Thailand’s lese majeste prisoners – “Amnesty & Human Rights Watch are ignoring us” Part II

This is part two of my look at human rights groups, lese majeste and political prisoners in Thailand. Part one can be found here.

Despite the context of coup threats and the dual state within which the  present government Pheu Thai government is working, many are also criticising them for “back-sliding” on human rights after a number of Pheu Thai government figures said they would widen the crackdown on lese majeste. In addition a Human Rights Watch report  released earlier in 2012 attacked the government for failing to address the use of lese majeste and for extending this draconian law’s reach. Pheu Thai's failure to amend or reform else majeste has also been a huge disappointment to many, yet even Nittirat's reforms don't call for the abolition of lese majeste and nor would their reforms end prison sentences for breaches of lese majeste.  Furthermore there is little evidence that Pheu Thai's threats have actually transformed into the kind of ramping up of the numbers of lese majeste prosecutions that was witnessed during the Democrat Party regime. So why would HRW produce a report that seemingly contains inaccuracies in to order to attack and undermine a "Thaksinite" government? Could it be that HRW are actually politicised, taking a secret and undeclared "anti-Thaksin position" even if that means supporting coups that overthrow democratically elected governments?

Comments attributed to HRW’s lead Thai-researcher Sunai Phasuk found in the wikileaks US Embassy cables clearly point towards this kind of  undeclared politicisation - comments which both HRW and Sunai have failed to explain, clarify or answer for, despite requests stretching back to mid-2011 for them to do so.

Sunai has a number of statements attributed to him that make clear his support for the 2006 military coup that removed a democratically elected government, that he is a “committed anti-Thaksin activist” and that he believes a significant element of the Red Shirts were “bent on using violence to topple the monarchy”, a claim for which he offers no independent and corroborating evidence. Sunai is also cited just after the 2006 coup saying how “close” he is to Thai Army officers and that he “had always held the military in high regard for their sense of honor and dedication to the country.” Given that only two years previously the Thai Army had been video taped  engaging in an appalling massacre in Tak Bai that left 87 dead, this is an astonishing statement for a human rights worker to be making.

On the issue of lese majeste Sunai is reported as saying in another cable that HRW wouldn’t support a Thai trade union activist being harassed with the lese majeste laws as the case was “unattractive” and “that association with the case would damage his ability to work as a human rights defender”. The trade unionist concerned, Jittra Kotchadet, told me that she “wasn’t surprised” by HRW’s inaction as they “haven’t really done anything to support people in Thailand.” She also said that “HRW don’t act according to principle and seem to take sides in the political conflict. And for some reason they keep trying to link the Black Shirts to the Red Shirts [the armed element from the April/May 2010 protests that supposedly had links to the Red Shirts. The claims that links existed were recently undermined by a Bangkok Post journalist Wassana Nanuam who counter-claimed that, in fact, the Black Shirts were more likely a rogue element in the Thai Army]. Where is their evidence that they are connected? Not even the Thai state could produce any and no one has yet been arrested from this “element”. So why do HRW keep repeating this story?”

Prominent and highly respected Thai human rights activist, Kwanravee Wangudom, who spoke last year at the House of Lords about the deaths of unarmed protesters during the Abhisit regime’s brutal suppression of the Red Shirts in 2010, went further and questioned the factual basis for HRW’s lese majeste “backsliding” claims. Kwanravee said that the figures HRW have been using for their claim that lese majeste cases have increased under the present government are baseless. “The National Human Rights Commission [cited by HRW] doesn't have any concrete information of the number of people charged with lese majeste,” she said. “By using these figures HRW are not presenting any verifiable evidence.” Internationally recognized lese majeste expert Dr. David Streckfuss agrees with Kwanravee’s assessment. “Most of the cases we have heard about in the last few months were initiated during the last [Abhisit] government,” he said. “I would doubt that the number of cases has risen under the new [Pheu Thai] government.”

