Prachatai English

Burmese Migrant Workers Rights Network and Thai Union Federation Honored by Leading U.S. Labor Rights Group

prachatai — Thu, 23 May 2013 03:01:36 +0000

International Labor Rights Forum

Washington, D.C. – The International Labor Rights Forum (ILRF) will honor the Burmese Migrant Workers Rights Network (MWRN) and the State Enterprises Workers’ Relations Federation (SERC) with the 2013 International Labor Rights Award for their groundbreaking work in defending migrant workers in Thailand. The ILRF’s International Labor Rights Award is given annually to recognize the significant contributions of labor rights advocates toward achieving just and humane treatment for workers worldwide.

Migrant workers from the neighboring countries of Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos make up an estimated 10 percent of Thailand’s labor force, particularly in labor intensive export industries like seafood processing, agriculture, garment manufacturing, construction and domestic care. Many of these workers are trafficked into the country by labor brokers and are often subjected to labor exploitation. Horrible working conditions, including under and non-payment of wages, violations of minimum wage laws, long overtime hours, dangerous and unsanitary work environments and the denial of freedom of association and collective bargaining rights are common. Worse still, instances of debt bondage, forced labor and child labor are known to be widespread in these industries.

In 2009 migrant workers from Myanmar employed in Thailand’s seafood processing sector formed MWRN to address issues relating to human trafficking, forced labor, child labor, and other labor rights violations. With assistance from Mr. Sawit Kaevwarn, ILRF award recipient and the Secretary General of SERC, Mr. Aung Kyaw, ILRF award recipient and the President of MWRN, has grown MWRN into the largest grassroots member-based migrant worker association in Thailand.

Over the last three years, MWRN has courageously exposed labor rights violations at seafood processing facilities producing for the largest U.S. retailers, welcomed noble peace prize recipient Aung San Suu Kyi on her first overseas trip in 24 years to Mahachai, Samutsakorn Province in Thailand, and advocated for major reforms to Thailand’s immigration laws.

Although migrant workers cannot legally form a union in Thailand, the collaboration between SERC and MWRN has helped bridge the gap between the traditional union movement in Thailand and the struggles of migrant workers. SERC and MWRN have successfully established a “Humanitarian Transportation Project” to enable Myanmar migrant workers to visit their hometowns securely with the Cooperation of Transport Co, Ltd. Furthermore, SERC under the leadership of Mr. Kaevwarn has filed a petition with the International Labour Organization alleging that the denial of work accident compensation to migrant workers by the Government of Thailand is a clear breach of ILO Convention 19.

"MWRN is on its way to becoming a globally recognized representative of migrant workers on issues relating to trafficking, forced labor and other labor rights abuses in Thailand,” said Judy Gearhart, Executive Director of ILRF. “We are committed to standing with MWRN and supporting the organizations work in the future.”

****

INTERNATIONAL LABOR RIGHTS FORUM (ILRF) is an advocacy organization dedicated to achieving just and humane treatment for workers worldwide.

A Global Goal on Gender Equality, Women’s Rights and Women’s Empowerment

prachatai — Thu, 23 May 2013 02:56:52 +0000

Lakshmi Puri, UN Women

Hardly a day goes by without a news story on some violation of women’s rights. In recent months, appalling incidents of violence against women and girls, from Delhi to Johannesburg to Cleveland, have sparked public outrage and demands to tackle these horrific abuses.

In Bangladesh and Cambodia, the shocking loss of life by garment factory workers, many of them women, sparked global debate on how to secure safe and decent jobs in our globalized economy. In Europe, the disproportionate impact on women of austerity cuts, and the use of quotas to get more women on corporate boards continue to make headlines.

Even though women have made real gains, we are constantly reminded how far we have to go to realize equality between men and women.

World leaders recognized the pervasiveness of discrimination and violence against women and girls when they signed onto the visionary Millennium Declaration in 2000. Amongst the eight Millennium Development Goals, they included a goal to promote gender equality and women’s empowerment.

With these goals set to expire in 2015, we are now in a race to achieve them. We are also in the midst a global conversation about what should replace them. It’s time for women to move from the sidelines to the centre.

In a new post-2015 development agenda, we must build on the achievements of the MDGs while avoiding their shortcomings. Everyone agrees that the goals have galvanised progress to reduce poverty and discrimination, and promote education, gender equality, health and safe drinking water and sanitation.

The goal on gender equality and women’s empowerment tracked progress on school enrolment, women’s share of paid work, and women’s participation in parliament. It triggered global attention and action. It served to hold governments accountable, mobilize much-needed resources, and stimulate new laws, policies, programmes and data.

