The national report on the human rights situation, presented by the Thai delegates, was not entirely in line with the reality on the ground, especially with regard to freedom of expression. There are currently a number of legal mechanisms that suppress freedom of expression instead of promoting it, [for example Section 44 of the Interim Constitution, and Section 116 of the criminal code].
It is clear that [the level of freedom of expression in Thailand] falls below the international human rights standard. People only have a very limited space to express their opinion [on the current draft of the Thai constitution] in the lead up to the constitutional referendum.
Indeed, the human rights of a number of institutions within Thailand have been violated by the National Council for Peace and Order(NCPO). For example, after speaking at a public seminar on the constitutional referendum at Chulalongkorn University, Benjarat Sae Chua, a lecturer from the Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies at Mahidol University, was "invited" by the police to explain why she distributed handouts, listing 7 negative points about the current draft constitution.
Instead of suppressing debate and criticism, the NCPO should permit and support human rights activists and institutions. Such tolerance would open up space for public discussion within Thailand, and would also be welcomed by, the international community.
At the UPR, other ASEAN members avoided commenting on certain politically sensitive issues, maintaining their founding principle of non-interference. However, this reluctance prevents Thailand and ASEAN from making progress on human rights.
Thailand's government has cited cultural exceptionalism to justify its actions to the rest of the world. Of course, we are culturally different, but human rights are universal, and Thailand is a signatory to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Thailand therefore has a commitment to uphold the human rights of its citizens.
It is essential to ensure that Thai people are free to express their opinions on the constitutional referendum. Those who share the concerns of the international community should not be accused of betraying the country. This kind of nationalist rhetoric should be ended.
In relation to the comments from U.S. Ambassador Glyn T. Davies, his opinion is neither surprising or unusual, and merely represents the consistent stance of U.S. policy towards Thailand. Instead of seeing such criticism as a form of interference, Thailand should accept constructive interventions from its allies.
Thailand has shown its ambition to retain its place on the world stage by sending a delegations to the UPR. Therefore, it important for Thailand to consider the international standard of human rights, not the current Thai standard. The challenge for Thailand is to upgrade its human rights standard to be more consistent and synchronised with the international ones. This will show whether the country wants to be part of the international community or to isolate itself from the rest of the world.
