the Forum would be exactly that and not act as representatives of their organizations.
The transparent and inclusive process for selecting these representatives had been made clear to ASEAN through the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs in advance. The Thai MFA had raised no objections.
What was not revealed to the APF organizers was that ASEAN Foreign Affairs Ministers had earlier agreed in secret that each ASEAN government could select its own civil society representative. When the APF selected its own representatives, and these were not the same as those pre-selected by some ASEAN governments, the APF representatives from those countries were barred.
When it was further made clear on the day of the interface (at the Dusit Cha-am, not the MFA) that that by a unilateral decision by ASEAN leaders, APF representatives would not be allowed to speak, 3 of the ‘unbarred’ representatives chose to withdraw participation.
[to be continued]
[continued from above] This
[continued from above]
This incident, on civil society’s side, had nothing to do with ‘closed doors and secret handshakes’, as Awzar Thi claims.
The APF representatives were not ‘rights diplomats [who] fear to speak out because they might step on officials’ toes or risk their status with fellow diplomats’. They were representatives who were ready to speak but prevented from doing so.
Nor was there any question, with respect to this incident, of ‘a pattern in the selectiveness and omission of issues to fight for’ that could lead to charges of ‘bias and partiality’ as Acharn Thongchai notes.
Awzar Thi is correct in saying that the APF was ‘suckered’ in that they attempted to operate by principles of openness and transparency and their supposed interlocutors did not. Awzar Thi argues that this deserves no sympathy; Danthong Breen thinks their choice of action is to be respected even if he does not agree with it.
Bamford's long post doesn't
Bamford's long post doesn't do much for me as the debate is mainly about the silence of NGOs/human rights activists silence on some issues and asking why this is. As Thongchai points out, the selectivity on when to be silent is a disaster.
Another example of the above
Another example of the above debate that comes to mind is - the present NHRC in Thailand and AHRC's criticism when its present panel of commissioners were selected. The selection process was allegedly not transparent and AHRC in a series of strong statements raised questions about the legitimacy of the commissioners as well as NHRC as an institution.
But local civil society groups in Thailand, have continued to work with the NHRC and its commissioners in diverse forms.
Can it be concluded that these civil society organizations do not care about human rights? What is the role of a regional human rights organization? Should it employ this 'tactic of denunciation' even if national groups feel otherwise?
These institutions are part of a political context - can human rights be viewed completely in isolation of this context?
These institutions are part
These institutions are part of a political context - can human rights be viewed completely in isolation of this context?
Prof. Thongchai had a clear answer to this question in his letter.
Can 'political camps' and a
Can 'political camps' and a 'political context' be one and the same? By political context - I meant to imply much more than belonging to one particular group.
Is it also not dangerous to put 'labels' on people all the time - and then judge them through those lens? If you don't agree to this, if you don't speak out on this - then you belong to this camp - whatever be the other view points of that person! Does that also not cause divisiveness in society - where people may be afraid to speak out their views because of the fear of being labeled.
Human rights is the basic
Human rights is the basic rights which all humans are entitled to, regardless of races, genders, religious belief, or political belief. Those who call themselves 'human rights activists' should be well aware of this 'universal coverage', and act according to. Otherwise, they will break the very fundamental basis of human rights. I'm afraid some human rights groups in Thailand practically do their jobs with political prejudice.
I share Dan Breen's
I share Dan Breen's admiration for the work of AHRC, his perception that it is anomalous for someone who is advocating up-front & open action to be using a nom-de-plume (note, he doesn't condemn anonymity per se; he merely points out the double standard), and his acceptance of the adoption by Thai HR advocates of procedures that they deem appropriate to the context & circumstances, which can be life-threatening. (In regard to Amnesty in re. LM, though, I haven't yet made up my mind - it's a huge, world-wide organisation with considerable power & resources, & therefore not in the vulnerable condition of local bodies.) In a society where there is a long history of wrongful accusations, government-sanctioned torture, & 'disappearances,' HR bodies do what they can, in whatever way they can.
Nobody is under any illusions regarding the nature of the current NHRC, but one has to work with what exists, not what 'should' exist. The important thing is to continue working, even where compromises have to be made. I have a story from my own youth which illustrates this:
In Sydney during the 60s, the cops & stipendiary magistrates were extremely corrupt. This was well-known, but it was difficult to do anything about, because of libel laws ('truth' was not a defense), & many politicians were also very corrupt. One evening I was walking with my brother & other friends in McCleay St, in the King's Cross area. One of the guys blew a kiss at a pretty girl who passed us with her friends, and called out, "Hello darling!." The girls giggled & continued walking. I laughed fairly loudly. The next moment he & I were arrested by 2 plain-clothes policemen, thrown into a police van, & carted off to the police station, where we were thrown into a cell for a couple of hours, finger-printed, & charged with Offensive Behaviour. This was a charge used by the cops to cover a wide range of situations, almost everything, since it had a very loose definition: all the cops had to do was to show that the act had offended someone, anyone (including themselves). Our friends bailed us out, & we were instructed to appear in the magistrates' court next morning. Our friends contacted the Council for Civil Liberties, who supplied us with a lawyer. In the morning, the lawyer stood up when our case was called & requested an adjournment, "in order to instruct counsel, Mr (a well-known lawyer)." There was a visible reaction from the cops.
