Comments

There has been a lot of smoke and mirrors around the healthcare debate. ‘Its all getting a bit weird’ too!

At first it was criticized as fiscally irresponsible. Then, because the amount was so small,’ only’ 30 baht, (try explaining that to someone earning the daily minimum wage of about 170 baht) it wasn’t worth collecting. So it was announced that they would stop collecting it. The assumption was that healthcare is going to be free for all. However, reports last week (in the Nation if I remember rightly) were referring to free health care being only available to the ‘poorest of the poor’ and that those who could afford to pay would be required to pay. I’ll take bets on that the group ‘who can afford to pay’ will include also include those on the minimum wage.

There were other reports last week (I think again in the Nation) that announced, proudly, that national pride had been restored in the battle of rice exports. It looked like Vietnam was going take Thailand’s number one position as chief rice exporter. However, with good luck and good management Thailand was going to hold on. Buried in the article was the announcement that the ‘floor price’ for rice, instituted by the previous government, was being abolished. This was going to allow the price of Thai rice fall so that it could ‘compete’ with Vietnamese rice. There was another line buried in the article that the only people who will disadvantage by the demise of the ‘floor price’ would be Thai rice farmers. Apparently, both governments have ‘promised’ each other that they wont ‘dump’ their rice on the international market.

So far I’d say the score is ‘Thai National Pride’ = 2 – ‘Thai Farmers’ = 0

Vichai, thanks for the source article. That is indeed troubling. Even more troubling is the fact that, as far as I know, that Article 18 has not be amended or removed by the Surayud-government.

Jeru, I wasn’t implying that Thaksin never said quote about the Thai police. I was saying that it was originally said by Phao Sriyanon 40 years ago, and has been repeated numerous times by hundreds of public figures since then, all in pretty much the same context – to justify police power in influence.

I’m not sure I believe that Bangkok Post article about nearly all the dead not being drug traffickers. Of the 2,500 dead, the NHRC investigated only 40. That seems like a very poor self-selected sample to make any inferences on all the people who died during the drug war. Why not look at the Attorney General, who was assigned to investigate all extrajudicial deaths during that period? That would eliminate the NHRC’s self-selection bias.

Almost all those killed during Thaksin’s extrajudicials were innocent . . and I mean innocent in the sense that those killed were not drug traffickers at all! Read on below (Source: Bangkok Post Sept-18/2006)

Most drug war victims ‘INNOCENT’
NHRC investigations clear alleged criminals

Almost all those killed during the Thaksin Shinawatra government’s war on drugs were innocent people, if cases investigated by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) are an indication.

Wasant Panich, head of the NHRC probe panel into extra-judicial killings, yesterday said his agency received about 40 complaints from relatives of people killed in the drug war and most of the cases were cleared of drug trafficking.

He said police simply close the cases after one year without proper investigation. Mr Wasant cited a case in Tak’s Mae Sot district where a couple who owned a truck company were shot dead. He said before they were killed, one of their trucks was seized for carrying loads exceeding the legal limit. The two went to the police station to settle the matter with the officers with no success. On their way home, they were gunned down in their car. Drugs were found in their shoes, Mr Wasant said, adding police also seized their belongings and put them up for auction.

Mr Wasant said it was nonsense to believe the couple would bring drugs to a meeting with police.

Another case involved four hilltribe people who were arrested for illegal firearms possession. The four were summoned to report to police and were shot dead in their vehicle which was later stolen. Police closed the case a year later without properly investigating it, he said.

In Lampang’s Mae Mo district, a candidate for tambon administration organisation post was killed after he admitted he once took drugs, said Mr Wasant.

In another case, police claimed to find drug pills in the underpants of a man who died of natural causes at a hospital.

However, police claims were disproved because before that doctors had X-rayed the body, and no drugs were hidden as claimed, said Mr Wasant.

He said the NHRC had long ago submitted its findings to the government, but it seems they were ignored, he said.

Pradit Charoenthaitawee, an NHRC commissioner, said information on the extra-judicial killings in the NHRC database remained inadequate because family members of those killed were afraid to come forward with information.

Dr Pradit said while a drug crackdown was necessary, extra-judicial killings were not a proper approach.

“Mr Thaksin has committed a lot of sins [in ordering extra-judicial killings]. Now, they have spill-over effects which are coming in the form of natural disasters, like drought and flooding,” Mr Pradit said.

Dr Pradit said only minnows were busted but drug kingpins remain at large.

He said there are two separate lists of drug pushers. A district chief takes charge of a list which includes ordinary people. Police use a separate list to blackmail and destroy their enemies, Dr Pradit said.

I wonder what effect this will have on the thai tourism market. I can see an upsurge of thais going to Laos (do cambodia and burma have coyote dancers?) for buddhist festivals if this actually goes anywhere (which it won’t).

