Iraq war inquiry opens in London - The National Newspaper

Iraq war inquiry opens in London - The National Newspaper

Shared via AddThis

ASEAN Trade Vision Facilitates Exploiting Its Workers?

Siriluk Sriprasit , Prachatai, 6 Jul 2009

The ASEAN charter was adopted at the 14th ASEAN Summit in November 2007 and eventually came into force in December 2008.

One of ASEAN’s crucial visions is creating a single free trade area by 2015, but there are doubts that it will be implemented or achieved.

ASEAN's objective, which is also aiming to accelerate economic growth and a single market for the region, has already given more concern to labour and human rights scholars and activists.

"The number of informal workers is rising significantly in ASEAN, because of the weakening of industrial relationships. Factories reduce the number of their formal workers and give the work to informal home-based workers who used to be the formal workers," says Daniel S. Stephanus, head of the Accounting Department at Ma Chung University in Malang, East Java, Indonesia.

He added that the government also supports or facilitates the liberalization and informalization of workers through its policies and actions.

Chapter 1, Article 1(5) of the ASEAN charter states the goal of creating 'a single market and production base which is stable, prosperous, highly competitive and economically integrated with effective facilitation for trade and investment in which there is free flow of goods, services and investment; facilitated movement of business persons, professionals, talents and labour; and freer flow of capital.'

These goals are considered to be the cause of more migrant workers, and home-based workers as these workers provide cheaper labour for companies. While the capitalists and businessmen are getting richer, the workers are getting more exploited in this free-trade world.

"There is no adequate protection for the workers, formal or informal, at all and the agricultural sub-contract farmers here are also now suffering from the free trade agreement with less regulation of trade and lower tariffs," Stephanus said.

Indonesia, where about 93 percent of the total labour force are home-workers, has not ratified the 1996 ILO Convention on Home Workers.

This Convention defines a home worker as someone who works for remuneration in his or her home or in other premises of his or her own choice, rather than the workplace of the employer, resulting in a product or service as specified by the employer, irrespective of who provides the equipment, materials or other input used.

Dr. Sriprapha Petcharamesree, the Director of Office of Human Rights Studies, Mahidol University in Bangkok, Thailand stated that although the ASEAN countries have signed the agreement, the single market is still far from realization.

"ASEAN countries are too competitive and we cannot deny that when capitalists move from Malaysia and Thailand to invest in Vietnam or China, this is a natural market rule. The investors are always looking for a cheaper place in order to gain more profit," she added. "Moreover, the workers in the formal sector and especially in the informal sector will be less protected."

The Director of Office of Human Rights Studies said that in the ASEAN charter, there was not much mention of the rights of migrant workers who had come from Myanmar (Burmese and ethnic minorities), the Philippines and Indonesia to work in Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore.

"There is no protection for them at all. They hardly have access to healthcare services in the second country and no social security is provided. Also, there is no protection of the right to equal pay for equal work, or freedom of movement. Domestic workers or housekeepers are usually kept in the houses and are scared to come out," said Dr. Sriprapha.

"Women migrant workers are the most vulnerable people," she said.

The International Labour Organization (ILO) indicates that although in the case of Cambodia they have to face more challenges from the informalization of women workers in the textile and garment industry, their main focus is the estimated 85 percent of Cambodia's labour force which is officially employed in the informal economy.

According to 'Rights for Two-Thirds of Asia - Asian Labour Law Review 2008' by the Asia Monitor Resource Centre, home-based work in Malaysia has been expanding and workers are not recognized by Malaysia's labour laws.

"Many factories have outsourced employment in certain production lines to subcontractors, who supply labour to the production lines in accordance with the fluctuating demands of the factory," the Centre's report says.

In addition, the ranks of unprotected informal workers in the Philippines as well as in the whole of Asia, are growing fast, and formal workers are being depleted by the onslaught of trade liberalization and the increasing flexibility of labour contracting.

For Thailand, the informal economy makes up almost 50 percent of employment, and the rights of workers in the informal economy are not equal to those in the formal economy. Informal home workers in Vietnam contribute much more; out of 43 million employed people, 33 million are informal home workers.

"ASEAN's objectives about trade are only provisions and an attempt to legitimize itself as it moves toward liberalism," said Stephanus.

This objective contradicts and goes against its other purposes, such as in Chapter 1 article 1: to alleviate poverty, to promote sustainable development, to enhance the well-being and livelihood of the people; and Article 2: respect for fundamental freedoms, the promotion and protection of human rights, and the promotion of social justice.

It seems ASEAN still has a long way to go.

This story was written under a 2009 Southeast Asian Press Alliance Fellowship.

