Amnesty warns of new Asian refugee crisis as monsoon season ends | Asian Correspondent

Amnesty warns of new Asian refugee crisis as monsoon season ends | Asian Correspondent
 Michele Penna Oct 23, 2015 


Newly arrived migrants gather at Kuala Langsa Port in Langsa, Aceh province, Indonesia earlier this year. Pic: AP.

As a controversial election approaches in Burma (Myanmar), a new report by Amnesty International this week put the spotlight on human rights abuses in the country. Entitled “Deadly Journeys” and largely based on interviews recorded in the Indonesian province of Aceh, the document dwells at length on the refugee crisis that engulfed Southeast Asia last spring and warns that a new humanitarian disaster may ensue with the end of the monsoon season.

That people are trafficked in Southeast Asia is no secret – quoting the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Amnesty writes that about 63,000 people were smuggled through the Bay of Bengal and Andaman Sea in 2014 alone – but in 2015 things took a turn for the worse.

The crisis began early this year, when Thai authorities cracked down on bases used by traffickers. Deprived of their safe havens, the latter abandoned thousands of people to their fate at sea (up to 10,000 people were affected in the Andaman Sea as of May this year, wrote the International Organization for Migration.)

Some were probably lost forever in the ocean, while others reached the shores of neighboring countries, where initially they were met with indifference. The first instinct of Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand was to push them back – something that contravenes international laws, says Amnesty – before eventually providing some support.

The reason why all this concerns Burma is that many of those who put their life at risk are Rohingya Muslims from Rakhine State, the country’s western province where this small Muslim minority has suffered discrimination for decades.

The Rohingyas were stripped of their citizenship in 1982 by a citizen law which did not include them in the list of 135 officially recognized minorities – thus effectively turning them into unrecognized foreigners – and their recent history is marred by violence.

A sick migrant is helped by friends to board a truck that is taking them to a local hospital upon arrival in Simpang Tiga, Aceh province, Indonesia. Pic: AP.

Severe clashes with Rakhine’s Buddhist majority took place in 2012, when communal tensions flared. A 2013 report by Human Rights Watch found that the violence had displaced “125,000 Rohingya and other Muslims, as well as a smaller number of Arakanese”.

According to UN estimates quoted by Amnesty, about 416,600 people are currently affected by inter-communal violence and in serious need of humanitarian assistance. Many have no choice but to escape to sea, where they become prey to smugglers who get them on board – by hook or crook, it seems – and then ask their families for ransom.

“Virtually every Rohingya – women, men and children – who spoke with Amnesty International said that they had either been beaten by the boat crews or had witnessed other passengers being beaten,” states the research, citing victims who said that the beatings were sometimes repeated and extremely methodical. Some passengers were reportedly murdered after failing to pay the smugglers or died from dehydration.

The crisis died out toward June, as the monsoon swept across the region, making travel by boats dangerous. Fears are now growing that as the monsoon dwindles to an end, the smugglers will go back to their occupation and a new crisis may begin.

“There is a serious risk of another humanitarian disaster unfolding at sea in late 2015,” writes Amnesty.

This is why, according to the humanitarian organization, Southeast Asian countries should work on a better response in case a new crisis erupts, providing refugees with material help and avoiding sending them back to Burma, where they are likely to be abused.

As for Burma, Amnesty merely prescribes an old medicine which nearly all humanitarian agencies operating in the area urge Naypyidaw to take: ending the discrimination against Rohingyas and integrating them into society.

Whether this will happen is very much in doubt. Authorities have always refused to acknowledge the problem and the issue has become a no-go zone for political leaders, including for Aung San Suu Kyi and the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD), whose candidates have shown little willingness to address the problem – fearing, some argue, an electoral backlash from the country’s Buddhist majority.

