Samantha Orobator, a 20-year-old British woman, is facing trial for alleged possession of 680 grams (1.5 pounds) of heroin in Laos. Detained since August 2008 in Phonthong Prison outside Vientiane, she is five months pregnant. The Lao Penal Code mandates a death sentence by firing squad for some drug-related charges, including possession of more than 500 grams of heroin. Although the death penalty has not been enforced since 1989, the Lao government informed Amnesty International in March 2009 that eighty-five people were currently sentenced to death. The Foreign Ministry has assured human rights groups and the international media that the Lao Penal Code allows pregnant women to be exempted from the death penalty, and that this exemption will be observed in the case of Ms. Orobator.
Ms. Orobator’s case is shot through with questions about the Lao judicial process, not least how she became pregnant while incarcerated in a women’s prison. In addition, she has been denied access to British or Laotian lawyers for months. After difficulty and initial denial, a lawyer from the London-based legal rights organization, Reprieve, was able to see her on 12 May 2009. Ms. Orobator has still not been given a trial date, although the Lao government claims that it will be soon. Once sentenced, it is possible that Ms. Orobator could be transferred to Britain to serve the balance. Conditions in Laotian prisons are notoriously harsh, with reports of arbitrary physical punishment and insufficient amounts of food and water. Amnesty International characterized Ms. Orobator case as one that “highlights a justice system shrouded in secrecy, characterized by lack of access to legal representation and to independent human rights monitors.”
Although her case has become internationally prominent in recent weeks, it is important to stress that she is one of many people facing injustice at the hands of the Laotian government. There are over 5,000 Lao Hmong refugees presently detained at Huay Nam Khao detention center in Phetchabun in northeastern Thailand. Citing persecution dating from collaboration with the United States and opposition to the Pathet Lao in the 1960s and 1970s, the Lao Hmong fled to Thailand beginning in 2004. They have continually requested immediate asylum and third country resettlement. The Thai government has not recognized their requests for asylum and began forced repatriation in 2005. According to Human Rights Watch, 1,580 Lao Hmong asylum seekers have been repatriated since November 2005. While the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs has alleged that these were voluntary returns, both the Thai and Laotian governments have continued to deny the United National High Commissioner on Refugees access to the Lao Hmong.
What is of concern is that once repatriated, the Lao Hmong are at risk of ill-treatment and human rights violations by the Laotian government. In January 2009, Amnesty International reported that the at least twenty girls and women forcibly returned to Laos in December 2005 were arbitrarily detained for a year and a half upon return and that some were tortured during their detention. They also reported that the whereabouts and conditions of six additional people forcibly repatriated at the same time remained unknown. Commenting on repatriations which took place in June 2008, Radio Free Asia quoted a spokesperson from the Lao Foreign Ministry who noted that those repatriated would be sent to visit their families, and “then be sent to Paksane district, Bolikhamxay province, for more questioning and “education” prior to being sent home … except for those who no longer have land, houses, and those who used to practice slash-and-burn farming.” The lack of independent human rights monitors in Laos as well as a history of mistreatment of ethnic minorities makes concerns about possible ill-treatment particularly urgent. Yet in this case, it is not only the repressive Laotian government that is of concern, but also the Thai government’s collusion that makes Lao Hmong lives insecure.
Writing about the lesè majesté case of Suwicha Thakor in Thailand, Nicholas Farrelly recently highlighted the need to ensure that Suwicha’s continuing struggle is not forgotten. In April 2009, Suwicha Thakor was convicted of violating Article 112 of the Criminal Code and the Computer Crimes Act for allegedly posting material online that was insulting to the Thai monarchy. He is currently serving a fifteen-year sentence. Farrelly called for continued international attention and pressure. He pertinently asked: “But surely his case, and its clear public interest components, merits a detailed report in the international media? Or is Suwicha going to be put in the too hard basket? Do we only care when it is Australians and Swiss doing hard time for lese majeste?”