Source: English thaiindy.org

"Thai-Style Democracy": A Conservative Struggle for Thailand's Politics

Kevin Hewison, 7 Jul 2009

Kevin Hewison, professor from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, presented his paper 'Thai-Style Democracy' at the Faculty of Political Science of Chulalongkorn University on June 26, 2009. The paper is published here in full.

Page 1 of 4 :

I have seldom presented papers in Thailand. The principal reason for this is that I have always considered myself a student of Thai politics, learning from the work of Thai scholars and researchers. Indeed, in the something like 30 years that I have been learning about Thailand, it has been the faculty in the Department of Political Science, together with those in the Faculty of Economics here at Chula, who have been my respected teachers.

Today I feel like a student presenting some of his ideas to his professors and hope that you find it a useful paper that might stimulate discussion and some critical commentary.

The topic is "Thai-Style Democracy". I did have a sub-title which referred to something about "A Royalist Struggle for Thailand's Politics." You can understand that with a topic like this, I am going to have to speak in English as, for reasons that are all too well known, I need to be careful in what I say. For the same reason, I will read my paper.

Let me begin with three disclaimers.

First, in this presentation, my emphasis is almost solely on TSD (prachathippatai baep thai). In making this my focus, I do not wish to imply that this is the only discourse on the nature of governance in Thailand or even the most significant one at all times. That would be misleading. The point of my focus on TSD is to highlight a set of ideas that has, over 5 decades, continually been resurrected and reiterated in on-going struggles over political power. Each time it has been repeated or revised, it has been a contested discourse. That TSD has been - and continues to be - challenged and debated should be kept in mind as I focus on TSD.

Second, while I am writing about history I am not writing a history. I will leap over many important periods of political struggles without a mention. My point is simply to highlight the ideas about TSD.

The third disclaimer is that I recognize that the ideas outlined here as TSD have considerable resonance in other places and in other times. TSD is not a set of ideas that is unique to Thailand, despite the designation used here. However, by focusing on the particular form and history of TSD I hope to highlight how this set of ideas has been developed in Thailand and how it has been politically contested.

In this presentation, I hope to examine the conservative foundations of TSD both in terms of its development and also in the context of recent attempts to embed various political and ideological forms associated with TSD. The most recent reinvigoration of TSD has been associated with the political struggles following the so-called good coup of 2006.

Continue at English thaiindy.org

Thai Government Gets Away with Murder

Giles Ji Ungpakorn, Asia Sentinel, 2 Jun 2009

A state court rules the government was justified in the massacre of scores in southern Thailand in 2004.

The use of force to disperse and then capture unarmed demonstrators at Takbai in Southern Thailand on October 25, 2004 was a state crime. The protesters were tied up and thrown onto the backs of army lorries, with people lying on top of one another 6-7 deep. They were then transported in the hot sun for hours to an army camp. The 78 people who died, along with the others who were shot, were deliberately murdered by the Thai state.

The government of the time, the army and the police were responsible for this crime. Yet the courts in Thailand have concluded that no officials “did anything wrong”. On May 29,a court in Songkhla ruled that officials were carrying out their duties and had “compelling reasons” to transport more than 1,000 demonstrators from the mosque to the military base in Pattani, used their judgment to deal with the situation and “did their best based on the situation.”

Thailand has a history of state crimes: 14th October 1973 when dozens of people were killed in Bangkok in street battles between government troops and demonstrators; 6th October 1976 when students were massacred at Thamasat University; 1991 and 1992, when Gen Suchinda Kraprayoon overthrew the government and protests resulted, with the eventual loss of life of hundreds of protesters, Takbai 2004, the “War on Drugs” in which police murdered thousands of alleged “drug dealers” without bothering to prove they had anything to do with drugs; and the latest killings in Bangkok in April 2009.

These were all killings of unarmed civilians by Thai state security forces with the agreement of the government and the ruling elites. The Krue Sa mosque massacre in April 2004, where youths were executed in cold blood, is another terrible example. No official has ever been punished for these crimes and this sets a precedent for further abuses in the future.

The court ruling over Takbai is not surprising. The Thai judiciary is neither just nor independent. There is no rule of law, only double standards. The Royalist Yellow Shirts who used violence and committed crimes to overthrow legally constituted governments remain unpunished, but pro-democracy Red Shirts are being prosecuted

In Thailand it is okay for the state to kill citizens, but people who criticize the ruling order go to jail.

The state officials, army and judiciary hide behind a raft of ant-democratic laws: lese majeste, contempt of court, national security and internet censorship laws. The present Prime Minister, Abhisit Vejjaja, is happy to tell lie after lie about the use of the law and that the government “upholds freedom of speech and democracy”. He is confident in his lies because all the mainstream media is under government and royalist control.

