Funding Woes Spell More Trouble for Thai Rice Scheme | The Irrawaddy Magazine
APORNRATH PHOONPHONGPHIPHAT / REUTERS WRITER, February 7, 2013
BANGKOK — Thailand’s generous rice subsidy scheme has hit funding problems, marking a new threat to a policy that wins millions of rural votes for the government, but which has generated huge stockpiles, sparked graft allegations and unnerved markets.
Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra came into power in 2011 on a promise to pay farmers way above what was then the market rate for their rice, and the intervention has gone on even though it has priced Thai rice out of the international market.
The policy has knocked Thailand off its perch as the world’s top rice exporter and built up stockpiles of around 17 million tonnes of milled rice, or nearly twice what it exports normally, leaving authorities struggling to find warehouse space, and the threat of rice being dumped on the world market at a loss.
Now officials and bankers say the government has paid less than a sixth of what it owes a state bank funding the intervention program, piling more pressure on the scheme.
“We have informed the government and we expect the cabinet to make a decision to do something very quickly, otherwise there could be a major problem,” Bank of Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives vice-president Supat Eauchai told Reuters.
Payments to the bank, which buys rice from farmers and is meant to be refunded by the Commerce Ministry, slowed after allegations in parliament of corruption in the scheme, but the ministry has also failed to sell enough rice to secure funds.
Only around 60 billion baht (US $2 billion) has been paid to the bank, said Thikumporn Nartworathus, deputy director of the foreign trade department of the Commerce Ministry. He blamed the delay on checks needed to make sure the money had been spent properly.
“The repayment was delayed because we needed to waste time investigating the transparency of the scheme after it was mentioned in the censure debate in November,” Thikumporn said.
Bank of Agriculture’s Supat said that 336 billion baht ($11.3 billion) had been spent in the first year of the scheme to last September, plus another 125 billion baht after it was renewed for the crop year from October 2012.
Supat said the bank had asked the Finance Ministry to guarantee an additional 70 billion baht to fund the scheme.
A senior bank official, who asked not to be named, said the bank needed around 200 billion baht from the Commerce Ministry to ensure the smooth running of the scheme.
Other officials at the bank and Finance Ministry, who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to speak to the media, confirmed the bank had got back only around a third of that total.
The scheme has been panned by academics, economists, the International Monetary Fund and the opposition, but it has wide support in rural areas and has done nothing to dent Yingluck’s high opinion poll rating.
But problems have already appeared in the countryside: farmers in several provinces have said they were unable to get immediate payment when they sold rice to the government.
“Some farmers had to wait a few months to get their money. We hope this won’t happen again in late February, when supply from the latest crop will peak,” said Prasit Boonchoey, president of the Thai Farmers Association.
With space running out, Thai rice exporters said last week it was only a matter of time before the government was forced to sell grain from its stocks.
It will almost certainly have to sell at a big loss, which will ultimately be covered by the taxpayer.
That will add to huge sums needed for flood defense plans, prepared after disastrous floods in 2011 and still far from complete, and ambitious infrastructure projects, though the government has had no problems funding its budget deficit in the domestic bond market.
Commerce Minister Boonsong Teriyapirom has said repeatedly that Thailand had sold 7.3 million tonnes of rice to foreign governments and that his ministry would gradually repay money owed to the Bank of Agriculture by the end of 2013.
However, industry officials have said activity at ports did not suggest large volumes had been shipped, while Indonesia and the Philippines, named by Boonsong as buyers, denied any deals.
The minister has been vague about export schedules and his ministry has stopped publishing trade data for rice. It has refused to say what price it got for the rice.
The government is committed to paying farmers 15,000 baht a tonne for their rice. That has pushed benchmark Thai export prices up to about $570 a tonne, around $170 higher than grain from main rivals India and Vietnam.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Thailand's Lese Majeste Erodes the Judiciary | Asia Sentinel
Thailand's Lese Majeste Erodes the Judiciary | Asia Sentinel
Kevin Hewison, 06 February 2013
Those 'protecting' the monarchy, are undermining the legal system
Thailand's repeated use of its draconian lese majeste and computer crimes laws to "protect" its monarchy is also causing serious damage to its judicial system.
Since late December, Thai courts have sentenced three more people to jail terms under Article 112 of the Criminal Code (the lese majeste law) and the closely related Computer Crimes Act. All were identified as opponents of the previous government led by Abhisit Vejjajiva and the Democrat Party. Seventeen others are known to have been sentenced under these laws since the 2006 military coup. This sentencing has been ferocious, with some receiving 15 and 20 years. Almost all of those convicted were identified as opponents of the coup and military-backed governments.
Before the coup that overthrew Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, the lese majeste law was used relatively infrequently. Spikes in its use have coincided with the right-wing and military governments that litter Thailand's political history.
The period of political conflict associated with the Abhisit government, from late 2008 to mid-2011, saw the lese majeste law used to gag a vociferous Red Shirt opposition media and political movement. The Abhisit government repeatedly proclaimed that its censorship and jailing of political opponents was to prevent republicans bringing down the monarchy. It produced little evidence but the jails were filled with political prisoners.