Criticisms of the international NGOs lack of action on lese majeste and human rights abuses in Thailand, don’t end there. Amnesty International’s lead researcher, Ben Zawacki, has been repeatedly questioned regarding to comments he once made that appeared to defend the use of the lese majeste law. He was also queried for seemingly colluding with Abhisit-era Thai government officials when designating the Prisoner of Conscience status of one Thailand’s most infamous lese majeste prisoners, Da Torpedo. Furthermore, at the end of 2011 Zawacki told Bangkok-based reporter, Marwaan Macan-Markar,  that “Amnesty is unfortunately not able to assign a number of political prisoners in Thailand since the 2006 coup.” Zawacki went on to say that “AI has "no plans" for a report to expose the number of people jailed in Thailand for LM.” And this line that Thailand’s political prisoners are hard to quantify or don’t exist at all has been parroted by the US State Department’s report on human rights in Thailand which states, point blank, “There were no reports of political prisoners or detainees.”

One of Thailand’s leading academics and thinkers, Dr. Thongchai Winichakul, a former student radical who was present at the infamous Thammasat Massacre in 1976, has recently made very strong statements on the entire Thai human rights community’s failings on lese majeste and other issues in interviews he gave to me here and here.

In these interviews Thongchai questioned not only the ethics of both Amnesty and HRW but also pointed directly to both NGOs being politicized.

“For the first five year from 2005 onwards both AI and HRW were inactive, silent, and implicitly against the effort to fight this unjust law [lese majeste] and also to help victims of this law. The bottom-line was, in my opinion, that HRW and AI received most of their information from, and followed the views of, a group of local Thai human rights people who are dominated by anti-Thaksin activists. This group are very biased and lack the usual professionalism necessary to uphold human rights principles. They are too politicized and their politics seem to have clouded their views and judgments on human rights issues. Most of them supported the coup and a few senior human rights figures even joined the “tours” organized and financed by the coup regime to explain to the world the necessity of the coup. Their political biases blinded them from seeing the victims of the LM as political prisoners or prisoners of conscience because most of these victims are Thaksin supporters or at least anti-coup regime. Also many of the human rights lawyers became active supporters for the anti-Thaksin, PAD Yellow camp. And even today, these human rights activists and lawyers refuse to provide legal assistance to the poor families of Red Shirts supporters who have been victims of the Abhisit-regimes repressive use of LM laws and who were jailed since the violent crackdown in mid-2010.”

It is set against this entire backdrop that the present Yingluck Shinawatra-led government has recently opened a new political prison to house those incarcerated for crimes related to “politics”. All the lese majeste prisoners interviewed were keen to make it clear that they supported this move by the government and all considered themselves political prisoners. “We want political status,” said one, while nearly all of the prisoners also threatened to stage a hunger strike if they weren’t transferred to the political prison as soon as possible.

“One of the reasons we opened the new political prison was to make sure the security and safety of these prisoners could be maintained,” says Jarupan Koldiloke MP. “I also want to say that we are doing our best to make sure the lese majeste prisoners are moved there quickly. Hopefully this will take place soon.”

Thida Thavornsate also made it clear the Red Shirt leadership consider the lese majeste detainees political. “All the lese majeste prisoners are political prisoners and need to be moved to Laksi [the political prison]. Though I do have to say that there are still some problems with facilities at the new prison but we have to remember that the establishment were completely opposed to it opening at all.”

I was granted unique access to the new political prison and spoke to several of those incarcerated there, none of whom have been charged with lese majeste and all of whom were awaiting trial or appeals. “We are much happier here,” was the resounding message delivered during our interview with them. “We are all Red Shirts,” one said, “and while this government isn’t perfect, we know, unlike the last government, that it comes from a democratic election.” All these prisoners also spoke of prison “politicizing” them and that in the new prison they felt “more together as a group” and less “scared”.

On the failures of HRW and AI the prisoners said that neither organization “has helped us at all.” One said “Why don’t they monitor our cases?” and another  “How can HRW say things are worse under the Yingluck government? Don’t they understand anything that has happened here?”

So where now for Thailand? The reforms that many consider necessary to return Thailand to full democratic normalcy appear to be hampered, under threat of force, by shadowy political forces while those usually relied upon to impart an independent account of what is going on in the country are seemingly politicized and failing to tackle key issues.

Yet, not all Thais are daunted by this. Some are ready for whatever lies ahead. “Let them stage their coup,” says Jittra Kotchadet. “Let the world see what is really going on here.”

