[FACT comments: While two reporters were killed and a dozen wounded in Bangkok’s violence, this report is especially poignant. We think this is the first reporter killed in the Southern insurgency.]
Reporter shot dead
- Bangkok Post: May 24, 2010
- http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/crimes/176683/reporter-shot-dead
A newspaper reporter has been shot dead in Yala.
Aruming Yama, 30, who worked for the Hat Yai Journal, was shot in the head and body yesterday while riding his motorcycle in Muang district, police said.
Four spent cartridges from a 9mm pistol and three from an 11mm pistol were found near the shooting scene, leading police to suspect he was shot by two men riding on another motorcycle.
Police said southern separatists were probably behind the attack.
But they do not yet rule out Mr Aruming’s personal affairs as a possible cause of the shooting.
| ชีวิตที่เหลืออยู่ของแม่ เมื่อนักข่าวลูกกตัญญูต้องจากโลกนี้ไป (สกู๊ปแนวหน้า)
Neaw Na: May 23, 2010 |
 |
|
| บ้านไม้ใต้ถุนสูงฝาสังกะสีหลังนี้คือบ้านของ อารูมิง ยามา ผู้สื่อข่าวหนังสือพิมพ์หาดใหญ่เจอนัล และผู้ช่วยช่างภาพของนักข่าวหนังสือพิมพ์เดลินิวส์ประจำ จ.ยะลา ซึ่งต้องจากโลกนี้ไปด้วยน้ำมือของผู้ประสงค์ร้ายด้วยอาวุธปืนพกสั้น เมื่อวันที่ 2 พ.ค.ที่ผ่านมา บนเส้นทางลัดสายท่าสาป-ลำใหม่ ในเขต อ.เมือง จ.ยะลา
บ้านหลังนี้อยู่ในท้องที่บ้านทุ่งเดา ต.ลำพะยา อ.เมือง จ.ยะลา มีแม่คือ นางยะหะรอ หมานเต๊ะ และยายของอารูมิง อยู่อาศัยมานานกว่า 20 ปี โต๊ะข่าวภาคใต้ สถาบันอิศรา ได้เดินทางไปเยี่ยมยือน ทุกคนต่างพูดถึง กล่าวขวัญถึง และบอกเล่าถึงความเป็น “คนดี” ของอารูมิง… เหตุการณ์ร้ายที่เกิดขึ้นกับครอบครัวและลูกชายคนเดียว ทำให้ ยะหะรอ ยังทำใจไม่ได้ นางเล่าด้วยน้ำเสียงอ่อนเบาสำเนียงใต้ เพราะพื้นเพเป็นชาว อ.เทพา จ.สงขลา ถึงความทุกข์ที่ได้รับเมื่อขาดลูกชายผู้เป็นแก้วตาดวงใจ และได้ดูแลเป็นห่วงเป็นใยกันมาตลอด 30 ปี “ฉันกับแม่ (ยายของอารูมิง) ช่วยกันเลี้ยงเขามาตั้งแต่เล็กๆ ฉันมาอยู่ที่นี่ 20 กว่าปีแล้ว เขาเป็นเด็กดี เรียบร้อย ไม่เกเรให้ลำบากใจ ว่านอนสอนง่าย มีน้ำใจกับทุกคน เป็นคนซื่อๆ เขารู้ว่าแม่กับยายลำบาก ตอนเรียนช่างยนต์ที่วิทยาลัยเทคนิคยะลาก็ทำงานไปด้วย และเรียนต่อด้านเทคโน โลยีทางการศึกษาที่มหาวิทยาลัยราชภัฏยะลา ตอนนั้นก็ทำงานส่งตัวเองเรียนจนจบปริญญาตรีเมื่อปี 2551 ทำงานเป็นช่างซ่อมรถที่อูรถยนต์ในตัวเมืองยะลาและเช่าบ้านอยู่ที่นั่น พร้อมกับเป็นนักข่าวไปด้วย” “ทุกเช้าที่มีตลาดนัดแถวบ้าน อารูมิงจะขี่มอเตอร์ไซค์มา ระยะทางสิบกว่ากิโลเมตร เพื่อช่วยฉันขนของไปขายแล้วกลับไปทำงานต่อ พอว่างก็ไปช่วยถ่ายภาพ ทำข่าวกับเพื่อน เพราะเขาชอบถ่ายรูปและชอบการเป็นนักข่าว” ด้วยนิสัยที่เห็นมาแต่เด็กของอารูมิง ทำให้ ยะหะรอ ไม่เคยคิดมาก่อนว่าเหตุร้ายถึงชีวิตจะเกิดกับลูกชายคนเดียวได้ นางบอกว่ายังคิดหาสาเหตุการตายของลูกชายไม่ได้ว่ามาจากเรื่องใด รู้แต่ว่าสิ่งที่เกิดขึ้นเป็นการกระทำที่โหดเหี้ยมต่อชีวิตมนุษย์ด้วยกัน “งานที่เขาทำพอเลี้ยงตัวเอง ฉันก็ขายของพอเลี้ยงตัวเองและแม่ เขากำลังเร่งทำงานเก็บเงินเพื่อไปสู่ขอแฟน แต่มาเกิดเหตุร้ายเสียก่อน พอไม่มีเขาก็ไม่ได้ไปขายของ ลำบากกับการขนของด้วยมอเตอร์ไซค์คันเดียว ต้องขนหลายเที่ยว แต่ก็ต้องทำต่อไปเพื่อจะได้มีรายได้เลี้ยงชีวิต” ข้าวของที่นางนำไปขายในตลาดคือสิ่งที่จำเป็นต้องใช้ในครัว เช่น หอมแดง ขมิ้น ตะไคร้ กะปิ น้ำบูดู เป็นต้น ซึ่งเธอรับซื้อมาจากเพื่อนบ้านอีกที แล้วไปขายตามตลาดนัดแถวบ้านอาทิตย์ละ 5 วัน ตอนอารูมิงยังมีชีวิตอยู่ เขาจะช่วยนางขนของ ทำให้นางสะดวกและเบาแรงมาก นางสามารถขี่มอเตอร์ไซค์ไป-กลับเพียงเที่ยวเดียวได้ แต่เมื่อลูกชายจากไปแล้ว ทำให้นางอาจจำเป็นต้องหารถโชเล่ย์ หรือรถจักรยานยนต์พ่วงข้างสักคัน เพื่อขนของให้ได้มากขึ้นกว่าเดิม และหมดในเที่ยวเดียว “ถ้ามีรถโชเล่ย์ก็จะสะดวก เพราะฉันจะได้ขนของได้ไม่ลำบาก แค่นี้ก็เพียงพอสำหรับฉันและแม่ที่จะได้มีอาชีพเลี้ยงตัวกันไปจนกว่าจะหมดลมหายใจ” ยะหะรอ กล่าวพร้อมรำพึงด้วยเสียงสั่นเครือ “ไม่อยากให้เหตุการณ์แบบนี้เกิดขึ้นกับใครๆ อีก ไม่ว่าในพื้นที่นี้หรือเป็นคนพื้นที่ไหนๆ เพราะมันมีแต่ความสูญเสีย” ความเป็นคนดีที่ไม่น่าจากโลกนี้ไปเร็วนักของอารูมิง ได้รับการยืนยันจากปากของ เดชา อาลี น้าชายที่อยู่บ้านใกล้กัน และเห็นเขามาตั้งแต่เด็กว่า ไม่น่าเกิดเรื่องเช่นนี้กับอารูมิง เพราะเด็กหนุ่มคนนี้ไม่เคยคิดร้ายหรือมีเรื่องมีราวกับใคร “เห็นเขามาตั้งแต่เด็ก เป็นคนมีน้ำใจ ขอให้ช่วยอะไรไม่เคยบ่น