While the Yingluck Shinawatra government, elected in mid-2011, has reduced the use of this politicized law, cases continue to drag through the courts, with the government's royalist opponents having declared lese majeste reform an attack on the monarchy itself.
Many royalists assert that Article 112 is the foundation of protection for the monarchy and, indeed, for the Thai state itself. This conviction blinds them to the fact that the use of this draconian law and the continuing trials are undermining another institution that is vital for the state: the judiciary.
Historically, while the judiciary has been politically supine, it has not been identified as a politically activist institution. However, that changed when the king intervened following an election shambles in April 2006 to urge the judiciary to sort out the political mess. That mess revolved around royalist agitation for Thaksin's elected government to be thrown out. To be sure, the king had long taken an interest in the judiciary, yet this was a call for a judicial political intervention. Since the military coup, the king has repeatedly urged the judiciary to remain activist.
In the period following the coup, the judiciary was first used to target Thaksin, his family and his parties with myriad legal cases. But it is lese majeste that has become defining for the courts. In order to "protect" the monarchy, and the system of political and economic power associated with it, the judiciary has responded with considerable gusto. Increasingly, though, foreign observers and Thai academics and activists are expressing concern at the bizarre legal calisthenics demonstrated by the courts.
Article 112 declares that anyone who defames, insults or threatens the king, the queen, the crown prince or the regent may be jailed. In two recent cases, one activist was convicted not for what he said at a demonstration, but for what the court decided he really wanted to say before he censored himself by throwing his hand across his mouth.
Another journalist and activist was convicted for publishing a critical account of politics that the court interpreted as being about the king, even though he was not mentioned by the author. The author himself has never been charged even though he is known.
In an earlier case, a sickly old man was sentenced to 20 years for sending allegedly threatening phone messages about the queen. While the prosecution could not prove the accused sent these messages, neither could the accused prove he didn't send them. He was convicted and died in prison.
The list of curious convictions is long. The web master of a popular web board was convicted for not removing allegedly insulting posts "quickly enough" in amongst thousands of posts. An American citizen of Thai ethnicity was convicted for posting Thai translations of an academic book about the king on the web. This was a legal activity in Colorado, but when the man was visiting Thailand, he was jailed.
Decisions that seem to mock the legal process and practice and rules of evidence are damaging for the judiciary. Perhaps most damaging, however, has been the Constitutional Court's decisions when Article 112 has been challenged. These interpretations have been virtually inexplicable in legal terms.
In one case, when a lese majeste trial was conducted in a closed court, clearly in contravention of constitutional guarantees on the right to a public trial, the Constitutional Court managed to conjure a reading that made a closed court legal. When others challenged the law, claiming that it contradicted provisions of freedom of the media and of expression, the same court ruled that protecting the monarchy and the existing system of government overrode these constitutional rights.
Article 112 rides roughshod over other basic rights. Bail is regularly refused for those charged with lese majeste, giving the impression that the defendants are considered guilty before they are convicted. That lese majeste detainees are usually shackled, chained and sometimes caged is further evidence for this conclusion. When lese majeste judgments are criticized, court officials threaten legal action.
In short, Article 112 of the criminal code is allocated a legal position that relegates the nation's basic law to a residual status. When the courts make unashamedly politicized decisions in lese majeste cases, the foundations of the rule of law are undermined. When there is no equality before the law and arbitrary judgments are made, then the legitimacy of the judiciary is called into question. Thailand's judges, by elevating Article 112 above all other laws, are threatening the future of the country's democracy.
(Kevin Hewison is Weldon E. Thornton Distinguished Professor in Asian Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
Kevin Hewison, 06 February 2013
Those 'protecting' the monarchy, are undermining the legal system
Thailand's repeated use of its draconian lese majeste and computer crimes laws to "protect" its monarchy is also causing serious damage to its judicial system.
Since late December, Thai courts have sentenced three more people to jail terms under Article 112 of the Criminal Code (the lese majeste law) and the closely related Computer Crimes Act. All were identified as opponents of the previous government led by Abhisit Vejjajiva and the Democrat Party. Seventeen others are known to have been sentenced under these laws since the 2006 military coup. This sentencing has been ferocious, with some receiving 15 and 20 years. Almost all of those convicted were identified as opponents of the coup and military-backed governments.
Before the coup that overthrew Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, the lese majeste law was used relatively infrequently. Spikes in its use have coincided with the right-wing and military governments that litter Thailand's political history.
The period of political conflict associated with the Abhisit government, from late 2008 to mid-2011, saw the lese majeste law used to gag a vociferous Red Shirt opposition media and political movement. The Abhisit government repeatedly proclaimed that its censorship and jailing of political opponents was to prevent republicans bringing down the monarchy. It produced little evidence but the jails were filled with political prisoners.
While the Yingluck Shinawatra government, elected in mid-2011, has reduced the use of this politicized law, cases continue to drag through the courts, with the government's royalist opponents having declared lese majeste reform an attack on the monarchy itself.