Patiwat your wish is my command. Source: http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0203/86/

Murder as public policy in Thailand

Nick Cheesman, Projects Officer, Asian Legal Resource Centre

Between February and April 2003 the Thai government incited police and public officials to organize and endorse murder in the name of ridding the country of drugs. Through a series of official orders and public statements, the government pushed officials to massively overstep their normal authority. It also set up numerous positive and negative incentives, including promises of financial rewards and promotions, and threats of transfers and dismissals. By May, more than 2000 persons were killed, and the country’s key institutions for the protection of human rights were seriously compromised.

Administering murder

On January 28 the Prime Minister of Thailand, Thaksin Shinawatra, set the anti-drug crusade in motion. Prime Minister’s Office Orders 29/2546, 30/2456 and 31/2546, effective from February 1, aimed to combat the enormous drug manufacture, trafficking and use in Thailand “quickly, consistently and permanently”. They ordered the establishment of the National Command Centre for Combating Drugs, chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyuth, to oversee the “Concerted Effort of the Nation to Overcome Drugs” campaign. They set out its basic responsibilities, including planning, coordination and reporting, and established an administrative structure and tasks throughout the country. The orders gave the programme the “highest priority”, indicating to officials that they would be closely monitored, and that the government was prepared both to reward high performers and punish laggards. The Prime Minister boosted incentives in two sets of regulations issued on February 11. One of those was the Prime Minister’s Office Regulations on Bonuses and Rewards Relating to Narcotics (No. 3). This document amended two earlier reward regimes, and effectively encouraged the murder of drug suspects by providing grades of bonuses where the most efficient and expedient means for officials to be rewarded was simply to kill the accused:

Article 18 of the Prime Minister’s Office Regulations on Bonuses and Rewards Relating to Narcotics BE 2537 (1994), which had been amended by the Prime Minister’s Office Regulations on Bonuses and Rewards Relating to Narcotics (No. 2) BE 2540 (1997)… shall be replaced by the following statements:

“Article 18: The bonus shall be given when officials proceed with a notified case leading to arrest according to the following rules and conditions:
(1) In a case where both the alleged offender is arrested and the exhibited narcotics are seized, if the value calculated based on the quantity of narcotics does not exceed 1000 Baht, each case shall be paid not exceeding 1000 Baht, after the Public Prosecutor has issued a prosecution order. If the case falls under Section 92 of the Narcotics Control Act BE 2522 (1979) and Section 17 of the Royal Ordinance of the Control on the Use of Volatile Substances BE 2533 (1990), the bonus shall not be paid.
(2) In a case where the alleged offender is arrested and the exhibited narcotics are seized, if the value calculated based on the quantity of narcotics exceeds 1000 Baht
(a) In a case where the Public Prosecutor issues a prosecution order, the bonus calculated based on the quantity of narcotics may be paid in half before the Public Prosecutor issues a prosecution order. The remaining amount is to be paid in full when the Public Prosecutor has issued a prosecution order.
(b) The bonus calculated based on the quantity of narcotics shall be paid only in half if the Public Prosecutor has issued a non-prosecution order, or ceased the proceedings.
(3) In a case where both the alleged offender is arrested and the exhibited narcotics are seized, but the alleged offender loses his life during the arrest or thereafter, if the value calculated based on the quantity of narcotics exceeds 1000 Baht, the bonus shall be paid according to the quantity of narcotics when the Public Prosecutor has ceased the proceedings.
(4) In a case where only the exhibited narcotics are seized after the Public Prosecutor has stayed the inquiry, issued a prosecution or non-prosecution order, if the value calculated based on the quantity of narcotics exceeds 1000 Baht, only half of the bonus shall be paid.”
(Unofficial translation of article 4, italics added to subsection 3)

At later dates, certain rewards were increased so that, for instance, a state official seizing property that had been purchased with drug money could get up to 40 per cent of its value.