But there are glaring omissions. Noticeably absent is any reference to ending violence against women and girls. Also missing are other fundamental issues, such as women’s right to own property and the unequal division of household and care responsibilities.

By failing to address the structural causes of discrimination and violence against women and girls, progress towards equality has been stalled. Of all the MDGs, the least progress has been made on MDG5, to reduce maternal mortality. The fact that this has been the hardest goal to reach testifies to the depth and scope of gender inequality.

To make greater progress, UN Women proposes a stand-alone goal to achieve gender equality, women’s rights and women’s empowerment that is grounded in human rights and tackles unequal power relations. We envision three areas that require urgent action.

First, ending violence against women and girls must be a priority. From sexual violence in the camps of Haiti and Syria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to intimate partner shootings in the United States and elsewhere, this violence causes untold physical and psychological harm. It is one of the most pervasive human rights violations, and carries tremendous costs for individuals, families and societies.

Second, women and men need equal opportunities, resources and responsibilities to realize equality. Equal access to land and credit, natural resources, education, health services including sexual and reproductive health, decent work and equal pay needs to be addressed with renewed urgency. Policies, such as child care and parental leave, are needed to relieve working women’s double duty so women and men can enjoy equality at work and at home.

And third, women’s voices must be heard. It is time for women to participate equally in decision making in the household, the private sector and institutions of governance. Despite progress in recent years, women comprise just 20 percent of parliamentarians and 27 percent of judges. For democracy to be meaningful and inclusive, women’s voices and leadership must be amplified in all public and private spaces.

Any new development agenda must be grounded in human rights agreements that governments have already signed onto. This includes the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the 1995Beijing Platform for Action, and UN resolutions, including the recent agreement of the Commission on the Status of Women on eliminating and preventing all forms of violence against women and girls.

There is plenty of evidence to show that countries with a higher status of women also enjoy higher levels of social and economic performance. There is also evidence to guide countries on what works, from equitable labour market policies, to the removal of discriminatory laws and policies, to universal social protection and social services, to security and justice reforms that end impunity for violence against women and girls. The activism of the women’s movement everywhere has been critical in demanding and driving change in all of these areas.

The discussions to shape the post-2015 global development agenda offer a real opportunity to drive lasting change for women’s rights and equality. A strong global goal can push our societies to the tipping point of rejecting violence and discrimination against women and girls and unleash the potential of half the population for a more peaceful, just and prosperous world and a sustainable planet.

###

Lakshmi Puri is Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations and Acting Executive Director of UN Women, United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women.

THAILAND: The regularization of the crisis of freedom of expression

prachatai — Thu, 23 May 2013 02:50:56 +0000

Asian Legal Resource Centre

A written statement submitted to the UN Human Rights Council by the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC), a non-governmental organisation with general consultative status

1. The Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) wishes to bring the regularization of the crisis of freedom of expression in Thailand to the attention of the Human Rights Council. This statement is the sixth on this topic that the ALRC has submitted to the Council since May 2011. During the seventeenth session of the Council in May 2011, the ALRC highlighted the rise in the legal and unofficial use of Article 112 of the Criminal Code and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act (CCA) to constrict freedom of expression and intimidate citizens critical of the monarchy (A/HRC/17/NGO/27). During the nineteenth session in February 2012, the ALRC detailed some of the threats faced both by those who have expressed critical views of the monarchy, both legal and extralegal, as well as those who have expressed concern about these threats (A/HRC/19/NGO/55). During the twentieth session in June 2012, the ALRC raised concerns about the weak evidentiary basis of convictions made under Article 112 and the CCA (A/HRC/20/NGO/37) and the concerning conditions surrounding the death in prison custody of Amphon Tangnoppakul on 8 May 2012, then serving a 20-year sentence for four alleged violations of Article 112 and the CCA (A/HRC/20/NGO/38). During the twenty-second session in March 2013, the ALRC highlighted the January 2013 conviction under Article 112 of human rights defender and labour rights activist Somyot Prueksakasemsuk (A/HRC/22/NGO/44).

2. In the prior five statements, the ALRC has been concerned with the urgency of the threats posed by the constriction of freedom of expression. Particularly in the context of the 19 September 2006 coup and the violent clashes between state security forces and citizens in April-May 2010, the protection of fundamental human rights is necessary to foster the rule of law and democratization. The ALRC is again raising the issue of freedom of expression with the Council because the constriction of speech in the name of protecting the monarchy and national security has now become regularized. This is no longer an unusual breach of human rights, but one that has become constitutive of political and social life in Thailand. The entrenchment of the violation of freedom of expression threatens to normalize an additional series of human rights violations, such as the routine denial of bail to individuals awaiting trial and appeal, the provision of substandard medical care in prisons, and the use of secrecy to restrict the openness of trials and public information about ongoing cases.