(continued) On the day of the
(continued) On the day of the hearing, the barrister advised us that if we pleaded guilty, he would make a plea for the case to be unrecorded, which would mean that we would have no criminal record. When I protested that I had done nothing wrong, he simply told me that if I didn't want a record, I should take his advice. We did. The whole hearing took about 5 minutes, & went exactly as we had been told it would.
We then went to E. Sydney Police Station, where we handed in our bail receipts. The cop returned after a long wait, looked at us, & asked if we wanted something. "Oh, I don't know where that is," he said. We left, bought some cheap plonk, and got smashed.
The point of my telling this (true) story is to show that this highly credible Human & Civil Rights organisation did 'behind the scenes' deals with the corrupt police. No bribe was given, although the cops did gain - at certain times each year the police needed convictions for their internal statistics, to show they were doing something. They picked on subjects who looked as though they would make easy convictions, so they could get back to their 'real' work of stand-over rackets, bribes from prostitutes, rake-offs from gambling dens, etc. This was an entirely pragmatic approach by Civil Liberties. It ensured that there was as little damage to the victim as possible, & it went along with the cops' desire to save face.
However, that sort of work and the occasional demonstration, was only the tip of the iceberg, as far as Civil Liberties was concerned. There were members, including lawyers, academics & public servants, conducting campaigns by lobbying, publicising, etc., behind the scenes all the time. And there still are, I believe. If the Council of Civil Liberties had supplied us with a Portia, she might have made loud & impressive speeches that made an interesting dinner conversation topic for HR-support psueds, hit the press even, but I would have had a record - because her eloquence would have had no effect at all on the outcome of this perpetration of injustice. My reputation would have been ruined & my freedom limited in several important ways.
(cont'd) The Council for
(cont'd) The Council for Civil Liberties was right at the centre of the movement for cleaning up the institutionalised corruption in Sydney at that time. They succeeded, by recognising the complexity and realities of the issues, & being prepared to make compromises, rather than taking the high moral ground & giving big trendy performances. Dog bless 'em!
I can see Michael's point. I
I can see Michael's point.
I think what u said here is very interesting: "They succeeded, by recognising the complexity and realities of the issues, & being prepared to make compromises, rather than taking the high moral ground & giving big trendy performances. '
and yes it is very relevant to the Thai context.
How did aiding & abetting the
How did aiding & abetting the corruption help clean it up?
(off the top of my head, the only thing I can think of is that it helped gain inside information, for the time when those with higher morals were able to gain sway:)
PS. I appreciate how those on
PS. I appreciate how those on the ground/at the coal face in trying to alleviate the suffering of current victims have to deal with the situation as it is (not how it should be), but I doubt that is what cleans it up.
Agree with Joy that 'complexity and realities of the issues, & being prepared to make compromises' are very relevant to the Thai context, and are a big part of the problem:)
Yes it's complicated but
Yes it's complicated but sometimes sticking to high moral grounds alone with no compromise hardly helps.
It does not sound idealistic of course, but at least u get something done and help a few people.
It probably won't clean it
It probably won't clean it all up, but at least something is done. I think the problem with Thailand is not so much that people prepare to make compromise, it';s more they don't care, esp when those who suffer are the poor or the powerless. Sometimes those who care can't do much themselves bec they are not in the position of power and all they can do is just a little bit as much as circumstances allow. still that;s better than doing nothing IMO (although it';s not an ideal way of dealing with corruption or abuse of power)
There are two issues: (a)
There are two issues:
(a) Help alleviate the effects on those currently suffering - I agree compromise is necessary
(b) Clean up corruption & abuses - Personally, I dont think there is much room for compromise of such things
okay i agree:-)
okay i agree:-)
Thanks Hobby & Joy (good to
Thanks Hobby & Joy (good to see you've emerged from your new-semester-burrow!) for your comments. Hobby, what you say is correct (who can argue with it), but the realities of dangerous situations often make compromise, to the extent of playing along with the 'baddies' to some extent in small matters, necessary so that room can be created for dealing with larger issues. The sort of thing that I mentioned in my story wasn't indicative of the way the Civil Liberties people worked over-all. If they had made a big issue of every little case like mine, they might never have scored any victories, because all their energy would have been taken up. As it was, they looked after my friend & me & got the case out of the way speedily. No bribes were paid, so although it was a compromise that in other circumstances (e.g. today) would have been unacceptable, I couldn't possibly say the lawyers were behaving in a corrupt manner. I'm firmly convinced that they were highly motivated idealists - they didn't charge me a cent for their very skilful work, and with many others like them, they took the trouble to see that defenceless victims of a corrupt system came out of terrifying situations unscathed. And they worked tirelessly educating the public, lobbying politicians & other powerful figures, writing articles and sticking their necks out in many ways, until everyone cared, & then change occurred.
I know a little about the way HR lawyers work here. It is similar. The problem is that at present there are not enough idealists in the legal field. It's 'early days' here, & terribly dangerous in many ways.
To call it "aiding & abetting
To call it "aiding & abetting the corruption," as if they were encouraging corruption, is hopelessly unrealistic and very foolish. To talk of "those with higher morals," as if my lawyers were not motivated by high moral principals & a love of the law, is frankly stupid.
Michael: I had no intention
Michael: I had no intention of slighting the lawyers involved, and think they managed to achieve a reasonable outcome for you.
I concede I like to use strong words to emphasize a point, so for 'aiding & abetting', please substitute 'going along with' or 'turning a blind eye to'.