Comments

I am greatly confused by that

I am greatly confused by that statement, "The reforms that many consider necessary to return Thailand to full democratic normalcy appear to be hampered, under threat of force, by shadowy political forces while those usually relied upon to impart an independent account of what is going on in the country are seemingly politicized and failing to tackle key issues."
What does "full democratic normalcy" mean?
What does "hampered and under threat of force" by shadowy political figures mean as opposed to by a rather wide montage of politicians, social activists, state agencies, ultra-royalists and apathetic "Don't get me involved in this" characters, and the oodles who complain about "the government" when any Thai government has little choice as far as human rights are concerned. What makes any serious observer of the larger Thai scene really think that individual politicians and the mass of them together care anything about human rights or democracy?
You can't blame a single dog when there is loud barking comes from the kennel.

A man name Glen Ford, an

A man name Glen Ford, an editor at Black Agenda Report in the United States, made a frank and astute comment on AI and HRW last week, Mercenaries for Empire: Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. I think that he's absolutely right, as he very often is.

I am not really surprised, but very disappointed nonetheless at the seeming complete collapse of Shinawatra II in the face of the ongoing coup attempt. The Thai people truly have no one to fall back upon but themselves.

Pheu Thai to defy court ...

Pheu Thai to defy court ... I'm not holding my breath, but ... It won't be over if the rich, thin lady can find her voice and sing. Better late than never.

This may be yet another case

This may be yet another case of the Bngkok Post printing what it hopes will happen ... their usual substitution of sympathetic magic ritual for reportage ... but, unfortunately, it does seem consistent with the style of The Great Collaborator herself.

Yingluck steps in

Before her speech to an Asean integration forum, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra told senior Pheu Thai Party members to back off, delay a parliament vote on constitutional amendment, and avoid what could be a devasating confrontation with the Constitution Court.

If it is true, it ought to be headlined Yingluck walks out ... on the people who died to restore the Thai Constitution.

She walked. “Don't get mad

She walked. “Don't get mad ... get even”. I hope to hear news of the new redshirt party soon.

No one has the peoples' interests at heart but the people themselves.

Re. that link: Tony would

Re. that link: Tony would have a tough time beating that editorial. The simplistic nature of the commentary evokes strong anti-imperialist feelings, which it should. But as to HRW and AI being in the imperialist back pocket, I doubt things are that simple.
Was the spread of Islam not done in a violent imperialist manner?
This is not to dismiss the realities of what so-called Christians and the like have set upon the earth, but does raise the issue that it is not just the west or the whites or the democracies, as they call themselves, that is making life tough for everyone. Thailand has acted imperialistically. So have the other regional powers. The difference, perhaps, is that "we" in the west claim such noble and high standards of morality and will to make the world a better place that the mantra has deafened only our own ears but everyone else can hear the lies and see the consequences of our terrible folly.

I am intrigued at two of the

I am intrigued at two of the descriptions given in this article.
First Zawacki is accused of colluding with 'Abhisit-era' officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. What does 'Abhisit-era' tell us? If they are still there, then they must now be 'Yingluck-era' officials. If they have been there any length of time (and many serve there for life) then they were previously 'Somchai-era' officials, and 'Samak-era' officials and 'Sorayuth-era' officials. Some may even have been 'Thaksin-era' officials. Do these epithets tell us anything?
Secondly, Kwanravee Wangudom is described as a 'prominent and highly respected Thai human rights activist', a meaningful description and one with I wholeheartedly agree. What has not been mentioned, however, is that she was also a member of the Board of Amnesty International Thailand for at least part of the period when the article complains of Amnesty International's inaction with respect to lèse majesté prisoners. Would this description somehow impair the veracity of her information? Would it make criticisms of Amnesty International less forceful?

Alec: your second comment

Alec: your second comment intrigues me. You seem to be rejecting the statements of whistle blowers and those who speak against an organization they were once a part of?

Dear Albert, What rejection

Dear Albert,

What rejection of what statement? What whistle-blowing?

Nowhere do I reject what Kwanrawee and Streckfuss have said. I refer to Kwanrawee an ‘accurate and impartial’ source.

In no way can their statements be called whistle-blowing or ‘speak[ing] against an organization they were once a part of’. They make no reference to AI.

So perhaps we can move beyond the ‘you seem to’ arguments if I make clear that:
(a) from the evidence available to me, the information cited from Kwanrawee and Streckfuss is unimpeachable;
(b) I know both personally and believe them to be honest, trustworthy and praiseworthy defenders of human rights;
(c) both have the right to say whatever they like about AI or HRW or the human rights situation in Thailand.