The case of Samantha Orobator raises a resonant question. Reporting on her impending trial, Alistair Leithead of the BBC commented that “But Laos knows the eyes of the world are watching; and those who care about image and reputation want the media to see they are following the rules and want to show Samantha can, at the very least, be defended at her trial.” The repression faced by the Lao Hmong suggests that Samantha Orobator’s case is not the only one which demands international scrutiny. As Ms. Orobator waits for her trial date and the precarious Lao Hmong wait to learn their fate, all that is certain is that there is an endemic absence of transparency and justice in Laos.
Tyrell Haberkorn is a Postdoctoral Fellow in Peace & Conflict Studies at Colgate University.
10 responses so far ↓
1 Konlao // May 21, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Please use your sense to write and get the real news before you post.
You want people who sell drug to be treated like a queen? Laos is a poor country, and many houses in remote area is worse than the jail in the capital. If you want her to stay well in Laos, donate your money, and we will put her in a better place.
She already committed that she was not rapped in Laos, but all of you try to throw bad image to Lao people. If we can write english well, we will fight you back.
2 yolada // May 22, 2009 at 10:28 am
i’m a hmong-american, and my parents were refugees of the vietnam war. i’ll be honest, i feel like both the laos and the thai government are not doing their best in solving this situation. i also know that it’s not an easy task, but there are peaceful ways of handling this. repatriating these people back forcefully may get rid of the problem, but the image will not look so good. i think that when MSF reacted, that was another sign of problems.
i strongly feel that the laos government still have animosity towards the hmong refugees for their involvement in the war, and it’s clear that today, these hmong people are living in fear of a government they cannot trust. both the laos government and the thai government, through this repratriate act has caused many hmong people to lose what little trust and faith they have left.
im not a perfect scholar, but i feel if these two countries encourage assimilating the hmong refugees into the society, and at the same time giving them security, this issue can slowly calm down. many people do not understand how it feels to live as a hmong person. no country to call their own, no government to call their own, just living day to day hoping they wont die.
i feel that with the level of politics that exists today, this issue can find a peaceful solution. if thai foreign prime minister kasit feels that there is no need to involve a third, i feel like there’s something that is being hidden, or something that they want to get over with quickly and quietly. if there is pure intention of finding these hmong refugees a home, then why not allow third parties to investigate and watch? both countries are capable of diplomatic solutions, but i honestly feel that grudges are often a part of the issue. historical animosity and misunderstanding also plays a role too i think.
both countries have great potential in being a leader and handling this issue accordingly with human rights groups, etc., i have relatives both in thailand and laos who live peacefully, so i dont understand why these refugees can not be given the same opportunity. or is it because they represent the remnants of a war and memories of a people that was abandoned?
i try to stay unbias on both sides. being a hmong person, i dont want to throw anger. i simply feel that if both countries do pure heartedly want to ‘help’ these refugees, they should do it so that the world does not question their actions and intentions.
these are just my thoughts. i would like to hear more opinions from fellow readers. thanks. take care
3 Ph O Piette // May 22, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Sorry but no excuses for Ms. Orobator. Don’t blame Laos. Because you are not a “local national” you should be excused when committing a crime. She deserves the death penalty, after the birth of the child. When we travel or reside as foreign workers, we are guests and should behave accordingly and respect local traditions and laws. Because she is a UK national she should be treated differently? You know that trafficking in drugs is illegal where ever you are and that there are stiff penalties especially in Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia. So if you do and get caught you know what the consequences will be.
4 tyrell haberkorn // May 23, 2009 at 12:58 am
The Asian Human Rights Commission has just posted a forwarded appeal from the Cross Cultural Foundation regarding the repatriation of the Lao Hmong. Find it here:
http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2009/3160/
5 William K. Roland // May 24, 2009 at 12:58 am
All those who are so quick to blame Ms. Orobator forget that there should be NO instances where a death penalty is imposed for a drug offense. This is a travesty and a clear violation of international norms.