Public statements enabled and encouraged what was on paper. The Prime Minister consistently portrayed drug dealers as sub-humans deserving to die. He also played down the deaths relative to the apparent successes of the campaign, wondering aloud why the killing of thousands of people who had not yet been proven guilty of any crime should be worthy of public attention or scrutiny. Even in reiterating the official line, that most deaths were just cases of “bad guys killing bad guys”, or “killing to cut the link”, he stated that the government had no responsibility to protect these undesirable citizens. This position, however, was already quite a step-down from remarks he reportedly made to senior government officials from across the country at a meeting in the lead-up to the campaign on January 15. “We have to shoot to kill and confiscate their assets as well, so their sinful inheritance will not be passed on,” he is reported to have said, adding, “We must be brutal enough because drug dealers have been brutal to our children. Today, three million Thai youths are into drugs and 700,000 are deeply addicted. To be cruel to drug dealers is therefore appropriate.” The Prime Minister’s remarks were supported at all levels of government, not least of all by the Interior Minister, Wan Mohamad Noor Matha, who remarked memorably that drug dealers “will be put behind bars or even vanish without a trace”. The language used by the Prime Minister and his officials throughout the campaign also sought to evoke a feeling of being at war, such as in a March 2 address when he said, “Don’t be moved by the high death figures. We must be adamant and finish this war… When you go to war and some of your enemies die, you cannot become soft-hearted, otherwise the surviving enemy will return to kill you.” He also referred to drug dealers and their accomplices as “traitors”. Over time, this language found its way into policy documents, such as Prime Minister’s Order No. 60/2546, which states in its preamble that “the ‘Concerted Effort of the Nation to Overcome Drugs’ is specifically regarded as a state of war”.

Provincial governors and police chiefs were motivated to act according to a strict timetable. Their performance was measured by statistics on drug dealers ‘removed’ from society on a month by month basis, starting with 25 per cent of the total by the end of February, 50 per cent by the of March, and 100 per cent by the end of April. The final figure was later reduced to 75 per cent, and a plan drawn up to deal with the remaining 25 per cent at a more leisurely pace by the King’s birthday in December. Underachieving provinces were announced publicly and senior officials openly threatened with the sack or transfers. Clearly an enormous amount of pressure was applied to meet unreasonable and arbitrary targets. And it was not enough for officials merely to present figures of arrests, convictions and deaths of dealers: they had to target thousands of specific persons, whose names were on lists.

Watchlists, blacklists, deathlists

From the start of the campaign, the lists of alleged drug dealers were a source of confusion. There were contradictory stories about how the lists were prepared, how many there were, and the implications of being on one. There appeared at times to be competing lists, and different ways of managing them in different provinces. They seem to have been drawn up from August 2002 by the police, village heads and local administrative bodies under the Interior Ministry, and the Office of the Narcotics Control Board. Whereas the police claim to have relied upon informants and leads, it appears that often they just added names from records of earlier convictions–some going back years. As for the lists prepared by local administrators, reports suggest that in many places the village or subdistrict chiefs simply called public meetings and asked people to inform on persons selling drugs in the neighbourhood, without any further investigation. The Interior Ministry claims that lists were cross-checked before final definitive versions were sent out, however in some places police refused to rely on the Interior Ministry lists after criticism that too many innocent persons were being arrested or killed. Meanwhile, the head of the Narcotics Suppression Bureau, Police Lieutenant General Chalermdej Chomphunuj tried to clarify matters by explaining that there were two types of lists in operation: a ‘blacklist’ of targets for arrest, and a ‘watchlist’ of those “pending investigation”. The police commander suggested that the watchlists were comprised of persons who would be investigated, and not arrested automatically. Only a month into the campaign, however, and there were admissions by senior officials that mistakes had been made on the lists. Around 4000 names were removed from the original 46,000-name watchlist, in response to public complaints. By that time over half of the total victims of the ‘war’ were already dead.

Whatever the mechanics of the lists, the consequence of being on one was possible death. Although the manner of killings varied across the country, the most commonly described pattern was as follows:
1. A victim’s name would appear on a list. The list would be made public knowledge, by word of mouth, or other means.
2. The victim would receive a letter or some other notice instructing her to go to the police station.
3. At the police station, the victim would be coerced to sign something admitting guilt, or otherwise acknowledge guilt, with promises by the police that her name would be removed from the list.
4. The victim would be shot on the way home, or within a few days, usually by a group of men in civilian clothes, in daylight and in a public place or at her house, often in front of and without regard to witnesses.
5. Police would fail to investigate the killing properly, and would concentrate on establishing the victim’s guilt as a drug dealer.

Although Lieutenant General Chalermdej tried to reassure a nervous public that, “We don’t simply write down the names of drug suspects on a list and go out to terminate them,” the death toll early in the campaign was dramatic. Dozens of people were being killed daily. An anonymous police colonel was reported as having said that his superiors had in fact ordered him to collect information on drug dealers and then kill the informants and track down and kill those named. “Why should we spare the scum?” he was quoted as saying, echoing the Prime Minister’s sentiments. A police station in the north got into the spirit of the campaign by piling a dozen coffins onto its doorstep.

At the end of February, police in most places had already dealt with their key targets, but were under pressure to continue meeting monthly percentiles imposed on them by Bangkok. Desperate to appear vigilant and keep their jobs, officers began arresting informants or questioning persons with tenuous links to suspects who had already been ‘removed’ from the lists. Persons who had merely participated in drug control programmes were targeted. In some places, ‘complaints boxes’ and anonymous hotlines were set up for people to inform on one another. Police are alleged to have increasingly resorted to planting of evidence and coercion to obtain confessions from suspects.