Many royalists assert that Article 112 is the foundation of protection for the monarchy and, indeed, for the Thai state itself. This conviction blinds them to the fact that the use of this draconian law and the continuing trials are undermining another institution that is vital for the state: the judiciary.
Historically, while the judiciary has been politically supine, it has not been identified as a politically activist institution. However, that changed when the king intervened following an election shambles in April 2006 to urge the judiciary to sort out the political mess. That mess revolved around royalist agitation for Thaksin's elected government to be thrown out. To be sure, the king had long taken an interest in the judiciary, yet this was a call for a judicial political intervention. Since the military coup, the king has repeatedly urged the judiciary to remain activist.
In the period following the coup, the judiciary was first used to target Thaksin, his family and his parties with myriad legal cases. But it is lese majeste that has become defining for the courts. In order to "protect" the monarchy, and the system of political and economic power associated with it, the judiciary has responded with considerable gusto. Increasingly, though, foreign observers and Thai academics and activists are expressing concern at the bizarre legal calisthenics demonstrated by the courts.
Article 112 declares that anyone who defames, insults or threatens the king, the queen, the crown prince or the regent may be jailed. In two recent cases, one activist was convicted not for what he said at a demonstration, but for what the court decided he really wanted to say before he censored himself by throwing his hand across his mouth.
Another journalist and activist was convicted for publishing a critical account of politics that the court interpreted as being about the king, even though he was not mentioned by the author. The author himself has never been charged even though he is known.
In an earlier case, a sickly old man was sentenced to 20 years for sending allegedly threatening phone messages about the queen. While the prosecution could not prove the accused sent these messages, neither could the accused prove he didn't send them. He was convicted and died in prison.
The list of curious convictions is long. The web master of a popular web board was convicted for not removing allegedly insulting posts "quickly enough" in amongst thousands of posts. An American citizen of Thai ethnicity was convicted for posting Thai translations of an academic book about the king on the web. This was a legal activity in Colorado, but when the man was visiting Thailand, he was jailed.
Decisions that seem to mock the legal process and practice and rules of evidence are damaging for the judiciary. Perhaps most damaging, however, has been the Constitutional Court's decisions when Article 112 has been challenged. These interpretations have been virtually inexplicable in legal terms.
In one case, when a lese majeste trial was conducted in a closed court, clearly in contravention of constitutional guarantees on the right to a public trial, the Constitutional Court managed to conjure a reading that made a closed court legal. When others challenged the law, claiming that it contradicted provisions of freedom of the media and of expression, the same court ruled that protecting the monarchy and the existing system of government overrode these constitutional rights.
Article 112 rides roughshod over other basic rights. Bail is regularly refused for those charged with lese majeste, giving the impression that the defendants are considered guilty before they are convicted. That lese majeste detainees are usually shackled, chained and sometimes caged is further evidence for this conclusion. When lese majeste judgments are criticized, court officials threaten legal action.
In short, Article 112 of the criminal code is allocated a legal position that relegates the nation's basic law to a residual status. When the courts make unashamedly politicized decisions in lese majeste cases, the foundations of the rule of law are undermined. When there is no equality before the law and arbitrary judgments are made, then the legitimacy of the judiciary is called into question. Thailand's judges, by elevating Article 112 above all other laws, are threatening the future of the country's democracy.
(Kevin Hewison is Weldon E. Thornton Distinguished Professor in Asian Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
Monday, February 4, 2013
Burma resumes peace talks with KIO in China, along with charter row | Asia News – Politics, Media, Education | Asian Correspondent
Burma resumes peace talks with KIO in China, along with charter row | Asia News – Politics, Media, Education | Asian Correspondent
Zin Linn Feb 04, 2013
The Government of Myanmar (Burma) has welcomed peace gesture proposed in the statement issued by KIO’s Central Committee on February 1, 2013, as per Press Release (6/2013) of its Information Team via the state-run newspapers on 2 February.
Zin Linn Feb 04, 2013
The Government of Myanmar (Burma) has welcomed peace gesture proposed in the statement issued by KIO’s Central Committee on February 1, 2013, as per Press Release (6/2013) of its Information Team via the state-run newspapers on 2 February.
GOM said that it has believed the legitimate peace desired by all people can be achieved only through political dialogue. The Government welcomes peace efforts assisted by ethnic ceasefire groups and other organizations in an attempt to support the Union Peace Working Committee and KIO/KIA to resume peace talks and put an end to armed conflicts, according to the press release.
According to the 7Days News Journal, government peacemaking team and ethnic KIO peace delegation will hold talks in the Chinese border town of Ruili in China on 4 February (Monday), after severe fighting in the Kachin State of Burma nearly 18 months.
Officials say the talks will begin Monday in the Chinese border town of Ruili. The meeting comes after the army seized several strategic guerrilla-held hilltops this month in the hills around Laiza, which serves as a headquarters for the rebel movement, AP News said Sunday.