(and I acknowledge & accept the reasons why they did it)
However I took your long first post as almost an attack on people who took a principled stand on such issues - hence I waded in to the thread.
Are you energetic enough to respond to Stan G's latest comment in this thread - I could not be bothered, as if he cannot see the stupidity in the Thai governments actions, I have a strong suspicion I will end up banging my head against the wall. (just wondering, could it be the return of Trep? :)
Hobby, thanks for that. Re. "
Hobby, thanks for that. Re. " (taking) a principled stand on such issues," I think it's important to understand that things don't work the same here as in, e.g., today's Australia, where to do such a thing will probably mobilise considerable support from the community and MSM. In Thailand, it will quite possibly result in exactly the opposite, & in some cases, imprisonment on trumped-up charges, loss of employment, or even 'disappearance.' I know this from hard-learnt lessons, in a variety of situations.
Of course I haven't been imprisoned, etc., but early in my time here I did make some 'principled stands' on what I considered were corrupt practices in workplaces where I was employed, and the results were disastrous. In 2 cases the situation became so bad for me that I had no alternative but to resign - & even that process had to be handled in a 'circuitous' way in the 2nd instance. I've learned from these experiences to avoid confrontations & work 'behind the scenes.' This approach is often successful, and can even engender support from others who realise what's going on.
Once, during the Thaksin regime, I was working with a cabinet adviser one morning, & we were looking out of her window at a demonstration by workers. This led me to mention the appalling salaries of Thai teachers, & to ask why their union didn't have any muscle. "Why are Thais such terrible footballers?" she asked. "They're not team players. They look after themselves. And they try to sidestep the rules." Farang football players I know here agreed & roared laughing when I told them that. I see signs now that that is changing (I don't know about football, but in other ways.), and that's very encouraging, although things are pretty messy.
Re. Stan G's comments: I was going to respond but, like you, found I couldn't be bothered. And then I read about the way the poll was conducted - so it wasn't necessary. The poll was a set-up, indicating nothing but the deviousness of the pollsters.
Amazing! I went straight from
Amazing! I went straight from my post to the new Awzar article on police brutality. Read it, please! Everyone.
I don't see how this story
I don't see how this story correlates with whats happening in Thailand today, unless you mean the security forces have to charge people with lase majeste and threatening national security to justify their existence while their real business is making money on government scams. umm interesting theory. Or am I reading to much into your blog.
r robin: "am I reading to
r robin: "am I reading to (sic) much into your blog." No, you're not reading enough into my post, & adding an extremely irrelevant & bizarre 'interpretation', completely of your own idiosyncratic invention.
I suggest you go to the article at the head of the thread. Read it, and then follow the discussion down to my posts. You will then be able to identify the main idea of the discussion, which is not about "lase" majeste, the security forces justifying their existence, national security, or "interesting" (& extremely peculiar) theories. It's about whether it is fair to criticise HR NGOs for operating in a low-key and 'behind the scenes' modus. This is what my story addresses.
I hope this has been of assistance.
Having said that, i can't
Having said that, i can't help adding that it's not totally bad in Thailand . of course there are problems/injustice but We still have good things here. For Thai people we have memories of childhood: and i want to recommend this rather old Thai movie; sorry for off-topic comment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhQwGxPmStQ&feature=related
Joy: Of course its not
Joy: Of course its not totally bad in Thailand, however this last week has been a real low point for anyone concerned with credibility & sanity in government.
(if you are not sure what I'm talking about, just Google something like: Thaksin, Hun Sen, Timesonline:)
How's that low considering
How's that low considering there's an overwhelming support for Abhisit, and even pro-Thaksin MPs asked him not take the position. He didn't listen, of course.
Abhisit played it cool, ignoring the vitriol poured on him by Hun Sen, and euphoria on Cambodian side strongly reminds of Manchester City fans.
Many Thanks for yr post
Many Thanks for yr post michael. I read yr post with great interest and keen to see how Hobby and others will respond. I think this forum is really good.
although i have to admit i
although i have to admit i get a bit confused now which stance i should take.
One criterion, advocated by
One criterion, advocated by Khun Angkhana Neelaphaijit among others, is the likely effect on those whose rights have been violated or are at risk of being violated.
In cases where a public campaign against e.g. an illegal detention can reasonably be expected to increase the risks that detainees will be ill-treated as a form of punishment, then perhaps we look for alternative ways of achieving the detainees' release. In cases where people have deliberately courted arrest, to highlight the inequity of a certain law, for example, perhaps we would not campaign for their release, if that is not what they themselves want.
A strategy that says every known human rights violation must be the subject of a public campaign could, in what is of course a minority of cases, risk a negative outcome.
thanks Alec Bamford for
thanks Alec Bamford for informative post that provide specific details of how HR activitists work.
Re: michael's dealings with
Re: michael's dealings with the sydney cops...
I'm sorry but while the point about "complexities" has some validity but comparing your situation to that of Thailand's is just absurd.
You had not had your democratic rights usurped via a coup and had not voiced political opinions that invoked incredibly draconian laws and led to 18year prison sentences.