Thailand: World’s largest canned tuna company linked to slavery | Asian Correspondent

Thailand: World’s largest canned tuna company linked to slavery | Asian Correspondent
 Graham Land Oct 20, 2015

Environmentally destructive, unregulated and guilty of shocking human rights abuses, the tuna industry is a dirty business. The biggest tuna company in the world, Thai Union Group, has become a target of a global campaign by environmental activist organization, Greenpeace, in the hope that exposure and pressure will result in some positive changes from the Thailand-based seafood firm.
Thai Union Group has processing plants in Southeast Asia, Europe, Africa and the United States. It encompasses several leading seafood companies under its brand umbrella, including Chicken of the Sea (USA); John West (UK) Petit Navire and Parmentier (France); Mareblu (Italy); as well as top Thai brands Sealect, Fisho and Bellotta.
Greenpeace has already had success pressuring companies in Australia and the UK to clean up their tuna supply chains and wants the world’s largest tuna firm to improve behavior in terms of overfishing, labor abuse, impact on local communities, destructive fishing practices, and using “transshipping” to hide illegal fishing practices.
Thai Union Group linked to slavery at sea
In July a New York Times exposé revealed how fishing boats that supplied catch to Thai Union Group-owned canneries used kidnapped and enslaved migrant workers, mainly from Cambodia and Myanmar (Burma).
Thai Union has come under increased scrutiny since the New York Times piece, as well as a lawsuit against Nestle. Though Thai Union wasn’t the company being sued, the case was predicated on Nestle’s purchasing of fish from a known user of slave labor (TUG) for its Fancy Feast cat food brand.
Here is an extract from the lawsuit (via Undercurrent News):
Instead of true employment, men and boys are sold as slaves by brokers and smugglers to fishing captains in Thai ports in need of labor. Once sold, these men and boys… enter a modern form of indentured servitude where they are required to work to pay off the price the captains paid to purchase them.
Not just tuna, not just people, but dogs and cats too
Greenpeace’s campaign against environmental and human rights abuses in the global tuna industry is named “Not just tuna”, in order to highlight that the issue is not simply one of ecological degradation due to overfishing, but also of health and human rights.
Furthermore, it is not just people who are consuming vast amounts of unethical tuna. Some of the US’s top pet food brands — including Meow Mix, Fancy Feast (Nestle) and Iams — have bought some 28 million pounds of seafood-based cat and dog food from Thai Union Group. The ships it contracts supply forage fish for pet food and agricultural feed for pigs, chickens and farmed fish in the United States.
The U.S. is the largest customer of Thai fish with a large and rapidly growing portion of it destined for the pet food industry. In fact, the average cat in the U.S. eats twice as much food as the average human — around 30 pounds per year.
Greenpeace demands real change, not just polished cans




While Thai Union has launched a shiny new PR campaign to improve its image, Greenpeace would like to see concrete changes in industry practices, particularly transparency in order that consumers can be aware of where their product is coming from and how it is sourced.
Thai Union Group’s British John West brand claims on its packaging that its tuna is 100 percent traceable, yet Greenpeace has revealed that, as of now, this is simply not true. Last month 14 brands of canned tuna on the Thai market failed Greenpeace’s tests for sustainability, traceability and equity.

Fukushima and the media: Sensationalism or silence? | Asian Correspondent

Fukushima and the media: Sensationalism or silence? | Asian Correspondent
Graham Land Oct 16, 2015 

Pic: AP.
It’s been roughly 4.5 years since the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster and news about how the situation is progressing keeps trickling in. But what do we really know about the current state of the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl? And what questions should we still be asking?
It was the largest-ever accidental oceanic release of radioactive contaminants.
However, both the Japanese government and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are apparently failing to gather important data on radiation and coastal populations that may be at risk. The United States Environmental Protection Agency stopped its emergency monitoring just two months after the disaster took place.
From the Ecologist:
UK research shows that such mechanisms can occur at least 200km (by sea) distant from the point source of radioactivity, and that populations living in such areas are exposed to terrestrial food stuffs which can deliver a higher marine radioactivity (dietary) dose than do locally harvested sea foods.
Analysis of this research has shown that coastal populations ‘distant’ from a discharge point of ‘liquid’ radioactive wastes, may receive higher doses of marine radioactivity through their local terrestrial diet, than populations living adjacent to liquid radioactive waste point sources receive through their local sea foods.
While some experts have downplayed the risks of oceanic cesium drifting from Fukushima,others take issue with their methodology.
Fukushima is still leaking radiation.
More and more radioactive material has leaked into the ocean, something that wentunreported for 10 months by TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Co.), the utilities company in charge of the running of the Fukushima Daiichi plant. TEPCO has been further criticized for poorly monitoring periodic radiation leaks, which still occur in the event of heavy rains.
While overflow from drainage systems can carry radiation from the plant into the ocean, the same radiation can also re-enter land, contaminating coastal shores many miles down the coast