3. Article 112 criminalizes criticism of the monarchy and mandates that, "Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years." The 2007 CCA, which was promulgated as part of Thailand's compliance as a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, has been used to target web editors and websites identified as critical of the monarchy or dissident in other ways. The CCA provides for penalties of up to five years per count in cases which are judged to have involved the dissemination or hosting of information deemed threatening to national security, of which the institution of the monarchy is identified as a key part. While Article 112 law has been part of the Criminal Code since the last major revision in 1957, available statistics suggest that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of complaints filed since the 19 September 2006 coup; how often these complaints become formal charges and lead to prosecutions is information that the Government of Thailand has failed to provide up to this point. The CCA has often been used in combination with Article 112 in the four years since its promulgation; similar to the use of Article 112, complete usage information has not been made available by the Government of Thailand. This failure to provide information itself raises many unanswered questions about the use of both laws to diminish space for freedom of expression through the use of secrecy and creation of uncertainty.

4. At present, there are 6 persons known to be serving prison terms for alleged violations of Article 112 and/or the CCA and 1 person behind bars while awaiting trial.

a. Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul was convicted of violations of Article 112 related to 55 minutes of speech and sentenced to 18 years in prison on 28 August 2009. Following examination of her case by the Constitutional Court, her sentenced was reduced to 15 years in December 2011.

b. Wanchai Sae Tan was convicted of violations of Article 112 related to leaflets he made and distributed and sentenced to 15 years in prison on 26 February 2010.

c. Thanthawut Taweewarodomkul was convicted of violations of Article 112 and the CCA related to his work maintaining the NorPorChorUSA website and sentenced to 13 years in prison on 15 March 2011.

d. Surachai Sae Dan (Danwattananusorn) was convicted of a series of violations of Article 112 related to political speeches he made and sentenced to a total of 12.5 years in prison in a series of cases in 2012.

e. Somyot Prueksakasemsuk was convicted of violations of Article 112 related to his work in editing and publishing Voice of Taksin magazine, which was deemed to include two anti-monarchy articles (written by someone else) and sentenced to a total of 11 years in prison on 23 January 2013 (10 years on Article 112-related charges and 1 year related to a prior case).

f. Ekachai Hongkangwan was convicted of violations of Article 112 related to selling VCDs of an ABC Australia documentary and copies of WikiLeaks material and sentenced to 3 years and 4 months in prison on 28 March 2013.

g. Yutthapoom (last name withheld) has been held in the Bangkok Remand Prison since 19 September 2012 on charges of violating Article 112.

5. While there have been several other convictions in recent years, these 7 cases stand out because the individuals involved have repeatedly been denied bail, always on the grounds that their crimes are too grave a threat to national security to permit even temporary release. Although some individuals were granted bail while awaiting trial, upon conviction they were all denied bail, despite ongoing processes of appeal. This is in contravention to Article 9(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a state party, which specifies: "Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment." Bail is routinely granted during trials and after conviction while awaiting appeal in cases of committing violent crimes in Thailand, but routinely denied for cases involving freedom of speech.

6. As highlighted by the May 2012 death in custody of Amphon Tangnoppakul, who was then serving a 20-year sentence for allegedly sending 4 anti-monarchy SMS messages, which the ALRC commented on in a June 2012 submission to the Council (A/HRC/20/NGO/38), the prison healthcare system in Thailand falls well beneath the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. As part of the testimony provided during the April 2013 postmortem inquest hearings into Amphon's death in custody, as reported by Prachatai, Amphon reported to fellow prisoners that when he went to seek treatment at the prison hospital, physicians made contemptuous comments about his alleged defamation of the monarchy. This goes far beyond institutional failure to meet minimum standards and indicates that physicians have become partial and may not provide an equal level of care to all prisoners.

7. Prosecutions under Article 112 and the CCA are surrounded by several different kinds of secrecy. The first is that the total number of charges and prosecutions under these two measures has not been made public by the Government of Thailand. The reason that the ALRC noted above in the list of current prisoners above that these are the known cases of individuals currently serving prison sentences or under detention while awaiting trial is that in the annual U.S. State Department Human Rights Report on Thailand, released in late April 2013, they reported that the number of persons detained or imprisoned under laws related to lèse majesté was between 7 and 18. Those 7 individuals listed above are those who are known to be behind bars, but the U.S. State Department report indicates there may be an additional 11 individuals being held. The failure of the Government of Thailand to provide precise information to the public itself raises many unanswered questions about the use of the laws to diminish space for freedom of expression through the use of secrecy. In addition, in at least two cases, those of Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul and Wanchai Sae Tan, the trials were held in camera and were closed to the public on the basis that the dissemination of the testimony may constitute a threat to national security. In a 2011 comment, the Constitutional Court argued that there was no contradiction between a secret trial and the protection of rights and liberties as provided for in the 2007 Constitution. Taken together, these two forms of secrecy create uncertainty about what consequences citizens may face for the basic exercise of human rights and makes political participation filled with possible danger.

