Font size: 
On one hand, the government cultivates and locally enforces a positive, upbeat, friendly, traditional, courteous and benevolent image that sells hundreds of thousands of plane tickets and tour packages, which benefit various business, commercial, private and official interests.
On the other hand, by its consistently poor human rights record and nonchalance toward internationally accepted standards of democracy, Thailand undermines much of its constructive image and reputation by acting as it pleases, internally, with impunity.
The recent southern court verdict that acquitted Thai police involved in killing 19 young Muslims in 2004 only underscores the divisions within the kingdom. Those willing to undermine human rights reach to the country’s top leadership; those needing their rights protected reach down to the bottom of society, living in broken homes devoid of hope.
Having experience in both Thai civil and criminal court procedures, this writer decries the lack of overall interest in, let alone determination to adequately enforce, legitimate human rights protections. Thai courts may be considered relatively impartial compared to such idiosyncratic agencies as the Royal Thai Police – with their zealousness in pursuing cases involving insults to the king and political expediencies – yet they largely ignore the need, as defined by the U.N. Charter on Human Rights, to ensure that the police have done their job correctly and ethically.
Have the rights of the accused been violated during interrogation or routine investigation? No matter, let the accused take the complaint to court if this is so. Has the accused been subject to criminal or other abuses by police or others in an investigation? No matter, let the accused file charges if the need is felt.
Three years ago this writer and Thai-born wife were publicly accused over broadcast media in Thailand of harming the nation, the religion and the monarchy. A radio hostess asked her listeners to gang up by the tens of thousands to sign a petition to get both of us thrown out of the country. What did the provincial governor at the time, who had authority over media broadcasting, do? He said, “If you feel you have a complaint, take it to court.” He refused to take any action against those who were spreading unfounded lies about us.
As socially high profile as we were then – owning and editing a local newspaper – we had no real recourse to state enforcement of laws against hate speech or incitement. While many of Thailand’s civil and criminal laws do address hate speech generically and incitement in particular, almost no one is prepared to physically act against those who engage in such wrongdoing.
This fact is recognized by the country’s minorities, notably foreigners and resident expatriates, who keep a low profile and avoid altercations with xenophobic Thais or with authorities who will not act to prevent civil rights violations or criminal actions. Only after the fact, after damage has been done – and then only when the victim has gone to considerable lengths to elicit state action – will police finally begin an investigation.
Normally in Thailand when one individual undermines the rights of another and the victim wishes redress, police will either discourage formal charges or will recommend compromise. The principle is not bad in and of itself, but it leads to social acceptance of laissez-faire when it comes to rights protections and before-the-fact enforcement.
People do not receive any such protection – that is, their rights are not protected beforehand – and they thus learn to accept it when they discover that the protections they thought they were entitled to do not really exist, or at best, exist but won’t be recognized. They thus learn to go with the flow; citizens, governors and judges.
These days, though, the flow is being stop-gapped by various factions – political, ethnic and religious – that are tired of being victims of a pretentious and uncaring central government. Groups like the People’s Alliance for Democracy, for example, having begun a campaign last year to see a government like that of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra kept out of Parliament, are finding that even long-term protests will generally end up in limbo.
After Thaksin was thrown out, his replacement Samak Sundaravej was thrown out. His replacement, Thaksin’s brother-in-law Somchai Wongsawat, can hardly be expected to deviate from the course of action desired by his voluntarily exiled in-law.
Other, larger groups, such as the country’s Muslim community, face even more harrowing apathy and undermining of human rights. Somchai Neelapaichit, the prominent southern lawyer who was defending Muslim activists, is dead at the hands of state authorities who will never be identified, much less punished. Hundreds of other Muslims, as well as over 2,000 citizens caught up in Thaksin’s war against drugs, are all dead because of authoritarian actions and official disregard for human rights as well as blatant refusal to accede to legitimate international investigations of rights violations.
--
(Frank G. Anderson is the Thailand representative of American Citizens Abroad. He was a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer to Thailand from 1965-67, working in community development. A freelance writer and founder of northeast Thailand's first local English language newspaper, the Korat Post – www.thekoratpost.com – he has spent over eight years in Thailand "embedded" with the local media. He has an MBA in information management and an associate degree in construction technology. ©Copyright Frank G. Anderson.)