One characteristic of the campaign was the lack of police investigations after victims were murdered. Police sometimes excused themselves on the grounds that they needed all their resources to meet the government targets, however the acting director of the Forensic Science Institute, Dr Pornthip Rojanasunan, doubted these explanations. In mid-February she observed that her agency had resources available to help investigate cases, but the police were not seeking its assistance. Whereas before February the Institute had typically examined one to two extrajudicial killings per day, the number of referrals had since dropped to zero. She said that relatives of those killed had contacted the Institute directly to get help in having the deaths properly investigated, “But not much can be done if the first autopsy is conducted elsewhere and the lethal bullets removed.” Other doctors also reported that they were reluctant to attend the scenes of drug-related shootings as required by law, or record anything that did not verify the police version of events.

Where police did attend the murder scenes, their investigations and questions were typically directed towards establishing the victims’ guilt, rather than take action to arrest the murderers. For instance, in the case of Somjit Kuanyuyen, instead of collecting evidence the police reportedly interrogated her daughter about her mother’s presumed involvement in the drug trade. Where evidence of drug trading was uncovered, it was also used to justify the murder and effectively close the case. When Bussaporn Pung-am was killed, for instance, police briefed the media on how they found court documents in her house showing she had acted as a guarantor for drug suspects, and added that she had been previously arrested on drug charges. The implication of these remarks, as in so many other cases, was that she deserved to die.

Another feature of the campaign was the rise and subsequent fall of the death tally. In February, the Interior Ministry published a daily count of arrests, seizures and killings. As attention increasingly focused on the death toll, the government grew uneasy and accused journalists of misrepresenting the tally. By the end of February, public releases of statistics on killings were banned, in response to growing criticism. At the date of the last official tally, on February 26, 1140 persons had been murdered. However, later police did release statistics indicating that to April 16, 2275 persons were killed, 51 by their own agency in “self defence”. By the end of the month the figure was estimated to be around 2400, however by this stage the government was backing away from the statistic, arguing that perhaps half of the murders had been incorrectly recorded.

The death toll was retracted after the first month partly due to growing international alarm over the number of killings. However, as talk grew of possible United Nations involvement, the Prime Minister reacted with annoyance, as reported in The Nation on February 15:

Regarding the reported inquiry by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights into Thailand’s current crackdown against drugs, I believe we have nothing to hide. Nothing to worry about… The campaign against drugs will continue, unchanged… The international community owes us an expression of thanks [for reducing the drug trade]. We should not be over-sensitive to what others say. One should put things into perspective. How many policemen have been killed by drug dealers? I lost count of the number of wreaths that I have sent to funerals of policemen killed in the line of duty. Do our critics consider the wretched lives of drug dealers more precious than our policemen’s? Any policemen who kills an innocent person will be prosecuted. Don’t be too self-conscious. Don’t try too hard to live up to international standards. Our country already looks good in the eyes of the international community.

Whereas the Prime Minister pretended not to care about overseas opinion, his comments and actions betrayed otherwise. He eventually permitted a visit by Hina Jilani, the United Nations Special Representative on human rights defenders. Although the Special Representative spent most of her time on matters unrelated to the anti-drug campaign she did raise her concerns with the Prime Minister and the media. In response the Prime Minister launched a personal attack on the Special Representative, remarking, “She is biased and not acceptable. She made unfair remarks about our country. I complained in a talk with her that if she thought the human rights in Thailand are not up to standard, she should look at other UN members including Pakistan, her mother country.”

Media and public response

One of the reasons that the government could effectively get away with murder was the widespread belief, even among its critics, that an overwhelming number of people in Thailand supported the campaign. Tired of seeing drug dealers run rampant across the country, it was said, most were happy to see the government finally do something decisive. The generally accepted view was that the ends justified the means, so long as the persons killed could in fact be considered guilty of a crime. This attitude was captured in a non-government organization’s report on the killing of four ethnic Hmong men, among whom only the village head was thought to be guilty of drug trading:

The family members of village head don’t want to talk about this case and they could accept the killing because the head of the village did sell drugs and in their opinion he deserved to be punished (killed). But, the relatives of the other 3 could not accept their killing. They believe that this action was from the police and they are very angry the police executed innocent people.

At the same time, however, as the number of deaths rapidly increased, a wave of fear distorted polls and other means to assess the campaign’s popularity. Whatever the case, whether out of genuine support or intimidation, few people were prepared to come out in opposition to the ‘war’.