The likes of Amnesty International are now a complete joke in Thailand and deserve very little respect if they keep uttering comments such as Ben Zawacki's infamous "we can see why" line on the jailing of Da Torpedo. This working "behind the scenes" has resulted in Thailand sliding down every international index linked to freedoms/human rights. It has completely failed, flies completely in the face of AI's charter and reveals a deeply flawed and misjudged strategy. (I hear Ben recently secured his visa for Thailand - well done Ben - nice to see your personal interests trump your commitment to human rights).
Michael, maybe you having a criminal record or not was dealt with appropriately in the Sydney context but if you were halfway through a 18year term, served entirely in the most appalling conditions, and had been abandoned by all the major international human rights groups, then you might feel some "trendy grandstanding" - or actually sticking to universally accepted norms on human rights - might actually be of benefit.
But there again your might prefer someone was ineffectually, and unaccountably, dealing with your case "behind closed doors."
I am just so amazed that human rights advocates have such short memories - haven't they even heard of Nelson Mandela?
Amnesty International’s
Amnesty International’s mandate has centred on the release of ‘prisoners of conscience’, a fair and public trial for all political prisoners, and the abolition of torture and the death penalty. The term ‘prisoner of conscience’ (POC) was created by AI and includes anyone imprisoned because of their race, religion, color, language, sexual orientation, and so on. But it has an important exclusion. You are not a POC if you have used or advocated violence.
It is important to note here that AI is a membership organization and this mandate has been decided (and can be changed) by its 2 million something members.
Because her trial was conducted in closed sessions, the exact offending words used by Da Torpedo cannot be known for certain, but reliable reports indicate that she did advocate violence. She is therefore not a POC. And AI did protest publicly about the conditions of her trial.
And yes, Nelson Mandela is of course remembered. Because he publicly advocated the use of violence in his trial in 1964, AI decided then that he was not a POC.
There's something
There's something incompatible between 'closed trial' and 'reliable reports', or am I missing something?
I'm interested to hear more about Amnesty International's stand on those that are on the receiving end of the draconian LM laws (and Computer Crimes Act).
For instance, what was/is their position regarding Harry N. or more importantly, Suwicha T, ?
Hobby: "reliable reports"
Hobby: "reliable reports" would presumably be 'primary' (i.e. from original videos), and these were available outside of the 'trial,' so there's no incompatibility. However, having read a translated transcript, I wonder how AI can assert that she advocated violence. I don't think she did. She made some references to certain bloody events during the French revolution, but she was using these as examples of how disastrous the consequences of ignoring the needs of the people have been in the past, rather than invoking violence, as far as I can see. Most reasonable people seem to take that view. By 'reasonable,' I mean people who look at the actual words she spoke, rather than making assumptions about covert implications.
Thanks Michael - I still
Thanks Michael - I still would be interested to hear the AI viewpoint on those cases.
Me too.
Me too.
Dear Achan Alec, With all
Dear Achan Alec,
With all respect, have you read what Da said and the court's verdict?
Da's speech definitely shows her hatred and anger. But I do not find where she incited violence. The closest statement, according to the court's verdict, is her saying that the "ruling class" has to choose to be like England, Japan, or to end up […] like in France or face popular uprising like in Nepal.
Q #1: Please explain: Does this statement disqualify her from being POC under AI's criteria?
30+ years ago, the "Bangkok 18+1" got help from AI after being arrested at Thammasat Univ in the Oct 6, 1976 massacre. At the time, we said many times in public that we must destroy the old society, the capitalists, feudalists, and enemies of the people. We expressed anger and hatred. Yet we were considered POC. I believe that there are so many other political activists and radicals who make similar statements in public. Does it mean AI will no longer consider advocating for any of those political ideologies and movements if they are arrested?
Now the real Q #2: Tell me the truth if AI knew and read Da's speech BEFORE making the judgment that she does not qualify for POC or how AI reached the judgment that she does not qualify for POC?
Q #3: in any case, please specify which statement of hers that AI considers inciting violence, thus disqualify her from being a POC?
Da's speech is vulgar. But in my opinion it is 100% her political belief with only one passage (above) that comes close to violence. Her speech, however, strikes repeatedly at the heart of Thailand's prohibited political discourse, namely the involvement of the xxx in politics. She said repeatedly that the xxx was behind the coup, supported the coup, interfered with politics, knew about the assassination of the previous xxx, and so on. She repeatedly scorned at the privy councillors, esp General Prem. These are all political statements according to her conviction.
The only statement that comes close to violence as mentioned above is, in my opinion, very remote from inciting violence. She did NOT come close to saying that she will or she wants people to take up arms and take such and such actions against such and such people or individuals.
(Continue)
(cont.) Q#4: Is a public
(cont.)
Q#4: Is a public speech -- without a weapon in hand or armed people in preparation for any violent action -- a crime?
Da's action was in public, no weapon, and she doesn't have any armed operation behind her talk. It was ALL talk. Is it a crime? The ACLU defends the KKK because it is all talk; no violent action. For the ACLU, talk is not a crime.
Q#4 (modified): Is a public speech (without violent act) a crime? If AI considers so, please explain why AI considers a speech without violence a crime.
Please also note that the Thai LM law considers a speech, even without any sign of violent act, is a crime.
Q#4 (modified of the modified): Is a public speech (without violent act) a crime? If AI considers so, please explain why AI considers a speech without violence a crime.
Can we say that AI criteria for POC is THE SAME as the Thai LM law?
My rebuttal above focuses on Da's case only. Let's get back to Q#2 above: When did the AI reach the conclusion that Da is not qualified for POC? Before or after reading her speech? And how they reach such a judgment?
