Human rights as people politics

19 March 2001

One of the 1997 Constitution’s mandates which is not yet complete is the establishment of a National Human Rights Commission. So far it has been controversy all the way.

Over the 1990s, the issue of human rights moved to the centre of debate on political change. At the start of the decade, activists were gloomy because their efforts to establish parliamentary democracy had resulted only in “money politics”—a marriage between old dictatorial habits and big money. They took down the flag of “democracy”, and ran up a flag of “rights”. To root out old dictatorial habits, they concluded, people needed to challenge the abuse of power on grounds of defending their human rights, gender rights, community rights, resource rights and so on. In 1997, several NGOs led by practising lawyers and legal academics lobbied to insert a code of rights and the establishment of a National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) into the new constitution.

That was only the beginning. Old power centres saw that the NHRC was a serious threat to established privilege. After the constitution was passed in the emotional atmosphere of the early crisis, conservative forces regrouped to dilute the charter’s reforms at the stage of the enabling legislation. The reform activists worked with a government drafting committee to prepare the enabling bill. They then submitted the draft to six public hearings, and passed it to the Council of State which has the duty to “revise” all legislation before submission to parliament.

The Council of State did not “revise” the bill, but savaged it. It placed the NHRC under the executive; stacked the selection committee with bureaucrats; ensured most of the NHRC members would be current or retired bureaucrats; cut the members’ allowances so that service would be part-time; and severely reduced the body’s powers. The Cabinet rushed to enact this bill into law, with the prime minister (Chuan) giving full support.

The reform activists counter-attacked in the press and on public platforms. They accused the Council of State of “trashing” the original bill and disregarding the mandate of the constitution. They suggested that the main aim of the Council’s bill was “protecting politicians and bureaucrats from human rights complaints”. They began campaigning for voters at the next election to reject parties which supported the Council’s bill. Chuan then capitulated. The original bill was reinstated with a few modifications.

The NHRC will carry out programmes of education on human rights; compile an annual report on the state of human rights; and advise the parliament on legislation required to uphold human rights. Most importantly it is empowered to “examine and report the commission or omission of acts which violate human rights or which do not comply with obligations under international treaties relating to human rights to which Thailand is a party.” It is, in short, a significant watchdog.

Controversy continued. The Selection Committee, heavily weighted with academics and NGOs, drew up a short-list of 22 names for the Senate to select the final eleven. At its first attempt, the Senate was able to agree on only nine names. The remaining two have not yet been chosen.

Among these nine are three legal activists on human rights issues, and four prominent members of the NGO movement. Whoever the Senate picks for the final two, these seven will be in a position to dominate the NHRC’s operations.

One of the most important is Saneh Chamarik, a senior academic and long-time social activist who has written extensively on the human impact of development. Recently he ran a large-scale project of research on community rights in Thailand and Southeast Asia, covering issues about agrarian communities, hill peoples, small fishermen, and community control over forests and other natural resources.

Controversy is now brewing on what human rights ought to mean in Thailand.

At a seminar held after passage of the bill, Saneh noted that in Western industrial countries, many human rights issues are about employment. In Thailand, by contrast, most of the people still live in rural areas. He predicted that Thailand’s NHRC would have to become involved in “biodiversity issues, community rights and rights to traditional lifestyles and local wisdom”.

Saneh argues that the Thai state in the dictatorial era centralised power and overrode local rights over resources. Many local movements want to reclaim these rights (particularly rights to resources of communal land, water, forests). Moreover, rapid economic change and the concentration of political power in urban centres, has made it difficult for rural and peripheral communities to resist changes which destroy old traditions and social practices. Movements among hill peoples, small fishermen, marginal farmers, and many others seek to protect their own withi chiwit (way of life). Saneh links these two issues with biodiversity because he believes the variety and abundance of Thailand’s subtropical ecology—if justly and properly managed—is the key to sustainable development.

On the other side, conservatives who understand the levelling potential of the human rights discourse may resort to quasi-nationalist arguments to argue that “Thailand is different” and international standards need not apply. They may reproduce the arguments used by advocates of “Asian values” in the 1990s. The original draft bill directed the NHRC to follow “international norms and standards regarding the promotion of the rights and freedoms of persons.” In the parliamentary debate, this clause caused a furore. One MP inveighed: “We are debating the introduction of a Thai law but are trying to use international law to define ours. Is this correct? I don't understand. Since when have we become slaves of the farang?” The clause was dropped during the final debate.

The novelty of the NHRC, the radical character of many of its members, and the extent of its duties mean that it will become both important and controversial. As one activist noted: “There are still few Thai people who know their rights. Many have had them violated without even knowing about it.”