|
Statement by Pisan Manawapat,
Ambassador, Head of Mission of Thailand to the European Union
At Subcommittee on Human Rights, European Parliament
15 July 2010
-----------------------------
Madame Heidi Hautala,
Chairperson of the Sub-Committee on Human Rights,
Distinguished members of the European Parliament,
• First of all, allow me to thank you for convening this important meeting. The role and contribution of the European Parliament, in particular your Sub-Committee, in promoting the universality of human rights is well appreciated.
• I, therefore, very much value this opportunity to have been invited to meet and update the Committee on some important political developments in Thailand. I refer to the European Parliament’s resolution of 20 May 2010 on Thailand and especially the three statements dated 8 and 13 April and 21 May 2010 by High Representative Baroness Catherine Ashton, which stand as a testimony of the EU’s friendship and constructive approach to be of help to Thailand.
Political Situation in Thailand
• Over the past months, democracy and the rule of law in Thailand had been severely tested. The Government, on the one hand, must uphold the constitutional rights of the protesters to freedom of expression while, on the other hand, it must uphold the rule of law when public safety was at risk. Though it had done it with utmost restraint, every loss of lives is most regrettable. The situation in Thailand has now returned back to normalcy, although precautionary measures are still needed to prevent the recurrence of the recent violence.
• Allow me therefore to share with you what we have been doing to heal the wounds, our immediate measures to uncover the truth in connection with the recent violence, to assist those who have been affected by the unrest, measures to address the legitimate grievances of the peaceful protesters and long term strategy through various reforms.
Development of the Protest
• Since assuming office, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, who was elected by majority vote in the House of Representatives in December 2008, had put the realization of national reconciliation and stability as his top priority.
• From the beginning, the approach adopted to deal with the protesters, who demanded that the Government step down before the mandatory elections, had strictly been to avoid any confrontation, refrain from violence, and allow all sides to fully exercise their freedom, rights and liberty in accordance with the rules of law and of course, the constitution.
• Some of you may recall that at the 14th ASEAN Summit and Related Summits with Dialogue Partners under Thailand’s Chairmanship at the Royal Cliff Beach Resort in Pattaya in April 2009, the United Front For Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) or the red shirts protesters stormed the convention centers where ASEAN and Dialogue Partner Leaders were about to meet, forcing the Thai host Government to declare a state of emergency and postponed all Summits indefinitely. The Government, at that time, had to use helicopters in evacuating foreign leaders from buildings’ rooftops to safety.
• The UDD protesters then resorted to violence in the streets of Bangkok and the chaos was finally put to an end by the security forces without any loss of lives. It should be noted that following the incidences in Pattaya and Bangkok’s streets, some protest leaders were arrested and detained for only three days before being released on bail.
• When the UDD reconvened its protest in mid-March this year and led by the same group of leaders at the Pattaya mayhem, it started off peacefully, calling for an immediate dissolution of the Parliament. The Government tried at all cost to avoid any confrontation. By the end of March, Prime Minister Abhisit personally sat down with the leaders of the protesters to negotiate a possible resolution for over 5 hours over 2 days. This was televised for national, regional and international audience. The leaders of the protest decided to call off the negotiations and insisted on occupying the shopping intersection until the parliament was dissolved.
• After the 10th of April, it became clear that the protests were no longer peaceful. A group of armed elements was evidenced and had indeed used deadly war weapons against both security officers and innocent people. Faced with the violent provocation by a few people of the most radical protesters, the Government had limited options. Doing nothing was certainly not an option as more and more affected people were demanding that the Government take decisive actions to end the illegal protest at the heart of the business centre of Bangkok.
• Necessary steps had to be taken at this point to restore law and order, as the prolonged occupation of the Ratchaprasong business centre area increasingly disrupted the people’s normal lives with worsening impact on retail business, tourism, as well as affected a number of embassies located nearby.
• It was always the Government’s intention to put an end to the protest with as little loss as possible. The Government regrets all the loss of lives that have occurred, and it was dismayed by the readiness of some individuals to use lethal weapons to harm fellow Thais – be they demonstrators, bystanders or security officers – only to worsen the situation and instigate further violence.