This question is in fact about the larger politics and biases on Thai HR leaders in the past few years. I do NOT think we can look at Da's case in isolation or treat it as if it is legal technicality and no politics and biases of Thai HR leaders involved in considering her case.
If Thai HR leaders have shown credible performance in dealing with the polarized politics in the past few years, I would be willing to take an anomalous case as a mistake or as a different interpretation of POC. But the way they deal with Da's case falls into the pattern of biases and violations of HR principles that have been repeatedly committed for years. (Continue)
(Cont.) Many of the above
(Cont.)
Many of the above arguments (by Michael, Joy and by Alec about the back door diplomacy) are fine if we treat each individual case in isolation or in the context of consistently unbiased performances. But you are all smart enough to think -- if so many cases are repeatedly parts of a pattern, so obvious to see (except for to those who committed mistakes and have biases), an argument that ignores such patterned biases, keeps citing technicalities, an example from Australia, and so on, is an apologetic and unconvincing excuse.
A regime that violates HR, an atrocious government, when facing a criticism from HR community, they, too, ALWAYS make similar arguments by treating each individual case and technicalities of each case as if there is no larger problem to deal with, or a similar argument that they have done a lot of good things too (why pointing out only the bad things). They, too, avoid discussing the pattern, the repeated violations as if there is no pattern, no abuses, nothing wrong in their ideas, ideology, policy, or in the "regime".
It is sad to see the HR community resort to the same argumentation. It is a sign that such a regime and the HR community are similar at least in one respect: both are bureaucracy that cannot admit wrongdoings. Both have too much organizational interest to protect above people under their rule or the HR principles and the victims they should fight for. Both of them are different kinds of "regime".
Now, are you ready to discuss the biases, mistakes, the violations of HR principles that Thai HR leaders have committed in the past few years?
(Continue)
(Cont.) Moreover, I have
(Cont.)
Moreover, I have another set of Q for the AI international too. I think they do not know or understand much about Thailand and these controversial issues. They probably don't care because their priority is on the conflict in the south and the Burma-related issues. Because of this, they lack knowledge or are so naive about Thailand's political conditions, thus having to rely on Thai HR leaders who took the PAD/ royalist side all along, and rely on people like Mr. Zarwacki who, in my opinion, is incompetent, naive, thus unreliable. (When Thai police say as always that Thai police do not corrupt -- should we take it for granted? When Thai sangha says as always that all monks are exemplary, should we take it forgranted? When Thai Foreign Ministry and government and so on say that the monarchy never interferes with politics, should we take it for granted? Zarwacki, AI and many take the latter one for granted. They don't understand the Thai state. They uncritically believe the official dogma and its conventional history.)
(Note: I admire the works by Thai HR activists regarding the conflict in the south, the HR abuses under Thaksin, and their works related to Burma issues. Despite some disagreements here and there, I do not see violations of HR principles or biases like in how they handle the political polarization. Some have spread words that my criticism of Thai HR leaders is unfair because of those great works they have done in other fronts. Some said I undermine HR works in Thailand. They simply ignore criticism. I assume that HR community is intelligent enough to handle the complexity. If not, and take criticism as a malicious act to damage the HR works as a whole on every issue, it is hopeless.)
I have more Qs and arguments.
I have more Qs and arguments. But an effort to engage a discussion
with Thai HR laders is futile.
It is not easy to criticise the Thai HR leaders because many of them
have really done great jobs on some other issues. When some of them
take my criticism to younger HR activists to show that I am putting
blame on all of them and my criticisms undermines all HR works, such
action makes things worse. All I can do is to use the clumsy words,
"HR leaders". I'm not sure what words are better, short of naming
names.
It is even more difficult to argue with people like Alec, not because
a personal reason that he was my English teacher when I was a student
at Thammasat -- not at all. But because Alec is such a professional
who acts on behalf of the organization, trying to explain the official
answer (the "diplomacy" approach is the official AI's and HRW's
response to the criticism of their silence on LM issues in Thailand),
and trying to save the credibility of the HR organizations. He does
so despite his efforts within the HR movement to correct mistakes, to
improve Thailand's AI and HR works, and to listen to critics. He is
among those HR people who are trying to steer the HR works in Thailand
into the right path. Meanwhile those HR leaders who made mistakes
never care to listen or engage in a discussion.
Please make it clear that my argument with Alec is not exactly with
Alec. My criticism goes to those people with authority in the HR
bureaucracy, in Thailand and internationally who would never engage in
a discussion. My criticims goes to those "HR mandarins".
ManyThanks ajarn Thongchai
ManyThanks ajarn Thongchai for yr very informative and thought-provoking posts.
This is drivel from Alec.
This is drivel from Alec. There are now some 34 persons charges under the Computer Crimes Act and LM law and few of them have said anything at all about violence. And, I don't see any call for violence from Da.
On AI being a member organization, it is now one member short. I resigned my membership precisely because I could get no one at AI to even talk with me about LM in Thailand in my country. In other words, they are not membership responsive.
They are damaging themselves by this stupid stand.
Gorgeous G: ..........(yawn).
Gorgeous G: ..........(yawn). Was I comparing my situation with that of Thailand's? I thought I was pointing out that these things are on various levels, & that adopting a 'low-key,' 'behind-the-scenes' approach can work effectively. Murky reading.