Maybe the later comments make this clearer, but the point I was making is that Andrew Spooner was using the testimony of 2 AI Board members (one past, one current until the next AGM) in a piece challenging the accuracy and impartiality of AI and HRW. If AI in general is an untrustworthy organization, then can these people’s comments be trusted? If they can be trusted, then how untrustworthy is AI?

C’est tout.

I take it that you are being

I take it that you are being serious and not just a smart Alec. If you are serious, then the logic being used is crippled. The person who criticized HR groups is reliable and worked for HR orgs, so those orgs must also be reliable? Wow!

Albert I don't get it

Albert

I don't get it either.

Dear Albert, No, the logic is

Dear Albert,

No, the logic is fine. There is no claim that HRW and AI are infallible. I question the logic of using (unidentified) Board Members of AI as sources in an article claiming that AI and HRW are unreliable organizations.

The fault lies in characterizing an entire organization as one thing or the other, such as the assumption that ‘Abhisit-era’ MFA officials are by definition people that AI must not talk to. And because someone from AI did just that, then AI becomes a disreputable outfit.

That’s faulty logic.

Alec The point you make of

Alec

The point you make of whether the MFA officials were long-term career civil servants is moot. Zawacki colluded with government officials in making a decision if a prisoner imprisoned by that same government was a PoC. Yes, I am aware there would be, in usual circumstances, a distance between a civil service and the executive. However, given how politicised the Thai civil service is including the epithet "Abhisit-era" points to the very likely political affiliations of the MFA.

Not sure if you're aware of distinction between Amnesty International Thailand whom Kwanravee was a member of and Amnesty International International Secretariat (AI IS) whom Zawacki works for.

AI IS is a private company which has no charitable or trust status - it is a 100% private and profit-making company. It is the controlling part of Amnesty in total and employs researchers and the like to focus on particular regions. It owns the AI brands and logos and sucks up most of the cash that gets raised by local chapters. AI IS achieved notoriety for derecognising union representation at its offices in London and trying to cover up a US$1.4million pay-out it made to two former board members.

http://www.unitetheunion.org/news__events/latest_news/amnesty_international_threaten.aspx

http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/finance/news/content/8390/charity_commission_has_no_jurisdiction_over_board_members_payment_from_amnesty

Amnesty Thailand is like a semi-autonomous chapter under the AI IS umbrella. They have previously been very critical of Zawacki's interventions and made complaints about his behaviour. However, Zawacki answers to AI IS and not AI Thailand so this had little bearing on the situation.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/04/29/open-letter-amnesty-international-in-thailand/

Hope that explains things a bit more.

Dear Andrew, Thank you for

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for your responses, which I will have to answer in 2 parts.

'The point you make of whether the MFA officials were long-term career civil servants is moot.'

I assume 'moot' here means 'open to question' rather than 'not really relevant any more'. Let me continue questioning.

Darunee wasn't arrested under the Abhisit govt. Her detention (including 84 days before being charged) and rejection of the initial bail requests occurred during the Samak govt. Her trial occurred when Abhisit was PM and so did the Appeal Court ruling that nullified the first conviction. Her second trial and re-conviction happened in Dec last year during the current Yingluck govt.

Nor is it clear when Zawacki was talking to MFA. The e-mail you got hold of was Sept 2009 so it must have been before then, but possibly before Kasit became FM.

I think we agree that the conduct of this case has been appalling. But I don't see why the Abhisit govt (together with any purported influence they may have on the opinions of MFA officials) should be singled out. It's gone on under many govts. Damn one, damn them all.

You then make the assumption that I may not be aware of the distinction between Amnesty International (AI) Thailand and the AI International Secretariat. Unfortunately an incorrect assumption.

(More to follow.)

Alec I've just seen you

Alec

I've just seen you actually have a connection to Amnesty as an advisor or some sort.

Do you work for AI IS or Amnesty Thailand?

I'm also surprised, given you have a connection to Amnesty, you were not previously aware of the distinction and separation between AI IS and Amnesty Thailand.

Having just looked back at my article Kwanravee's criticisms are made only in connection to HRW and not Amnesty.

So am, once again, bemused why you implied she was being critical of AI here when she wasn't.

Strange.

I've also read your comments elsewhere on PoC status. I was aware of that any hint of "violence" meant a withdrawal of PoC status.

In regards to Da Torpedo I have an interview with her where she renounces violence. I'm also curious if AI consider the due process around LM trials - and Da Torpedo's specifically - to be fair. Obviously a trial where the accused is not allowed to challenge evidence in a fair way is highly dubious.

