UK govt expresses concern about death of Ah Kong, calls for LM review
Last week I blogged about questions raised in the UK Parliament by the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kerry McCarthy MP (Bristol East, Labour Party) regarding Thailand’s use of its infamous lese majeste laws and the treatment/death of Ampon Tangnoppakul aka Ah Kong (a Thai political prisoner who died on May 8, 2012). My original posting, with Kerry McCarthy MP’s questions, can be found here.
Yesterday, the Minister of State (South East Asia/Far East, Caribbean, Central/South America, Australasia and Pacific) at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Jeremy Browne MP (Taunton Deane, Liberal Democrat) published the UK government’s response to these questions (the full answers can be found here, here, here and here).
What is clear from these responses is that the UK is very uneasy about the lese majeste law itself, the disproportionate sentences meted out by the courts for those found guilty of LM and the general treatment of prisoners.
What is also becoming evident is that the USA is increasingly isolated in its continued and persistent failure to hold Thailand – an important military ally of the USA – to account for its human rights breaches. Given that the USA have been long-term backers of Thailand’s most powerful and least democratic element and biggest supporter of the lese majeste law – the Thai Army – this should come as no surprise to commentators.
Furthermore, a US citizen, Joe Gordon, remains imprisoned in Thailand on lese majeste charges for comments he posted online whilst he was resident in the USA. The USA’s Bangkok mission has been noted for its lack of response to the imprisonment of one of its nationals under one of the most draconian censorship laws on earth and the UK’s statement further underlines US failures on this issue.
On Ah Kong the UK Minister of State responded that:
"With our European Union partners, the UK expressed concern last year at the conviction and imprisonment for 20 years of Ampon Tangnoppakul for violating the lese-majeste laws."
And:
"[This] statement reiterated the importance attached by the EU [the UK were co-signatories of an EU statement] to the rule of law, democracy and respect for human rights."
On lese majeste the Minister stated:
"We are closely following the development of freedom of expression in Thailand and are concerned by the significant increase of lese-majeste cases in the country and the application of the laws and length of sentences in recent cases."
And:
"Our embassy in Bangkok continues to monitor the ongoing trials of high-profile lese-majeste and freedom of expression on the internet cases. We have urged the Thai Government to ensure that the rule of law is applied in a non-discriminatory and proportionate manner consistent with upholding basic human rights, and will continue to take appropriate opportunities to do so."
More importantly the UK government also makes clear its call for Thailand to review the lese majeste laws:
"In October 2011 at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the human rights situation in Thailand was reviewed as part of the Universal Periodic Review process. The UK played an active role, including raising our concerns about freedom of expression and specifically recommending that the Thai Government seek to review its lese-majeste laws."
What impact these comments will have is, of course, debatable.
The wider international community – with the exception of the USA – is now explicit in its eagerness for Thailand to make more headway in meeting its legal obligations under international law. To do this it would seem that the democratically elected Thai government will need to bring the Thai Army – the biggest supporters of lese majeste – under civilian control. This civilian control is also unlikely to be achieved without US assistance and the longer the US fail to act to bring their clients in the Thai Army to heel the longer Thailand’s slide away from democracy will be.
It can also be said that since the death of Ah Kong Thai domestic opinion has hardened at both ends of the lese majeste debate. Such hardening will likely only lead to more conflict, something only those who benefit from a widening of Thailand’s political crisis would seek. It’s time for the US to step-up and demand the Thai Army allow for proper reform to take place.
All I can say is – don’t hold your breath.
Print version
Send by email
Comments
Au contraire, the impact that
Au contraire, the impact that these comments will have is NOT debatable. They will have no impact.
Again - who cares what the
Again - who cares what the British government thinks? They are conducting mass murder, torture, and genocide world-wide hand-in-hand with the Americans.
All you prove Spooner is that like the US State Department, the British are using these issues as political footballs to divide and destroy Thailand and get their proxy Thaksin back into power. Because notice all the rubbish they are claiming is the same nonsense Thaksin himself stated in his phone in to the UDD he allegedly has nothing to do with...
Still waiting for you to comment on Prachatai hosting your arch nemesis HRW's Sunai as a panelist at their "7th anniversary" party. Seems pretty strange you are such a supporter of Prachatai and so critical of HRW, even calling them collaborators with the 2006 coup makers.
HRW showers Prachatai with cash and awards, Prachatai graciously accepts them, consorts with them in person, and parrots their US State Department supplied talking points on a nearly daily basis.
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/09/soros-funded-hrw-awards-soros-funded.html
Try to get your lies straight, it's really getting embarrassing.
Frank Can you actually
Frank
Can you actually quantify "impact"? You mean an instant change of the law and a freeing of all the prisoners? Or do you mean it is a completely and totally meaningless exercise and there is no point in anyone, internationally or domestically, saying anything about this?
Or is there something, possibly, in between these two, that is less instantly quantifiable?
Tony I raised this issue with
Tony
I raised this issue with Prachatai when I heard Phasuk had been invited.
I don't allege Phasuk was a coup collaborator - he is damned by his own words. He is a coup collaborator.
