A New Mandala reader has referred me to one of the latest statements by the Asian Human Rights Commission which documents ongoing human rights abuses in southern Thailand. He writes:
In the South, they’re chaining Thai citizens to dogs and burning their genitals with cigarettes! I type that and want to cry. Why do we even call it “Thai”-land if we’re going to treat people like animals? This isn’t just bad or incompetent or dumb – this is evil.
9 responses so far ↓
1 patiwat // Feb 6, 2007 at 10:46 am
From the AHRC’s statement:
A group of soldiers took Muhamud Arming Usoh from near his home on 30 October 2006, as he returned from work at a rubber plantation. They didn’t produce any arrest warrant or evidence, or tell him where they were taking him or why. The emergency regulations in force over the southern provinces didn’t require this of them. At an unidentified army camp, they allegedly kicked and hit him in the face and over the head with a steel bar; burnt cigarettes onto his neck, chest, ear and genitals; and, smashed beer bottles across his knees. Where the physical torture ended the psychological abuse continued: Arming, a Muslim, was allegedly chained to a dog for the night, before being taken to a bigger camp the next day. After the week was up, he was handed to the police and charged with murder and firearms offences.
Read more about these outrages here: http://www.ahrchk.net/statements/mainfile.php/2006statements/911/
2 Vichai N // Feb 6, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Yes every human right abuse, every torture of prisoner, and every act by one Thai to dehumanize another Thai should shame Thailand. When did we start getting inhuman in the South and when will we stop?
3 Srithanonchai // Feb 6, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Perhaps things in the south will stop when the islamist militants would stop shooting and bombing people? Or, maybe, if Thailand agrees to let them have their Islamic Republic of Patani? But most Muslims in the south won’t like living in such a republic either, I guess.
4 Thai Radio // Feb 6, 2007 at 8:33 pm
If the current investigations assert that Muslims activists are indeed guilty of Bangkok’s bombings I fear that such events will happen even more often…
5 Bangkok Pundit // Feb 6, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Since the latest abuse occurred on 30 October 2006, this occurred after Thaksin so my criticism of AHRC shouldn’t be seen as pro-Thaksin propaganda. I have followed what AHRC have been saying for a while now particularly on the legislation used by the authorities in southern Thailand. I find their statements and conclusions unreliable. They make outrageous allegations on many issues which do not reflect reality as it fits their political and ideological agenda.
Now, I am not saying that this instance doesn’t occur, but AHRC
One example from their latest report:
“The Emergency Decree … [i]t grants even wider powers to the army and police than martial law and gives them complete impunity from prosecution for any actions taken under it,”
There is no impunity from prosecution. Chang Noi translates the provision as:
“”An official or other person appointed to exercise the decree is not subject to civil, criminal, or disciplinary liability arising from the conduct of duty, provided that actions are honest, not discriminatory, and not in excess of what is necessary and appropriate to the situation.”
In order for a government official to be able to rely on this provision (as a defence), their action has to be “not in excess of what is necessary and appropriate to the situation”. The mention of what is “necessary” incorporates proportionality (to cut a long story short this has been adopted from German law) which is essentially similar to most western countries. So unless the officials actions where proportionate they cannot rely on the provision. This is not impunity from the prosecution and to suggest so is more than misleading, but completely wrong.
6 Tosakan // Feb 7, 2007 at 2:13 am
Bangkok Pundit-
What was the point of the decree in the first place?
It makes the wording so vague that anybody can get away with torture.
It is an intentional loophole.
Dude, it gives the police and military carte blanche.
Please, explain what this means: “provided that actions are honest, not discriminatory, and not in excess of what is necessary and appropriate to the situation.”
All those are subjective words that can be interpreted to mean anything you want them to mean.
And this is Thailand we are talking about, where the meaning of words are always up to subjective interpretation. In Thailand, sometimes 2 plus 2 doesn’t equal 4.
I’m not trying to be contentious. I just disagree with you and agree with AHRC.
7 Bangkok Pundit // Feb 7, 2007 at 5:27 am
“What was the point of the decree in the first place?”
The point of the decree was to move away from the use of martial law which is under military rule with no judicial oversight on any matter. To detain someone under martial law, no judicial permission in needed whereas under the Emergency Decree it is. Evidence must be provided to a judge before someone can be detained for questioning and strict records have to be kept (at least they are meant to be). There are no records under martial law. Anyone can be arrested, for any reason whatsoever. The military arrested 1300 people at Tak Bai under martial law, but this couldn’t happen under the Emergency Decree (well unless they had evidence against all 1300 and judicial permission to arrest people).
Martial law is declared by the military and is often open ended. It is frequently used throughout the whole country and there a myriad of provisions which can be used by the authorities whenever they want. Many are not actually used, but could be used by any individual officer if they wanted. The Emergency Decree is fully under the power of the Prime Minister or a designated Minister. Only the provisions and the provinces which they specify can be used and be applied to respectively. It has a 90 day time limit before it is renewed. Before the coup, martial law was actually in place in most border provinces in Thailand has been since the 1991 coup. It could be used at anytime by the military.
“All those are subjective words that can be interpreted to mean anything you want them to mean.”
Ok, here is the Wikipedia entry for self-defence in Australia:
“In the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Howe (1958) SASR 95, Mason J formulated six propositions on the law of self-defence which were accepted as a model direction on self-defence in murder trials. Thus, a full acquittal was achieved if the jury found that the accused had reasonably believed that he or she was being threatened with death or serious bodily harm and, if so, that the force used was reasonably proportionate to the perceived danger.”
Reasonably believed… reasonably proportionate. Both are subjective as well. Self-defence allows you, literally, to get away with murder. Law is subjective, if not we would have computers for judges. Objective/reasonable person tests are a mainstay of the legal system in every country I know of.
Section 17 is basically a defence. I don’t think it is has much application in criminal trials, more for civil actions. People can still bring an action against the state, but it is just more difficult to bring an action against the individual officer.
8 patiwat // Feb 7, 2007 at 8:38 am
I admit that I don’t really care whether torture is legal or not according to the Emergency Decree or the Interim Constitution.
The torture of prisoners in Iraq was condemned by the world not because of US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ legal opinion about whether it was legal or not – it was condemned because it was an insult to the dignity of all men.
I’m beginning to understand why the Thai newspapers have refused to publish the AHRC report (despite the glee with which they picked up on previous AHRC reports about Thaksin-government abuses). If Southerners knew that the royally-blessed junta was chaining citizens to dogs, we might as well kiss the South goodbye.
9 nganadeeleg // Feb 7, 2007 at 8:44 am
How this case (AHRC allegations) is handled will be a good indicator of whether the Surayud government is any better than the Thaksin government – we all know how Thaksin handled such matters!
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.