Dear Andrew again, By now

Dear Andrew again,

By now you’ve been doing some googling, discovered my transparent connections to AI, and are surprised at an apparent lack of understanding on my part, a lack that existed only because of your incorrect assumption.

(And for the record, I do not work for AI at all; I am a (fee-paying) member of AI Thailand and have been asked to serve as (unpaid) adviser to the AI Thailand staff, partly on how they might deal with the IS).

Now, given that we’re both singing from the same hymn-sheet with regard to the, er, tensions between the IS and AI Thailand, let me note that your criticism of Amnesty is generally broad-brush, making no clear distinction between the IS and AI Thailand (which has had its share of failings, heaven knows). Your decision to quote Khun Kwanrawee, without pointing out her involvement with one of the organizations your article criticizes, was perhaps an opportunity missed.

Then you get confused again. You are ‘bemused why you [I] implied she was being critical of AI here when she wasn't’. No need for bemusement. I didn’t imply that.

Your article makes a general criticism of HRW and AI, alleging inaccuracy and partiality. Then you quote someone to support your case, who comes from one of these inaccurate and partial organizations.

So if your source, being part of AI, is to be tarred with the same brush as being inaccurate and partial, your case is weakened, because your source is tainted. But if your source is accurate and impartial (the version I support) and has held office in an organization that you claim is neither, your case is weakened, because obviously part of the organization isn’t inaccurate and partial.

And you also didn’t mention that David Streckfuss, your other source (again one where I agree with your assessment), is also a former Board member of AI Thailand.

Best wishes.

Just a quickie Alec, before

Just a quickie Alec, before you and Andrew continue...Zawacki praises King Bhumibol for his human rights "contribution over many decades" in a AI report.As you know 2 "drug dealers" were put to death in 2009,and yet the King was/is capable of granting them a pardon,but didn't use it.Also the king has allowed his name to be used for decades for the harsh LM laws,it's quite obvious to all, that the king has chosen not to officially speak up against this.Can you and Zawacki therefore really stand by that AI statement ? and if not can you remove this falsehood from AI's report.

Dear Darren, No problem, this

Dear Darren,

No problem, this is not a private fight. Anyone can join in.

Zawacki made the statement. Let him defend it.

HM the King has pardoned some death row prisoners but not others. As an opponent of the death penalty I welcome the pardons and deplore the executions.

There is the famous royal birthday speech (and I have no idea how ‘official’ these speeches are) that appears to invite criticism of royal decisions and thus to question how Article 112 should be used. My understanding is that the monarch plays no role in the judicial process until a request for a Royal Pardon is made. In some 112 cases these pardons have been granted, in others they seem to have been left in limbo, which has the effect of rejection.

I have no authority to remove anything from any AI report or statement. As far as I understand things, AI Thailand has no authority over reports or statements from the IS.

You see Alec, this is the

You see Alec, this is the kind of thing is why so many are being so critical of AI.Without going into too much detail,most sensible observers think using one line in a speech to defend AI's gushing praise of HM is crass.Nevermind that the speech was actually a criticism of his "opponent" Thaksin,when Mr T was finding criticism hard to take.The King even went on later in the same speech to say LM should be used.It's really frustrating and dissapointing to hear you make the same kind of defence.Come on be serious for a moment.A written statement distancing himself from LM is the very least one would expect from a HR "champion".Are we really to take these off the cuff remarks as facts ? Should we then not take HM's earlier speeches as fact too. Remember this one: "I told you how to wage war on drugs,the idea came from this man." ...or when 2500 (or however many) lives were claimed in the WOD "That's trifle" "if the PM hadn't done what he did how many more lives..." ect ect...You see Alec, HM is clearly backing the WOD,which from all evidence I've seen WAS in fact an idea coming from in or around Palace qtrs.You can't have it both ways.But anyway you want us to believe HM waited 60 yrs before giving this one liner.Do we look stupid ?

.....and then there's the

.....and then there's the Kings colors plastered all over the troops that murdered innocent protestors.,that was under the control of Queen Sirikit's 3 favorite generals.Alec face it...it's endless...the cat's out of the bag.