Five-Point Road Map for Reconciliation
• In early May, PM Abhisit proposed a Five-Point Reconciliation Roadmap for resolving the current political situation, as follows:
First, to unite Thai people in joint efforts to protect and uphold the country’s principal institutions, particularly the monarchy, whereby all sectors would help prevent and resolve problems of violations against the monarchy and attempts to draw the institution into political conflicts;
Second, to resolve structural problems related to disparity and inequality in society, including the grievances faced by people that had been raised during various political and other rallies;
Third, to enable the media and related organizations to work constructively to help heal – rather than being used as tools to create – divisions and animosity within society, while also ensuring press freedom;
Fourth, to establish facts about the events that led to losses during the protests, whereby a fact-finding mechanism would be set up; and
Fifth, to consider in a systematic manner contentious issues related to the political system.
Independent Fact-Finding Commission
• Investigations into the various incidents are being conducted by the Department of Special Investigation (DSI), in cooperation with other agencies concerned. At the same time, to establish facts about the events which had caused much apprehension among the Thai people, the Cabinet on 8 June 2010 appointed Professor Dr. Kanit Na Nakorn, a highly respected German-trained lawyer and a former Attorney-General, as chair of an Independent Fact-Finding Commission who already set in motion the fact finding process by meeting with some of the UDD leaders on 14 June to hear the latter’s views.
• On 6 July 2010, Dr. Kanit made public the composition of his Commission. They are Mr. Kittipong Kittiyarak, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice; Associate Professor Dr. Jutharat Ua-amnoey, lecturer at the Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University; Associate Professor Dr. Decha Rangkhawan, Director of the Center for Research and Development in Criminology and Criminal Justice, Thammasat University; Mr. Pairote Polaphet, Secretary-General of the Union for Civil Liberty; Mr. Manich Sooksomchitra, Senior Editor of Thairath Newspaper; Professor Dr. Ronnachai Kongsakon, Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine and Deputy Director of Ramathibodi Hospital; Mr. Somchai Homlaor, Chair of the Human Rights Committee, Lawyers Council of Thailand; and Associate Professor Dr. Surasak Likasitwatanakul, Dean of the Faculty of Law, Thammasat University.
• In carrying out its work, Dr. Kanit gave assurances that the Commission would uphold the core principles of independence, honesty, transparency, integrity and diversity of areas of expertise. Its mandate and terms of reference would be based upon the following three concepts:
1) Truth seeking: This would be to uncover and establish the truth and facts especially with regard to political violence, violations of human rights, loss of lives, physical and psychological injuries, and property and other damages, which occurred during April-May 2010, including the underlying roots causes of the conflict and violence during the past several years, so that all these issues could be clearly identified and common understanding on them achieved;
2) Conflict prevention: This would concern the need to create understanding and provide short-term remedies to people in various groups affected by the violence so as to prevent the recurrence of violence and losses; and
3) Restoration: This would involve the rehabilitation and healing of Thai society, organisations, institutions and individuals affected by the violent incidents through restorative justice and social justice in order to promote long-term reconciliation.
• The Commission aimed to complete its work within two years, during which it must report its progress to the Cabinet every six months. The public would also be kept informed of progress made so as to allow for any input they might have on the Commission’s work. The Commission would convene its meeting at the earliest opportunity to formulate a plan of action and work schedule, and would inform the public of the results. The process will be open and transparent and testimony of eyewitnesses and related evidences could be submitted to the Commission whose conduct will be independent and free from interference by any side.
• On 7 July, Dr. Kanit gave his first press conference and emphasized that the Commission’s authority would not include punishment of individuals as this is the responsibility of the judicial process. However, as the scope of the Commission’s work as well as issues covered is wider than that of the judicial process, the Commission would be able to give context to why crimes were committed as well as consider various means to provide remedies. The main focus of the Commission’s work will be on preventing further conflict and recurrence of violence. Furthermore, reassurances were given on the extensive networks which would provide the Commission with relevant information and that all sectors such as state security forces and Foundation for Democracy and Development Studies have already expressed their willingness to cooperate. It was hoped that both local and foreign media would also extend their cooperation as they were not involved in the conflict and hence could provide useful facts. In addition to media cooperation, the Commission envisaged that fact-finding exercise on some issues might require foreign experts and hence the possibility of utilizing some of UN’s lists of experts although this would not necessarily mean UN’s involvement in the Commission’s work.
• In parallel, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which are independent constitutional bodies, are also conducting their own investigations. The NHRC’s comments over the last couple of months have been critical of all sides which resorted to the use of violence, while the NACC’s mandate focuses in particular on the conduct of political and state office holders.
