The listing of the four sons’ title is indeed very odd, even with M.C. (mom chao) and not HSH in the Bangkok Post piece above (the mere fact of mentioning their names is unusual too, of course). Considering that the last clear evidence any of us might have of their official status was a group of documents they themselves circulated (from their home at the time in Florida US) in mid-1998, among which are photo-copies of their passports and of a letter from their father, the Crown Prince, to the Principal of their school in England a year earlier. The passports showed all of them using the title of “Mr.” And in the letter, their father informed the Principal (my emphases, notice reference to HMK):
…the children have now willingly resigned their Royal ranks and family name pertaining to the Royal House of Thailand, as they do not want to bear any responsibility inherent in having such a Royal rank and belonging to the Royal Family. As I have said before, inspite of our good will and good wishes for the children, His Majesty the King and myself have now found that the obstacles are much too great for us to be able to guide their life to proceed in accordance with the minimum traditions and requirements of the Thai Royal Family. Thus we will have to accept their resignations, but always in the hope that in their growing maturity they will come to realize the obligations of their birth and turn to improve themselves accordingly so that we will be able to consider their return.
There’re rumors circulating in recent years that they had since reconciled, and that the Crown Prince had met, and/or been in contact with his four sons. I read such rumors on the Net, but never saw any evidence, eg. photo, etc. Perhaps the rumors have some truth, and perhaps the four have been given back a royal title of MC (children of princes, born of commoner mother)?
Sawatdi Bee Mai – Happy New Year – to this wonderful Princess who does so much good. And the same wishes to all Thailand’s Royal Family : God Bless Them.
It was reported recently (the Post or Nation) that Laos told Thailand to finish the repatriation by the end of the year, and that it wouldn’t accept any Hmong after that. Fishy, but that was the report.
The Irrawaddy had a column on 12/29 by Marwaan Macan-Markar (which I found through Political Prisoners in Thailand) that described the repatriation as “a move that places greater weight on growing regional solidarity over historical ties with a western superpower ….” I agree. I think the Thai military’s desire for good relations with the Lao military (as with the Burmese military) explains a lot of it.
StanG @ #9: Consider this – from Elaine Pearson of HRW, in the 12/30 Wall Street Journal:
“Laos has a terrible human-rights track record, especially concerning the Hmong, who allied with the U.S. during the Vietnam War. Since then, the Lao government has subjected the Hmong to extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances and systematic discrimination. The military still pursues Hmong groups in jungle hideouts that it accuses of anti-government activity and insurgency. …
“While all the Hmong deportees are potentially at risk, Human Rights Watch is especially concerned for the safety of the 130 Hmong held at Huay Nam Khao, who were singled out by the Thai army as camp leaders. They were segregated from other Hmong deportees, detained in mobile prison trucks and handed directly over to the Lao army. We also have serious concerns for the safety of several hundred repatriated Hmong whom the Thai army screened and found to have valid protection claims.
“If history is any guide, the Laos government isn’t likely to release any information about the repatriated Hmong. Vientiane-based U.N. officials and foreign diplomats have historically only been allowed heavily scripted visits to model Hmong resettlement sites, with Laos government officials ever-present. The Lao government says it will treat the Hmong humanely, yet so far it has not provided detailed information specifying the location of all Hmong returnees, and it has made no commitment to allow the continuous and unfettered international monitoring which is necessary to ensure their safety.”
Afaik, the UN gave “persons of concern” status to everybody who managed to escape from Petchabun camp, the group that eventually was rounded up and taken to Nong Kai.
I can see from MSF chronology why Thai government treats them as illegal immigrants looking for opportunities and creating troubles for everyone involved.
They started by crossing the river and settling in a forest for nearly half a year and no one knew of their existence, apart from local villagers. That’s just not how cross border movements are done in 21st century. Eventually Thais build them a camp, and then more of them came, and then more, practically doubling the population. Their history also included a march on Bangkok to demand attention.
As for other countries – where is a will, there is a way. MSF quote: “Despite more than two years of diplomatic and public communication by MSF, the United Nations, United States, France, and other regional powers have failed to take any concrete steps..” The Hmong story has been dragging for five years now.
Bottom line from Thailand’s point of view – sending them back to Laos is the only realistic option. UNHRC and MSF are not countries, they don’t take refugees.
Reports of Hmongs being tortured with hot coals do not sound credible at this point, just two days after their arrival. Realistically, though, Laos might have some scores to settle with a couple of their leaders. For the rest of them the conditions of their return sound welcoming.
And there’s a question of Abhisit calling the repatriation “voluntarily”.