The media response also was problematic. Although daily reporting the latest events, coverage was mostly of comments by officials and chillingly verbatim descriptions of killings as given by police, such as this from the Bangkok Post of February 15:

Eight people were yesterday gunned down in Nakhon Phanom province in separate incidents, believed to be drug-related. Five of the victims were killed in Si Songkhram, two in Na Kae and one in That Phanom districts.
In Si Songkhram, Sermsiri Tamonnin, 34, the first victim, was found dead in her house in tambon Ban Uang at 6am. She had been shot in the head and body.
Thien Mokmeechai, 46, was gunned down in his house in tambon Phon Sawang at 6.30am. Witnesses said a man came on a motorcycle, walked into the house and opened fire at Thien.
At about the same time, Amporn Phiewkham, 43, was shot dead at his house in tambon Tha Bo.
Vinai Nakajat, 40, was killed by an assailant in tambon Sam Phong.
In tambon Hat Phaeng, Sompong Promson, 49, was shot at by gunmen while eating inside his house.
In That Phanom district, Suriya Thong-on was gunned down in front of his house in tambon Na Thon.
Killed in their home in Na Kae district about noon were Thanomsak Moonsurin, 40, and his wife Chalaolak, 39.
Nakhon Phanom police chief Pol Maj-Gen Paiboon Phetplai said all of those killed were on record as having been involved in the drug trade.

Media and public concern was restricted to the suffering of obvious innocents, rather than the practice of murder as public policy. An exemplary case was when police shot nine-year-old Chakraphan Srisa-ard in his family’s car, as his mother sped away. Had the child not been in the car, it would have been another simple affair of a dead drug dealer for the police to file away. Unfortunately for the officers involved, the young boy’s death aroused national ire, and somehow the need for justice in this one case overrode everything else that happened across these three months. The media also focused on the hardships endured by relatives of victims after their deaths. A May 28 article in The Nation, for instance, reported on the families of the four Hmong men mentioned above:

Somchai Sae Thao’s death has left his wife “Yeng” and their seven children in a distressing situation. The heritage left to them by his death is an uncertain future. As she contemplated her fate, Yeng dropped her eyes to her swelling stomach–a new baby is due soon but it will have no father to provide food and sustenance. Her 15-year-old eldest son is the family’s only hope now. Every day, the boy goes to ask his neighbours whether they want him to work on their farm. Some days the boy is able to return home with something for the family–other days his mother and younger sisters and brothers get nothing to eat.

The media narrowed its reporting onthe campaign in part due to overt and covert government threats. As Chaiyan Rajchagool, a lecturer in Social Science at Chiang Mai University noted, “No one objects to drug suppression. But if you raise questions, you can be blamed as someone who supports the drug dealers.” This was apparent when the Defense Minister responded to newspaper criticism by suggesting that journalists were in drug dealers’ pockets. Additionally, the Prime Minister is himself a media and communications tycoon whose influence and financial power can be used subtly in many ways, as Senator Mareerath Kaewkar noted, remarking that for a newspaper or magazine, “One criticism too many could cost millions of Baht in withdrawn advertising.”

The media’s inability to come to terms with the extent and depth of the crisis has left a hole where there used to be public debate in Thailand. Whereas television discussion forums had in recent years become places for lively exchange, with diverse opinions, analysis, and large audiences, now these are gone. The public space for dissent has been markedly reduced. Critics of government actions are restricted to seminars in universities or small gatherings of non-government organizations. Even in these forums, speakers may attack individuals or their actions, but are reluctant to address questions of policy. According to Mark Tamthai, a retired philosophy professor and consultant to the National Security Council, “There is no place in Thailand now where you can publicly study the consequences of government policies.”

Role of the National Human Rights Commission

The position of the National Human Rights Commission has been seriously compromised by the anti-drugs campaign. The Commission, which was only established in 1999, was effectively silenced by the government, and has been unable to excite the public in defence of the principles it represents.

From the beginning, the Commission received relatively few complaints, and most of those were from persons objecting to their names being on a list, not families of murder victims. The Commission did respond to the complaints it received and followed-up on them with the relevant authorities, resulting in amendments to lists made later. However, even this relatively small number of complaints stretched its resources, and it was restricted to dealing with individual cases rather than seriously addressing systemic problems.

The real difficulties for the Commission began when the government attacked one of its members, Professor Pradit Charoenthaithawee, for reporting on the extrajudicial killings during a UN meeting he attended overseas. After returning to Thailand, Professor Pradit received death threats, and calls for his impeachment. In a national radio address, the Prime Minister launched a personal attack on Professor Pradit, and accused him of overstepping his authority as a human rights commissioner. “Let us deal with the UN, because that is our job. Those who are not responsible for such duties should keep away,” the Prime Minister said. General Panlop Pinmanee, deputy chief of the Internal Security Operations Command, accused Professor Pradit of being an ally of drug dealers. As a result, the Commission was forced onto the back foot, and spent its time defending its mandate and the reputations of its members, rather than addressing the crisis directly. The Chairman of the Commission, Professor Saneh Chamarik, was obliged to announce that in principle the Commission supported the government’s drug suppression policies, so long as in practice they did not violate human rights and the country’s Constitution. His conciliatory approach, however, was not responded to favourably by the Prime Minister, who later refused to meet with the commissioners.