มีน้ำใจกับทุกคน ขยัน อดทนและเอาการเอางาน เขารู้ว่าเป็นลูกคนจน แม่ลำบาก ต้องทำงานไปด้วยเรียนไปด้วย จึงตั้งใจเรียนกว่าเด็กฐานะดีแถวนี้หลายคน ที่สำคัญยังช่วยเหลือแม่มาตลอด ช่วยขนของไปตลาดตั้งแต่เช้าแล้วค่อยไปทำงาน เขาชอบถ่ายรูปและเรียนจบมาก็ไปสมัครเป็นนักข่าวที่แม้จะได้เงินไม่มากแต่ก็รักที่จะทำ คิดว่าสาเหตุการตายอาจจะมาจากการที่เขาพกวิทยุสื่อสาร มีกล้องถ่ายรูป อาจมีคนคิดว่าเขาเป็นสายของทางราชการก็เป็นไปได้ ส่วนประเด็นส่วนตัวไม่คิดว่าจะเป็นสาเหตุที่ทำให้ต้องถึงกับฆ่ากัน” เดชาบอกว่า หลังจากเกิดเรื่องร้ายๆ รู้สึกสงสารแม่และยายของอารูมิงที่ยังอยู่ ผู้หญิงวัยชราสองคนต้องต่อสู้ชีวิตต่อไป หากมีเงินทุนสำรองบ้างคงช่วยให้ชีวิตที่เหลือไม่ลำบากมากนัก อับดุลการิม รามันห์สิริวงศ์ เลขาธิการสมาคมหนังสือพิมพ์ภาคใต้แห่งประเทศไทย กล่าวถึงอารูมิงว่า เป็นคนที่รักในอาชีพนักข่าวและอยากเป็นนักข่าวมาก ก่อนหน้านี้อารูมิงได้โทรศัพท์มาหาและปรึกษาเรื่องการทำข่าว รวมทั้งถ่ายภาพ พร้อมทั้งเรียนรู้งานข่าว โดยทำงานควบคู่กับงานที่อู่ซ่อมรถ “เขาช่วยงานได้ดี เป็นคู่หูกับลูกชายของผมที่เป็นนักข่าวเดลินิวส์ ผมดูแลเหมือนเป็นลูกอีกคนหนึ่ง ให้มาอยู่บ้านเดิมที่ในเมือง มีอะไรก็แบ่งปันกัน รู้สึกสลดใจกับเหตุการณ์ที่เกิดขึ้น เขาเป็นนักข่าวรายแรกของชายแดนใต้ที่ถูกจงใจฆ่า ขณะนี้ทางสมาคมหนังสือพิมพ์ภาคใต้แห่งประเทศไทยกำลังรอผลการสืบสวนสอบสวนของเจ้าหน้าที่ตำรวจว่าเหตุการณ์ที่เกิดขึ้นมีสาเหตุมาจากเรื่องใด และเร่งหาทางช่วยเหลือครอบครัวของเขาให้ได้รับสิทธิ์ที่ควรได้ต่อไป” อับดุลการิม กล่าว จนถึงขณะนี้มีการช่วยเหลือครอบครัวของอารูมิงจากทางสมาคมหนังสือพิมพ์ภาคใต้แห่งประเทศไทย เป็นเงินสดจำนวน 5,000 บาท หนังสือพิมพ์หาดใหญ่เจอนัล 5,000 บาท สมาคมนัก ข่าวนักหนังสือพิมพ์แห่งประเทศไทย 5,000 บาท กองทุนช่วยเหลือนักข่าวของสถาบันอิศรา จำนวน 10,000 บาท และเงินเยียวยาจากทางจังหวัดยะลาจำนวน 100,000 บาท เรื่องราวที่เกิดขึ้นกับอารูมิง เป็นอีกหนึ่งอุทาหรณ์ที่สะท้อนให้เห็นว่า สามจังหวัดชายแดนภาคใต้ยังคงเต็มไปด้วยอันตราย โดยไม่เลือกว่าเหยื่อจะเป็นใครหรือประกอบอาชีพอะไร… ไม่เว้นแม้แต่ผู้สื่อข่าวที่อยู่ในที่สว่างและมีเพียงกระดาษกับปากกาเป็นอาวุธ! |
Journalists under attack-RSF
25-05-10
Journalists under attack, reporting brought to a halt
Reporters Without Borders: May 20, 2010
Reporters Without Borders condemns the violence against journalists by Red Shirt demonstrators and the government’s continual violation of the right to information. Thailand has rarely experienced the level of violence that was reached today, just hours after the army staged its assault on the Bangkok district occupied by former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s supporters.
The press freedom organisation is also every worried by the fact that the activities of journalists in Thailand have been brought to a virtual standstill.
“The right to information is more important than ever when a country is in crisis, as Thailand is at the moment,” Reporters Without Borders said. “International law clearly states that journalists cannot be military targets. We are outraged to see the media being repeatedly targeted by both the army and demonstrators. We urge the Thai government to restore order without delay and to lift the media censorship.”
Reporters Without Borders now offers a summary of the latest developments in the media situation in a country that is currently paralysed:
Anti-government demonstrators today set fire to the Bangkok headquarters of Channel 3 television, where around 100 people were trapped inside. A helicopter was used to evacuate employees. At least 10 vehicles parked outside were damaged.
The two biggest English-speaking dailies, The Bangkok Post and The Nation, sent all their employees home at 3 p.m. for fear that their premises could be attacked by Red Shirts.
Almost all local journalists have chosen not to go on to the streets to cover the situation because of their concern about the risks, which are real. Journalists are getting their information from social networks and by telephone, and from people trapped in the Wat Pathum Wanaram temple adjoining the square where the Red Shirts had gathered. Only a few foreign reporters are still on the ground.