8. The ALRC is very concerned about the effects of the regularization of the constriction of freedom of expression on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in Thailand. The danger of this regularization is that it naturalizes violations of rights and causes them to appear normal and justified. The ALRC would like to remind the Government of Thailand that under Article 19 of the ICCPR, restrictions on the right to freedom of expression are only permissible under two circumstances: "for respect of the rights or reputations of others" and "for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals." While measure 112 is classified as a crime against national security within the Criminal Code of Thailand, and this is frequently cited by the Government of Thailand when faced with the criticism that the measure is in tension with the ICCPR, to date a clear explanation of the precise logic for categorizing the measure as such has not been provided. Without an adequate explanation being provided, the constriction of freedom of expression is arbitrary.

9. In view of the above, the Asian Legal Resource Center calls on the UN Human Rights Council to:

a. Call on the Government of Thailand to release all those convicted or facing charges under Article 112 and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act.

b. Demand that the Government of Thailand revoke Article 112 of the Criminal Code and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act.

c. Demand that the Government of Thailand provide an accounting of how they will improve the provisions for healthcare in prison and ensure that all prisoners receive the same treatment, without regard for the alleged crimes that they have committed.

d. Urge the Government of Thailand to allow and support the full exercise of freedom of expression and political freedom, consistent with the terms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which it is a signatory, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which it is a state party.

e. Request the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of opinion and expression to continue ongoing monitoring and research about the brought situation of constriction of rights and individual cases in Thailand; and, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to continue to monitor and report on those cases of persons arbitrarily detained under Article 112.

# # #

About the ALRC: The Asian Legal Resource Centre is an independent regional non-governmental organisation holding general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is the sister organisation of the Asian Human Rights Commission. The Hong Kong-based group seeks to strengthen and encourage positive action on legal and human rights issues at the local and national levels throughout Asia.

May 19th remembered

prachatai — Thu, 23 May 2013 02:28:26 +0000

The Red Shirts, also known as the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), gathered on May 19th at Ratchaprasong intersection from the early morning to late at night to commemorate the third anniversary of the 2010 military crackdown.

'I don't know. I'm sick.'

Most Red Shirts from other provinces came in the morning, securing different spots at the rally site. In addition to the main stage at the centre of Ratchaprasong intersection, there were at least three more stages: a stage by the January 29 Front – Free Political Prisoners - located near BTS Ratchadamri station, which also showcased an exhibition of photos by Fabio Polenghi, the Italian photojournalist who died during the military crackdown; the Red Shirts Radio Station for Democracy stage on Ratchadamri Road; and a stage near Wat Pathumwanaram by relatives of the victims, led by Nurse Kade’s mother Phayao Akhad.

Elisabetta Polenghi

Elisabetta Polenghi, the younger sister of Fabio Polenghi, also appeared at the January 29 Front stage. She selected photos from her brother’s collection for an exhibition called “The last pictures, Bangkok 2553”. These showed the red shirt rallies and were taken before Fabio was killed near the Sarasin intersection on May 19th, 2010.

After a self-introduction, she gave a short speech expressing her thanks to the Red Shirts and her delight in the day’s activity. She expressed regret that her brother, a photographer who wanted through photography to help those who suffered, had to end his life this way.

Elisabetta said she did not wish for those who killed her brother to be punished or executed, but just wanted the truth to be revealed. She also said the trial process was faster than she had expected.

Somsak Jeamteerasakul, Thammasat University history lecturer, then spoke briefly. He said it was sorrowful to see how middle class people in Bangkok still take satisfaction from the loss of the red shirts, even though the incident was three years ago.

Somsak Jeamteerasakul

He said the amnesty law creates loopholes that allow state officials to get away with violence and murder.

“I want society to realize that what happened three years ago was absolutely wrong.” Somsak said. “The military used weapons against the people and was able to do so with impunity.”

On the main stage, Robert Amsterdam, a lawyer representing the UDD, explained why the Red Shirts should not threaten Abhisit Vejjajiva or Suthep Thaugsuban as they have the same right to speak as everyone else.

Robert Amsterdam

He added that the red shirts have the duty to make the world understand that the Democrat Party did not come to power by legitimate means and an election, since they could not win. Amsterdam announced that they should call the Democrats the military regime party because they do not have many supporters and attempt to deprive the rights and liberties of the people. The duty of the Red Shirts is to reveal the real behaviour of the Democrats, he said.

