Thailand Human Rights Commission-
A Promise Not KeptHuman Rights Features
8 May, 2003The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of Thailand was constituted in July 2001 under the Human Rights Protection Act of 1999. Two years into its existence, the NHRC has yet to develop the capacity to address the human rights situation in Thailand. The Thai government's criticism and unwillingness to grant the NHRC the independence that the Paris Principles deem imperative has raised serious questions about the body's efficacy and credibility. The NHRC is largely a response to domestic criticism of the May 1992 military crackdown on massive pro-democracy demonstrations in the capital, Bangkok.
In September 1992, the Cabinet of then Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun passed a resolution which committed the government to the setting up of a national mechanism for the protection and promotion of human rights. After two years of uncertainty and rigorous lobbying by NGOs, the establishment of a national human rights commission was finally mandated in Articles 199 and 200 of the new Constitution adopted by the government in October 1997.
Article 199 of the Constitution stipulates that the NHRC consist of a
Chairperson and ten other members appointed by the King on the advice of the Senate from among persons having knowledge and experience in the field of human rights protection, and taking into consideration the inclusion of representatives of non-governmental human rights organisations. According to the Act, each member holds office for a term of six years from the date of their appointment by the King and serves only one term. In the first two years of its existence, though beset by governmental attempts to cripple its effectiveness, the NHRC has shown signs of independence from the government by issuing statements critical of government policies.In 2002, the NHRC adopted a strong stand on the violent clashes between police officers and protestors against the Thai Malaysian Gas Pipeline Project in
Hat Yai, Sangkhla province on 20 December 2002. In 2003, the NHRC expressed concern over the killings of more than 1,000 suspected drug dealers as part of a three-month 'war on drugs' launched by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in February 2003. The Nation newspaper reported that on the first day of the "war," four suspects were shot dead, 264 were taken into custody and 727,742 methamphetamine tablets locally known as 'yaa baa' or crazy medicine were seized. On 4 March 2003, nearly a month after the anti-drug operations began; the death toll had exceeded 1,100. Among those killed were an eight-month pregnant woman, a nine-year-old boy and a 75-year-old woman - all of whom had been unarmed.Although Section 15 of the National Human Rights Commission Act in accordance with Article 200(1) of the Constitution empowers the NHRC "to examine the commission or omission of acts which violate human rights or which do not comply with obligations under international treatment to which Thailand is a party, and propose appropriate remedial measures to the person or agency committing or omitting such acts for action," the Commission has met with strong resistance. The Prime Minister has made explicit remarks belittling the Commission and its members. Commissioner Dr. Pradit Chareonthaitawee has been labelled a "non-patriot" and a "whistleblower" and accused of "giving away Thailand's independence" ostensibly for expressing concern at a UN conference in Pakistan in March 2003 about the continuing drug war, the extrajudicial killings of drug suspects and the failure of the police to bring the suspects to courts.
On 9 March 2003, in his weekly national radio address, the prime minister branded Dr. Pradit's comments "sickening". Dr. Pradit has also been accused of "helping" the drug dealers. In March 2003, he received anonymous death threats over the phone, in an attempt to prevent him from "communicating with the UN." The threats have included that of a "bomb being put under his car, methamphetamine tablets being sent to his house and of is house being burnt down."
In February 2003 Dr. Pradit was threatened with impeachment for comparing the prime minister to former strongman and dictator Field Marshal Sarit Tanarat, who garnered popular support for his regime with his shoot-to-kill policy against criminal suspects. According to the ruling Thai Rak Thai Party's legal adviser, Wichit Plungsrisakul: "Pradit's actions were biased and against national interests. Accusing the prime minister of being a dictator is an attempt to create political repercussions," Wichit said. While Mr Pradit has challenged the move, saying it would show Thailand as being under "dark influences" of dictatorship, the NHRC has condemned the government's
decision.According to Commissioner Charan Dithapichai, "such threats have rendered the jobs of independent agencies impossible to perform." He further added that "such a move is an indication of the government's hostile stance towards critics and independent authorities. If someone criticises the government, it orders MPs to sign an impeachment petition against that person," he said. NHRC Chairman Mr. Sanek Chamarik has strongly supported Mr. Pradit by saying that "monitoring and reporting on the anti-drug campaign independently was a duty of the Commission.
Dr. Pradit had thus acted in his capacity as a Human Rights Commissioner and had rightly given the information about the anti-drug campaign to the UN." Even as the NHRC unequivocally condemned the killings, and Amnesty International echoed this criticism, Prime Minister Thaksin has remained intransigent in his hostility to both domestic and international human rights concerns.