Facebook and Twitter, which have been functioning as alternative sources of news at a time when the TV stations were just broadcasting government-controlled programming, were blocked by the Centre for Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) for more than an hour. Satit Wongnongtoey, Minister of Information and Communication Technology, denied this information.
Canadian freelance journalist and researcher Chandler Vandergrift was seriously injured by shrapnel from an exploding grenade. He was still hospitalised at the Bangkok Christian hospital.
Under a newly-introduced curfew, Bangkok residents cannot leave their homes between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m.
Safety issues raised as casualties among journalists covering Bangkok clashes increase
Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA): May 17, 2010
http://www.prachatai.org/english/node/1820
Journalists covering the renewed clashes between Thailand’s security forces and the anti-government Red Shirt protesters have found themselves literally caught in the crossfire.
SEAPA maintains its stand that the violence directed against the media in Thailand is indefensible. These attacks will victimize not only the press, but also the Thai public in general, which both need free media, unintimidated journalists, and a healthy environment for news, commentary, and information to help understand and determine their options especially in these days of crisis.
As of Sunday, 16 May 2010, 33 people have already been killed with 239 injured, according to the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration’s Emergency Health Service Center.
Of this number, five journalists were wounded by gunfire as troops fought with protesters after the government gave out orders to cordon off the protesters’ rally site in Ratchaprasong intersection on Thursday night. Power and water supplies were cut off, Skytrain and subway lines were stopped and roadblocks set up to prevent more Red Shirts from reinforcing their comrades in Bangkok’s commercial district. The Center for Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES) also announced that soldiers are now authorized to fire live rounds one shot at a time in case the use of rubber bullets to dissuade armed protesters would prove to be ineffective. The troops, the government said, are to shoot only at the legs of any resisting protesters.
However, three journalists on Friday, 14 May, found themselves shot in the leg when they covered the skirmishes in Wireless Road, Bangkok’s Embassy Row, which runs parallel to Lumpini Park, occupied by the protesters since 12 March. Canadian national Nelson Rand, who works for France 24 TV channel, was shot three times–in the abdomen, in one of his legs and another in one of his wrists. He was rushed to Chulalongkorn Hospital where he underwent surgery.
Subin Namchan, a photographer of the Thai-language newspaper, “Matichon”, sustained a gunshot wound in the thigh at the Sarasin-Wireless intersection. He was brought to Bumrungrad Hospital.
Meanwhile, Supawat Wanchantha cameraman for Thai Voice TV Channel was also shot in the leg and was brought to Rama 9 Hospital.
Witnesses said some of the injured journalists were covering the action near the lines of the protesters. It is not clear, however, if the three journalists–all sustaining a gunshot wound in the
leg–were deliberately shot or were just victims of stray bullets. The following day, Chaiwat Poompuang, a veteran photojournalist of “The Nation” newspaper, was shot in the leg when he was covering the fighting at the Din Daeng intersection near Ratchapraprop Road between some 300 Red Shirts and the soldiers manning the barricade.
On Sunday, 16 May, a PTV cameraman’s life was saved by the bulletproof vest he was wearing while lying on the ground at around 4 pm near the Lumpini Tower in Rama 4 Road. Phutthapong Chusaeng said he felt a severe pain in his back when the bullet impacted his vest. His colleague from another TV station, Thai PBS, said the bullet did not pierce the vest. These incidents underline the physical dangers faced by journalists in the on-going political crisis in the Thai capital, which started on 12 March this year.
On 13 May Thursday, a reporter for the “New York Times” came within a hair’s breadth of death on Lumpini Park near Rama 4 Road when the man he was interviewing, renegade Maj. Gen. Katthiya Sawasdipol alias “Seh Daeng”, was hit in the right temple by a bullet fired by a sniper.
Thai reporters have started wearing safety equipment like ballistic helmets and bulletproof vests in the aftermath of the violent April 10 dispersal of the Red Shirts in Ratchdamnoen Road. Japanese
journalist Hiro Muramoto, who worked as a cameraman for British news agency Reuters, was killed after he was shot in the chest.
A freelance photographer for ABC news, Winnai Ditthajorn, suffered from a gunshot wound to his left leg in the same incident.
Thai reporters and photographers have lobbied their respective media employers to equip them with these two items as fightingbetween the troops and the protesters continued to heat up. Sources said that it came to a point when some journalists even threatened to stop their news coverage if not issued a helmet and a vest.
Prior to this, the only protection the journalists had was a green armband distributed by the Thai Journalists Association (TJA) identifying the wearer as a member of the media.
The TJA has repeatedly issued statements the past months calling on both parties to spare journalists from threats, harassment and physical attacks while they are covering the political conflict. In the aftermath of these recent shooting incidents, the TJA and the Thai Broadcast Journalists Association (TNJA) called on the journalists to exercise caution during coverage and should look first after their own safety.
SEAPA observed in a prior press statement that the attacks on journalists “serve no purpose but to intimidate all media practitioners, and will ultimately deprive Thais the information, news, and commentary they need to understand and navigate these perilous days”.
However, even the reporters’ abode is getting at risk, too. An AFP photographer, Pedro Ugarte, said that the hotel he was staying, the Dusit Thani Hotel on Rama 4 Road, sustained bullet hits and several rounds from what were believed to be rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) at dawn of 17 May, forcing the hotel to ask its guests to check out at noon for their own safety. Foreign correspondents billeted in a nearby hotel had also reportedly checked out earlier due to increased dangers brought by the fighting.
As of press time, the CRES issued an ultimatum to the remaining protesters, especially women, children and the elderly, in Ratchaprasong to leave the area even as it braces for a determined resistance from the hardcore elements of the Red Shirts. The TJA and TBJA also called on the media to pull out of the protest zones and other areas declared as “illegal” by the CRES for their own safety.
Thaksin’s drug-war dead-Nation
25-05-10
STOPPAGE TIME
Injustice for Thaksin? The drug-war dead must weep
The Nation: June 13, 2007
Dear former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra: This is not a letter from hell. However, it doesn’t matter where I live, or to be exact, where I’m drifting.
Just wanna say “Hi”, although you surely don’t even know me. We have something in common despite the big difference between us: I’m dead, literally, and you’re still alive.
I have been a wandering ghost since police gunned me down in 2003, and I guess you, too, now know how it feels to be a drifter. Again, having to float from one spirit house to another in search of boiled eggs is a far cry from dining and lunching at Harrods or having the world’s best roasted duck every other day. But I just want to give you my sympathy all the same.
Yes, the asset freeze is so unfair. What laws did they use to do that to you? Where’s the evidence of corruption? Do the rights of suspects mean nothing to them? I mean, they haven’t even formally charged you, for crying out loud.
The same happened to me – well, more or less. Just as you were targeted because you were rich, I was picked on by the police because I was poor. I matched their drug-peddler stereotype – aggressive behaviour, a long record of petty crime and possibly having been seen a couple of times with well-known dealers – and the rest is history.
