 |
| Thai junta foreign minister Thanasak Patimaprakorn. (Photo: AP) |
By Saksith Saiyasombut & Siam Voices
Mar 04, 2015
It is hard to deny that the human rights situation in Thailand has sharply deteriorated since last year’s coup which brought in the authoritative military government and its repressive measures to curtail dissent and criticism against their rule.
We have extensively reported on heavy media censorship, hundreds of arbitrary detentions with some allegations of torture, the relentless prosecution of lèse majesté suspects at home and abroad (two young theater activists have been recently sentenced to jail), the junta’s increased efforts to spy online and its intolerance for any kind of protest ormere criticism, especially from abroad. And all that for the junta’s often-claimed maintenance of “peace and order”, while the country still is under martial law. Whoever isn’t keeping calm is being “invited” for “attitude adjustment”.
To say the situation is abysmal would be an understatement. Human Rights Watch said in its annual report that Thailand is in “free fall” and Amnesty International stated that the junta’s actions are creating “a climate of fear”. Meanwhile, the biggest worry of Thailand’s own National Human Rights Committee (NHRC) is not the human rights situation itself – even when student activists are being harassed almost right in front of its chairperson – or an impending major international downgrade, but rather they are more concerned about their own existence amidst proposals to merge it together with the Ombudsman’s Office.
With all that in mind, the Thai military junta’s foreign minister General Thanasak Patimaprakorn went to Geneva earlier this week to attend the annual regular session of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Granted, its current member states are also not all what can be considered shining beacons of human rights, but nevertheless Gen. Thanasak didn’t have an easy task representing Thailand (which is not a council member at the moment) and its situation to the world.
Thus, his opening statement (which you can see a video of here and read the transcript here) was more on the safe side with commitments to contribute to the work of the UN Human Rights Council. It would have been a rather unremarkably insignificant speech weren’t it for these two excerpts:
"Human rights exercised in the most extreme manner may come at a high price, especially in unstable or deeply divided societies. It may even lead such societies to the brink of collapse. And in such situations, it is the most vulnerable in societies who suffer the most.
What in the world is the “most extreme manner” of human rights, anyways?! Wouldn’t the most extreme form of human rights be that actually ALL people can enjoy the same level of respect, dignity and legal fairness, regardless whoever they are?! And how could that bring a society of collapse?!
It gets even better, when he said a couple of moments later:
"Freedom of expression without responsibility, without respect for the rights of others, without respect for differences in faiths and beliefs, without recognising cultural diversity, can lead to division, and often, to conflict and hatred. Such is the prevailing situation of our world today. So we must all ask ourselves what we could and should do about it.
Yes, those are all valid points, wouldn’t it be for the pot calling the kettle back.
Thailand could, for example, introduce an official language policy that promotes the cultural diversity of its ethnic minorities, instead of just emphasizing the similarities.
Or it could also investigate a protest of roughly 1,000 Buddhists against the construction of a mosque in the Northern province of Nan earlier this week, while everybody’s claiming not be against it for religious reasons, but also showing concern about “noise pollution”, “different [read: incompatible] life styles” and potential “unrest and violence” once the mosque is built.
Or what about all those times when Thai junta Prime Minister General Prayuth Chan-ocha lashed out against the media for still being too critical again and again or otherwise be utterly cantankerous and highly sardonic towards members of the press (if the junta is not censoring it, of course)? And what about the things that the junta says in general?
You see, it is not “extreme” human rights or freedom of expression that is the problem here, it is the blatant disregard of it that brings societies to the brink. The “extreme” version is to have a population that is not afraid of prosecution or any invisible lines for whatever they are saying and where the responsibility lies with society as a whole and not few powerful ones dictating it.
But then again, what isn’t too “extreme” for the Thai military junta?