Fukushima temporary waste storage. Pic: Ricardo Herrgott/Global 2000 (Flickr CC)
Has the disaster boosted cancer rates around Fukushima?
Some research has linked elevated thyroid cancer rates among local children to the 2011 meltdowns. Japanese officials have claimed increased screening has resulted in more positive test results, while other researchers have pointed to studies showing no significant differences between children from areas exposed to the disaster and those from other parts of Fukushima prefecture.
A return to normalcy?
In a spot of positive news, the town of Naraha in Fukushima prefecture, located some nine miles south of the nuclear plant and epicenter of the disaster, has been declared safe after a major government cleanup. Naraha is the first town to have its evacuation order 100 percent lifted. So far only around 200 of the original 7,800 residents have returned. Baby steps.
79-year-old Naraha returnee Kohei Yamauchi is quoted in the Guardian:
We’re too old to be worried about getting cancer from radiation exposure. I expect a lot of older people will return, but not their children or grandchildren. It’s going to be difficult to raise children here.
As these photos of abandoned locations in Fukushima attest, there is a long way to go before things go back to “normal”.

A doll sits on the balcony of a house in an abandoned town just outside the nuclear exclusion zone surrounding the crippled Fukushima plant in Japan. Pic: AP.
Silence = death
For those who don’t share certain residents’ sense of resigned stoicism, including those living outside Fukushima — or anywhere around the world, for that matter — worry and skepticism are understandable reactions in a story that continues to develop. Official statements come too late or are contradicted by experts, scientific studies contradict one another, information is even hidden.
It is no wonder that there is paranoia and mistrust regarding the nuclear industry. While it is never helpful to sensationalize, exaggerate or fuel panic, nor is it constructive to be silent, ignore information or downplay risk.
In a hyper-mediated world where “compassion fatigue” — or in this case concern fatigue — is normal, we must be careful not to become bored by bad news. This is especially important when it is in the interests of those who would continue with business as usual — i.e. large corporations like TEPCO or BP — that we lose interest and allow such disasters to carry on unabated.

Ethics and elections in Myanmar | New Mandala

Ethics and elections in Myanmar 
Trevor Wilson  – 14 OCTOBER 2015

A woman votes in Myanmar’s 2012 by-election. Photo from Wikimedia commons.

A ground-breaking conference on the sensitive topic of ethics and elections was held in Myanmar’s new capital Naypyitaw at the end of September.

The conference was jointly sponsored by Myanmar’s Union Election Commission (UEC), and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, a German based organisation that has been working at promoting democracy in Myanmar for several years.

The conference aimed to expose politicians, party officers, and media representatives from Myanmar to some of the more challenging issues confronting the nation in its scheduled 8 November 2015 simultaneous elections for two houses of the national parliament and fourteen regional assemblies.

In all, some 150 people attended with the head of the UEC, U Tin Aye, a retired Lieutenant General, giving the opening address.

Participation in the conference was impressively broad. Representatives from 27 different political parties attended, along with representatives from other ethnic and political groups, from civil society organisations, and from the Myanmar media.

Both major parties (the National League for Democracy and the Union Solidarity and Development Party) were present. Participants were drawn from across the whole country, except Rakhine and Tanintharyi regions. The Arakan National Party from Rakhine was invited, but was unable to attend.

Speakers came from the leading international organisations who are providing extensive capacity building training for the elections, as well as Myanmar NGOs. Their presentations confirmed that, technically at least, Myanmar is well prepared for this major election event.

Various aspects of risks for a free, fair and credible election were openly discussed. Unusually, the Myanmar political context was described comprehensively by Professor Dr Thuzar Myint from the Department of International Relations at Yangon University.

The importance of ensuring elections are as politically inclusive as possible was also considered. International scholars offered valuable insights into how different religious groups and minorities are effectively engaged in elections held in countries such as Turkey, the Philippines, and Malaysia. These comparisons were of interest to conference participants.

The valuable role played by free media in helping ensure free and fair election practices and procedures was also emphasised. I myself spoke about Australia’s experiences trying to avoid problems such as vote rigging, and bribery, and ensuring truth in election advertising and appropriate candidate behaviour.

Trevor Wilson is a former Australian ambassador to Myanmar and a visiting fellow in the Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs at the Australian National University.

Why I speak out against the Thai Monarchy | New Mandala

Why I speak out against the Thai Monarchy | New Mandala
Chatwadee Rose Amornpat, 12 OCTOBER 2015

I was brought up in a royalist family in Thailand. My roots are also intertwined with the monarchy.