That I was innocent is not the most important point. Should they have done that to me even if I had been selling amphetamines? It could have been an honest mistake on my part, you know. I have come across a few restless spirits like myself who were killed simply because of their past drug records. We deserved formal charges and thus the opportunity to defend ourselves in court, just like you did in 2001 when they tried to “dig up” your past mistakes.
At least you have great lawyers, and I wish you all the best. I didn’t stand a chance back in 2003 – not after the most powerful man at the time gave the police a virtual green light. I still remember what he said: “Because drug traders are ruthless to our children, so being ruthless back to them is not a bad thing … It may be necessary to have casualties … If there are deaths among traders, it’s normal.”
I’m not sure which is worse: what happened to you under a military junta or what they did to me under a democratic government. But then again, I was a small, ordinary citizen. If the rulers deemed my death acceptable collateral damage in a noble campaign, what can I say? I’m just a nameless and faceless bit in human-rights reports, and the likes of me are worth mentioning in Western-media editorials only when we drop like flies.
So much self-pity from me, but you’ve got to understand I didn’t have an opportunity to say a word before I died. Some columnists and newspaper editorials did mention the plight of people like me, but the journalists didn’t fare much better when that man was in power. I remember authorities initiated a secret probe into many senior journalists’ bank accounts and defended the action by citing an anonymous tip-off letter. Do you think that’s democratic or “fair” to them?
Well, I’m here to express my sympathy and thus don’t want to heap too much upon you. I haven’t heard you say sorry about the slain drug suspects even once, but I always assume that’s because you’re busy. Before I drift away, I offer my heartfelt support. This isn’t supposed to happen to anyone. Everybody – big or small, rich or poor, powerful or powerless – should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
But deep down, I believe you will be fine. Even the “unfair” process they apply against you involves subcommittees, committees, lawyers, prosecutors and soon the courts, not to mention the watchful eyes of the local and foreign media. My fate was determined by a blacklist and police on a shooting spree.
Your worst-case scenario is a longer European vacation, a missed chance to own a British football club and a loss of appetite for Peking duck. I’m still having to raid spirit houses every day and cry every night for my rudderless family members.
Yes, the world is so unjust. I wish you the best of luck in telling everyone about the injustice befalling you. And no need to spare a thought for me, because I was as worthless as dead both before and after I died.
Tulsathit Taptim
Prison chiefs spend £30k on junket – Bang out of order
OUTRAGE AS BOSSES SEE HOW JUSTICE IS HANDED OUT IN BANGKOK
Kathleen Nutt
News of the World: May 16, 2010
PRISON bosses splashed out £30,000 to send staff to Thailand – to find out how we can learn from a jail system where prisoners are clamped in leg irons and EXECUTED.
Five senior Scottish Prison Service officials lived it up for six nights in a luxury hotel in Thai capital Bangkok at taxpayers’ expense.
And their boss later claimed he had learned from the lavish junket – detailed in explosive secret documents uncovered by the News of the World – that the solution to prison overcrowding here was to decriminalise drugs and become a BUDDHIST nation.
SPS chief executive Mike Ewart led the delegation on the 12,000-mile round trip – which was blasted by a top civil servant as a BINGE.
Astonishingly, it came as the jails boss was at the centre of a storm over the escape of a notorious sex offender.
Along with an employee from HMP Shotts, a prison psychologist and two senior managers, Ewart toured Thai jails and attended a conference.
Just weeks earlier monster Robert Foye, 31, escaped from Castle Huntly open prison, near Dundee, and raped a 16-year-old girl in Cumbernauld.
Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill was forced to make a public apology to Foye’s victim for “shortcomings within our prison system”.
Details of the junket in October 2007 only came to light this week after correspondence between prison officials and the Scottish Government was released following a Freedom of Information request. The documents – marked “restricted” – show MacAskill was furious about the cost of sending SPS staff to the annual conference of the International Corrections and Prisons Association (ICPA).
A senior civil servant described the events as “something of a binge”.
But Ewart defended the trip – and even told the Justice Minister that he’d discovered how Thailand had slashed jail overcrowding by decriminalising some drugs crimes.
He said: “It strikes me as a salutary lesson if we find we can take a lead from countries we habitually regard as having repressive justice systems.”
And talking about Thailand’s success in rehabilitating offenders, Ewart added: “I wondered if one answer would be to reinvent Scotland as a Buddhist nation!”
A prisons service insider fumed: “For the bosses to head off on a jolly to Asia while the Foye scandal was still rumbling on beggars belief. His escape was a major disgrace.
“Do they want us to cram inmates into cells, put them in irons and KILL them like they do in Thailand? It’s crazy.”
Ewart left the SPS in November. This week it was announced his replacement John Ewing will take up his post in July.
Last night an SPS spokesman told the News of the World: “We are no longer members of the ICPA.”
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Fourteenth session, Agenda Item 4, General Debate
A written statement submitted by the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC), a non-governmental organisation with general consultative status
THAILAND: Arbitrary interrogation under recent emergency regulations in Thailand
1. The growing contention between the state and antigovernment protestors in Thailand has deepened into a full-scale crisis, with no clear resolution in view. During violence on 10 April 2010, at least 24 people were reported killed and over 800 wounded. After a month of continuing protests, the state decided to end the protests with force. Between 13 and 17 May 2010, the government has reported that at least 35 people have been killed, all civilians, and at least 232 wounded. Unofficial reports put the numbers much higher. Amidst claims by the Prime Minister that protestors are armed and fighting state forces, the army has used live ammunition against largely unarmed antigovernment protestors. In several parts of Bangkok, army snipers have reportedly used high-powered rifles to shoot at protestors.
2. Given these events and the Prime Minister’s avowed readiness to order any actions necessary to restore stability, the Asian Legal Resource Center (ALRC) wishes warn the Human Rights Council (HRC) that a range of rights violations, many less visible than the violence in the streets, are possible.
3. The ALRC has noted the use, under emergency regulations recently imposed in Bangkok, of arbitrary orders for interrogation of civilians in army camps and other facilities. Such orders have over many decades been associated with gross and widespread human rights violations in Thailand. During the so-called “war on drugs” in 2003, many persons who were called to police stations under similarly arbitrary orders were subsequently murdered. To date in the south, where emergency regulations have been in force in the provinces of Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat since July 2005, armed forces likewise call persons for interrogation on vague pretexts that then result in detention and a gamut of human rights violations. In previous eras, notably the post-1976 period, such interrogation has often been a tool of repression. Therefore, the current use of this method of arbitrary interrogation is a cause for serious alarm.