For excellent background material, Medecins Sans Frontieres issued a report six months ago about conditions in the camps where the Lao Hmong asylum seekers were being detained —
Write letters expressing your concern and outrage to Thai diplomatic officials if you are outside Thailand, and to Kasit and Chavarat [inside and outside Thailand]. Please find their contact information below:
Kasit Piromya
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Sri Ayudhya Road
Bangkok 10400
THAILAND
Fax: + 66 2 643 5320/5314
Email: [email protected], [email protected]
Salutation: Dear Minister
Chavarat Charnvirakul
Minister of Interior
Ministry of Interior
Office of the Secretary to the Minister
Assadang Road, Pra Nakorn
Bangkok 10200
THAILAND
Fax: + 66 2 226 4371
Email: [email protected], [email protected]
Salutation: Dear Minister
With regards to the idle questions (it’s oppressively hot in Adelaide!) I raised myself, a quick Google news search has shown that the Hmong at Phetchabun have been in asylum limbo since late 2004. In July of 2005, retired General Pallop Pinmanee said of the Hmong refugees in Phetchabun “If Laos refuses to take the Hmong back, the authorities will take all means necessary to push them back across the border. The government has no policy to open a refugee camp to house the illegal immigrants or shoulder this burden.” Obviously, this quote does not bode well for the present ‘voluntary repatriation’ tact sailed by Abhisit, particularly as Pallop has clear yellow-shirt connections.
For the Rohingya push-back earlier this year, Australia reflected concern through a DFAT spokesperson whereas for the recent repatriation of Hmong, Simon Crean has offered a condemnation. Whether the commentary from differing levels of seniority is any indication of how seriously Australia has taken this more recent issue as an ‘escalation’, I’m not sure. Perhaps it’s just a matter of timing, or maybe it reflects a necessity to more visibly display moral righteousness.
Polo: The FCCT’s latest edition of The King of Thailand in World Focus has all of the prince’s progeny listed with titles. I think this is all part of preparing the ground.
StanG’s comments on the case at #9 suggest that he doesn’t know much about this case. The UN concern is specifically about 158 persons who were screened and extended UNHCR protection. Several reports also state that the Thai government and military agreed with this assessment.
There are already reports of arrests of some of these persons of concern – the Nation has a story by Pollard on 30 Dec. These reports are unconfirmed and come from Hmong exile groups, so a few grains of salt, but the current Lao government’s treatment of Hmong over the years has not always been exemplary.
Does anyone have suggestions of why this has been done now? What force has suddenly caused this action?
I think ‘discussed’ is a bit inadequate to describe what needs to be done. ‘Exposure” and “Reform” are perhaps a bit more appropriate. There has been so much endless ‘discussion.’
It’s worth remembering that this issue has been debated for years, i.e. multiple Thai governments. The UNHCR in Bangkok has had resources focused on saving these Hmong since 2004, so while these “repatriations” ultimately occurred on Absith’s watch the shame is shared by everyone who has walked in his shoes, and by all of the Thai people who never registered any objections.
“I’ve yet to see anything that displays courage and conviction when it comes to dealing with the army.”
Appointment of the police chief, perhaps?
Is there any real credibility to claims that repatriated Hmongs will be mistreated or prosecuted by Lao government? The UN can stick any label it wants on them, “persons of concern” or whatever, the only thing that matters is how Lao government will treat them. Thai govt says it trusts Lao promises regarding these refugees. Is there any reason it shouldn’t? Have Laotians said anything about screening them for criminal/political offenses?
I am disheartened not only by Thailand’s disregard for international practice at a key juncture in which it is trying to rehabilitate its global reputation, but also by the seeming joy with which a number of Southeast Asian nations are ridding themselves of lingering refugee questions before the close of the decade. Witness the recent deal between Bangladesh and Burma over resettling a third of the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh back to Burma or the questionable circumstances leading to Cambodia’s deportation of Uighur asylum-seekers last week back to China. I continue to believe that resolving issues of human rights guarantees in ASEAN constitutes the missing link in that organization’s ability to assert its coherent worth outside the region.
well, there is abosultely nothing new in this stuff at all: one may get the impression that Pasuk is an apologist for the Amaat…
A critical assessment is needed of “fairness” (not just rural/poor; middleclass/rich) in regards to the lack of human rights and double standards imposed by the state judiciary under Abhisit’s Gov. Beating about the bush on issues of fair distribution of resources without addressing the core concerns of privilege, bias and power (yes, -who holds and controls power? who lacks access and why?) is of little value these days with the current ideological divisions in society…
About as voluntary as standing in theaters. “Wassamatter…Aren’t you Thai?”