On 11 January 2013, the Lower House of Burma (Myanmar) made a request to Union Peacemaking Central Committee and KIO/KIA at the second day sixth regular session of the First People’s Parliament. The call made by the Lower House to Union Peace-making Central Committee and KIO/KIA says the members of parliament have felt sadness for local people of Kachin state who have been suffering the consequences of the ongoing war. The fighting caused loss of both sides due to daily armed conflicts in Kachin state, it says.
The request keeps on saying that there have been difficulties to hold talks between the members of peace-making team of the government and representatives of KIO/KIA as military action swelling in the region continuously. The request letter says to ease the military tensions in favor of the people’s voices while building trust through the negotiation. Hence, it would pave the way for the lasting peace, says the request letter signed by the Lower House Speaker Thura Shwe Mann.
The key point of disagreement between the KIO and the military-backed government is the attitude with the 1947 Panglong Agreement. KIO has declared that it will talk through the ethnic alliance, the United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC), keeping on the spirit of the Panglong Agreement.
On the contrary, the military-backed government made its negative response of peace talks based on the principles of the 1947 Panglong Treaty advised by the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO). The government sticks to the 2008 controversial constitution as the guideline for the peace talks.
The landmark Panglong Agreement mainly guaranteed self-determination of the ethnic minorities and offered a large measure of autonomy, including independent legislature, judiciary and administrative powers. However, the dream of equality and a federal union is far from being realized some six decades after signing the Panglong Agreement.
The new constitution, approved in a May 2008 referendum, is inundated with misleading principles. It says the country must be united under one military command. To bring the ethnic groups in line with this proviso, the military regime has ordered all armed rebel groups to become part of Burma’s border guard force ahead of the 2010 election.
Ethnic minorities have been suffering through five decades of immoral military operations in the name of national unity. Attacks on these rural civilians continue on a daily basis. There is a constant demand from Burma’s ethnic groups to enjoy equal political, social and economic rights. The Constitution must guarantee the rights of self-determination and of equal representation for every ethnic group in the Parliament. It must also include provisions against racial discrimination.
During the June-2004 National Convention sponsored by the previous junta, 13 ceasefire groups put forward a political offer demanding equal access to the plenary session. But the convention’s convening committee dismissed the proposal as improper. When the 2008 Constitution came out, none of the political points proposed by the ethnic representatives were included.
On this political issue, there is a big gap between the military junta and the NLD led by Aung San Suu Kyi. To the military autocrats, allowing the ethnic minorities to enjoy equal political, social and economic rights is a risk towards a collapse of sovereignty.
To the NLD and ethnic alliance parties, granting equal rights to ethnic minorities will certainly guarantee peace, stability and prosperity of the country. Actually, the military-backed government leaders strongly support the unitary state instead of a federal union state. On the other hand, the NLD and ethnic leaders continuously demand in favor of a democratic federal union state.
At the first Union Parliament second regular session on 22 August 2011, President Thein Sein said, “We know what happen to people and what people want. And we are striving our best to fulfill their needs to the full extent. To conclude my speech, I promise that our government as a democratically-elected government will do our best for the interests of the people.”
If the president really knows what people want, he should think about amending of the controversial constitution in which none of the political aspirations suggested by the ethnic representatives was integrated.
If the existing government truthfully committed to start political reforms, the first thing it should bear in mind is providing access to debate on constitutional flaws in the parliament.
Without a debate on the 2008 Constitution by all stakeholders, Burma will not rise above its political fiasco including the Kachin conflict.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
UK Labour Party's Shadow Minister raises questions about Thai political prisoner Somyot | Asia Provocateur
UK Labour Party's Shadow Minister raises questions about Thai political prisoner Somyot | Asia Provocateur
The UK's Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister, Kerry McCarthy MP (Labour Party) has raised questions with the UK government regarding the recent imprisonment of Thai journalist and trade unionist, Somyot Pruksakasemsuk.
Somyot, the editor of the "Voice of Taksin" magazine received a 10year prison sentence from a Bangkok court last week for the crime of "lese majeste" - or defaming the monarchy - in relation to two articles that appeared in his publication. The sentencing, while extremely draconian, was also controversial as the articles in question didn't actually contain direct references to the Thai monarchy but made allegorical and fictional representations which the court then determined were defamations.
An international campaign, involving trade unions and other activists to free Somyot is now emerging. Before sentencing the UK's Trade Union Congress General Secretary, Frances O'Grady, also raised concerns regarding Somyot's prosecution.
Kerry's first question was
The UK's Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister, Kerry McCarthy MP (Labour Party) has raised questions with the UK government regarding the recent imprisonment of Thai journalist and trade unionist, Somyot Pruksakasemsuk.
Somyot, the editor of the "Voice of Taksin" magazine received a 10year prison sentence from a Bangkok court last week for the crime of "lese majeste" - or defaming the monarchy - in relation to two articles that appeared in his publication. The sentencing, while extremely draconian, was also controversial as the articles in question didn't actually contain direct references to the Thai monarchy but made allegorical and fictional representations which the court then determined were defamations.
An international campaign, involving trade unions and other activists to free Somyot is now emerging. Before sentencing the UK's Trade Union Congress General Secretary, Frances O'Grady, also raised concerns regarding Somyot's prosecution.