For Prachatai to host someone who collaborated with the coup, without even questioning him properly, is pretty disgraceful.
It seems like their own principles fail to extend to the very people they collude with.
So then, I eagerly await your
So then, I eagerly await your vigorous campaign, using your platform at AC calling Prachatai on their poor judgement and not only their association with Sunai Phasuk, but their acceptance of cash and awards from Human Rights Watch as well - AND their daily dissemination of their "hypocritical lies."
When should I check back for your piece on this? I sincerely hope very soon. Wonder if Prachatai will publish it....
Going to mention that HRW and Prachatai are BOTH funded by a convicted criminal, George Soros and his Open Society Institute? And how Soros, contesting his criminal conviction attempted to invoke human rights - just as Prachatai & Co. do daily to whitewash criminals associated with Thaksin Shinawatra?
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/03/surpise-soros-is-convicted-criminal.html
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/08/exposed-indy-newspaper-funded-by-us.html
I want to believe you are just a misguided, but honest pundit. Here's your chance to prove it. Time to use your platform to call out Prachatai. I'd suggest you question Pravit's association with Prachatai as well - after admitting they were curtailing free speech on their own website, he still associates with them, and STILL attended their "party" attended by Sunai - and to my knowledge he didn't condemn Sunai for "collaborating" with the coup-makers...
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/01/us-funded-rights-advocate-censoring.html
Nothing is adding up here Andrew - and if I see you continuing to contribute here at Prachatai when everything reeks of corruption and foreign-special interests, and you claiming you "raised the issue" but it apparently being instantaneously "dropped," can you blame me for suspecting you may be a fraud as well?
Priceless - so 2006
Priceless - so 2006 collaborator Sunai, Nation's Pravit, AND Nitirat's Worachet were all at US State Department funded Prachatai's "7th Anniversary" party!!!
Ok, Andrew, I'm waiting for your explanation - clearly none of this adds up. I've said that HRW, Pravit, Prachatai, and Nitirat were all functionaries of the US State Department and Thaksin, and that's exactly what it looks like when they are all conspiring together online, in person, in both agenda and ideology.
When Thaksin phoned-in last Saturday and repeated verbatim what Prachatai, Nitirat, and UDD leaders have been saying - all claiming to be independent of him - he reaffirmed what I've been saying all along. The Constitution re-write is FOR HIM. The human rights racket is being leverage FOR HIM. It is all to get him back into power.
You've condemned HRW, now it is obvious they work in tandem with Prachatai, who you are now seemingly "raising issues with," so what about Nitirat? How can these people, all be involved with each other? Are they all liars and hypocrites like HRW?
If you've followed Prachatai and HRW's statements, they've been very vocal in their support of Nitirat. When you look at Nitirat's crowd, they are all Thaksin supporters, many of them wearing red shirts, and Thaksin's corporate lobbyist sitting in the front row! It's not that I disagree with human freedom.... I'm simply pointing out that what is going on in Thailand is being led by frauds and crooks perverting the concepts of human freedom.
The questions are piling up and contradictions are starting to pile up. Are you ready to dump these fake organizations, or better yet expose them, and support real human freedom and progress, are would you like to wade around in this US corporate-fascist infested swamp a little longer?
But TC, you are the most
But TC, you are the most consistent user of HRW at this comments section. What explains that? Cherrypicking, the needs of a propagandist or something more sinister?
Contrary to what you suggest
Contrary to what you suggest - I am in fact the MOST consistent user of HRW reports. I go through the report, I follow up on the evidence they cite, and if it constitutes solid evidence beyond "eye witness accounts" and hearsay, I cite it. If it is dissembling nonsense I toss it.
That's what being objective is all about - not just linking people through guilt of association (like you oafishly do), but examining what they are actually saying on a case by case basis, separating real evidence from propaganda, countering dishonestly with documented fact, and drawing a logical conclusion.
HRW is a corrupt Wall Street funded tool of hegemony - but like the military, which is also such a tool, it is full of genuine, hard working people who do occasionally prevail and do good. It would be ignorant beyond recourse to throw it all out indiscriminately.
The HRW report on Thailand is based on videos, photographs, and direct quotes made by the UDD leaders themselves, admitting guilt of being associated with the militants that turned up from April 10th 2010 onward.
Conversely, HRW reports on say, Libya or Syria based entirely on hearsay produced by opposition fronts - is easily thrown away, because it is biased, because it is supported by no documented evidence, because it is based solely on their say so, and because documented evidence contradicts it.
The quandary is faced by you, who claims HRW is a credible organization across the board - but has come out with a report running contra to your torrent of lies and misinformation.
You are still a dope. I said
You are still a dope. I said you were a consistent user of HRW. So no need to be contrary.
As much as you dress it up, you cherrypick for your propaganda. There's no objectivity, just a search for a line or two that support your swill, which you repeat endlessly. Again, I have shown this previously in comments on how you make up your conspiracies.
And on your other lies in this pack of lies: I have never expressed any position on HRW.
Tony Not sure we're on the
Tony
Not sure we're on the same page here.
Thanks for your advice and suggestions though.
You got that right - we
You got that right - we surely are not on the same page - I'm into reality, you are into shoehorning reality to suite you personal political agenda.