For the Red Shirt movement, Takbai, Krue-Sa and the War on Drugs pose a challenge. We must admit the truth that these crimes took place under the government of Thaksin Shinawatra. We must not have double standards. Red Shirts must use reasoned argument to build a democratic Thailand. In the future, any Red Shirt government must respect human rights.

But state crimes under Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai government do not justify the 2006 military coup, the selective use of the courts, the illegal maneuvering of the Democrats into power or the anti-democratic violence of the Yellow Shirts of the People’s Alliance for Democracy. The Democrats, the army and all the royalists have blood on their hands too. They must be swept away in order to build a democratic society. Such a society will not come easily. The royalists, including the army, hold extra-constitutional power. Therefore elections and small constitutional changes will not be enough.

We must build the Red Shirt movement into a strong people’s movement from below to oppose the authoritarian elites. It will take time, but the old order seems to be on its last legs. Their unquestioning loyalty to a hereditary monarchy and their support for military coups lacks all democratic legitimacy. Some royal advisors have praised the last Russian tsar and the PAD wants to adopt a North Korean economic model.. These are signs of intellectual decay. It is time for a change in Thailand

Giles Ji Ungpakorn is a former political science professor in Thailand. He fled the country earlier this year to escape lese majeste charges for speaking out against the government and the king.

Source: en.thaiindy.org

Prosecution of Tak Bai killers must now begin

Asian Human Rights Commission, 11 Jun 2009

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is writing to you following the inquest findings of a court in Thailand issued on 29 May 2009 that the deaths of 78 men in Narathiwat in October 2004 was a result of suffocation while being carried in vehicles. The findings clear the way for prosecutions of the persons responsible for this heinous crime, which attracted and continues to attract global attention and bring Thailand into international disrepute.

According to the findings of the two judges who conducted the inquest (Songkhla Provincial Court, Red Case No. Chor 8/2009) under section 150 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the 78 victims were detained outside the Tak Bai District Police Station on 25 October 2004. They died while under custody and being transported to the Ingkayuthaboriharn Army Camp. The officer in charge of the operations is clearly identified as General Pisarn Wattanawongkiri of the Royal Thai Army, with army, police and other personnel joining the operation.

While the inquest findings leave many questions unanswered, the inquest clearly establishes the basis for criminal prosecutions of the responsible persons, both the commanding officers and those directly involved in the killing of these 78 men. The findings leave no doubt that the men died in official custody and that they died of unnatural causes. These two facts are sufficient to make criminal prosecution imperative. Any outstanding questions can be addressed through further police investigation and through the court process itself.

The responsibility for prosecution and further directions now falls to you. The AHRC notes with concern that your record of prosecutions of security forces' abuses, including large-scale killings, has not been good. In fact, it has been shameful. Neither the inquests into the killings of 28 men at Krue Se or 19 at Sabayoi in the same year has resulted in any prosecutions of government officers. The findings in this case give you an excellent opportunity to demonstrate that in fact the security forces cannot always get away with murder, and if there is any one case in which there can be no doubt of the necessity for prosecution, it is this one.

In that regard, I would remind you of the international standards on the handling of persons in custody. Under the UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, "All persons under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be treated in a humane manner and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person." Furthermore, "No person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment", where, "The term 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' should be interpreted so as to extend the widest possible protection against abuses, whether physical or mental, including the holding of a detained or imprisoned person in conditions which deprive him, temporarily or permanently, of the use of any of his natural senses, such as sight or hearing, or of his awareness of place and the passing of time." Finally, "No circumstance whatever may be invoked as a justification for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," not least of all one leading to death, as in this case.

I would also point out that the failure to prosecute in cases of this sort is lending credence to the widespread view globally that government officials in Thailand, and especially military and police officers, enjoy complete impunity for their actions, such that they can even get away with large-scale murder. While government representatives attempt to sound concerned about human rights in international forums, their words will only be taken seriously when backed with actions. That part of the work, the hard work, is your responsibility.

For all these reasons and many others besides, the Asian Human Rights Commission, along with many other organizations and concerned individuals throughout the world sees no alternative for your office but to proceed with criminal investigations and prosecutions of the Tak Bai killers without delay. Failure to do so will not only amount to a failure of justice in this case but to a complete abdication of your duties as public prosecutor.

We look forward to your prompt, determined and effective action.

Yours sincerely

Basil Fernando
Executive Director
Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong

Cc:
1. Mr. Abhisist Vejjajiva, Prime Minister of Thailand
2. Mr. Peeraphan Saleeratwipak, Minister of Justice, Thailand
3. Mr. Kasit Piromya, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Thailand
4. Professor Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions
5. Professor Manfred Nowak, UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
6. Mr. Homayoun Alizadeh, Regional Representative, OHCHR, Bangkok, Thailand

Source: en.thaiindy.org