Dear Darren, I am sorry that

Dear Darren,

I am sorry that you are frustrated and disappointed but what I wrote was no defence of Zawacki’s statement, which I said was up to him. Perhaps I should also point pout that I am writing on my own behalf, not as a spokesperson for AI.

You asked if I stood by Zawacki’s statement and seem disappointed not to have received some kind of black-or-white answer.

Some actions by HM the King seem to support human rights. As one example, I pointed out that Royal Pardons in capital cases are to be welcomed. They are in line with the AI position on the death penalty. On the other hand, rejections of pardons in other cases are not in line.

This is not ‘gushing praise’ nor is it blanket condemnation, neither of which can be justified as far as I can see.

Alec Even further bemused by

Alec

Even further bemused by your response.

AI IS is not AI Thailand.

Ei is not criticising AI in this article.

All the evidence points to LM prosecutions skyrocketing under the Abhisit regime, so yep, should be singled out.

Whistleblowers from inside organisations can sometimes provide far more powerful criticisms than those from without.

Or are you seriously claiming that David's and Ei's evidence-based comments here are outright lies?

Zawacki made his comments about Da T whilst Abhisit was in power. Furthermore in Jan 2009 told me personally he was speaking privately with "the government".

I'm sorry Alec but you're defence of the indefensible is looking thin and weak.

Andrew

Dear Andrew, ‘Even further

Dear Andrew,

‘Even further bemused by your response.’

Perhaps careful reading will solve your problem.

‘AI IS is not AI Thailand.’

Yes, we’ve already established that.

‘Ei is not criticising AI in this article.’

Yes, we’ve also agreed on that, though it is irrelevant to the point I was making.

‘All the evidence points to LM prosecutions skyrocketing under the Abhisit regime, so yep, should be singled out.’

Perhaps so, but your mention of ‘Abhisit-era’ MFA officials made no reference to the number of LM prosecutions. It concerned the Daranee case, which has involved multiple administrations.

‘Whistleblowers from inside organisations can sometimes provide far more powerful criticisms than those from without.’

Indeed they can, but where in your article is there any whistleblowing? Since you don’t identify either of your sources’ current and past affiliations to AI, how could anyone know they were whistle-blowers? But this is irrelevant, because as you keep repeating (and I keep agreeing) the cited statements are nothing to do with AI.

‘Or are you seriously claiming that David's and Ei's evidence-based comments here are outright lies?’

Look at my words: ‘if your source is accurate and impartial (the version I support)’. So when I say the source is ‘accurate and impartial’, you want to know if I am claiming that they are telling ‘outright lies’.

Let me say it again just to make sure. I believe that your sources are accurate and impartial. The information appears to be accurate. These are not lies, outright or otherwise, and I have never claimed, implied or even dreamed that they were. I hope that’s clear.

[Part 2 to follow]

[Part 2] ‘Zawacki made his

[Part 2]

‘Zawacki made his comments about Da T whilst Abhisit was in power.’

Fine. But that’s not the point I raised. I don’t know whether he spoke to the ‘Abhisit-era’ MFA officials in the period between Daranee’s arrest and the dissolution of the Somchai government, or after the Abhisit government was installed. Do you know?

‘Furthermore in Jan 2009 told me personally he was speaking privately with "the government".’

Shock horror. Are AI researchers not supposed to talk to ‘the government’ or government officials? AI reports from around the world are full of references to meetings with government representatives and government officials, some public, some not. It is a valuable and well-established method of acquiring information which, as with information from any source, AI will carefully evaluate.

Or is it the ‘privately’ that is the problem? Like AI is more likely to get accurate information or a candid opinion if they talk to government on camera?

Or maybe the ‘Jan 2009’ is the main point? Only a month in power and AI is already talking to the new government!

‘I'm sorry Alec but you're defence of the indefensible is looking thin and weak.’

Now you’ve got me bemused. What is the ‘indefensible’ that I am supposed to be defending?

And I think you mean ‘your’, not ‘you’re’.

Best wishes

Alec Still bemused. Your

Alec

Still bemused.

Your comments really make no sense to me at all, I'm afraid.

They also seem to be descending into ever more convoluted circles of rationalisation.

You stated re: Ei "What has not been mentioned, however, is that she was also a member of the Board of Amnesty International Thailand for at least part of the period when the article complains of Amnesty International's inaction with respect to lèse majesté prisoners.Would this description somehow impair the veracity of her information? Would it make criticisms of Amnesty International less forceful?"