You seem to have a lot of anger about Amnesty - why are you venting it on me? I'm not a member (but I do volunteer with several NGOs, working in necessary areas, & we do achieve successful results by working fairly quietly on various rather difficult projects). Are you? If not, why not join. Your energy would be more productively channeled if you were working inside a HR organisation than it is standing outside & shrieking invective at random commentators.
Re. Da & others, please do not make assumptions about what I might feel, or who I might prefer. You would be wrong, & comparing their situations to that of mine is "just absurd," although it apparently gives you a satisfying hit.
michael, interesting comment
michael, interesting comment about joining HR organization or volunteer to do things related to human rights activities. not sure what is the first step one should take to join them (on a voluntary basis,) I mean.
michael, sorry I was trying
michael, sorry I was trying to inject a little humor in my first comment. What I should have said is.. The Sydney cops were corrupt and they knew it and a clever lawyer working quietly behind the scenes could get you off a false charge. Is there anyone working quietly behind the scenes in Thailand and getting people off LM charges? Has it ever happened?
I disagree that Da is a clear
I disagree that Da is a clear cut Prisoner of Conscience. Having negative views on monarchy is not the reason she was convicted, though it was the catalyst. It was her threats of violent solutions that did it for her, not her views of the world.
Lots of people share her ideas and they are fine. Even those who express their views in public are doing fine, mostly.
Da, however, took it to an entirely different level.
As for AI stand, I think people taking it too far, demanding them to defend some non-existing right to be an abusive, vulgar, and threatening person. If Da is a prisoner of anything, it's her own attitude.
18 years jail for a bad
18 years jail for a bad attitude???
Threats of violence???
(I have still not seen any threats, only a description of what has happened to other monarchy's in other countries - she is a political scientist after all:)
Speaking of threats of violence, what were Sondhi L & Co doing at their rally on the weekend?
Lawyers might argue that she
Lawyers might argue that she is a political scientist, personally I don't know anyone who can say that with a straight face.
There are plenty of examples where "bad attitude" landed people in legal troubles. Your thoughts, your words, and your actions do not exist independently of each other. One thing leads to another, and before you know it you cross the line. Rape your date, beat up your wife or domestic help etc etc.
Surely you did not write such
Surely you did not write such rot with a straight face!
(although I'm not sure what's sadder - writing it with, or without, a straight face)
I'm so keen to listen to the
I'm so keen to listen to the Thai HR's response to Thongchai's comments. It's a critical question concerning the attitude of Thai HR.
To michael: I think there's a difference bewteen the strategic tactics as mentioned in your comments and the standpoint(ideology) concerning certain issues(like LM-related cases such as Daa's). I do not expect the HR to attack every issues at the same time, but at least the HR people should make public their point of view in all HR related issues. If they honestly believe humanrights is fundamental to everything, even political belief.
Yes, Dr J, I have to say that
Yes, Dr J, I have to say that I agree with you. Also with most of what Ajarn Thongchai says. As I've said previously, I don't have any 'inside info' on AI, so I can't speak with any authority on their work here. But it is disappointing that a world-wide organisation that has earned such respect for its courageous stand on so many issues, and can afford to be very up-front, by virtue of its large membership & well-known track record, has shown itself to be not only rather limp in Thailand, but also to have a bias towards a conservative group with dangerous fascist tendencies.
As to Stan G, I suggest you 'let Google be your friend', and find out what the lady said. If you read it clearly, without imposing an external agenda on her words, you will see that it was not threatening or inciting violence. Vulgarity, bad taste, & 'bad' attitude are all matters of opinion, defined individually by everyone. They can't and shouldn't be legislated against. Your "one thing leads to another" thesis is a prize example of Begging the Question & absolutely silly in this context. Everyone has anti-social thoughts at times. What do you want, "thought police"? Reasonable societies gaol people for their actions, not their attitudes.
Re. the definition of 'Prisoner of Conscience': I don't think it helps to argue over this. Da is a prisoner for 18 years because she spoke her mind. That is an infringement of her rights. That's all.
r robin, I don't know if it's ever happened. I have no experience of working on LM issues.
Re. 'working behind the
Re. 'working behind the scenes' on LM: Although this thread has ended up being about LM, that is not how it began (I certainly didn't have LM in mind when I wrote my long post), & I think that respondents would do well to understand that it is not necessarily the most pressing HR issue in Thailand. I'm not trying to say that it's not important, & I do have plenty to say about LM abuses. They are very wrong! But in a country where, for example, the police are capable of murdering and maiming citizens &, as a general rule, getting away with it, & where the MSM are so terrified of the consequences that they censor themselves on so many issues that should be right out in the open, & where the populace passively accepted ‘death squads’ going out & shooting, quite openly, more than 2½ thousand citizens at the behest of the Prime Minister & government, & with the support of many religious leaders, it is not anywhere near the top of the list.
I frankly have no idea how LM should be dealt with within Thailand. Obviously the foreign media making a big noise about it & embarrassing those in power is useful – but that is outside the country. Inside? I dunno. I suppose when enough Thais who live here realize that it’s absolutely wrong, they will care about it enough to do something.