Police chief Sant Sarutanond, who as chief of the police force leads the frontline battle against drug trafficking, dutifully echoed Thaksin's new dictum by declaring during a TV interview that "people should stop worrying about what happens to drug traffickers." His blunt statement was supposed to be a rebuttal of the concern voiced by the NHRC. Though he assured the public that there was no policy of eliminating drug traffickers, police officers in the past two months have echoed their chief's tough talk. Surrender or die, said one. Pichai Sunthornsajjabun, a regional police commander, said he favoured a campaign to shorten the lives of drug traders.
On 14 February 2003, the Prime Minister admitted that 350 people had been killed in the war on drugs, but fiercely defended the campaign against traffickers. Though the figure amounts to 25 deaths per day as per official estimates, Prime Minister Thaksin attempted to downplay the role of police in the killings, saying that only 13 suspects were shot dead by authorities. The NHRC meanwhile has urged an immediate policy review and called for transparent and impartial police investigations "into every violent death." While Sections 22-26 of the Act gives the NHRC clear powers to investigate, mediate, secure cooperation, and propose remedies, but it is not clear whether the remedies will be enforced. Commissioner Surasee Kosolnavin has stated that "all deaths should be investigated to avoid wrongful use of force and abuse of the law. The police investigators must look into these killings and tell the people what really happened." The NHRC urged the Prime Minister to investigate errors made in compiling the blacklists of suspected drug sellers or users. It remains to be seen whether or not the government will comply. At present, only three Thai police officers have been arrested on murder charges.
In March 2003, the Interior Ministry banned the release of statistics on drug-related deaths, which has further raised concerns about extrajudicial execution and human rights violations. As constant and reliable information is the mainstay of any human rights commission, the government's reticence does not bode well for the NHRC's effectiveness.
The most crucial problem facing the NHRC is a lack of adequate resources.
Article 75 of Thailand's Human Rights Act states that the government shall allocate an "adequate budget" for the "independent administration" of the National Human Rights Commission. The Act however does not specify how such adequacy will be measured, leaving its determination open to arbitrary government manipulation, depending upon who has the authority to decide what funds are sufficient. It is unclear as to how much say the NHRC has in determining how much money it will be allocated each year. The government-appointed NHRC secretary-general, who holds the purse strings, has done little to help overcome these obstacles. If the brief period for which it has been in existence is anything to go by, the commission has remained under funded and hindered by bureaucratic red tape.Further, although section 23 of the Act provides that a complaint may be made orally or in writing and submitted at the Office of the NHRC, through registered
mail, to a commissioner, through a human rights NGO to be referred to the Office, or by any other methods prescribed by the NHRC, there are no provisions in the Act for the establishment of branch offices around the country.Among the other limitations of the Act are constraints on the NHRC's jurisdiction to investigate - the NHRC does not have the authority to pass judgment or impose penalties on anybody. The NHRC also has no power to compel persons and institutions to take action, for although it can report its findings and make suggestions on the issue, its only recourse if they fail to comply is to report to Parliament and leave it to the public to exert pressure.
Despite these problems, there is cautious hope among many NGOs that the NHRC will check human rights abuses in the country. The Commission's willingness to confront the government indicates that the NHRC is taking its role seriously. If the NHRC can secure the co-operation and resources it needs to independently and thoroughly conduct investigations, it may prove to be a positive force for human rights in Thailand.
With its first annual report due later in the year what the report chooses to state, examine or leave out will serve as a barometer of how the NHRC views or treats human rights issues in the Thai context.
Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has police working seven days a week and has threatened to punish ineffective officers with firings and demotions. In March 2003, he appealed to the public to understand the nature of the killings. "Human rights activists should care more about police lives, rather than the lives of traffickers". Although he has announced a willingness to accept the Special Rapporteur's visit, Prime Minister Thaksin nevertheless has stressed that rights concerns will not change his hard-line stance on drugs. "We don't think drug dealers' lives are more important than police lives," he said. "The government is firm in this (war on drugs) policy."
On 4 March 2003, The Nation newspaper quoted the Prime Minister as saying that the United Nations "is not my father. I'm not worried about any UN visit to Thailand on this issue. A UN envoy can come any time to make observations. I don't worry, whoever wants to criticize, let them [continue to] criticize," he told reporters. Thai Interior Minister Wan Muhammad Nor Matha, who heads the anti-drug operation has endorsed the disappearances and deaths and has said that "it is better for the traffickers/dealers to die. They (drug dealers) should be put behind bars or even vanish without a trace. Who cares? They are destroying our country".