That's a very clear questioning of Ei's impartiality with the obvious implication that her being a member of AI reduces her ability to comment on AI matters. That further implies that "whistleblowers" can be discredited as reliable sources just because they have links to the organisation they are criticising (even though, in this instance Ei is not criticising Amnesty which kind of makes you look a bit "unfocused").

You then deny that was what you were implying.

So what was it you meant to suggest by adopting that line?

Zawacki told me at beginning of 2009 was that he felt holding private discussions with the Abhisit govt would be more fruitful than engaging in a public campaign on LM. That was obviously a complete and total failure given the massive rise of LM cases during the Abhisit regime. What Zawacki didn;t make clear was that he was also secretly relying on his Abhisit-era MFA sources to decide on the Prisoner of Conscience status of Da Torpedo. This was only unearthed by a "whistleblower" (that's linked to in my article) and yet, strangely, you seem more interested in making issue with either my spelling or who is an AI member than the appalling implications of AI using a govt source in this way to make such a decision.

Thankfully Zawacki has now resigned. Let's hope the person who replaces him is up to the job.

Dear Andrew, ‘Your comments

Dear Andrew,

‘Your comments really make no sense to me at all, I'm afraid.’

So I see. Perhaps things will be clearer if you go by what I say, rather than drawing unwarranted implications and assumptions.

For example: ‘You stated re: Ei "What has not been mentioned, however, is that she was also a member of the Board of Amnesty International Thailand for at least part of the period when the article complains of Amnesty International's inaction with respect to lèse majesté prisoners.Would this description somehow impair the veracity of her information? Would it make criticisms of Amnesty International less forceful?" That's a very clear questioning of Ei's impartiality with the obvious implication that her being a member of AI reduces her ability to comment on AI matters.’

No, there is no questioning of her impartiality. My words were ‘Kwanravee Wangudom is described as a 'prominent and highly respected Thai human rights activist', a meaningful description and one with I wholeheartedly agree’ and ‘if your source is accurate and impartial (the version I support)’. Those are direct statements which are incompatible with your assumption that I am questioning her impartiality. The assumption is therefore wrong.

And nowhere is there any implication that she cannot comment on AI matters.

‘Zawacki told me at beginning of 2009 was that he felt holding private discussions with the Abhisit govt would be more fruitful than engaging in a public campaign on LM. That was obviously a complete and total failure given the massive rise of LM cases during the Abhisit regime.’

AI’s mandate concerns the promotion and protection of human rights. There is no necessity to do this via public campaigns. Sometimes publicity can be counterproductive. These can be difficult calls and there is always the chance that they go wrong (as can decisions to mount a public campaign). At that time the government had produced the first national human rights plan and Abhisit had spoken against the death penalty.

A decision was made (not by Zawacki alone) not to start a public campaign. In hindsight, it looks like the wrong decision. But I can see there were good reasons for it.

[Part 2 follows]

[Part 2] ‘What Zawacki didn;t

[Part 2]

‘What Zawacki didn;t make clear was that he was also secretly relying on his Abhisit-era MFA sources to decide on the Prisoner of Conscience status of Da Torpedo. This was only unearthed by a "whistleblower" (that's linked to in my article) and yet, strangely, you seem more interested in making issue with either my spelling or who is an AI member than the appalling implications of AI using a govt source in this way to make such a decision.’

Back to the Abhisit-era MFA sources. I have pointed out that contact may have been made before the Abhisit government was installed. I don’t know. I have asked you if you know and you have not (yet) provided any further information.

Your claim is that (a) the contact was made during the Abhisit government; (b) the MFA officials that Zawacki spoke to were influenced in their views on this issue by the Minister of the day; and (c) that the views of the MFA contacts were the determining factor in AI’s decision that Daranee did not qualify as a Prisoner of Conscience (the ‘collusion’ argument).

All these assumptions may be correct, but the e-mail you cite in http://asiancorrespondent.com/53235/amnesty-international-in-thailand-colluding-with-the-state-and-now-acting-like-a-state/ gives no evidence for any of them.

So until there is evidence, your claim is based on assumptions, which, I repeat, may be true, but also may be false. And if any one of them is false, your claim is false.

And I am not ‘more interested’ in correcting your spelling than in these issues (another incorrect assumption). I have dealt with both, the first in one throwaway line and the second at some length. But if you don’t want any help with your language, I will happily desist.