Amsterdam said that during his talks in different countries, he would expose the truth that because of their behaviour, the Democrats do not deserve to be in the Liberal International, an international political federation of liberal parties. He would call for their expulsion from that federation, he said.

He called for the red shirts to demand the release of political prisoners and those who were jailed on Article 112 charges, to regain the national reputation for freedom. He also called for reforms in prison conditions.

Amsterdam told the red shirt demonstrators that he would visit the red shirts convicted of arson in 2010 in the northeast provinces and invited the red shirts to do the same.

Meanwhile at the stage near Wat Pathumwanaram, relatives of the victims of the 2010 crackdown read out a statement calling for the government to speed up the investigations of cases still being processed by the DSI. They also called on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to sign and ratify the treaty of the International Criminal Court, and expressed support for the draft amnesty bill of Pheu Thai MP Worachai Hema, which would grant an amnesty to protestors from all sides but exclude movement leaders and state officials.

The National Human Rights Commission told Prachatai last month that it is now finalizing the fact-finding report on the April-May 2010 political violence, and will publish it in April, after a number of delays.

Translated by Takato Mitsunaga

Source: http://prachatai.com/journal/2013/05/46805

The Resurgence of the People's Movement?

prachatai — Tue, 21 May 2013 11:30:54 +0000

Aim Sinpeng

They're back on the streets again...this time holding "green" flags and "fists" as their symbol. The reborn sections of the Assembly of the Poor and former Yellow Shirts have learned expensive lessons from their share in the color-coded conflict: never forsake you own grievances for some lofty political gains.

(Credit: P-Move Facebook)

Is this a resurgence of true people's politics?

Or is this old stuff in a new bottle?

The People's Movement for Just Society, or "P-Move," took to the streets beginning on May 6 to call for Yingluck government's attention on decades-old problems of inequality, poverty and injustice. The 4-Region Slum Network, Assembly of the Poor's Pak Mun Dam, Land Reform Network, and Community Network for Social and Political Reform took the lead in their march to Government House while thousands more joined in over the following week. They came for the sole purpose of getting their voices heard at the next cabinet meeting on May 15.

"We, the urban poor, the farmers and others in the agricultural sector have been gravely disaffected by the country's uneven development and unequal access to resources. We are never given the chance to improve our livelihood or reach our potential. It's not because we're lazy. We were just not given the opportunity. The only way to make a just, more equal society is to provide equal access to resources," proclaimed a P-Move leader.

Their 19-point policy recommendation includes broad issues such as reforming the state, the power structure and the justice system. Other more specific demands include the issue of land ownership, dams, and natural disaster funds. Emergency issues that need immediate attention are temporary protection for those soon to be issued land title deeds, Pak Mun Dam, land bank and sustainable housing project. While this laundry list of demands seems all too familiar to those who have followed grassroots and NGO movements in the past two decades, such renewed mobilization underscores the stubborn persistence of these problems.

Despite a "promise" from the government, P-Move was hung out to dry (again) as none of their issues were brought to the table at the cabinet's meeting. Yingluck also warned P-Move protesters, some of whom are in Chiang Mai, not to stage protest rallies near the upcoming Asia-Pacific Water Summit to be held at a newly minted Convention Center in the northern province.

Direk Kong-ngeun, a representative from the Federation of Northern Region Farmers and a community leader in Ban Pong, Chiang Mai, ushered his disappointment with the government's unwillingness to consider their concerns. Direk, who himself was being charged for trespassing "private property," vowed to fight til the end. "If I were to be jailed to set an example, I would be willing to. If I could create salience for the issue of landlessness and raise awareness about the poor then be it."

The faces at the P-Move rallies are too familiar. Some of the same groups joined the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) - or the Yellow Shirts - to oust Thaksin since 2006. The 4- Region Slum Network, whose late leader - Suwit Watnoo - became part of the PAD's leadership was among the forefront of the renewed mobilization. Other anti-Thaksin groups, such as the Assembly of the Poor, was also prominent. Sulak Sivaraksa, the AOP's de facto leader (phoo yai) gave a speech on stage encouraging this grassroots movement to fight for the people.

This re-mobilization of the people's sector indeed has two main implications. First, P-Move seeks to differentiate itself from the highly politicized color-coded movements of the Red and Yellow Shirts. It aims to rebrand its image as the "real" grassroots movement whose foundation rests on the true problems of the poor. They implicitly acknowledged the mistakes they made for joining the Yellow Shirts and allowed other groups with vested interests to "steal" their voices for their own political gains. By so doing, P-Move also admitted that forming alliances with other unlike-minded groups was ineffective. They needed, in essence, to break away from the "yellow" color and go back to basic.