Responding to criticism about his management of the campaign, rather than engage the National Human Rights Commission, the Prime Minister opted for another approach. He set up committees to report directly to him, thereby sidelining the country’s permanent national human rights institution. In two orders of February 28, the Prime Minister established the Committee to Examine the Performance of Competent Narcotics Law Enforcement Officials in Drug Suppression and, the Committee to Monitor the Protection of Informants and Witnesses in Drug Suppression. “I expect the two committees to ensure the rule of law and fairness in the anti-drug campaign,” the Prime Minister said. “Critics of the campaign should now direct their empathy to our children who are victims of the drug menace, instead of sounding the alarm for falling traffickers.” The first committee sought police and public cooperation in investigating killings, and whether police had followed procedures in making reports, researching crimes and performing autopsies. However, in April the Deputy Attorney General responsible for overseeing the work complained that the committee had not yet received a single report from the police, let alone clear figures on the number of the cases to investigate. In response, police claimed that they hadn’t received any requests for reports. Meanwhile, the committee also failed to draw any response from a silent and intimidated public, despite appeals for victims to come forward.

The aftermath

On May 1 the Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra declared the ‘war on drugs’ a success and immediately launched his newest war, against rather more nebulous “dark influences”. Within a few days, local authorities in Mae Sot district, Tak, had summarily executed six Burmese migrant labourers, under the impression that they could now ‘remove’ whatever target suited them. Meanwhile, the ‘war on drugs’ is set to continue throughout the year, albeit more low-key; the Prime Minister, it seems, has not tired of the fight.

The anti-drug campaign may have temporarily stemmed the flow and consumption of amphetamines throughout Thailand, but the damage to its institutions will be much more enduring, among them, the parliament, judiciary, police and media. Thailand now has a Prime Minister, a legislative head, who is acting like the head of the executive. It has a police force and government that are complicit in mass murder and have learnt that performance is tied to the payment of commissions. It has a cowed and submissive bureaucracy, and a diminished media.

Above all, a widespread attitude apparently exists that certain types of criminals should simply be shot dead. If this mentality prevails, there is little hope of maintaining an effectively functioning judicial system, as the presumption will be that courts and their procedures can be bypassed or done away with altogether when convenient. In neighbouring Cambodia, where the legal system is still barely operational ten years after the United Nations completed its tenure, alleged motorcycle thieves are beaten to death on the streets rather than it being left to the state to mete out justice. By comparison, what has happened in Thailand this year, where there is an established legal system, is far worse. The killings of alleged drug dealers were organized and approved by decree. The perception that a particular category of persons could be gunned down in their houses and cars was officially approved. The sidestepping of due process was authorized by the state. When clearly innocent people were listed or killed, the state was resented, but so long as the majority of victims were successfully portrayed as guilty, the state proclaimed overwhelming approval. The real challenge for human rights defenders in Thailand, then, lies not in fighting for the rights of the innocent, but rather in fighting for the rights of the guilty.

Posted on 2003-09-05
Back to [Vol. 02 – No. 03 June 2003 — Special report: Extrajudicial killings of alleged drug dealers in Thailand]

Asian Legal Resource Centre

Vichai, I don’t believe you. You claim that Thaksin gave greater rewards for extrajudicial killings than for arrests. The only references I’ve seen for this occurring are in several webboard posts that all have exactly the same wording – they appear to have been made by the same person. See here and here.

Detailed reports by Amnesty and Human Rights Watch make no mention of such a change in regulations. And regulations like that don’t automatically go away when the government is changed. If they really existed, policemen under the military-government would also get paid more for shooting rather than arresting. Vichai, is this true? Can you back it up? Or is this one of those “he worships dead fetuses”-type accusations?

p.s., “There is nothing under the sun which the Thai police cannot do” – That is’t a Thaksin quote, that was a Phao Sriyanon quote. Now there was an evil man. You think Thaksin’s 3-year war on drugs was bad? Phao’s deathsquads were much much worse. Phao didn’t have an Attorney-General or a National Humans Rights Commission to contend with.

p.p.s., Please don’t think I’m defending Thaksin’s drug war conduct here. Read my earlier posts – I’m not. But throwing false accusations at him does nothing to improve the credibility of your claims.

Vichai, Patiwat, Pundit & Nganadeeleg – Among those killed in Y2003 anti-ya ba were a pregnant mother, a one year old baby, a seven year old child, and a 76 year old grandmother.