Kerry's first question was
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the trial and conviction of Somyot Prueksakasemsuk in Thailand under that country's lèse majesté laws; and what recent representations he has made to the Thai government to support the promotion of human rights in that country.The response from the UK govt was
Our embassy in Bangkok has been following closely the case of Somyot Prueksakasemsuk. Three representatives of the embassy attended the trial on 23 January, and the embassy subsequently reported details of the outcome to me. Following the verdict, the European Union issued a statement expressing deep concern at the decision to sentence Somyot to 10 years imprisonment. The statement noted that the verdict seriously undermined the right to freedom of expression and press freedom. Our ambassador has also raised the issue with the Thai authorities. The Government frequently raises human rights concerns with Thailand, both at ministerial and official level. For example, the then Minister of State, Mr Browne, raised human rights issues when he met Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung during his visit to Thailand in July 2012. That discussion included an exchange of views on lèse majesté.Kerry's second question was
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 21 May 2012, Official Report, column 454W, on Thailand, what recent representations he has made to the government of Thailand in support of freedom of expression and reform of the lèse-majesté laws.The UK govt's response was
The Government frequently raises the issues of freedom of expression and the lèse-majesté law with Thai interlocutors, both at ministerial and official level. The then Minister of State, Mr Browne, raised lèse-majesté among other human rights issues when he met Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung during his visit to Thailand in July 2012.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Rohingya Find Welcome in Thailand’s Conflict-hit Deep South | The Irrawaddy Magazine
Rohingya Find Welcome in Thailand’s Conflict-hit Deep South | The Irrawaddy Magazine
JOE JACKSON / THE IRRAWADDY, January 26, 2013
PATTANI, Thailand — The three conflict-ridden provinces of Thailand’s Deep South are not a popular destination for many visitors. A renewed and intensifying insurgency, which has killed more than 5,300 people since 2004, provides a daily diet of military check-points, assassinations and bombings.
But for Sakir Husan, 18, and other ethnic Rohingya fleeing sectarian violence in Burma’s Arakan State, the region is proving a welcome escape from the nightmares of their lives back home. Husan is part of a 22-strong group—18 men and four women—currently being housed in the capital of Pattani Province since Jan. 16.
They are among hundreds of Rohingya who have landed on the shores of southern Thailand this month and then been dispersed across the country by the authorities. But in contrast to the frosty reception Rohingya have often received from the Thai state, which has been criticized by human rights groups for previously returning them to sea or overland to Burma, the group in Pattani has received the warmest of welcomes from the local—predominantly Malay-Muslim—population.
“I am happy to be here—and that everybody has been so kind,” a visibly drained Husan tells The Irrawaddy through a translator, surrounded by local well-wishers. The 18-year-old, wearing a small prayer cap and longyi, says he felt he had little choice but to leave his home—and parents—behind in the Arakan State capital Sittwe.
“Before we left our homeland, we felt like we would be killed. So we decided to take our chances at sea, and maybe we can survive,” he explains. Husan says the group spent 20 days at sea in a boat packed with 143 people, surviving by drinking rain and seawater and never giving up hope.
“Some people were in the depths of the boat, others had no energy, but we eventually made it,” he adds.
He was separated from his brother on arrival in Thailand, and has not heard from him since. Although he has a cousin in the group in Pattani, the trauma of being apart from his family is taking its toll: “Even though I’m here, my heart misses my parents—they are still in Burma, they could not leave.”
In an apparent show of Muslim solidarity, scores of locals have been flocking daily to the government building in Pattani where they are being housed to meet the Rohingyas and donate everyday essentials. Among the items piling up at the center are sacks of rice, noodles, biscuits, canned food, water, eggs, toiletries and mats to sleep on.
“I want to donate—we are all brothers so we have to help,” says Medina Adulyarat, 22, a Pattani local who came to donate items, comfort the refugees and talk to them through translators.
Although both the Rohingya in Burma and elements of the Malay-Muslim population in Thailand’s Deep South are involved in varying degrees of conflict with their respective neighboring Buddhist communities, locals in Pattani deny this is the basis for their sympathy and support.
“The situations are very different,” says Shakira Haji Marwan, a local education worker donating detergent, soap and toothbrushes. “The Burmese government doesn’t even recognize them as citizens, while here Malay-Muslims are at least recognized as part of the Thai nation state.”
For Marwan, the compassion being shown is simply human. “We pity them because from what we know they were treated badly in Burma—not as human beings but as animals. So as a Muslim, when I know Rohingyas are here, I try to help [with] what I can. Most Muslim people here, when they heard what had been happening to them in Burma, they prayed to God for their protection.”
The group in Pattani are being temporarily housed in an office of the Thai government’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security. The space is so small some of the men are sleeping outdoors under tarpaulins. It is unclear how long they will be there.