A small HR organization that I’m interested in assisted a woman who was conducting legal action against her husband for violent rape, torture & emotional abuse, and for custody of their child. (I wrote about it not so long ago on another thread). Although they had good evidence, they encountered resistance from police, judiciary & even lawyers. They were told at one stage by an organization of lawyers, that no lawyer would dare take the case on. They did find a good lawyer in the end & they won (custody, the most important issue) – but only by making deals (not monetary ones), which removed the abuse charges from the courts. So, I suppose the ‘hard-line’ HR critics could say it was a loss. But, since it was a first, in terms of new laws being tested, I don’t think it was a total loss at all. A whole lot of people were put on the line & tested in ways that they haven’t encountered before. A case like that cannot be done with big publicity and trumpets blaring. It’s out of the question; it’s almost impossible to do quietly.
I know what she said and I
I know what she said and I know what were the circumstances and what was the reception.
I refuse to accept her speech as some sort of intellectual exercise by a political scientist.
Public speeches CAN and SHOULD be legislated, they are miles away from simple thoughts.
People must be held accountable for what they say in public.
People are held accountable
People are held accountable for what they say in public. Putting them in gaol for 18 years is another matter. Who ever said it was an "intellectual exercise by a political scientist"? Looks more like a howl of anger to me. But people should be able to do that.
Stan G, I think you are probably Trep, an obsessive control-freak from an earlier series of blogs.
Hobby, I think you said that a while ago, is that right?
Hobby called her a "political
Hobby called her a "political scientist". I'd describe her as a foul mouthed agitator.
I don't know what is the appropriate sentence for her. Ideally it should make her realize that what she did was wrong, by Thai society standards, and ideally it should prevent her from committing the same offense again.
So far she hasn't budged a bit.
When she repents we can talk about excessive punishment again. In that case she'd probably get a pardon anyway.
Yes, I am "trep". That nick was derived from e-mail address I previously used on Prachatai. I've got my own blog now and so changed the nick for consistency.
Thanks for calling me a control freak. That is Michael as I used to know and love.
'Hobby called her a
'Hobby called her a "political scientist".' True, but he didn't call her speech an "intellectual exercise by a political scientist." I see you're still twisting the things people say, to suit yourself.
"Thanks for calling me a control freak. That is Michael as I used to know and love." You're welcome, Trep.
Tell me, is your new "nick", Stan G, or 'stang', which means 'half', alluding to anything pertinent? 'Half-wit' perhaps?
Thanks for the admission
Thanks for the admission Stan/Trep.
Now does anyone want to guess whether Taro Mongkoltip (of New Mandala) posts on Prachatai, and under what name?
I'll start the ball rolling with our old mate: Somsak/Plaadip
(maybe that will entice him back, even if only to make a denial:)
Umm I don't think Taro is
Umm I don't think Taro is Plaadip? Hmm.. although Urachima Taro ? seems to be the name of a man in one Japanese folktale
I love folktales- they are
I love folktales- they are the history that removed a notion of time and space.
Btw, I just saw a film which tells a story from a line of poem; it says-
"A thing of beauty is a Joy forever".
Sorry for off-topic comment :
Sorry for off-topic comment : submarine and plaadip haven't posted for a while. yesterday i was abt to mention this, and its nice to see submarine's post . Folktales are good. How abt Alice in Wonderland? (very sorry for off-topic comment but i think many of our posters here e.g Hobby might feel that Thai political life is full of absurdities, nonsensical /illogical rules, modes of behaviours just like what Alice encounters in the Wonderland?
I used to describe the
I used to describe the experience of working in my first job here (Faculty of Humanities in a minor university) as "like being in an extended version of the Mad Hatter's Tea Party." A week after I handed in my resignation (due to an outrageous breach of their contractual obligations to me), they held a meeting at which they decided not to offer me a renewal, because I was "unsuitable"!
Just at this moment Alice
Just at this moment Alice felt a very curious sensation, which puzzled her a good deal until she made out what it was: she was beginning to grow larger again, and she thought at first she would get up and leave the court; but on second thoughts she decided to remain where she was as long as there was room for her:
"I wish you wouldn't squeeze so, " said the Dormouse, who was sitting next to her. "I can't hardly breathe."
"I can't help it, " said Alice very meekly: "I'm growing."
"You have no right to grow here, " said the Dormouse.
"Don't talk nonsense, ' said Alice more boldly: "you know you're growing, too."
"Yes, but I grow at a reasonable pace," said the Dormouse: "not in that ridiculous fashion." And he got up very sulkily and crossed over to the other side of the court.
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll
Sub., how amazingly apt! How
Sub., how amazingly apt! How did you find that? You must know Alice terribly well. I'm impressed. And envious.
Do explain please, Sub and
Do explain please, Sub and michael. I don't get it , and I'm very curious.
BTW, thanks a lot Michael for yr very informative tips abt NGO work. I'm very busy with my current job but i feel it's meaningless ( i mean i seem busy but see what i do as pointless). Hope to do something else ( once i can have some free time) to add meaning to life.
Joy, would you say Thai
Joy, would you say Thai society is 'growing' now, sometimes at an uncomfortable rate?
Yes, time's an important factor. BTW, I should have mentioned in my post that it's essential to have a clear idea of how much time you can donate, & make that absolutely clear when you offer to volunteer. Otherwise misunderstandings can result. Sorry you're not getting satisfaction from your work. Not a good situation to be in.
Sub., thanks so much for that. I really must get a copy - I've been thinking quite a lot about Alice lately, but I don't have it here. I suppose I can download it at this stage. The copyright must have well & truly expired.