My grandparents worked for the royals and my family back home is a staunch supporter of the yellow cause. We always watched the nightly royal news (more like propaganda to me now) every night at 8pm, just like the rest of the population.

We adored the royals and their ostentatious outfits and lavish caravans of cars. They all looked like gods, untouchable and to be feared.

I first became disenchanted with the Thai monarchy during my last two visits to Thailand and prior to my lese majeste charge.

While visiting what I once called home, I often walked the streets and mingled with the locals, eating noodle soup on the streets. I talked with the street vendors and found that they all have a very hard life to say the least.

I remember one vendor so clearly; an elderly man, in his late 60s having to get up at 4am every day in order to prepare for another long shift selling noodles to passers-by from dawn till dust in order to make ends meet.

He said he would be lucky, after expenses, to make around 500 baht (approx $US 15). He and his family of four lived in a slum area of Klong Toie. He had worked at his stand for about 15 years and little had changed for him in that time. In contrast, as we talked I noticed several expensive Mercedes Benz zooming by. Some even stopped to pick up am order “to go.”

On other occasions, I rode in a taxis across Bangkok.  Again, the drivers expressed their sense of hopelessness for the future; destined to driving the smoggy streets, simply not knowing what else to do.

One driver told me that after paying his taxi-rental fee, food and gasoline, and after driving some 10-hours, if he is lucky his take-home pay was about 500 baht; the same as the noodle vendor.

While visiting Thailand, I also talked to many manual labourers and found that life is also very hard for them and their families. Most of them get paid a minimum wage of 300 baht per day, while about 30 per cent earn between 150-200 baht working 10-hour shifts.  These are the under aged workers in restaurants, factories, and the sex industry and parlours.

Such is life for Thailand’s majority, which basically drives the nation’s economy; what is known to foreigners as Thailand’s cheap labour.

Owners of such establishments are all royalists following the footstep of King Bhumibol who promotes his ‘Sufficient Economy’ everywhere. And each evening when I was at home with my parents watching TV, there would be the so-called ‘promotional’ ads proclaiming the greatness of the royals every hour.

Since the military takeover of May 2014 the propaganda peddling has gotten worse. As The New York Times’ Thomas Fuller has reported, coup leader General Prayuth Chan is spending $US 540 million on a promotional campaign with the ever so subtle moniker ‘Worship, protect and uphold the monarchy’.

“The campaign includes television commercials, seminars in schools and prisons, singing contests and competitions to write novels and make short films praising the king,” writes Fuller.

This money could have been better used for the poor. The fact is, Thailand is still a very poor country after almost 70 years of rule by King Bhumibol. Meanwhile, the king’s Crown Property Bureau prospers exponentially every year and is worth at least $US 43 .8 billion dollars (with some experts claiming this estimate is too low).

It controls 15 per cent of the country’s GDP and owns businesses throughout Thailand and the world. But because Thai people are passive in nature, they don’t complain.

What disturbs me so much is the fact that according to Forbes magazine, the Thai king is considered the richest monarch in the world. Yet, he continues to receive a yearly royal budget from Thai taxpayers potentially worth some $US 500 million dollars without feeling guilt or shame. I don’t know how he can justify his Sufficient Economy when it comes to his own self-interest.

All the while, Thailand’s poor continue to pay the price of his long reign. When you count the cost, it’s enough to make anyone scream and shout, let alone speak out.

Chatwadee Rose Amornpat is based in London. She was charged with lese majeste by the Thai military junta in July 2014. 

Thailand’s constitution conundrum | New Mandala

Thailand’s constitution conundrum | New Mandala

 

KHEMTHONG TONSAKULRUNGRUANG, 

1 OCTOBER 2015

A Thai soldier stands guard in front of the Democracy Monument. Photo: AP Photo/Sakchai Lalit

To draft an acceptable constitution for Thailand the junta must learn key lessons from past failure. 

In September, Thailand’s National Reform Council (NRC), rejected a controversial draft constitution prepared by the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC).

The decision came after directions from the ruling National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), which took control of the country in the aftermath of last May’s coup. It has further delayed elections.

The NCPO is now recruiting a new CDC to draft another constitution. But this next draft is also destined to fail. Only a miracle will save the new CDC from the shame and humiliation suffered by former CDC head, Borwornsak Uwanno, and his team.