4. Under the Emergency Decree on Government Administration in a State of Emergency (2005), the government decreed a State of Emergency in Bangkok and surrounding areas on 7 April 2010. The Emergency Decree gives blanket powers to state actors to take a wide range of actions to resolve the State of Emergency, including making arrests, censoring the press, restricting movement and using armed force. On 13 May 2010, the State of Emergency was expanded to include another 17 provinces in northern, northeastern, and central Thailand.
5. In late April 2010, the Center for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES), an agency of nebulous identity that is being run out of an army base under the authority of the Internal Security Operations Command, used the Emergency Decree to arbitrarily order citizens identified as dissident, or potentially dissident, to “report” themselves and submit to questioning by the authorities. Orders to “report” cited the authority to do so as resultant from section 11(2) of the Decree, which pertains to the designation of a Serious State of Emergency, which is defined as a situation which “involves terrorism, use of force, harm to life, body or property, or there are reasonable grounds to believe that there exists acts of violence which affects the security of state, the safety of life, or property of the state or person, and there is a necessity to resolve the problem in an efficient and timely manner”. Subsection 2 makes it possible for state actors “to issue a notification that a competent official shall have the power to summon any person to report to the competent official or to give an oral statement or submit any documents or evidence relevant to the emergency situation”.
6. Orders for individuals to “report” began subsequent to the government’s announcement of the existence of a plan to topple the monarchy during the week of 26 April 2010. The institution of the monarchy is a highly contentious one in Thailand, and in both the language of the Emergency Decree and other state rhetoric, is linked explicitly to national security. In addition to alleging that such a plan existed, the government released a diagram of uncertain authorship showing the alleged involved parties; the alleged participants were wide-ranging, with specific individuals, including former Prime Ministers and academics named, as well as broad categories such as the antigovernment protest group.
7. The alleged existence of the plan was made both within the context of the current standoff and that of increased accusations and prosecutions of alleged crimes of lese-majesty throughout 2008, 2009, and 2010. Therefore, the government’s release of this diagram was a highly threatening action in an already extremely charged atmosphere.
8. On 27 April 2010, Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban, in his capacity as Director of the CRES, said concerning individuals and entities named in the diagram, that in any cases in which there was sufficient evidence then an arrest warrant would be issued. If it was necessary, orders forbidding these individuals from leaving Thailand would also be issued. Mr. Suthep did not explicate how much evidence would be sufficient for a warrant, how it would be procured, or if its existence would be made public.
9. Rather than officially arrest any of the persons named in the alleged plan, officials instead arbitrarily ordered persons to “report” to the 11th Army Infantry Regiment base, in Bangkok’s Bang Khen district. On 28 April 2010, acting government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn said that 113 people had been summoned and 62 had reported. Another credible estimate suggested that the number had risen to over 200 by mid-May 2010.
10. While the government has at time of writing not issued any details on the total number of individuals ordered to “report” for questioning, how many did so, what their interrogations consisted of or other aspects of the process, the ALRC has drawn a rough picture from a variety of reports. Most individuals have received the written order the night before being required to go to the army base. Upon arrival at the base, they have typically been questioned individually. Most have been interrogated for 2-3 hours, although some sessions have lasted for up to 6 hours. Many of the questions have concerned acquaintances of the person being interrogated, and if the person knows Surichai Sae Dan, a protest leader, or are members of Red Siam, a protest organization. Some of those interrogated have reported being asked about the planned activities of the protest movement and lectured about the purported illegality of the protests. And although the interrogations have been conducted on the army base, the ALRC has learned that interrogators have come from a variety of government agencies, including regular police, the army, and the Department of Special Investigation, Ministry of Justice.
11. To take one specific case, on 2 May 2010, three students, including Mr. Anuthee Dejthevaporn, secretary general of the Student Federation of Thailand (SFT), Ms. Suluck Lamubol, a fourth-year history student at Chulalongkorn University and SFT executive committee member, and Mr. Sanat Noklek reported to the CRES as ordered. At a public seminar on May 5 they explained what had happened to them.
a. According to Ms. Suluck, six policemen had visited her house and told her that if she did not go, an official arrest warrant would be issued against her. She said that the students were not allowed to bring a lawyer with them, and according to a report on the independent media site Prachatai, they “were told not to worry as it was just for talks with police and there was no need for lawyers”. They were questioned for five hours about their political commitments and acquaintances, without learning the identities of their interrogators.
b. Mr. Anuthee explained that two policeman came to his house, gave him the document ordering him to report the next morning, and told him that if he did not do so, an arrest warrant would be secured. Mr. Anuthee also claimed that he had been followed by Thai intelligence officers prior to this time. During his interrogation, he was asked about the protests, including how much money people were paid to attend.
c. Mr. Sanat was not at home when two policeman came to his house to present him with the order to report the next morning, and so his grandmother received it for him. The policemen harassed his grandmother, and told her that her grandson should not support the red-shirt protestors. He and the other students reported that the regular police, DSI, and army officers who interrogated them used a mixture of intimidation and attempted friendliness. At no point did they give any of the students any knowledge of what evidence had been collected against them or the reasons that they in particular had been called.
12. The arbitrary nature of these orders to “report” raise serious concerns about the risk of denial of liberty and abuse of state power in Thailand and point towards the possibility of further grave violations of human rights under the cover of the Emergency Decree and other analogous state security provisions in the near future. The orders, like those to the police during the war on drugs and those in the context of counterinsurgency in the south of the country, are a deliberate attempt by the authorities to place their actions outside the ordinary legal system, denying citizens opportunities to question the circumstances of their detention and interrogation and thereby denying them means of redress in accordance with article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
14. In closing, the ALRC draws the Council’s attention to the reports of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, warning that the rights under article 9 of the Covenant can be greatly endangered during states of emergency (A/HRC/7/4, 10 January 2008; A/HRC/13/30, 18 January 2010). In particular, it notes the Working Group’s concern about:
“the continuing tendency towards deprivation of liberty by States abusing states of emergency or derogation, invoking special powers specific to states of emergency without formal declaration, having recourse to military, special, or emergency courts, not observing the principle of proportionality between the severity of the measures taken and the situation concerned, and employing vague definitions of offences allegedly designed to protect State security and combat terrorism”. (A/HRC/7/4, para. 59).
15. While cognizant of the severity of the political crisis in Bangkok and the challenges facing the Government of Thailand, the ALRC avers that ordering citizens to “report” to an army base for questioning represents a very real danger of further and more dramatic forms of human rights abuse in the country in the near future. The denial of the right of citizens to bring lawyers with them represents one such violation, and belies the government’s own claims to be operating according to law. Therefore, the ALRC calls for the Council to:
a. Strongly condemn the use of the Emergency Decree to arbitrarily order persons to “report” to government officials in Thailand.
b. Urge the government of Thailand to cease using this method of calling persons for interrogation and instead comply with the terms of ordinary domestic law, and match its international obligations under the ICCPR.
c. Call upon the government to reveal the circumstances under which it drew up the diagram of alleged plotters to overthrow the monarchy, and the evidence upon which it was based.
d. Request that the Government of Thailand cease imposing needless restrictions on the freedom of speech at this critical juncture in the country’s modern history, as without the free circulation of critical information, the risks that power will be used arbitrarily and in further violation of human rights are greatly exacerbated.