Use of the Emergency Decree
• The Government understands full well the concerns about Thailand’s continued invocation of the Emergency Decree, particularly in views of its possible effects on human rights. However, emergency decree of the same nature is not uncommon and it exists even in several full-fledged democratic countries.
• The clear indication of armed elements infiltrating the protesters, the history of violent incidences such as the Pattaya Summit, and the incidences perpetuated even after 19 May, showed real and constant danger that no measures allowed under normal circumstances were deemed adequate. Left unaddressed, the situation could escalate and affects the entire nation.
• The Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situation, B.E. 2548 (2005) was promulgated during the Thaksin Government to enable the Government to deal with an emergency situation in a more effective, integrated and expeditious manner so as to maintain law and order – an imperative which is recognised under Article 4.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In addition, Thailand has been transparent about the exercise of its right of derogation under the Covenant in light of the declaration of a severe emergency situation in certain parts of the country, having notified the other States Parties to the ICCPR through the intermediary of the United Nations Secretary General of its invocation of the Emergency Decree.
• Based on assessments of the situation on the ground, the use of the Decree remains necessary for the time being but with narrower area of coverage. For example on 6 July 2010, the Thai Cabinet already revoked the use of the Emergency Decree in 5 of the 24 provinces. The authorities further gave their assurances that the Decree would be in effect absolutely no longer than necessary for ensuring the security of the people. Ordinary people and business in these provinces including Bangkok are not affected in any way.
• In order to ensure that the rights of detained suspects are not disproportionately affected, Section 12 of the Emergency Decree explicitly provides that those detained suspects shall not be treated as an accused person, and shall be detained in a designated place which is not a police station, detention centre, penal institution or prisons. In this regard, the competent officials have clearly specified the designated locations to be used for detaining those suspects under the Emergency Decree.
• In practice, the Emergency Decree requires that the competent officials first seek court permission before taking suspects into custody or further detaining them. This requirement is more stringent than regular procedures under the Criminal Procedure Code which empowers competent officials to make a 48-hour detention without warrant. Having taken suspects into custody, the competent officials must report such actions to the court, a copy of which would be kept as record at the office of the competent officials.
• Furthermore, the custody period of the detainees under the Emergency Decree is limited to a maximum of 30 days, during which a court approved extension is required for every seven-day period. Upon the expiration of the thirty-day period, if further detention is still required, the competent officials must act in accordance with the regular procedures as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code.
• There is no blanket immunity provided to security officers under the Emergency Decree. According to Section 17 of the Decree, a competent official remains fully accountable for any act which is discriminatory, unreasonable, exceed the extent of necessity or are performed without good faith. Suspects also retain the right to seek compensation from the Government under the Tortious Liability of Officials Act B.E. 2539 (1996).
Remedies for the Affected
• As far as helping compensate victims and those affected by the protests, the Cabinet already approved emergency measures to compensate victims, authorized aid to individuals, provided grants and low-cost loans to businesses and funds to help pay for employee wages and leases, among other initiatives.
• Assistance has been given to employees working in both small and large businesses. There have also been arrangements and continued consultation among those affected by the events, and a special committee that has been set up by the Cabinet to supervise assistance.
• But much more important than this short-term relief measure is the process of healing the wounds. The Government recognized that psychological rehabilitation must be done nation-wide, and it intended to do this with as much participation as possible.
Addressing the Grievances: Assembly and Reform Strategy
• The Government, moreover, recognizes the legitimate grievances of the rural poor that need a stronger and independent voice. In this respect, it is evidently clear that this is the most important mission of the Government, which is to resolve the fundamental problems, social justice in a systematic way with full participation by all sectors of the society.
• To implement the major core of PM’s Five-Point Roadmap, on 29 June 2010, the Thai Cabinet established two committees which have been given a broad mandate to work on the reform process with the aim of addressing structural problems related to economic and social disparity.
• Such reform could encompass improvement or adjustment of the social value system, resources and environmental management system, taxation and fiscal system, economic system, education system, justice system, political and state administration system, communication system, social welfare system, and others with a view to improving well-being in, strengthening and bringing fairness to society.
• The Committee on Reform Strategy, chaired by former Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun, will focus on drawing up strategies, measures and processes for reform, as well as formulate recommendations to be presented to the Government and the public for consideration and implementation.
• The Committee on Reform Assembly, chaired by Dr. Prawes Wasi, will concentrate on promoting participation of all sectors of society in moving the reform process forward. Towards this end, it will set up an assembly at the national level and support setting up of assemblies on specific issues and localities as appropriate.