P-Move also seeks to situate themselves as separate from the Red Shirts. The Red Shirts are not the "de facto" grassroots movement that seeks to help the poor. By raising their green flags and holding protest banners against the Yingluck government, they made clear that they are the ones really fighting for the poor and the disadvantaged. The struggle against the unjust and highly unequal system is about community rights and access to resources, not political amnesty for Thaksin nor a fight with the Constitutional Court. The real voices of the people at the bottom are not ones tied to a political party.

While part of the Yellow Shirt media took credit for this new round of protests, P-Move needs to stay firm on their own grounds if they were to be taken seriously. Given the tarnished leadership for some of the groups having been involved with the Yellow Shirts, it's going to take the Yingluck government and the public some convincing that this movement is not about the current political conflict.

###

Aim is a Doctoral Candidate in Political Science at the University of British Columbia. She is also a Liu Scholar, an Associate of Institute of Asian Research and a Fellow at Thammasat University.

Fabio Polenghi’s last photos on exhibition

prachatai — Sat, 18 May 2013 07:06:11 +0000

Some of the last photographs taken by photo-journalist Fabio Polenghi, who was shot and killed on 19 May 2010 in Bangkok during the government crackdown on red-shirt protests, have been put on exhibition by his sister. The court will deliver its verdict on the inquest into his death on 29 May.

On 18 May, Elisabetta Polenghi opened an exhibition of her brother’s photographs at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand.

Elisabetta Polenghi at the exhibition

This is to commemorate the last moments of Fabio’s life and his goodwill towards his fellow humans and justice through the photographs he had taken telling stories amidst conflicts, she said.

In addition to those of the violent incidents in Thailand in 2010, photographs about communities in Brazil and refugees in Myanmar were also shown.

Elisabetta said that it had taken her about a year to collect over 500 of Fabio’s photos and about another 4 months to select 30 to be shown on the exhibition.

Fabio’s last photo from his computer, taken on 18 May 2010.

She said that choosing the photos for exhibition was very difficult because it was like living his life and understanding his last moments before he was shot, as she had not been with him at that moment.

The South Bangkok Criminal Court has been conducting an inquest into Fabio’s death for over a year, and is expected to deliver its verdict at the end of this month.

From the trial and evidence, it can be said that the bullets that killed her brother came from the direction of military troops, she said. She believed that the court would make the right decision.

She said that the Thai justice system was quicker than she had thought. Initially, she believed that her brother’s case might never reach the courts at all.

Although it was hard for her to take each step on the way, she did not expect or wish the killers to be executed or punished. She just wanted the truth to come out, she said.

The exhibition will be on display at the FCCT in Ploenchit, Bangkok, until 30 May.

Fabio’s camera was stolen by an unidentified man right after he was shot. See Who is this man?

Source: http://www.prachatai.com/journal/2013/05/46786

Live it or Leave it

prachatai — Sat, 18 May 2013 05:06:33 +0000

Harrison George

Right, I’ve had enough. I’m sick up to here with this mindless ‘if you don’t like it here, then go and live somewhere else’ garbage.

So what about you? If you don’t like reading this stuff, why don’t you go and live somewhere else where they don’t write like this? Never thought of that, did you, eh?

Of course, this is on the internet, so I suppose it’s everywhere. But nobody’s forcing you to read it. You had the sense to know how to turn on your computer and navigate to this page, right? So how come you don’t have the wit to turn your computer off? Huh?

Or maybe you are one of these people who get their jollies from being outraged. Righteous indignation gives you such a bigger thrill than anything you might agree with, is that your problem?

Don’t worry, you’re not alone. When fans of the original shock jock Howard Stern were asked why they stayed tuned, they reported they wanted to know what he’d say next. The same poll found that people who hated him stayed tuned even longer, because they too wanted to know what he’d say next.

And what’s this gratuitously insulting reference to ‘your Thai sweetie’? Are you referring to my eminently respectable, highly educated and universally well-regarded wife of 37 years?

Pardon, dear?

38? Are you sure?

Yes of course I remember when we got married, darling, I buy roses every anniversary, don’t I?

No, don’t take it like that, it’s just that I thought we got married in, er, 19, er …

No don’t lock the door, dear. I was misled by your youthful good looks, my sweetheart. It was just a slip of the memory, of course it’s 38 years, I remember now. 38 absolutely wonderful years, in fact, and why are you packing a suitcase?

Bugger. See what you’ve done now with your stupid ‘sweetie’ comment?