A written statement submitted by the Asian Legal Resource Centre(ALRC), a non-governmental organisation with general consultative status
THAILAND: An analysis of Thailand’s non-compliance with its international human rights obligations
Asian Legal Resource Centre: May 21, 2010
1. As Thailand was elected this May 13 to the Human Rights Council (HRC), albeit as the result of a clean slate, the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) urges the members of the Council to take note of Thailand’s record of non-compliance with many key international human rights obligations and ensure that its membership results in marked improvement concerning these. That Thailand was elected even as the Royal Thai Army was shooting and killing people in Bangkok amid intense political turmoil–itself a result of undemocratic and anti-human rights forces having recaptured control of key state institutions since the 2006 military coup–remains a significant concern.
2. The ALRC wishes to concentrate here on an important, succinct document against which the record of the Government of Thailand on human rights can be assessed: the Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee on the report of Thailand, issued on July 8, 2005.
3. Five years should be sufficient time for any State party with a serious commitment to demonstrate some progress. Therefore, it is expedient to use this document as a set of benchmarks against which to measure Thailand’s subsequent performance.
4. Not only has Thailand abjectly failed to make any progress on the Committee’s recommendations, but in a number of respects it has seriously regressed since 2005:
PARA.9: “The State party should ensure that recommendations of the National Human Rights Commission are given full and serious follow-up. It should also ensure that the Commission is endowed with sufficient resources to enable it effectively to discharge all of its mandated activities in accordance with the Principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (the Paris Principles).”
The HRC has already been made aware that the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand is no longer in compliance with the Paris Principles, by virtue of the manner in which its new commissioners were selected and appointed, under the regressive army-sponsored 2007 Constitution of Thailand. The commissioners include among them a senior police officer, two bureaucrats and a businessman whose sole contribution to human rights prior to appointment was to be named as a violator in a report of the previous Commission. None of the commissioners have a good track record of advocacy and promotion of human rights. Their appointment is an affront to the very principles that their agency is supposed to represent, but in this it is no more than a statement of the official view of human rights from within the Government of Thailand. It is therefore not surprising that the Commission has failed to play a meaningful role to address any of the serious, persistent and entrenched obstacles to the enjoyment of human rights in the country.
PARA.10: “The Committee is concerned at the persistent allegations of serious human rights violations, including… the Tak Bai incident in October 2004, the Krue Se mosque incident on 28 April 2004 and the extraordinarily large number of killings during the ‘war on drugs’… The State party should conduct full and impartial investigations into these and such other events and should, depending on the findings of the investigations, institute proceedings against the perpetrators. The State party should also ensure that victims and their families, including the relatives of missing and disappeared persons, receive adequate redress. Furthermore, it should continue its efforts to train police officers, members of the military and prison officers to scrupulously respect applicable international standards. The State party should actively pursue the idea of establishing an independent civilian body to investigate complaints filed against law enforcement officials.&quo t;
Some politically-motivated inquiries were established after the Tak Bai and Krue Se killings, and later into the war on drugs, but none of these led to the prosecution or conviction of perpetrators. Attempts to bring senior army and police officers responsible for the killings to justice have failed, despite ample evidence and legal grounds upon which to rest cases. The families of victims have not received any adequate redress in accordance with international standards. No significant changes have been made to the training of officers so as to protect human rights, although with the culture of impunity prevalent in Thailand such training would make no difference if not accompanied by effective measures for sanctions of perpetrators. The Government has at no time actively pursued the idea of establishing an independent civilian body to investigate complaints filed against law enforcement officials, nor is there evidence of any intent to do so in the future.
PARA.13: “The Committee is concerned that the Emergency Decree on Government Administration in States of Emergency… does not explicitly specify, or place sufficient limits, on the derogations from the rights protected by the Covenant that may be made in emergencies and does not guarantee full implementation of article 4 of the Covenant. It is especially concerned that the Decree provides for officials enforcing the state of emergency to be exempt from legal and disciplinary actions, thus exacerbating the problem of impunity. Detention without external safeguards beyond 48 hours should be prohibited (art. 4). The State party should ensure that all the requirements of article 4 of the Covenant are complied with in its law and practice, including the prohibition of derogation from the rights listed in its paragraph 2…”
Not only has the Government failed to make changes to measures for declaration of a State of Emergency, but it has used the emergency regulations with increasing frequency, alongside a host of other draconian regulations to ensure that operations under the cover of emergency are not subject to constraints as envisaged under the Covenant. It has continued to guarantee impunity to state officers engaged in these operations. It has not made changes to laws concerning extended detention without external safeguards under emergency provisions; nor has it made changes to laws that allow for detention of suspects in ordinary criminal cases for up to 85 days with minimal judicial oversight.
PARA.15: “The State party should guarantee in practice unimpeded access to legal counsel and doctors immediately after arrest and during detention. The arrested person should have an opportunity immediately to inform the family about the arrest and place of detention. Provision should be made for a medical examination at the beginning and end of the detention period. Provision should also be made for prompt and effective remedies to allow detainees to challenge the legality of their detention. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge must be brought promptly before a judge. The State party should ensure that all alleged cases of torture, ill-treatment, disproportionate use of force by police and death in custody are fully and promptly investigated, that those found responsible are brought to justice, and that compensation is provided to the victims or their families.”
Despite becoming a party to the Convention against Torture, the Government has failed to make changes to domestic law that would prevent the incidence of torture, punish torturers or provide redress to victims in accordance either with that Convention or with the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Alleged cases of torture, ill-treatment and death in custody are not investigated in a manner that brings any of the perpetrators to court or secures convictions. At present, a case pending against a number of police officers accused of torturing and killing detainees in Kalasin Province has resulted in the deaths of a number of witnesses: pointing also to the sabotage of earlier steps taken towards a regime of victim and witness protection in Thailand. Not only has the Government of Thailand failed to do anything to address this situation, but it is in denial about the scale of the problem, its Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva himself describing the assertion that the police are the top abusers of human rights in Thailand as “unsubstantiated”.
PARA.16. “The State party should bring prison conditions into line with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners as a matter of priority. The State party should guarantee the right of detainees to be treated humanely and with respect for their dignity, particularly with regard to hygienic conditions, access to health care and adequate food. Detention should be viewed only as a last resort, and provision should be made for alternative measures. The use of shackling and long periods of solitary confinement should be stopped immediately…”
There has been no significant change in the treatment of prisoners in Thailand during the last five years. Shackling and solitary confinement remain routine practices. Prison authorities also use a variety of measures to extra-legally punish persons in their custody. The Council has already had its attention brought to the case of Darunee Chanchoengsilapakul, who was convicted and sentenced to 18 years in prison on 28 August 2009 on three counts of lese-majesty. The prison authorities denied Darunee access to medical treatment for a serious condition, denied her access to the facilities available to other detainees, and marked her out as a special prisoner by virtue of her so-called crime.