Here are some of the drug suspects extrajudicially killed during Taksin’s 2003 murderous rampage:
————————-
Prime Minister of Thailand Thaksin Shinawatra announced on 28 January 2003 that a ‘war on drugs’ would begin on February 1, and continue until April 30, at which time the country would be drug-free. As a result, over 2000 persons lost their lives during this three-month period, murdered on the streets, in houses, restaurants and shops around the country. Others who escaped death have been forced into hiding or had their reputations and livelihoods ruined. Below is a selection of cases compiled from complaints received and investigated by non-governmental organizations, the media and other sources.

Targeted killings by “unidentified gunmen”

The war on drugs got off to its promised start on the night of January 31-February 1, with “unidentified gunmen” killing Boonchuay and Yupin Unthong as they were about to return home with their son, eight-year-old Jirasak, in the streets of Ban Rai, Damnoen Saduak district, Ratchaburi. The family had spent the evening playing fairground games at a local temple, and had all climbed aboard a motorcycle to go home. They had not gone more than 200 metres when two men dressed in black wearing ski masks pulled up alongside on another motorcycle. The man on the back shot Jirasak’s mother, and Boonchuay unsuccessfully tried to speed away. The motorcycle crashed onto the pavement, and bleeding on the road Boonchuay shouted to his son to run. Jirasak escaped over a fence and hiding, watched as the man shot his father in the head. Boonchay had been released from prison three months ago, where he had served 18 months for drug offenses, and Yupin was also on a drug blacklist. Relatives said that neither had been involved in drugs since Boonchuay’s release from jail. Boonchay’s brother Samruay Thinrung said that justice should have been allowed to take its course. “Being tried in court and executed in one day would have been more acceptable than having my brother shot dead in the street,” he said. Phanom, his uncle, added that whatever their offences, “Killing people in the streets is just too cruel.”

Many killings occurred shortly after the victims had been called to a police station. Suwit Baison, a 23 year-old assistant television cameraman kneeled down before Prime Minister Thaksin as he arrived at the Agriculture Ministry for a meeting on February 27. Suwit told Thaksin that his mother, Kwanla Puangchomphum, and stepfather, Thanom Montak, were shot dead on February 26 shortly after they left the Tha Chaliang police station in Nong Phai district, Phetchabun. The couple had gone to pay a 5000 Baht (US5) fine for marijuana possession. His parents were shot while riding a motorcycle home, about five kilometers from the police station. Witnesses said the gunman was driving a white sedan, which according to Suwit was spotted at the police station car park. With tears rolling down his cheeks and his voice trembling, Suwit handed a petition to Thaksin, asking for justice. He said local police had dismissed the shootings as “drugs-related” and made no effort to conduct a proper investigation. The Prime Minister promised to look into the matter. An hour later, Crime Suppression Division commander Major General Surasit Sangkapong talked to Suwit for about 10 minutes before they left together for further questioning at Surasit’s office. Surasit said he would assign one of his deputies to investigate the shooting. According to Nong Phai district police superintendent, Colonel Phisan Iamla-or, however, Suwit’s parents were on a list of people who allegedly possessed drugs that had been prepared at a gathering of villagers. He said the couple had been arrested separately on four occasions with marijuana and methamphetamine pills. However, Suwit claims that his stepfather was arrested during the month on a charge of marijuana use, at which time the police tried to make him admit to methamphetamine possession. He also alleged that his mother had been falsely charged with possession last year, but had been told by police that for 50,000 Baht (US,200) they would reduce the charge. After the couple consulted a lawyer, the police contacted them and told them to report to the station.

A day after Kwanla and Thanom’s deaths, another person in the neighbourhood was murdered in a similar manner, again a ‘reformed’ drug user turned victim of the ‘war’. Boonyung Tangtong, a 40 year-old father, had reported to Na Chaliang police station, Petchabun, as ordered. Shortly after, nine armed men came to his house, took him into his bedroom and shot him in the head and chest. His murder took place in full view of his wife and children, including a two-year-old daughter, and two other relatives, who were held captive with guns against their heads. Boonyung had turned himself in to the police about a year ago, and twice took part in the government’s reform program. Adirek, his 16-year-old son, is positive that the police murdered his father. “They all were wearing name and rank tags around their necks, but they didn’t look familiar. They could have come from other places,” he said after the shooting. Ten persons in the area were reportedly killed after reporting to police during the first weeks of the campaign.