The government is still deciding how to deal with the latest arrivals of Rohingya—numbering as many as 4,000 in the last three months. State agencies were meeting on Jan. 25 ahead of forthcoming discussions with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the International Organization for Migration and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). NGOs have been pushing for unfettered access to the Rohingya, with some success. Staff from the UNHCR and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have been visiting them across the country, including in the Deep South, to check on living conditions, help establish contact with their relatives back in Arakan State and provide basic basic necessities.
Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director for Human Rights Watch, wants the government to formulate a consistent and more humane policy towards the Rohingya. He tells The Irrawaddy that Thai people across the country have shown remarkable and admirable support for the migrants—and that the authorities should follow their example.
“In the past the Rohingya have been classified as a security threat. Recent weeks shows nothing could be further from the truth—these people come with nothing. So the Thai government should do the right thing,” he says.
The Thai Supreme Commander, Gen Tanasak Patimaprogorn, has called on the international community to provide more assistance for the refugees. But Robertson says stemming the flood of Rohingya to the shores of southern Thailand requires like-minded Southeast Asian nations to put more pressure on the Burmese government to grant them full citizenship and end their stateless plight. “It just has to stop: that’s what the message needs to be,” he says.
Meanwhile, the recent mass arrivals of Rohingya in Thailand have focused the spotlight on the smuggling of refugees from Burma and the possible role of the Thai Army in the process. The country’s Anti-Human Trafficking Center, part of the Department of Special Investigations, said this week an investigation into the wave of Rohingya migrants arriving in southern Thailand found they were not victims of organized mass human trafficking. But The Bangkok Post reports that police are probing two military officers attached to the powerful Internal Security Operations Command who are suspected of involvement in the smuggling of Rohingya. The pair, holding the rank of sublieutenant and major, are being investigated by an Army panel, according to the newspaper.
Rohingya migrant Sakir Husan says he paid nobody to board the boat fleeing Arakan and was not aware of Army involvement in his journey. He told The Irrawaddy he has only one request of the Thai authorities: “I just don’t want to go back to Burma.”
JOE JACKSON / THE IRRAWADDY, January 26, 2013
PATTANI, Thailand — The three conflict-ridden provinces of Thailand’s Deep South are not a popular destination for many visitors. A renewed and intensifying insurgency, which has killed more than 5,300 people since 2004, provides a daily diet of military check-points, assassinations and bombings.
But for Sakir Husan, 18, and other ethnic Rohingya fleeing sectarian violence in Burma’s Arakan State, the region is proving a welcome escape from the nightmares of their lives back home. Husan is part of a 22-strong group—18 men and four women—currently being housed in the capital of Pattani Province since Jan. 16.
They are among hundreds of Rohingya who have landed on the shores of southern Thailand this month and then been dispersed across the country by the authorities. But in contrast to the frosty reception Rohingya have often received from the Thai state, which has been criticized by human rights groups for previously returning them to sea or overland to Burma, the group in Pattani has received the warmest of welcomes from the local—predominantly Malay-Muslim—population.
“I am happy to be here—and that everybody has been so kind,” a visibly drained Husan tells The Irrawaddy through a translator, surrounded by local well-wishers. The 18-year-old, wearing a small prayer cap and longyi, says he felt he had little choice but to leave his home—and parents—behind in the Arakan State capital Sittwe.
“Before we left our homeland, we felt like we would be killed. So we decided to take our chances at sea, and maybe we can survive,” he explains. Husan says the group spent 20 days at sea in a boat packed with 143 people, surviving by drinking rain and seawater and never giving up hope.
“Some people were in the depths of the boat, others had no energy, but we eventually made it,” he adds.
He was separated from his brother on arrival in Thailand, and has not heard from him since. Although he has a cousin in the group in Pattani, the trauma of being apart from his family is taking its toll: “Even though I’m here, my heart misses my parents—they are still in Burma, they could not leave.”
In an apparent show of Muslim solidarity, scores of locals have been flocking daily to the government building in Pattani where they are being housed to meet the Rohingyas and donate everyday essentials. Among the items piling up at the center are sacks of rice, noodles, biscuits, canned food, water, eggs, toiletries and mats to sleep on.
“I want to donate—we are all brothers so we have to help,” says Medina Adulyarat, 22, a Pattani local who came to donate items, comfort the refugees and talk to them through translators.
Although both the Rohingya in Burma and elements of the Malay-Muslim population in Thailand’s Deep South are involved in varying degrees of conflict with their respective neighboring Buddhist communities, locals in Pattani deny this is the basis for their sympathy and support.
“The situations are very different,” says Shakira Haji Marwan, a local education worker donating detergent, soap and toothbrushes. “The Burmese government doesn’t even recognize them as citizens, while here Malay-Muslims are at least recognized as part of the Thai nation state.”
For Marwan, the compassion being shown is simply human. “We pity them because from what we know they were treated badly in Burma—not as human beings but as animals. So as a Muslim, when I know Rohingyas are here, I try to help [with] what I can. Most Muslim people here, when they heard what had been happening to them in Burma, they prayed to God for their protection.”
The group in Pattani are being temporarily housed in an office of the Thai government’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security. The space is so small some of the men are sleeping outdoors under tarpaulins. It is unclear how long they will be there.
