A fight for freedom of expression

Amnesty International's (AI) annual report, which was recently published, contains critical remarks about the suppression of civil rights under military rule in Thailand.

AI Thailand Chairman Chamnan Chanruang (pictured above) met with government officials earlier this week to discuss the human rights covered by the report, such as freedom of expression and the right of citizens to be exempted of military processes, in an effort to create greater mutual understanding.

A journalist from The Sunday Nation, Wasamon Audjarint, spoke to Chamnan about the organization's role in monitoring the human rights situation in the Kingdom, especially during the past years of the military junta.

The annual report contains a lot of criticism about Thailand. Does that information come from Amnesty International Thailand?

In terms of the research, I should explain that the research in Thailand was conducted by employees of the AI ​​headquarters in London, not by us. It is the practice that AI departments worldwide are not involved in the research in the country where they are stationed in the interest of safety. The research was conducted according to a specific research method, which ensures that our facts and figures are demonstrable. AI is also willing to disclose the data at the request of any agency named in the report.

AI Thailand, however, did help the researchers to make their work easier by, for example, providing shelter. We also assisted with fact checking and recommended some corrections upon request. That's all we've done with regard to the annual report.

What is the role of Amnesty International Thailand then?

It is not our job to write reports on Thailand, but that does not mean we are not active in domestic affairs. We have conducted a number of campaigns and sessions on human rights – not to mention making comments and taking action to discuss issues with the Thai authorities.

For example, last year we visited student activists in prison. They were detained because the military claimed they had broken the ban on gathering five or more people. It is our concern, as a human rights watchdog, that freedom of expression is of fundamental importance to citizens.

We have also been particularly active on the issue of Muslim Rohingyas, when Thai authorities prevented Rohingyas from entering Thailand by sea. We have campaigned on the issue, commented on it and suggested to our headquarters to take urgent action. .

This point has to do with international human trafficking and, indeed, human rights violations. We are concerned that Thailand could be penalized or lose privileges in the international community if the problem remains unresolved.

Apart from these activities, we also conduct research in neighboring countries where no AI departments are stationed, for example Myanmar.

The concerns of AI Thailand and the AI ​​headquarters seem to focus on the behavior of the military. Does the head office give you instructions to follow up on specific issues?

All departments of AI certainly have a common agenda, such as the abolition of the death penalty and the abolition of torture. However, in military matters, it can generally be observed through the news that the actions of the military in recent years tend to infringe on the rights of the citizens.

So, it's not uncommon for both HQ and us to keep an eye on the issues. Headquarters, however, has instructed us not to get involved in sensitive issues such as lèse-majesté. Any comments on issues like this will only be made from head office.

So does that mean that Amnesty International is concerned about the Junta rules?

As a matter of principle, AI never makes political remarks, because politics is an internal matter. Once a government seems to care about human rights. The word "military", as stated in the annual report, is mainly used to classify a type of government without political implications.

But would it be said that the way the regime came to power in some way affects the human rights situation?

I remember an incident that happened shortly after the coup when the military told us to cancel a session on Israel and the Gaza Strip, citing international politics as the reason. Although the junta has never otherwise prohibited any actions from us, it can be said that things have not been the same since the junta came to power.

More civilians have been tried in military courts than in previous coups. Last year temporary military detention for civilian detainees was allowed. All this makes the torture of civilians more likely.

The country also struggles with the issue of freedom of expression, which many other countries have already dealt with. May I ask, how many countries pursue criminal charges for a "Like" on a Facebook page, as Thailand does? All these actions make Thailand a top country globally and in Asia-Pacific when it comes to assessments of human rights issues. .

How has the military government responded to Amnesty International Thailand?

The government seems concerned about our actions. Sometimes they ask us why we don't present well-rounded information or why we don't make reports on the bright side. We can only emphasize that our role as a watchdog is to observe and question certain issues in the country. On top of that, I, like many others the military is concerned about, have been invited for a "talk" a few times. Fortunately, perhaps, those conversations went smoothly and I didn't have to sign an agreement.

 Conversely, how does Amnesty International treat the Thai government?

We actually do what we can and consider that as helping the country. We observe the situation, make comments and distribute reports, the information of which the government can verify. In fact, we never have the thought that the government is our enemy. We also worked with government sectors, such as the Department of Justice and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), to improve the situation.

By working with them I have also seen that their capabilities can be improved. For example, I see issues at the NHRC, which show that some of the commissioners are not really experienced in the field of human rights. The Department of Justice has worked well with us, however it appears that some officials are handling cases using a form of 'vigilantism', which we believe is not a fair way to serve justice.

Finally, how do you see human rights development in Thailand?

I just hope it doesn't get any worse than it is now!

Source: The Sunday Nation, Wasamon Audjarint