• Both committees, which will work together in a coordinated manner and without Government interference, will carry out their tasks over the next three years. The chairpersons of the respective committees – both are recipients of the Ramon Magsaysay Award and widely respected for their impartiality and integrity - would select their own committee members to ensure independence and non-interference by the Government whose role would be limited to providing them with administrative support. A budget of 15 million Euros has been approved to support their work.
• Their work would also be coordinated and linked with that of various state mechanisms which would also be working in parallel. The mandate of both committees would be three years which would mean that their work would continue beyond the present Government’s term. Be that as it may, both committees are expected to make concrete recommendations on all structural issues within an appropriate time-frame.
Thailand’s Policy on Human Rights
• Thailand is a nation that has always been an open and tolerant society with fundamental freedoms as its bedrock. It was a safe heaven for millions of refugees, boat people, and displaced persons since the cold war till now.
• And, since entering office, the current Government has declared the promotion and protection of human rights to be one of its top national agendums.
• During our tenure as ASEAN Chair from 2008-2009, we were an important driving force for the creation of the ASEAN human rights body.
• Most recently, our candidature to the Human Rights Council for the term 2010-2013, and our subsequent assumption as the current Chair of the said Council are yet testimonies of the trusts and confidence of the international community to Thailand’s commitment to promote, protect and enhance human rights at all levels.
• As a State party to seven of the nine core international human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Thailand is fully committed to upholding the principles of human rights and observing its international obligations.
Madame Chairperson,
• In your Human Rights Diary Column titled “Reconciliation in Thailand is a Priority”, you had suggested that ‘Thailand should cooperate closely with the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Opinion and Expression’. As a newly-elected member of the Human Rights Council (HRC) and current President of the Council, Thailand has indeed every intention to engage and cooperate with the various bodies of the HRC. As a matter of fact, the Permanent Mission of Thailand to the UN Offices in Geneva has already been doing that all along, even when Thailand was just an Observer to the Council.
• With regard to cooperation with UN Special Rapporteurs / human rights bodies, the Permanent Mission of Thailand to the UN offices in Geneva has always tried to cooperate fully to request from concerned UN Special Procedures by providing prompt replies and information to the extent possible. Some were preliminary replies while awaiting more detailed information from the Ministry. Therefore, if any of the Special Procedures have additional issues of concern relating to the situation in Thailand, they should be conveyed to the Permanent Mission of Thailand to the UN offices in Geneva and it would be prepared to address them.
• Allow me at this point to mention a few issues that some of you may be interested.
Situation in the Southern Border Provinces
• Firstly as regards the situation in the Southern Border Provinces (SBP) of Thailand, I wish to state at the outset that the perpetrators of violence continue to use cultural differences to claim legitimacy in using violence to further their cause.
• The situation is neither a religious nor an inter-communal conflict. The Government recognizes that the root cause of the problem lies in the SBPs’ unique history and cultural identity, and the grievances of the local population on the perceived social and economic injustices, poverty and, most importantly, a desire for respect and for a better understanding of local traditions.
• Following this premise, the Government applies His Majesty the King’s advice to “understand, reach out, and develop” as the guiding principles in resolving the problem.
• A special committee made up of members of the Cabinet, with the mandate to focus on the issue of the South, has been set up.
• We made clear that achieving peace and stability in those provinces should not just be reliant on the deployment of security forces in the area, but achieved through the process of development, inclusive process and justice.
• For the first time we have a comprehensive plan of development in the 5 provinces in the south and clear targets that really matter to all the people and the community.
• The policy and approach by the current Government has been open and transparent, and adhere to the defense and promotion of human rights. Ambassadors, representatives of diplomatic missions in Bangkok as well as OIC have been arranged to visit the three provinces several times and accompanied by the Thai Foreign Minister himself. They engaged freely in discussion with both the security leaders as well as local NGOs and heard even some different opinions from the local communities.
Myanmar Displaced Persons
• Turning to the issue on Myanmar. I wish to be clear here that my government has no policy of pushing displaced persons back into harm’s way. Instead, the Thai Government has been working with NGOs to enhance self-reliance through vocational training and in exploring options for employment, beginning step by step from within the temporary shelter areas. ECHO, as well as other EU donors, can also support expansion of income-generating activities in the temporary shelter areas, as a good starting point.