And who are you calling ‘Mr Farang’? Look, I’m not so stupid that I assume that just because someone calls himself ‘Somchai’, he must be Thai. Or even a he. Oh no, I could see that coming a mile away. So why do you assume that Harrison George has to be farang? Eh? You fall off a Christmas tree or something?

Yes, I know you’re not the only saying ‘love it or leave it’. It’s a common refrain of mindless patriots around the world. There’s the Commander-in-Chief of the bleeding army for one, and anyone choosing to sing off his hymn sheet must a few satang short of a baht.

I mean, he keeps telling people who complain about something, Thais and foreigners alike, to go and live somewhere else. But doesn’t he realize that by saying this, he’s complaining himself?

So if he doesn’t like people complaining, why doesn’t the good General find somewhere else to live where they don’t complain? Like North Korea, maybe. And leave the rest of us to get on with our complaining in peace without his constant threats. I mean, it’s not like he owns this country, is it?

Isn’t it?

And what’s this about me not liking to live in an ‘absurd’ country? This is satire, or hadn’t you noticed? If there’s nothing absurd going on, how am I going to earn an honest crust?

Mind you, you don’t want it to get so absurd it starts making fun of itself. Like a Deputy Prime Minister prancing about in some bizarre bare-breasted ancient costume and calling fellow citizens garbage. Stuff like that is bloody hard to satirize, let me tell you.

Now if you’re looking for someone who should go away and live in his own world, there’s your man.

Or maybe he already has.

Inquest into two deaths at Bon Kai during May 2010 unrest

prachatai — Fri, 17 May 2013 10:07:32 +0000

On 29 April, the Criminal Court began an inquest into the deaths of Mana Saenprasoetsi and Phonsawan Nakhachai who were shot at Bon Kai on Rama IV Rd on 15 May 2010 when the Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation was cracking down on red-shirt protests.

Mana Saenprasoetsi, 22, was a resident of Bon Kai and a rescue volunteer of the Poh Teck Tung Foundation. He was fatally shot in the back of the head near the mouth of Soi Ngam Duplee in front of a branch of Thai Farmers Bank at about 2-3 pm while he was trying to help people who had been shot there.

One of those who had been shot and was helped by Mana was Phonsawan, 23, who came from Roi Et province in northeastern Thailand. He was shot in the stomach and died later.

Mana, left, giving first aid to one of the injured on the evening of 14 May at the entrance to Soi Ngam Du Plee on Rama IV Rd.

According to the testimony of his mother Naree, 53, Mana on that day was eating at home when he received a radio call from his colleagues telling him that people had been shot near his home and asking him to go out to provide assistance. He went out and at about 6 pm she was told by his colleagues that her son had been shot dead and his body was at Lerdsin hospital.

She later learnt from the rescue staff that her son helped bring Phonsawan, who was shot in the middle of Rama IV Rd, to the footpath, and when he left his shelter to help two injured persons, he was shot and killed on the spot, while holding a red-cross flag in his hand.

Phonsawan’s elder brother Nanthawan, 34, told the court that his brother was a motorcycle driver for hire, and he was not one of the red-shirt protesters.

At about 6 pm on that day, he received a phone call from Lerdsin Hospital that his brother had been seriously shot. He went to the hospital with his brother’s girlfriend, and found that he had already died.

He later learnt from his brother’s friends that Phonsawan had taken his girlfriend to Silom and come to see friends at Soi Ngam Du Plee before being shot. They told him that the bullet came from the direction of the Lumpini Boxing Stadium.

The next hearing will be on 8 July.

In an interview with VoiceTV not long after the incident, Atthachai Thapji, Mana’s fellow rescue volunteer for the Poh Teck Tung Foundation who was crawling behind Mana before he was shot, also believed that the bullet came from the direction of the boxing stadium.

In a CRES television press conference on 20 May 2010, then Deputy Chief of Staff Lt Gen Daopong Rattanasuwon, now a general and Deputy Army Chief, used the picture of Mana shot and lying on the footpath to explain the military operation on 19 May 2010.

The picture was shown on screen as Daopong explained the situation that fires had broken out at Central World, and military troops and firefighters were prevented from entering the area due to armed resistance.

‘During the time we were waiting outside, some of those inside started a fire. They started to burn Central World, Centara Grand Hotel. The fire stopped and started again. We tried to bring fire trucks into the area. But when the fire trucks went in, they were fired at from the inside, making it inconvenient to go in and causing losses. But we tried our utmost to bring in the fire trucks, but were met with resistance all the time.’

Picture of Mana shot and lying on the footpath of Rama IV Rd on 15 May 2010.

The same picture of Mana is shown at 0.45 minutes into the clip of the CRES press conference about the burning of Central World on 19 May 2010.