The government is still deciding how to deal with the latest arrivals of Rohingya—numbering as many as 4,000 in the last three months. State agencies were meeting on Jan. 25 ahead of forthcoming discussions with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the International Organization for Migration and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). NGOs have been pushing for unfettered access to the Rohingya, with some success. Staff from the UNHCR and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have been visiting them across the country, including in the Deep South, to check on living conditions, help establish contact with their relatives back in Arakan State and provide basic basic necessities.
Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director for Human Rights Watch, wants the government to formulate a consistent and more humane policy towards the Rohingya. He tells The Irrawaddy that Thai people across the country have shown remarkable and admirable support for the migrants—and that the authorities should follow their example.
“In the past the Rohingya have been classified as a security threat. Recent weeks shows nothing could be further from the truth—these people come with nothing. So the Thai government should do the right thing,” he says.
The Thai Supreme Commander, Gen Tanasak Patimaprogorn, has called on the international community to provide more assistance for the refugees. But Robertson says stemming the flood of Rohingya to the shores of southern Thailand requires like-minded Southeast Asian nations to put more pressure on the Burmese government to grant them full citizenship and end their stateless plight. “It just has to stop: that’s what the message needs to be,” he says.
Meanwhile, the recent mass arrivals of Rohingya in Thailand have focused the spotlight on the smuggling of refugees from Burma and the possible role of the Thai Army in the process. The country’s Anti-Human Trafficking Center, part of the Department of Special Investigations, said this week an investigation into the wave of Rohingya migrants arriving in southern Thailand found they were not victims of organized mass human trafficking. But The Bangkok Post reports that police are probing two military officers attached to the powerful Internal Security Operations Command who are suspected of involvement in the smuggling of Rohingya. The pair, holding the rank of sublieutenant and major, are being investigated by an Army panel, according to the newspaper.
Rohingya migrant Sakir Husan says he paid nobody to board the boat fleeing Arakan and was not aware of Army involvement in his journey. He told The Irrawaddy he has only one request of the Thai authorities: “I just don’t want to go back to Burma.”
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Thailand sentences editor to 10 years in jail for royal insult | Asia News – Politics, Media, Education | Asian Correspondent
Thailand sentences editor to 10 years in jail for royal insult | Asia News – Politics, Media, Education | Asian Correspondent
AP News, Jan 23, 2013
BANGKOK (AP) — A prominent Thai activist and magazine editor was sentenced to a decade in prison Wednesday for defaming Thailand’s monarchy, a verdict rights groups condemned as the latest affront to freedom of expression in the Southeast Asian country.
Somyot Pruksakasemsuk was convicted of publishing two articles in an anti-establishment magazine that made negative references to the crown.
The verdict came despite repeated calls by rights groups to free Somyot, who has been jailed since 2011. It also underscored the harsh nature of Thailand’s lese majeste laws, which critics say have frequently been abused by politicians’ intent on silencing rivals.
The articles in question were published under a pseudonym in Somyot’s now-defunct Voice of Taksin magazine, which he launched in 2009 to compile political news and anti-establishment articles from writers and contributors.
Judges found both pieces contained content that defamed the royal family and argued that Somyot, as a veteran editor, knew that and chose to print them anyway. The court announced two five-year jail terms — one for each story.
“(Somyot) should have better judgment than ordinary journalists. He must have understood that the articles contained lese majeste content, but chose to publish them anyway,” one of judges said in the sentence.
Somyot said he would appeal the verdict but would not seek a royal pardon.
Brad Adams, Asia director of Human Rights Watch, said the ruling “appears to be more about Somyot’s strong support for amending the lese majeste law than about any harm incurred by the monarchy.”
Although the articles were published in 2010, Somyot was only arrested the following year — five days after launching a petition drive to revoke Article 112 of the nation’s criminal code, which mandates three to 15 years in jail for “whoever defames, insults or threatens the king, the queen, the heir to the throne or the regent.”
Human Rights Watch said the author of the articles, who penned them under pseudonym, has never been charged with any crimes and is living in Cambodia.
The European Union also weighed in on the verdict, saying it “seriously undermines the right to freedom of expression and press freedom” and “affects Thailand’s image as a free and democratic society.”
More than 100 observers, including Thai and international scholars and journalists, diplomats and Somyot’s supporters, were in court to hear the verdict.
Somyot, who was brought in with his legs shackled, joked to a friend that he would no longer need books to read in prison because he thought he would be freed.
In addition to the 10-year punishment, Somyot was also sentenced to a one-year term in a separate criminal case in which he was charged for alleging a Thai general was behind the country’s 2006 army coup.
The coup ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and sparked years of sometimes violent political unrest from which the nation has yet to fully recover. Somyot was also a leader of the so-called Red Shirt movement, which supported Thaksin.
“His guilty verdict and sentence should be viewed as a sign that Thailand’s deep political schisms are far from healed,” Adams said.
AP News, Jan 23, 2013
BANGKOK (AP) — A prominent Thai activist and magazine editor was sentenced to a decade in prison Wednesday for defaming Thailand’s monarchy, a verdict rights groups condemned as the latest affront to freedom of expression in the Southeast Asian country.