Second, who is the father of her child? I imagine that a twenty year old farang would be quite appealing to the warden and guards. Was the sex consensual? Or was she raped? Is this going to come out?
As for the Hmong — both the Thai and the Lao Governments have a lot to answer for — they are systematically treating over 5000 people as no better than dogs. PM Abhisit’s human rights credential fail on this test. As for the Lao Government, it is little different from the SPDC in Burma when it comes to anyone it deems an opponent to the regime. Why is it treated better than Burma? Better tourism spots? Lao Beer? The fact that if a Lao Aung San Suu Kyi ever appeared, she would be sent to seminar in Attapeu, and never heard from again?
6 amberwaves // May 25, 2009 at 4:38 pm
William K. Roland – Agree with most of what you have to say, especially about Laos getting such a free ride compared to Burma, but FWIW, the British Foreign Office put out this statement on May 19:
All,
Jane Orobator, the mother of British national Samantha Orobator-Oghagbon who is in detention in Laos, visited her daughter for the second time earlier today in Laos. There has been speculation about some aspects of the case. Jane Orobator has asked the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to pass on the following statement on her behalf:
—BEGINS—
I am grateful to the Laos authorities for allowing me to visit my daughter. Samantha is looking well. She told me that she was not raped or sexually assaulted in prison and that the father of her unborn child is not a Lao prison official.
I hope that Samantha can now quickly have a fair trial and that she will be able to come home before too long.
—ENDS—
See also:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/20/laos-jail-woman-mother-denies-rape
7 Ph O Piette // May 25, 2009 at 6:37 pm
In response to William K. Roland statement that “NO instances where a death penalty is imposed for a drug offense. This is a travesty and a clear violation of international norms.” Who determine “international norms”? Us, Western? Guess what, the world is no longer made after your image white god. I can also determine that you have never been to either to Laos and Burma. If you had you would notice that there is a world of difference between the two places.
I can not commend about the Hmong in Thailand as I do not know the issue. Here in Vietnam the Hmong are well integrated in society and minorities have even their own TV language channel. But nothing would surprises me from the hypocritical and double dealing Thais.
8 tyrell haberkorn // May 26, 2009 at 12:52 am
Medecins Sans Frontieres has just released a briefing paper about the conditions faced by the Lao Hmong along the border, entitled “Hidden Behind Barbed Wire”: http://doctorswithoutborders.org/publications/article.cfm?id=3629&cat=special-report
9 MENGLA // May 26, 2009 at 2:12 am
To Tyrell Haberkorn,
I am trying to understand the point that you attempt to make in your post. It seems the certain injustice in Laos is rather blurred and expanded through time (past and present). So, I don’t understand whether you want us to be aware or concerned about the Hmong or the female ‘British citizen’ drug convict. These are two seperate issues that you can’t blurred them into one ‘human rights’ story of the present time. This is because at one point of our history heroin was ‘legal.’ At the same time, the Hmong were once lived in their own territory. Now that, the nation-state exists in people’s minds and reality as well as legal structures (e.g, illegalize heroin and other drugs). What was ‘right’ then could be ‘wrong’ now and depending where the ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ is being judged and said.
I wish we all could live in peace under one set of rules and laws but the world has proved the other way with many sets of rules and laws. It is the case for many rich and powerful countries trying to dominate smaller and poorer countries, which are always less ‘developed.’ So, whose line is it by the end of the day? Your or my definition of human right should work better? The answer can involve endless debates till we do recognize the origins and roots of ‘rights.’ Whose term is it? Or who first introduced it to the rest of the world? Many people say the ‘west’ but how far ‘west’ and who are the ‘westerners’ with great influences to make us agree on the same ‘right’? What makes right ‘right’?
The injustice happens now in Laos, particularly the ‘no trial’ is more understandable than rest. I wish I could understand and see more points in your post.
10 Arelia // Jun 4, 2009 at 11:57 am
To all,
Here’s the latest update of Briton’s case report by BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8080968.stm
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.