The evil that men do indeed lives after them.
As to Abhisit being a nice guy, he may appear to be a nice guy, and is probably nice to those he can afford to be nice to.
Considering the repatriation of 4000 Mongs and the maltreatment of Rohinga ‘boat people’, leads me to the conclusion that (at least) one of the hands pulling on the strings behind the scene is the top brass.
The incident surely tarnished the Abhisit administration regarding humanrights protection. Mr. PM does have a lot more to explain to the world than the Rohinga case.
HR seems to be the hardest word to comprehend in ASEAN standard.
BTW, United States also owed a lot to these Mongs, at least, as once brothers in arm against the communists.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Bangkok Post on the crown prince
The listing of the four sons’ title is indeed very odd, even with M.C. (mom chao) and not HSH in the Bangkok Post piece above (the mere fact of mentioning their names is unusual too, of course). Considering that the last clear evidence any of us might have of their official status was a group of documents they themselves circulated (from their home at the time in Florida US) in mid-1998, among which are photo-copies of their passports and of a letter from their father, the Crown Prince, to the Principal of their school in England a year earlier. The passports showed all of them using the title of “Mr.” And in the letter, their father informed the Principal (my emphases, notice reference to HMK):
…the children have now willingly resigned their Royal ranks and family name pertaining to the Royal House of Thailand, as they do not want to bear any responsibility inherent in having such a Royal rank and belonging to the Royal Family. As I have said before, inspite of our good will and good wishes for the children, His Majesty the King and myself have now found that the obstacles are much too great for us to be able to guide their life to proceed in accordance with the minimum traditions and requirements of the Thai Royal Family. Thus we will have to accept their resignations, but always in the hope that in their growing maturity they will come to realize the obligations of their birth and turn to improve themselves accordingly so that we will be able to consider their return.
There’re rumors circulating in recent years that they had since reconciled, and that the Crown Prince had met, and/or been in contact with his four sons. I read such rumors on the Net, but never saw any evidence, eg. photo, etc. Perhaps the rumors have some truth, and perhaps the four have been given back a royal title of MC (children of princes, born of commoner mother)?
New year wishes from …
Sawatdi Bee Mai – Happy New Year – to this wonderful Princess who does so much good. And the same wishes to all Thailand’s Royal Family : God Bless Them.
New year wishes from …
She did it for Phoofa Shop to print on many products such as card, T-shirt, cups and etc. (I think she has done this for other years too.)
р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕Чр╕▓р╕Щ р╕к.р╕Д.р╕к. р╕Ыр╕╡р╕Вр╕▓р╕е (р╣Ар╕кр╕╖р╕н) р╣Бр╕Бр╣Ир╕гр╣Йр╕▓р╕Щр╕ар╕╣р╕Яр╣Йр╕▓р╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Щр╕│р╣Др╕Ыр╕Юр╕┤р╕бр╕Юр╣Мр╕Ир╕│р╕лр╕Щр╣Ир╕▓р╕вр╣Ар╕Щр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Зр╣Гр╕Щр╕зр╕▒р╕Щр╕кр╣Ир╕Зр╕Чр╣Йр╕▓р╕вр╕Ыр╕╡р╣Ар╕Бр╣Ир╕▓ р╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Щр╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╕Ыр╕╡р╣Гр╕лр╕бр╣И 2553 р╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╕Чр╕гр╕Зр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕нр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕гр╕ер╕Зр╣Гр╕Щ р╕к.р╕Д.р╕к. р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓ ……
http://www.saisawankhayanying.com/s-friends/poofa/
Abhisit’s definition of voluntary
Ralph @ #13:
It was reported recently (the Post or Nation) that Laos told Thailand to finish the repatriation by the end of the year, and that it wouldn’t accept any Hmong after that. Fishy, but that was the report.
The Irrawaddy had a column on 12/29 by Marwaan Macan-Markar (which I found through Political Prisoners in Thailand) that described the repatriation as “a move that places greater weight on growing regional solidarity over historical ties with a western superpower ….” I agree. I think the Thai military’s desire for good relations with the Lao military (as with the Burmese military) explains a lot of it.