I interpreted it completely
I interpreted it completely differently - took it as being apt because it is nonsense, just like what goes on in Thai politics:)
Please don't be offended Submarine, as 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland' is apparently considered to be one of the most characteristic examples of the genre of literary nonsense (per Wikipedia anyway:)
But the nonsense genre is
But the nonsense genre is also meant to be a way to critique conventions /established norms (according to what i have read, I mean) It seems many things in Alice reveal the author's criticism of victorian society?( of course can be applied to any society too i suppose)
BTW Michael, I do not exactly hate my work..Hmm.. just feel it's not really a real work but won't complain anymore sorry.
Right on, Joy. 'Nonsense'
Right on, Joy. 'Nonsense' only works in reference to 'sense'.
I am in awe of your
I am in awe of your interpretive abilities (Michael, Joy & Submarine), and concede my intellect is insufficient to interpret the 'sense' out of the 'nonsense'
(therefore it needs to be straightforward and preferably in plain language, for me to have any chance of understanding:)
Hey, Joy, etc., I've just
Hey, Joy, etc., I've just discovered a site you people might like: http://liberationpark.org/
Near the bottom of the article on the homepage, you'll see a hyperlink for audio. Click on it. (this is more about 'sense' than 'nonsense'). Sorry about off-topic. Well, not really! :-)
Thanks michael for the link.
Thanks michael for the link. It looks really nice. will look up again in more detail when i got my laptop back (I'm using a slow laptop at the moment). I 've heard of Santikaro Bhikku. I h i have read one of his articles ..abt Buddhadasa ( if i remember it correctly). BTW, hope yr ulcers are gone by now. Take care.
Michael, Submarine, Hobby:
Michael, Submarine, Hobby: you guys have any idea what does the Celshire (spelling?) symbolize? Could it be a wise(?) sage grinning, mocking at people's bizarre, weird behaviours or their weaknesses etc etc ? A young student asks me this Q. My first thought is that it is just one among the imaginary creatures in Wonderland, but then i suppose i have to come up with better answer coz the student seems to expect something more.BTW, its head can be separated from its body so maybe it is free from vested interests?.. .(apologize as usuall for off-topic comments .. but we can relate it to Thai politics i suppose..I guess we lack Chelshire cat in Thailand..)
wrong spellings sorry:
wrong spellings sorry: "Cheshire Cat"
I suppose Cheshire cats are a
I suppose Cheshire cats are a breed, like Siamese cats, Burmese cats, etc. Cheshire is a shire, a local government division, a little bit like an amphoe (?) here.
The Cheshire cat in Alice sat
The Cheshire cat in Alice sat in a tree and slowly disappeared until only his smile remained. "Grinning like the Cheshire cat." I think "to grin like a|the Cheshire cat" means that your smile, your projection of well-being, is your most salient characteristic. Or perhaps that you seem very self-satisfied, at least temporarily.
Welcome to 'The Land of
Welcome to 'The Land of Smiles'! ;-(
Michael, it's "Stan G", not
Michael, it's "Stan G", not "stang".
I am not aware of the "half" meaning, can you elaborate?
Stan G/Trep, please answer:
Stan G/Trep, please answer: Are you a former member of FCCT, now disbarred, an importer & seller of rare birds, & an LM accuser?
I asked months ago if his
I asked months ago if his initials might be A.K., but the question got sidestepped at the time.
(Michael: I'm not sure, but perhaps we have the same person in mind? :)
Aaaah! NOW I get it. Yes,
Aaaah! NOW I get it. Yes, Hobby, we do! Amazing - how did I miss it?A greasy, sycophantic creep, who is universally despised & ridiculed, even by those who use him.
Michael: I will let
Michael: I will let StanG/Trep answer for himself, but, after reading his blog, I no longer think Stan/Trep could be A.K.
(click on the name on StanG's posts to see his blog)
I'm not that person from
I'm not that person from FCCT, or A.K., whoever it was.
That's a relief.
That's a relief.
Joy, sorry I seem to have
Joy, sorry I seem to have ignored your post regarding joining an NGO. I've been preoccupied recently with work & also dealing with tropical ulcers on my leg - extremely painful & requiring a lot of rest in a position where it's virtually impossible to use my computer.
An NGO is any citizens' organisation actively involved in constructive work for the benefit of the community, the environment, etc. If I were a Thai person in your position, I would probably want to start by joining an organisation working in the area of providing educational opportunities or resources like books, computers, good English language classes, etc., to areas where these are needed. Maybe one that is directly helping women, since males do seem to get more opportunities. Education is a HR issue. Conservation is also a good thing to start with. There are also women's refuges, dealing with abuse survivors. I think a lot of NGOs need volunteers who have experience as educators, since much of their work involves raising awareness.
If you come across an organisation that looks interesting, get their annual reports, and see if they are doing what they say. Look carefully at their financial reports - some 'NGOs' are scams. A good NGO practises transparency, so you shouldn't encounter resistance when you ask about finances, etc.
When you find one that looks good, ask if you can volunteer on one of their projects. See whether you like the way they work and whether you feel comfortable working with their volunteers. If they don't make you feel welcome & resist giving you the help you need, move on.
Readers of this thread might
Readers of this thread might be interested in a recent post at Political Prisoners in Thailand: http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/questioning-amnesty-international-again/
Post new comment