You got a problem with HRW - going as far as calling them liars, hypocrites and collaborators. Yet here they are funding and consorting regularly with Prachatai. Either you were wrong about HRW, or you are wrong about supporting Prachatai who is obviously in the same line of business - not to mention their funding from the US State Department and Neo-Cons in Freedom House and NED.
You either write an article retracting your comments on HRW, or you expose Prachatai for receiving funding, consorting with, and parroting the talking points of "liars, hypocrites, and collaborators."
So you either straighten this out, or crawl back under a rock. You're shaping up to be a bigger hypocrite and liar than you claim HRW is. And not even as crafty a liar as them either.
Andrew: Quantification of
Andrew:
Quantification of impact might not be the main point here, and perhaps I acted too hastily in ripping into your comment that what impact it will have is not debatable. However, given the track record to date on international and domestic calls to reason to Thai authorities over a variety of issues - those comments the UK government replied with are, in my opinion, not worth the paper they were written on in so far as having any impact, long-term or short-term. So I guess my original counter-claim still stands. The comments themselves are of course of some value in theory, but in practical application it is what the UK government actually does or does not do that matters, or - which has or does not have an impact. The comments addressed the issues but were not likely designed to indicate any real action would be forthcoming either from the Thai or UK side. They were made to appear as if an important concern was addressed but not made with much intent to actually do something or make it appear as if something would really be done. I said diplomatic nicety, and that was the main thrust of the comments. Ergo, no impact. No today, or next week, or the next time someone else is thrown in prison or dies as a result of gung-ho lese majeste procedures. Outcries are important, but unless they are backed with action they have no impact.
"what is going on in Thailand
"what is going on in Thailand is being led by frauds and crooks perverting the concepts of human freedom."
I could not agree with this statement more; the question, of course, is who the bad guys are: Prachatai/Nitirat/Red Shirts/misguided foreign observers/ignoramuses et. al who are the wrong side or nice understanding, knowledgeable, loyal "just" Thais and foreigners who REALLY know what is going on and who are on the correct side. I kind of think that almost anyone who can't stand the airing of non-conventional views is on the wrong side, the side that knows it's right and knows it's best if everyone else is brought into line.
Sure it's overly simplistic to see it in such black and white terms. Like the Ah Kong case was - nearly O.J. Simpson vehemence. Despite no evidence that could pin down that he actually sent those messages, he is pronounced guilty and dies in prison. And what happens? Many people in sympathy with Prachatai are part of the outcry! Imagine how embarrassing it would have been if Joe Gordon was the one who died.
OMG! The diplomatic overtime! The outcries! The explanations! The pretensions! And the impact in the end...None. Just more hard feelings and irritation on the Thai side that those who criticize criminal defamation laws in the kingdom do nt understand or belong in prison or an asylum.
The civil rights/human right situation in the States back during the pre-Kennedy era and during it was reprehensible enough. That it was so bad that a national black leader had to be killed (MLK) bespeaks of the strength of hatred and compulsion to dominate. That compulsion and need to dominate are present here today in Thailand. These are what pervert concepts of human freedom.
Again, Akong's case was
Again, Akong's case was leveraged by Prachatai, UDD & Co. to undermine Thailand's institutions - it was not about objectively handling the case and figuring out what real injustice occurred.
Again, I wrote about this and warned you all that Akong might very well had made death threats and that's the reason he was facing such a steep jail sentence - in fact I was sure once I heard the sentence he had sent death threats.
Akong was convicted of committing a very real crime, like Somyos and others, they are not simply "criticizing" the establishment, they are slandering, threatening and calling for its violent removal.
So Prachatai, Thaksin & Co. used it as a political football and it backfired after claiming Akong was put in prison for simply speaking his mind, when it turned out what he actually wrote was in fact a crime, you've all oafishly switched gears making this an issue of evidence he committed what you now, I assume, realize is a real crime.
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/11/exposing-wall-streets-human-rights.html
Now you are invoking MLK while defending people funded by the very scumbags (US Gov. & Wall Street) that most likely had him killed, and demonstratively work against everything he stood for. Nice, real nice.
Anderson - you are not stupid, but you act willfully idiotic simply to dress up what is an untenable argument. You are wrong, you know you are wrong, and whether you want to admit it or not, you are off center (and reality) with your tiresome pro-Western propaganda. I even read on your Facebook that you think Thailand would have been better off with a few decades of Western colonialism! Yes, better off like who? Laos? Cambodia? Or Myanmar? Libya? Or the entire British/French divided & destroyed Middle East?
Sure, Akong was convicted...
Sure, Akong was convicted... but that was in a Thai court. It wasn't as if it were a real court of justice or anything.
The only people who know he
The only people who know he sent a single SMS are those who reported and prosecuted him and their sympathizers. The rest of us nerds kind of feel that since there was no evidence that he did it, but that he was found guilty because he could not prove he didn't do it, that something was wrong in Denmark. You seem to know he did what he was accused of doing.
To reiterate, who knows that Ah Kong sent a single SMS? He "had to be the one" is a bit harsh, although for local standards not unusual.