Abhisit’s definition of voluntary
StanG @ #9: Consider this – from Elaine Pearson of HRW, in the 12/30 Wall Street Journal:
“Laos has a terrible human-rights track record, especially concerning the Hmong, who allied with the U.S. during the Vietnam War. Since then, the Lao government has subjected the Hmong to extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances and systematic discrimination. The military still pursues Hmong groups in jungle hideouts that it accuses of anti-government activity and insurgency. …
“While all the Hmong deportees are potentially at risk, Human Rights Watch is especially concerned for the safety of the 130 Hmong held at Huay Nam Khao, who were singled out by the Thai army as camp leaders. They were segregated from other Hmong deportees, detained in mobile prison trucks and handed directly over to the Lao army. We also have serious concerns for the safety of several hundred repatriated Hmong whom the Thai army screened and found to have valid protection claims.
“If history is any guide, the Laos government isn’t likely to release any information about the repatriated Hmong. Vientiane-based U.N. officials and foreign diplomats have historically only been allowed heavily scripted visits to model Hmong resettlement sites, with Laos government officials ever-present. The Lao government says it will treat the Hmong humanely, yet so far it has not provided detailed information specifying the location of all Hmong returnees, and it has made no commitment to allow the continuous and unfettered international monitoring which is necessary to ensure their safety.”
Abhisit’s definition of voluntary
Afaik, the UN gave “persons of concern” status to everybody who managed to escape from Petchabun camp, the group that eventually was rounded up and taken to Nong Kai.
I can see from MSF chronology why Thai government treats them as illegal immigrants looking for opportunities and creating troubles for everyone involved.
They started by crossing the river and settling in a forest for nearly half a year and no one knew of their existence, apart from local villagers. That’s just not how cross border movements are done in 21st century. Eventually Thais build them a camp, and then more of them came, and then more, practically doubling the population. Their history also included a march on Bangkok to demand attention.
As for other countries – where is a will, there is a way. MSF quote: “Despite more than two years of diplomatic and public communication by MSF, the United Nations, United States, France, and other regional powers have failed to take any concrete steps..” The Hmong story has been dragging for five years now.
Bottom line from Thailand’s point of view – sending them back to Laos is the only realistic option. UNHRC and MSF are not countries, they don’t take refugees.
Reports of Hmongs being tortured with hot coals do not sound credible at this point, just two days after their arrival. Realistically, though, Laos might have some scores to settle with a couple of their leaders. For the rest of them the conditions of their return sound welcoming.
And there’s a question of Abhisit calling the repatriation “voluntarily”.
Abhisit’s definition of voluntary
For excellent background material, Medecins Sans Frontieres issued a report six months ago about conditions in the camps where the Lao Hmong asylum seekers were being detained —
“Briefing Paper: Hidden Behind Barbed Wire”
http://doctorswithoutborders.org/publications/article.cfm?id=3629&cat=special-report&ref=related-sidebar
Abhisit’s definition of voluntary
Various human rights groups have recently issued statements on the forced deportation of the Lao Hmong:
Medicins Sans Frontieres/Doctors Without Borders:
http://doctorswithoutborders.org/news/article.cfm?id=4133&cat=field-news
The Cross Cultural Foundation/р╕бр╕╣р╕ер╕Щр╕┤р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ьр╕кр╕▓р╕Щр╕зр╕▒р╕Тр╕Щр╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕б:
http://voicefromthais.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/statement-on-forced-deportation-of-hmong-to-laos_dec-2009/
Human Rights Watch:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/12/24/letter-prime-minister-abhisit-vejjajiva-regarding-deportation-lao-hmong-asylum-seeke
******
Write letters expressing your concern and outrage to Thai diplomatic officials if you are outside Thailand, and to Kasit and Chavarat [inside and outside Thailand]. Please find their contact information below:
Kasit Piromya
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Sri Ayudhya Road
Bangkok 10400
THAILAND
Fax: + 66 2 643 5320/5314
Email: [email protected], [email protected]
Salutation: Dear Minister
Chavarat Charnvirakul
Minister of Interior
Ministry of Interior
Office of the Secretary to the Minister
Assadang Road, Pra Nakorn
Bangkok 10200
THAILAND
Fax: + 66 2 226 4371
Email: [email protected], [email protected]
Salutation: Dear Minister
Abhisit’s definition of voluntary
With regards to the idle questions (it’s oppressively hot in Adelaide!) I raised myself, a quick Google news search has shown that the Hmong at Phetchabun have been in asylum limbo since late 2004. In July of 2005, retired General Pallop Pinmanee said of the Hmong refugees in Phetchabun “If Laos refuses to take the Hmong back, the authorities will take all means necessary to push them back across the border. The government has no policy to open a refugee camp to house the illegal immigrants or shoulder this burden.” Obviously, this quote does not bode well for the present ‘voluntary repatriation’ tact sailed by Abhisit, particularly as Pallop has clear yellow-shirt connections.