This constitution will not be a document of unity and prosperity as claimed by the junta. Those opposed to the NCPO will reject it, regardless of its content. Those who are pro-junta will embrace it without even glancing at what is has to say.

Thus, it is crucial that the CDC appeal to Thailand’s silent majority. The draft may then be accepted and drafters dismissed with grace, while possibly ensuring somewhat better governance than the current regime.

However, if a miracle is to happen, lessons must be learnt and the following advice should be taken seriously.

First and foremost, the drafters matter and the team must be well balanced.

Having conservatives in the CDC is not a problem as long as there are liberals too. The more problematic figures are those who actively appeared on the People’s Democratic Reform Committee stage during the ‘Bangkok shutdown’ of January 2014. Or those making contemptuous remarks publicly about the “uneducated lower class.” These radicals will see the drafting’s demise.

The opposite problem is that of deadwood; those who look for fame but contribute nothing to the task at hand. This excess baggage, mostly military generals out of touch with the world, is an obstacle to the drafting process. If they must be appointed for political reasons, it is better to “hide” them in the reform council where their incompetence is better concealed.

Second, be careful with spending. While former CDC members publically aired grievances about their terrible assignment, they forgot to mention that they were paid exorbitantly well.

Upon first meeting, the former CDC approved an allowance of 6,000 to 9,000 baht for each time they met. This was in addition to their salary at the cabinet, the NRC, or the National Assembly, which was also in addition to their regular full-time pay.

Why should a man with three income sources mope? Many of them bagged a lot of cash serving the junta. Combined with the news of the junta’s wasteful spending, the former CDC was criticised for getting too highly paid in exchange for mediocre service. When the draft was rejected, critics suggested they should return these gains.

By drafting the constitution, the drafters often claim they are “serving the country.” But, if you volunteer to serve the nation, you must keep your monetary reward to the minimum. It should not turn into a for-profit enterprise.

Third, keep the draft simple and democratic.

Inventing non-democratic mechanisms is a sure way of getting the draft rejected. Thai constitutions are getting lengthier, more complicated, and less functional. The CDC should avoid discussing a third-party prime minister or the powerful crisis panel – the 23-member panel to take over government during a “national emergency”.

Anything undemocratic should not be bluntly replaced with the tag “Thai-style” or “Thailand only.” These tags are only pretext for arbitrariness and the people know it.

Fourth, be transparent. The former CDC drafted what was to be the supreme law of the land but the people knew nothing about its making. Often, the press was not allowed to observe the constitutional debate.

The only source of information came from the CDC spokesperson and sounded like propaganda, rather than the beginning of a dialogue. Secrecy entails that the wisdom of the Thai majority cannot be trusted. It outright insults Thais’ intelligence.

Finally, involve the public. Meaningful participation is vital for the legitimacy of the CDC and the draft constitution.

The CDC boasted that it conducted public hearings throughout the country, and was blessed by several groups of well-wishers. The CDC must stop fooling itself that the school children, college students, and civil servants who came to give support to the CDC signified genuine public acceptance.

The few formal public hearings never worked because they were too brief and came too late. These meetings simply served as rubber-stamping processes. The CDC should listen more to its critics, who, due to the junta’s suppression, communicate via less formal means such as social media.

Will the miracle happen?

The junta has already put forward some names with doubtful credentials. Certainly, the CDC will not be able to act independently from the NCPO, and it is likely to honor the junta’s wishes. That implies many undemocratic features that should be avoided in any constitution draft.

The junta will not relax its grip on Thailand anytime soon and unfortunately the oppressive atmosphere will only cloud the drafting. The fear of attitude re-adjustment programs renders any attempt to bring in sincere participation fruitless.

Let us wish the new CDC luck; they are really going to need it in the six months ahead.

Khemthong Tonsakulrungruang is a Thai constitutional law scholar.

A conversation with Chomsky | New Mandala

A conversation with Chomsky | New Mandala

PAVIN CHACHAVALPONGPUN, GUEST CONTRIBUTOR, 

1 OCTOBER 2015

Pavin Chachavalpongpun (left) and Noam Chomsky. Photo supplied.

Pavin Chachavalpongpun discusses Thai politics, the monarchy, authoritarian rule and Thaksin with world-renowned public intellectual. 

Since the Thai coup of 22 May 2014, my life has been turned upside down.