Somyot Pruksakasemsuk was convicted of publishing two articles in an anti-establishment magazine that made negative references to the crown.
The verdict came despite repeated calls by rights groups to free Somyot, who has been jailed since 2011. It also underscored the harsh nature of Thailand’s lese majeste laws, which critics say have frequently been abused by politicians’ intent on silencing rivals.
The articles in question were published under a pseudonym in Somyot’s now-defunct Voice of Taksin magazine, which he launched in 2009 to compile political news and anti-establishment articles from writers and contributors.
Judges found both pieces contained content that defamed the royal family and argued that Somyot, as a veteran editor, knew that and chose to print them anyway. The court announced two five-year jail terms — one for each story.
“(Somyot) should have better judgment than ordinary journalists. He must have understood that the articles contained lese majeste content, but chose to publish them anyway,” one of judges said in the sentence.
Somyot said he would appeal the verdict but would not seek a royal pardon.
Brad Adams, Asia director of Human Rights Watch, said the ruling “appears to be more about Somyot’s strong support for amending the lese majeste law than about any harm incurred by the monarchy.”
Although the articles were published in 2010, Somyot was only arrested the following year — five days after launching a petition drive to revoke Article 112 of the nation’s criminal code, which mandates three to 15 years in jail for “whoever defames, insults or threatens the king, the queen, the heir to the throne or the regent.”
Human Rights Watch said the author of the articles, who penned them under pseudonym, has never been charged with any crimes and is living in Cambodia.
The European Union also weighed in on the verdict, saying it “seriously undermines the right to freedom of expression and press freedom” and “affects Thailand’s image as a free and democratic society.”
More than 100 observers, including Thai and international scholars and journalists, diplomats and Somyot’s supporters, were in court to hear the verdict.
Somyot, who was brought in with his legs shackled, joked to a friend that he would no longer need books to read in prison because he thought he would be freed.
In addition to the 10-year punishment, Somyot was also sentenced to a one-year term in a separate criminal case in which he was charged for alleging a Thai general was behind the country’s 2006 army coup.
The coup ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and sparked years of sometimes violent political unrest from which the nation has yet to fully recover. Somyot was also a leader of the so-called Red Shirt movement, which supported Thaksin.
“His guilty verdict and sentence should be viewed as a sign that Thailand’s deep political schisms are far from healed,” Adams said.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
PH takes China to UN arbitral tribunal | Inquirer, net
PH takes China to UN arbitral tribunal | Inquirer, net
Fat Reye, January 22nd, 2013
MANILA, Philippines – The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) on Tuesday announced that the Philippines has taken the step of bringing its West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) territorial disputes to China before an Arbitral Tribunal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to achieve a peaceful and durable solution to the disputes.
The announcement was made by Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert Del Rosario.
Del Rosario, in a press conference, said that a note verbale detailing the notification and statement of claim that “challenges before the Arbitral Tribunal the validity of China’s nine-dash claim to almost the entire South China Sea (SCS) including the West Philippine Sea and to desist from unlawful activities that violate the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the Philippines under the 1982 UNCLOS” was handed to Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines Ma Keqing at around 1 p.m. Tuesday.
“The Philippines has exhausted almost all political and diplomatic avenues for a peaceful negotiated settlement of its maritime dispute with China……To this day, a solution is still elusive. We hope that the Arbitral Proceedings shall bring this dispute to a durable solution,” Del Rosario said.
“We hope that China would join us in this aspiration,” Del Rosario said.
Del Rosario noted that Solicitor General Francis H. Jardeleza has been tasked as the legal representative for the Philippines in these Arbitral proceedings.
“The lead counsel of the Philippines is Paul Reichler of Foley and Hoag LLP,” he said.
Fat Reye, January 22nd, 2013
MANILA, Philippines – The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) on Tuesday announced that the Philippines has taken the step of bringing its West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) territorial disputes to China before an Arbitral Tribunal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to achieve a peaceful and durable solution to the disputes.
The announcement was made by Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert Del Rosario.
Del Rosario, in a press conference, said that a note verbale detailing the notification and statement of claim that “challenges before the Arbitral Tribunal the validity of China’s nine-dash claim to almost the entire South China Sea (SCS) including the West Philippine Sea and to desist from unlawful activities that violate the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the Philippines under the 1982 UNCLOS” was handed to Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines Ma Keqing at around 1 p.m. Tuesday.
“The Philippines has exhausted almost all political and diplomatic avenues for a peaceful negotiated settlement of its maritime dispute with China……To this day, a solution is still elusive. We hope that the Arbitral Proceedings shall bring this dispute to a durable solution,” Del Rosario said.
“We hope that China would join us in this aspiration,” Del Rosario said.
Del Rosario noted that Solicitor General Francis H. Jardeleza has been tasked as the legal representative for the Philippines in these Arbitral proceedings.
“The lead counsel of the Philippines is Paul Reichler of Foley and Hoag LLP,” he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