PARA.18: “The State party should take adequate measures to prevent further erosion of freedom of expression, in particular, threats to and harassment of media personnel and journalists, and ensure that such cases are investigated promptly and that suitable action is taken against those responsible, regardless of rank or status.”
Since the resurgence of the internal security state following the 2006 coup the Government has consistently undermined freedom of expression through a range of measures aimed at protecting ultra-conservative forces inside the establishment and army from growing and increasingly vociferous criticism in new media about previously unmentionable topics, especially about the role of the monarchy in politics and business. The targeting of independent website Prachatai under nebulous computer crime provisions, imprisonment of persons for lese-majesty, and recent orders to shut down anti-government websites are just a few instances of this trend. Although the Government has found it impossible to close down debate in new media, one clear victim of its anti-free expression campaign has been the mainstream conventional media. The print media especially, which in previous years had a good reputation, has in the last few years dramatically declined in standards and has been hopelessly po liticized.
PARA.19. “The State party must take measures to immediately halt and protect against harassment and attacks against human rights defenders and community leaders. The State party must systematically investigate all reported instances of intimidation, harassment and attacks and guarantee effective remedies to victims and their families.”
The resounding failure of the Government to resolve the single-most important case of a targeted human rights defender in recent years, the police abduction and presumed killing of lawyer Somchai Neelaphaijit, is indicative of its non-compliance with this recommendation. It also speaks to the deep, entrenched, institutionalized impunity that law-enforcement officers in Thailand enjoy, as the case has dragged on over successive competing administrations without any satisfactory answers for his family, whose members have themselves been subject to repeated threats and harassment.
5. The unwillingness and incapacity of the Government to address the security concerns of human rights defenders in Thailand also speaks to its general disinterest in implementing any of the recommendations of the Human Rights Committee, as shown in this brief analysis. As the concern of the Government is only with its human rights reputation rather than human rights reality, the Asian Legal Resource Centre is gravely concerned by Thailand’s election to the Human Rights Council, as it clearly does not meet the standards expected of members or even exhibit commitment to key responsibilities under international human rights law.
Advocates ask govt to stop using force
- Achara Ashayagachat
- Bangkok Post: May 17, 2010
- http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/178168/advocates-ask-govt-to-stop-using-force
Thai representative to the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) has joined other peace advocates in Bangkok including Gothom Arya in calling for the government to stop violent suppression to dismantle the demonstrators.
Ms Sriprapha Petcharamesree wrote from Canada an open letter to the Thai government and United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) on Sunday that the Thai government seriously breached its own commitments and pledges made during the campaign for the seat in the UN Human Rights Council just one day after it was elected with land slide majority of 182 votes out of 192 members for 47-member Council.
Ms Sriprapha reminded that Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has committed that his government would address problems relating to freedom and liberty and human rights on the basis of accepting them as reality.
“This is the first crucial step so that every agency, including civil society, recognizes the need to cooperate in seriously solving the problems…if the government or state officials do not learn how to respect human rights themselves, problems will never end,” Mr Abhisit was quoted as saying.
Although the UDD has also gone far beyond the limits of exercising fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly and some of demonstrators may have arms in their possession including, from times to times, using hate speeches which may not comply with the principles of peaceful assembly, “but this ,in no way, provides the Government with any license to use fire arms nor to kill,” said the human rights professor from Mahidol University.
Ms Sriprapha said the Abhisit government has breached the commitments and pledges made to international community and the United Nations as well as violated the obligations of the Thai government towards the ICCPR to which Thailand is party since 1996.
“Thailand is scheduled to submit its Universal Periodic Review to the United Nations in 2011; it will be difficult and shameful to explain why the government breaches its own commitments and pledges by being human rights violators,” she said.
The Thai representative to AICHR called on the government to immediately stop using violent means in dismantling the demonstrators and the UDD to stop using human shields (even if some protesters may do it voluntarily) as a bargaining measure.
She supported a proposal that a fact finding team composed of regional and/or international members should be set up to investigate and constitute the facts and human rights violations both the April 10 and May repressions.
“The Thai government must allow the outsiders to undertake this job since any team appointed by the government shall not enjoy any credibility,” Ms Sriprapha said.
Gothom Arya, chairman of the National Economic and Social Advisory Council (NESAC) and a peace advocate, told Bangkok Post that a series of actions was badly needed now to diffuse the bloody situation.
Frist, all sides, particular the authorities had to stop ‘forwarding step’ and set an adequately ample space far from the confronting parties.
Secondly, following the so-called truce, there must be a dialogue through facilitators that comprised ‘partisan insiders’ from both the UDD and the government sides.
Thirdly, the negotiation needed to do it secretly but with the ‘partisan insiders’ as witness and with negotiators initialize the agreement.
Mr Gothom said he did not think the attempt to call for the UN sanction was necessary and appropriate at the moment, “It’s not genocide nor full-blown civil war.”
He recognized that if negotiation failed again, new talks could be held again, “as long as there’s room for talk, lives could be spared.”
York University, Toronto, Canada
May 16, 2010
Subject: STOP using violence and repression to dismantle the demonstrators
An open letter to the Thai Government and UDD
On May 14,2010, just one day after Thailand was elected with land slide majority of 182 votes out of 192 members of the United Nations to sit in the UN Human Rights Council (of which the total number of members is 47) the Thai Government seriously breached its own commitments and pledges made during the campaign for the seat. In the campaign, the PM.Abhisit Vejjajiva has committed that ??I can reaffirm that this Government will address problems relating to freedom and liberty and human rights on the basis of accepting them as reality. This is the first crucial step so that every agency, including civil society, recognizes the need to cooperate in seriously solving the problems?if the Government or state officials do not learn how to respect human rights themselves, problems will never end. What I would like to see from now on is right understanding and right perspective, and to push ahead in the promotion and protection of human rights??. The Prime Minister further confirmed that ?I am confident that even if obstacles still remain in the economic, social, political or legal aspects, but if people are ready to reach out to one another as fellow human beings, that will be the beginning of our success in ensuring the effective enjoyment and safeguard of human and freedom and liberty?.