• It is important to recognize that increasing opportunities for displaced persons will take time and resources. However, in recent years, relevant Thai authorities were informed by the NGOs that attempts have been made by some donors, including ECHO, to cut funding for NGOs’ assistance to the displaced persons, in order to force a rapid change on Thai policy. The Thai Government sees this as a sad situation, of which the victims are the unfortunate displaced persons.
• We therefore urge that the EP to support the continued assistance of the ECHO and EU member states for those in need as part of international burden sharing.
• It is important to address the problem at the root cause. Hence, Thailand urges the EP to also pay attention to development and humanitarian needs in Myanmar with a view to reducing “push factors” in the areas of origin.
• Since the upcoming general election in Myanmar may be a turning point paving the way to national reconciliation, enhancing the skills and education of displaced persons would enable them to eventually return to Myanmar in safety and dignity and develop their countries.
• For that matter, I believe the European Parliament can play an important role in mobilizing resources from EU member countries and organizations concerned to promote conditions in the countries of origin that will enable the potential illegal migrants, as well as the returnees, to lead sustainable livelihoods back home.
Rohingyas
• Due to linkages with statelessness and people smuggling issues, regional cooperation is required. Thailand is thus now pursuing a four-pronged approach:
1) Bilateral cooperation with Myanmar and Bangladesh;
2) Cooperation within a contact group of affected countries
(Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysian, Myanmar and Thailand);
3) Cooperation within ASEAN; and
4) Cooperation within the Bali Process.
• The Contact Group has been used for informal forum to exchange information between the six most-affected countries. Representatives from the Contact Group embassies in Bangkok and Geneva have already met several times.
• This issue has been raised at the ASEAN Ministerial Meetings and Summits in 2009. In this regard, ASEAN has looked at the possibility of applying the tripartite model, which was successful for the post-Cyclone Nargis humanitarian assistance, for development in North Rakhine State and other areas in Myanmar.
• In the Bali Process, the Ad Hoc Group has been invigorated to look at the irregular movements of various groups, including the Rohingyas. In this connection, various activities related to law enforcement, legal assistance and information campaigns are being implemented to help the affected countries to deal with the irregular movements.
• The Thai authorities had also granted access to the Myanmar Embassy to conduct interviews of the remaining members of the group but have not been informed of any official results. We are also looking at the possibility of other solutions in consultation with the UNHCR.
• Thailand looks forward to working with not only countries concerned but also the international community in tackling the issue. The European Parliament can play an important role in mobilizing international resources, especially from ECHO and EU member countries to promote conditions in the areas of origin that will enable the potential illegal migrants, as well as the returnees, to lead sustainable livelihoods back home.
Laotian Hmongs
• On Laotian Hmongs, my Foreign Minister has, on many occasions, raised the concern of the international community with the Lao Government.
• In return, Lao Government also asked my Foreign Minister to convey to the international community that they are ready to discuss this issue with concerned countries and international organizations.
• Assurance was reaffirmed on resettlement and access to these people and that the Laotian Hmongs are being well looked after.
• On our part, we will definitely keep engaging Lao PDR. At the same time, we also wish to see the international community as well as the EU to also be more actively engaged with Lao PDR government as well. For we believe, closer dialogue and engagement, and not so much name and shame game, is keys to success.
Conclusion
• Despite certain unfortunate political hiccups during the past seven decades since the end of absolute monarchy, including the recent one – there is no doubt that democracy and human rights development in Thailand have much progressed. Furthermore, the political, economic, and social fundamentals of the country remain strong to help support and drive our country forward.
• Inspite of the political turmoil perceived by viewers from international media in April and May, the Thai economy has registered 12% growth in the first quarter – one of the highest in the world and the overall growth in 2010 is expected to be 4.5 – 6.0%. Foreign investors and travelers have always been warmly welcomed with natural smile. They are not a target of any side who are all pro-business and pro-foreigners since the differences are strictly Thailand’s internal affairs.
• Thailand is working hard to search for a right balance to respond to the aspiration of all stakeholders in the country, the right balance between freedoms of expression tempered by respect for the same rule of law.
• The EU’s support for a democratic and peaceful resolution, while upholding its commitment to non-interference in what are Thailand’s domestic affairs is very much appreciated. I greatly appreciate the sentiments received from EU colleagues and friends in Brussels throughout the past months, which are those of understanding and supportive for the Government to achieve national reconciliation.
• We count on the EU’s continued understanding and being all-weather friend to Thailand which is the more important in the years ahead as our nation is overcoming difficult challenges to deepen our shared value in democracy and human rights.
Thank you.
------------------------------
|