In a video clip shot on the afternoon of 15 May 2010, soldiers are seen deployed in front of the Lumpini Boxing Stadium, with two snipers stationed on an upper floor of a building.

At 0.29 minutes, a voice is heard shouting ‘Don’t shoot! Put out the fire first!’ It is possible that this was the same time as when Mana was trying to extinguish a fire at a telephone booth in front of the Kasikorn Bank branch, as can be seen in several photos.

Mana (circled)

Mana and Phonsawan were among about 16 people killed at Bon Kai during 13-16 May 2010.

Source: http://www.prachatai.com/journal/2013/05/46735

"Democratic Control of the Military: Thailand in Comparative Perspective"

prachatai — Fri, 17 May 2013 01:32:54 +0000

A public forum on 'Democratic Control of the Military: Thailand in Comparative Perspective' organized by the Institute of Security and International Studies (ISIS) on 9 May 2013 at Chulalongkorn University.

'Democratization and Civilian Control in Asia'

Presenter:Professor Dr. Aurel Croissant

Institute of Political Science, Heidelberg University, Germany

Panel discussion and Q&A

Discussants:

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Panitan Wattanayagorn

Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University

Col. Dr. Teeranan Nandhakwang

Deputy Director of Strategic and Security Affairs Division National Defence College

Moderator: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Thitinan Pongsudhirak

Director of ISIS Thailand Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University

Sexism is buried deep in our daily language

prachatai — Wed, 15 May 2013 08:34:01 +0000

Pravit Rojanaphruk, The Nation

The past two weeks have been rather sobering for those who think Thailand has already risen above misogyny. It has not. People of both sides of the political divide have given us clear evidence, which, if looked at "positively", reminds us of the challenges that lie ahead.

It all began with Thai Rath newspaper political cartoonist Chai Rachawat, who posted a comment on his Facebook page that suggested Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra is worse than a "whore" because she is selling Thailand out. Soon after, the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology (MICT) threatened to suspend any website that carries a lewd message against Yingluck.

That appeared to spur a second misogynistic remark, prompting a hacker to post a message on the PM's Office Ministry's official website that said: "I am a slutty moron" with a picture of a laughing Yingluck.

Opposition media appeared to take delight in expounding on and relaying the two sexist remarks. Some on the other side tried to protect Yingluck's reputation but were not helpful, however.

The premier's nephew, Panthongthae Shinawatra, tried to defend his aunt by demanding that Chai should apologise. Failing to apologise, he said Chai should just wear an airhostess's skirt instead.

This was followed by deputy spokesperson of the PM's Office Ministry Sunisa Lertpakawat, a woman, who last week criticised the anonymous hacker by saying the person should be "man" enough to criticise the premier in a creative manner.

However, you cannot defend women's honour by telling someone to act "like a man" or by telling a man to go and wear a woman's skirt.

And one couldn't help but wonder: if Yingluck were not a woman, would the premier be treated like this by some of her opponents?

This writer is for full criticism of Thailand's first woman prime minister. Nevertheless, you do not need to use sexist remarks to either criticise or defend her. Some cannot differentiate between criticising Yingluck and making misogynistic remarks about her, however.

To make the matter worse, most feminists simply kept silent because they chose to be on the opposite side of the political divide, thus helping to ensure that the latest orgy of sexist verbal abuse is unlikely to be the last.

Since the situation is most unlikely to improve anytime soon, Thai society should at least try to understand why a number of men and even women keep using sexist words and stereotypical remarks that perpetuate the notion that women are innately inferior and dishonourable.

Are some people perpetuating misogyny for fear of losing the culture of male domination?

Do they feel more "masculine" by talking down and looking down on women?

If that's the case, what kind of "men" are they?

This writer personally thinks the matter should not be left solely to feminists and women. People, both men and women, must become more active in helping reduce the level of sexism in Thai language and society.

Sexist speech is sometimes almost "automatic" and "natural". This writer does not think that Sunisa, for example, intended to reinforce the sense of male superiority over women by telling the hacker to "act like a man". Deep-rooted misogyny in our language is thus more insidious and difficult to address. It is embedded in the very foundation of our language and will require conscious efforts to transform Thai language into a more gender-sensitive tongue.

May I suggest that the Ministry of Culture or some universities conduct studies on sexism in the Thai language?

I do not believe that merely banning these words or expressions will work. Society needs to become more aware of the issue, however. It will require effort from men and women alike to change the mindset so no one in the future can proudly tells us to "act like a man" or "shame" us by telling us to wear a skirt.

Source: http://nationmultimedia.com/national/Sexism-is-buried-deep-in-our-daily-language-30206171.html