Although it?s hard to deny that the UDD has gone far beyond the limits of exercising fundamental rights to freedom of expression andassembly and that some of demonstrators may have arms in their possession including, from times to times, using hate speeches which may not comply with the principles of peaceful assembly but this ,in no way, provides the Government with any license to use fire arms nor to kill which resulted in the lost of lives and injuries as it has been happening during the past three days. The decision made and actions taken by the Government not only represent a serious mistake but it?s in breach of the commitments and pledges made to international community and the United Nations. It also violates the obligations of the Thai government towards the ICCPR to which Thailand is party since 1996. The Art. 4 of the ICCPR specifies that even in times of emergency or conflicts, rights to life, to be free from torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatments or punishments shall not be derogated. Any measures of restricting rights shall be taken in the manner that is strictly required by the exigencies of the situation have to be proportionate. The Thai Government is obliged to respect its international obligations specified in international law. Measures taken by the Thai Government are far beyond the appropriateness and proportionality.
On behalf of the Thai Representative to the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, I would like to request as follows;
1. The Government immediately stops using violent means and the army to dismantle the demonstrators. What has been going on during the last three days proves that using violent means to deal with the demonstrations only resulted in the lost of lives. Thailand is now being condemned by international community. Not only it make the situation goes beyond control but it only worsens the situation which may be extremely difficult to solve.
2. A number of demands made by the protesters are related to the issues of rights and injustice which is prevalent in the Thai society. The way to address is not to allow violations to occur but to apply the rights-based approach as already committed by the government.
3. The UDD, on its part, will have to stop using human shields (even if some protesters may do it voluntarily) as a bargaining measure. Over 50 lives lost both among the UDD supporters and officers is already a big lost and this can not continue.
4. The Government is requested to allow the Fact Finding Team composed of regional and/or international members to investigate and constitute the facts and human rights violations both the violence on April 10 and May repression. Any Team appointed by the Government shall not enjoy any credibility.
The Government will have to keep in mind that ? if the Government and state officials do not learn how to respect human rights themselves, problems will never end? and that ? the success in ensuring the enjoyment and protection of human rights and freedom is possible only if the Government respects rights of the people?.
As Thailand is scheduled to submit its Universal Periodic Review to the United Nations in 2011,it would be difficult and shameful to explain why the Government breaches its own commitments and pledges by being human rights violators.
Dr.Sriprapha Petcharamesree
Thai representative to the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights.
Leaving politics behind-Nation
25-05-10
CHANG NOI
Getting away from it all?
Chang Noi
The Nation: May 17, 2010
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/05/17/opinion/Getting-away-from-it-all–30129531.html
A few days ago, a friend of Chang Noi decided she had to get away from it all. To escape the turmoil in Bangkok, she took a foreign holiday.
On the day she arrived in Greece, demonstrators fought an hours-long battle with police ending with three dead and scores injured. She had contemplated neighbouring Turkey as an alternative getaway. There on the same day, police with batons had clashed with protesters hurling bricks and fire bombs. Just across the Mediterranean, the dispossessed of Cairo decided to occupy the city centre, sleeping on the streets. Further afield, other cities were in turmoil. The Maoists staged a massive protest in Kathmandu. In the capital of Kyrgyzstan, an urban mob attacked the residence of the president, tore up the plants in his garden, and drove him from power.
It’s tempting to see Thailand’s turmoil, the red stockade in Rajprasong, and the whole contorted colour-coded battle of the past four years as something unique, with special causes rooted in Thaksin’s extraordinary career and worries over succession. All these other cases have special circumstances too. The Greek riots are an offshoot of the country’s financial collapse. The Kathmandu demo is just one more stage in the country’s transition from monarchy. The Kyrgystani president had been elected to power on a surge of popularity, but turned out to be spectacularly corrupt. And so on. But what is really striking about all these incidents are the similarities. Big urban mobs. Fierce defiance. Security forces overstretched. States rattled. Middle class urbanites wringing their hands.
Perhaps the last time there was such a wave of protests across different countries was the summer of 1968. But the particular cities, the type of people on the streets, and the demands were very different then. The contrast helps to understand what is happening today.
In 1968, the drivers of protest were an odd mixture of anger against the Vietnam war, left-wing rejection of capitalism, and anarchic utopianism bound up with drugs and rock music. The rallying call was revolution, a word with many, many different meanings. The people on the streets were mostly students and factory workers. The locations were cities in the most advanced countries of the world, France, Germany, US, UK and Japan. It took another five years for the ripples to reach places like Thailand. The protests were a revolt against the affluence and complacency of the great post-war boom in the west.
Today’s protests are not in the advanced capitals but in the bloated mega-cities of the developing world and the ragged underbelly of Europe. Among protesters, students and factory workers are hardly to be seen. Instead, there are all sorts of people who in one way or another feel they are being left out. In Greece and Portugal, almost one in five of the working population is now unemployed. They are angry at the government for not protecting them – from the competition of places like China, and from the migrants escaping poverty in Africa or war in the Middle East. In cities like Cairo and Bangkok, many protesters are small farmers, victims of agrarian decline, and an urban underclass struggling in the rat race of the informal economy. Many of these protests are taking place right at the commercial core of these cities. Not in the villages. Not in the suburbs. Not on the campuses and in the government districts as in 1968.
Over the past generation, cities like Cairo, Bangkok and Kathmandu have been utterly transformed. They have grown in size, often several times. Born by globalisation, their centres have become not so different from the rich cities of the west. Their middle classes now think of themselves as part of a global middle class. They buy the same brands, watch the same movies, grasp the same ideas. For the third-world peasant a generation ago, such shiny affluence was beyond sight, beyond imagination. Now with globalisation’s shrinking of space and time, it’s on display every day, from street level, or in the virtual worlds of television and the Web. The sense of unfairness is a mix of aspiration, frustration, and comparison.
The division is not between classes in the old sense, but between those who have done well and those who have done badly from globalisation. Everywhere, the rallying call is not revolution, just a better deal, something not so obviously unfair.
As Chang Noi’s travelling friend found, many of these eruptions are happening in places where people like to go on holidays. Why? These are parts of the world which have a great stock of natural or cultural resources – beaches and sun and islands and temples and ancient monuments and pretty dances and festivals and colourful clothing. They also have lots of people who will work for low pay and learn to adopt a good service attitude. The governments and economic elites of such blessed parts of the world have tended to take the easy way out. They have sold off these plentiful resources and cheap people on the expanding globalised market. Resource-strapped countries like Japan, Korea or Taiwan did not have this easy option, and so put more effort into making their people more productive through education, skill and technology. Resource-stressed countries like India and China are now following a similar route. The resource-lucky countries now find they have environmental crises, which drive people into the cities, and increasing difficulty competing on the world market because of low levels of skill. They have more people who feel more left out.
As the red movement has grown, some people have tried to imagine it away. They argue that the protest is unreal because there is no social basis, no such thing as class, no reason for complaint, nothing behind it but Thaksin’s money, some geriatric activists and the third hand. But in truth, the Bangkok turmoil is just a small part of something that is happening in many parts of the world. And there’s no getting away from it all.