The Thai junta summoned me twice for being critical of its intervention in politics. When I rejected the summons simply because I did not accept the legitimacy of the coup-makers, they issued a warrant for my arrest and revoked my passport. This forced me to apply for refugee status in Japan.

Throughout this tumultuous period, Professor Noam Chomsky – one of the world’s most renowned academics, political commentators and social-justice activists – offered his encouragement and support in the process of applying for my refugee status.

He helped appeal to the Japanese government to seriously consider my case, while at the same time condemning the Thai junta for its harassment against my basic human rights.

I had never met Chomsky prior to the coup in Thailand. Therefore, his sympathy towards my struggle was unexpected and much appreciated. So when I was invited to speak at the Thai Studies Program at Harvard University on 25 September, I dropped a note to Chomsky to see if he would be available to meet me. He said yes.

Our meeting took place on the same day at his office inside the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where we had a private conversation. As soon as I was invited to sit down, Chomsky fired off many hard-hitting questions. He was interested in three issues: the military, the monarchy, and Thaksin Shinawatra.

First, he asked if I could describe the performance of the current military government led by General Prayuth Chan-ocha. He was curious to know how the military government has been coping with both domestic and international pressure. At the same time, I was requested to give an update on the state of human rights inside Thailand.

Chomsky offered his view on authoritarian rule in today’s world and how it works against the tide of democratisation. He told me that any regime not supported by the people, in this century, should not last long. But in the Thai case, he admitted that there were factors contributory to the longevity of military rule. One of them is the monarchy.

He asked me to what extent the Thai monarchy has interfered in politics. I replied by referring to the shifting strategy of the monarchy and its involvement in politics.

The royal institution has broken its past modus operandi of pulling the strings behind the political scene, and is now playing politics in the open. This is particularly so after the 2006 coup, with the Queen attending the funeral of a yellow shirt and Princess Chulabhorn overtly supporting the anti-government protest led by the People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC).

Chomsky responded by asserting that royal political involvement explained why Thai politics has become muddled and complicated. The global trend shows that monarchies of the world are shrinking. Working against the tide of democracy would only accelerate that shrinking process.

But he was also surprised by the fact that the Thai public has become tolerable to political interference by both the monarchy and the military, particularly among the politically marginalised. This discussion led us to focus on the surge in cases involving lèse-majesté charges.

He told me that he remembered signing a petition many years ago calling for a reform of lèse-majesté law in Thailand. But he also said, his effort was futile. He believed that without an immediate reform of the law, the monarchy would find it even more difficult to coexist with democracy.

Chomsky seemed to also be very fascinated by the fact that former Prime Minister Thaksin has still commanded love and respect from a number of red shirts in Thailand. He was curious about Thaksin’s effective populist policy which seemed to have “hypnotised” Thais to continue to vote for his political proxies.

But Chomsky was also suspicious of Thaksin’s competitive political script, which was greatly different from that of the “network monarchy”. He raised the pertinent question of how Thaksin’s political idea could really shift Thailand’s political landscape toward more democratisation.

Chomsky also asked why Thaksin’s political opponents, be they opposition parties or enemies in the old establishment, had failed to initiate better and more commercialised policies designed to win the hearts and minds of Thai villagers. I could only say that they were not interested in empowering the people, as such empowerment could challenge their own powerful position in the political and economic spheres.

Chomsky posed some other questions on the negative aspects of Thaksin’s populism but at the same time came to understand the reason why his populist tactics functioned well in the country where marginalised people are still struggling to gain access to political and economic resources.

This brought us to the last topic of discussion, the Thai economy. Chomsky was inquisitive about the economic consequences of the coup, the changing domestic socio-economic conditions, and the implications on foreign investors in Thailand. Again, I could only provide him with a pessimistic outlook. Chomsky lamented that it was unfortunate for Thailand to have fallen into its own political trap.

Aside from his inquisitiveness about the Thai political crisis, Chomsky asked me about my future plans, now that I have become a refugee fleeing my own country. What would I do from now on?

I assured him that my status in Japan was guaranteed and that I was just waiting to witness changes during this transitional period in Thailand. Should I need any assistance from him, he said, he would be willing to help as much as he could.

I then asked him a final question; how would he like to see Thailand in the future? Chomsky quickly replied, “A democratic state without interventions from non-elected institutions.”

Pavin Chachavalpongpun is associate professor at Kyoto University’s Center for Southeast Asian Studies and currently a Distinguished Fellow at the Walter H Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, Stanford University.