For the Rohingya push-back earlier this year, Australia reflected concern through a DFAT spokesperson whereas for the recent repatriation of Hmong, Simon Crean has offered a condemnation. Whether the commentary from differing levels of seniority is any indication of how seriously Australia has taken this more recent issue as an ‘escalation’, I’m not sure. Perhaps it’s just a matter of timing, or maybe it reflects a necessity to more visibly display moral righteousness.
Bangkok Post on the crown prince
Polo: The FCCT’s latest edition of The King of Thailand in World Focus has all of the prince’s progeny listed with titles. I think this is all part of preparing the ground.
Abhisit’s definition of voluntary
No guns? There a photos of guns being toted.
StanG’s comments on the case at #9 suggest that he doesn’t know much about this case. The UN concern is specifically about 158 persons who were screened and extended UNHCR protection. Several reports also state that the Thai government and military agreed with this assessment.
There are already reports of arrests of some of these persons of concern – the Nation has a story by Pollard on 30 Dec. These reports are unconfirmed and come from Hmong exile groups, so a few grains of salt, but the current Lao government’s treatment of Hmong over the years has not always been exemplary.
Does anyone have suggestions of why this has been done now? What force has suddenly caused this action?
Abhisit’s definition of voluntary
I think ‘discussed’ is a bit inadequate to describe what needs to be done. ‘Exposure” and “Reform” are perhaps a bit more appropriate. There has been so much endless ‘discussion.’
Abhisit’s definition of voluntary
It’s not just the Hmong and the Rohingya. Isaan are treated as second class citizens, Muslims in the South as well as the Khmer.
This is the Thai culture. It needs to be discussed.
Abhisit’s definition of voluntary
It’s worth remembering that this issue has been debated for years, i.e. multiple Thai governments. The UNHCR in Bangkok has had resources focused on saving these Hmong since 2004, so while these “repatriations” ultimately occurred on Absith’s watch the shame is shared by everyone who has walked in his shoes, and by all of the Thai people who never registered any objections.
Abhisit’s definition of voluntary
“I’ve yet to see anything that displays courage and conviction when it comes to dealing with the army.”
Appointment of the police chief, perhaps?
Is there any real credibility to claims that repatriated Hmongs will be mistreated or prosecuted by Lao government? The UN can stick any label it wants on them, “persons of concern” or whatever, the only thing that matters is how Lao government will treat them. Thai govt says it trusts Lao promises regarding these refugees. Is there any reason it shouldn’t? Have Laotians said anything about screening them for criminal/political offenses?
Abhisit’s definition of voluntary
I am disheartened not only by Thailand’s disregard for international practice at a key juncture in which it is trying to rehabilitate its global reputation, but also by the seeming joy with which a number of Southeast Asian nations are ridding themselves of lingering refugee questions before the close of the decade. Witness the recent deal between Bangladesh and Burma over resettling a third of the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh back to Burma or the questionable circumstances leading to Cambodia’s deportation of Uighur asylum-seekers last week back to China. I continue to believe that resolving issues of human rights guarantees in ASEAN constitutes the missing link in that organization’s ability to assert its coherent worth outside the region.
Mahathir threatens to sue author
[…] […]
Fair’s fair – Pasuk on Thailand in transition
well, there is abosultely nothing new in this stuff at all: one may get the impression that Pasuk is an apologist for the Amaat…
A critical assessment is needed of “fairness” (not just rural/poor; middleclass/rich) in regards to the lack of human rights and double standards imposed by the state judiciary under Abhisit’s Gov. Beating about the bush on issues of fair distribution of resources without addressing the core concerns of privilege, bias and power (yes, -who holds and controls power? who lacks access and why?) is of little value these days with the current ideological divisions in society…
Abhisit’s definition of voluntary
About as voluntary as standing in theaters. “Wassamatter…Aren’t you Thai?”
The evil that men do indeed lives after them.
As to Abhisit being a nice guy, he may appear to be a nice guy, and is probably nice to those he can afford to be nice to.
Abhisit’s definition of voluntary
Considering the repatriation of 4000 Mongs and the maltreatment of Rohinga ‘boat people’, leads me to the conclusion that (at least) one of the hands pulling on the strings behind the scene is the top brass.
The incident surely tarnished the Abhisit administration regarding humanrights protection. Mr. PM does have a lot more to explain to the world than the Rohinga case.
HR seems to be the hardest word to comprehend in ASEAN standard.
BTW, United States also owed a lot to these Mongs, at least, as once brothers in arm against the communists.