Thailand
Human Rights Commission-
A Promise Not Kept
Human Rights Features
8 May, 2003
The 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".