Human Rights Watch has drawn much publicity for its
recently published report describing the human rights situation in Thailand
under Premier Prayut Chan-o-cha as being in "free fall". But the
report needs fact-based and rational examination.
As usual, it
uses a Western context of rights to focus on one, namely freedom of expression,
ignoring many other fundamental human rights such as the those to food,
clothing, shelter and healthcare. These are rights to which people are equally
entitled, simply because they are human beings.
The report also failed to recognise the serious obstacles that have prevented Thailand from becoming a bona fide liberal democracy, such as social and political conflict that had reached boiling point prior to the fall of the elected government, the ever-increasing and widespread abuse of official and political power, entrenched impunity, rising poverty and a widening income gap, environmental degradation, and pervasive corruption. These factors represent grave impediments to the successful establishment and consolidation in Thailand of the liberal democracy that the West has been trying to universalise.
Liberty is a paradox. The liberal-political philosopher John Stuart Mill admitted that unlimited liberty could lead to the demise of freedom itself. He also cited the so-called "harm factor" as one constraint to freedom and liberty. In other words, a paradoxical aspect of liberty is that it implies boundaries. To suggest that freedom of speech is of vital importance to an open society is not to say that freedom of speech should be unlimited. The idea of truth is also of vital importance, for without it, freedom of speech can bring its own destruction and much harm to society at large.
Moreover, contrary to the current popularly held view, neither freedom nor liberty is an end in itself, but rather a means to ensuring that we all live with human dignity.
It is understandable, in light of the Western world's shared history and culture, that liberal democratic ideals and institutions command universal allegiance in those societies. However, it is flawed thinking to assume that the ideals and institutions of Western liberal democracy can meet the needs and aspirations of every nation on earth.
The problem is that many prominent voices in the West, in their earnest attempt to universalise Western-style democratic practices, principles and values, ignore the possibility of constructive dialogue with other parts of the world, where rights are prioritised differently in accordance with their different social, cultural and political concerns.
These voices also gloss over the fact that even the United States often conveniently ignores freedom of expression in other countries for the sake of its own commercial and security interests.
This is not to say that freedom of expression does not have critical value in the promotion of human dignity, because it clearly and undeniably does. It is only to say that a sound and constructive argument to promote that freedom cannot be blind to the prevailing social context.
And in the case of HRW's latest annual report - it cannot be oblivious to facts.
It is true that, since the military takeover on May 22, many people have been summoned for so-called "attitude adjustment". But that phrase is another case of "lost in translation". In the Thai language, the "adjustment" does not have the connotation of the torture and psychological persecution we witnessed in pictures of Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib.
In Thailand, everybody who was summoned has been released, even if there were no clear indications that their attitude was really "adjusted".
Martial law has been in place since the coup, but with little or no effect on the everyday life of regular citizens. Late-night party revellers do not have to face military roadblocks, because there are none. And while it is true that martial law prohibits the gathering of more than five people for political purposes, in reality these gatherings are taking place all the time. There has been none of the extrajudicial killing that was carried out in broad daylight in 2003 during one of Thailand's "democratically elected" governments and which claimed more than 2,000 lives, many of innocent people.
These days, "human rights" is a much used and much abused term. It has been used to defend freedom as well as to destroy it. People also tend to attach importance to particular human rights according to ideological and political expediency. New privileges have been created and elevated to the status of human rights in order to ensconce particular political and economic systems.
As regards freedom of expression, it is fair to say that no one wants to live in a society where a gag-rule applies. To prohibit constructive criticism also rids the leadership of any chance to hear outsiders' honest evaluation and suggestions for improvements. We are told that restrictions on expression in Thailand today are in place only as part of the "transition period", and meant to provide the country with the breathing space needed to forge a lasting peace after a period of vicious battles between warring political factions. The restrictions, say the authorities, are to give the country a chance of returning to the path of liberal democracy. Time will be the best judge of the current government's intentions. But to describe human rights in Thailand after the coup as being in a "free fall" is not only self-serving hyperbole, it is downright innacurate.
The report also failed to recognise the serious obstacles that have prevented Thailand from becoming a bona fide liberal democracy, such as social and political conflict that had reached boiling point prior to the fall of the elected government, the ever-increasing and widespread abuse of official and political power, entrenched impunity, rising poverty and a widening income gap, environmental degradation, and pervasive corruption. These factors represent grave impediments to the successful establishment and consolidation in Thailand of the liberal democracy that the West has been trying to universalise.
Liberty is a paradox. The liberal-political philosopher John Stuart Mill admitted that unlimited liberty could lead to the demise of freedom itself. He also cited the so-called "harm factor" as one constraint to freedom and liberty. In other words, a paradoxical aspect of liberty is that it implies boundaries. To suggest that freedom of speech is of vital importance to an open society is not to say that freedom of speech should be unlimited. The idea of truth is also of vital importance, for without it, freedom of speech can bring its own destruction and much harm to society at large.
Moreover, contrary to the current popularly held view, neither freedom nor liberty is an end in itself, but rather a means to ensuring that we all live with human dignity.
It is understandable, in light of the Western world's shared history and culture, that liberal democratic ideals and institutions command universal allegiance in those societies. However, it is flawed thinking to assume that the ideals and institutions of Western liberal democracy can meet the needs and aspirations of every nation on earth.
The problem is that many prominent voices in the West, in their earnest attempt to universalise Western-style democratic practices, principles and values, ignore the possibility of constructive dialogue with other parts of the world, where rights are prioritised differently in accordance with their different social, cultural and political concerns.
These voices also gloss over the fact that even the United States often conveniently ignores freedom of expression in other countries for the sake of its own commercial and security interests.
This is not to say that freedom of expression does not have critical value in the promotion of human dignity, because it clearly and undeniably does. It is only to say that a sound and constructive argument to promote that freedom cannot be blind to the prevailing social context.
And in the case of HRW's latest annual report - it cannot be oblivious to facts.
It is true that, since the military takeover on May 22, many people have been summoned for so-called "attitude adjustment". But that phrase is another case of "lost in translation". In the Thai language, the "adjustment" does not have the connotation of the torture and psychological persecution we witnessed in pictures of Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib.
In Thailand, everybody who was summoned has been released, even if there were no clear indications that their attitude was really "adjusted".
Martial law has been in place since the coup, but with little or no effect on the everyday life of regular citizens. Late-night party revellers do not have to face military roadblocks, because there are none. And while it is true that martial law prohibits the gathering of more than five people for political purposes, in reality these gatherings are taking place all the time. There has been none of the extrajudicial killing that was carried out in broad daylight in 2003 during one of Thailand's "democratically elected" governments and which claimed more than 2,000 lives, many of innocent people.
These days, "human rights" is a much used and much abused term. It has been used to defend freedom as well as to destroy it. People also tend to attach importance to particular human rights according to ideological and political expediency. New privileges have been created and elevated to the status of human rights in order to ensconce particular political and economic systems.
As regards freedom of expression, it is fair to say that no one wants to live in a society where a gag-rule applies. To prohibit constructive criticism also rids the leadership of any chance to hear outsiders' honest evaluation and suggestions for improvements. We are told that restrictions on expression in Thailand today are in place only as part of the "transition period", and meant to provide the country with the breathing space needed to forge a lasting peace after a period of vicious battles between warring political factions. The restrictions, say the authorities, are to give the country a chance of returning to the path of liberal democracy. Time will be the best judge of the current government's intentions. But to describe human rights in Thailand after the coup as being in a "free fall" is not only self-serving hyperbole, it is downright innacurate.
Pornpimol Kanchanalak
Special to The Nation
Special to The Nation
No comments:
Post a Comment