Likewise, on February 17, three days before eight “unidentified gunmen” entered her house in Ban Laem district, Petchaburi, and shot her eight times, Somjit Kuanyuyen, a 42 year-old mother, reported to the police after her name appeared on a blacklist. According to her nephew, ‘Sak’ she went to the Ban Laem police station with her husband and was told to go into a side room and sign a paper. However, Somjit was illiterate and did not know what it was. Terrified, she marked the document. The police informed her that after signing the paper she would be safe and could come to see them any time if anything suspicious happened. On February 20 her 7-months pregnant daughter saw a pickup truck with dark tinted windows and no license plates stop at the front of the house. It contained four men with crew cut hairstyles, wearing sunglasses and black clothes. Two of the men approached the grocery stand at the house ostensibly to buy some beer. One nodded his head and the other fired at Somjit, hitting her in the arm while her seven-year-old granddaughter clung to her leg. There were three other persons in the house, including Somjit’s daughter. They watched as Somjit fell after the first shot and the man fired another six shots into her back, killing her. After the men left, although the house is very close to a main road and only 20 metres from a police box, the police took a long time to arrive and investigate. They did not set up checkpoints or take any other steps to arrest the murderers. They didn’t collect the bullet shells, which were instead taken up by the family. They asked Somjit’s daughter and cousin if her family was involved in drugs, but asked no questions about the murder itself. When the daughter made it clear that her mother had had nothing to do with drugs, the police warned her, “Don’t speak too much”. For his part, Ban Laem police commander, Colonel Taveesak na Songkhla said that Somjit’s name was on a list submitted to them by the Drug Suppression Office in Bangkok. He claims his officers searched the scene, but found no bullet casings. “If the relatives have found bullet casings, they should give them to the police instead of keeping them and saying that we are ignoring the case,” he said. Colonel Taveesak also mentioned that although the police were working on solving such murder cases, “investigation cannot be totally efficient because we need to use officers to arrest those blacklisted in order to fulfill the government quota.” The family tried to complain to their local Member of Parliament, but could not find him. They then went to the provincial office of the Law Society of Thailand and were advised to tell the media.

The police and government preferred to characterize most killings by “unidentified gunmen” as “bad guys killing bad guys” or “killing to cut the link”(kar tad torn). In one particularly brutal case described in these terms, locals allege that uniformed police in fact tortured and murdered four ethnic Hmong men on February 12. The four men, 45-year-old Jai-jue Sae Thao, his younger brother Somchai Sae Thao, their 59-year-old cousin, Boonma Sae Thao, and Seng Sae Thao, the 59-year-old head of Doi Nam Pieng Nam Din village, Bann Neun sub district, Lom Kao district, Petchabun, were travelling by pickup truck after attending the Lom Kao district office. According to Jai-jue’s son, Sornchai Sae Thao, his father had been charged with carrying an illegal shotgun, and on February 11 had received an order to go to court. Jai-jue was said to be getting a transfer of ownership on the gun, which he kept with him for protection when alone on his farm at nights. Jai-jue contacted the village head to go with him as guarantor in his case, and he found that the head had also received a notice, that his name was on a list and he had to report to the police. That notice was issued by the district office of Lom Kao, and the person who brought the charge sheet to Jai-jue was the same as the person who gave the notice to the village head. The following morning, both of them went to the district office in the village head’s pickup truck. Jai-jue also asked his brother Somchai to go with him. Boonma was getting a lift to buy medicine for his 18-month-old daughter, who was suffering from acute diarrhoea. According to Sornchai, a villager who had met his father in court said that when his father appeared there the judge knew nothing about the charge and said he had not been the one to call him to the court. Seng Sae also did not report to the district office because the officer who should receive the report was out, and so they then began returning home. Around midday, about fourteen kilometres short of their village, they were all shot dead. According to Sornchai, one villager saw the incident and at first insisted that police in uniform shot them. However, that villager was called to Lom Kao police station for a talk, and after that became very quiet and apprehensive. Several villagers also witnessed at least one police motorcycle in the area at the time of the killings. A Doi Nam villager walking nearby was the first to see the bodies themselves. That person went to tell the men’s relatives, and all of them went to the place and found that the pickup was gone but the four dead bodies were pulled together at the side of the road. All four had been shot in the head, and in addition all of them showed signs of brutal torture:

– Jai-jue had a broken chin and bruised eyes;

– Boonma’s body was burnt on its left side, and his face had been stabbed with a sharp object, leaving a triangular shape; the back of his head was also reportedly severely damaged;

– Somchai had a broken neck and collarbone;

– Seng Sae appeared to have beaten.

According to Boonma’s son, Tu Sae Thao, his father’s wallet with 2000 Baht (US) and his watch were missing. According to Sornchai, the charge sheet against his father also was missing. The police on the scene claimed that they knew nothing of what had happened and that the pickup truck also was missing when they arrived. However, one police officer reportedly walked behind the village head’s son and told him discreetly that it was not police from Lom Kao but from neighbouring Lom Sak who had killed the men. Although the bodies were sent to Somdej Yuppharaj hospital for autopsy, no result has been sent to relatives and they don’t dare ask for it. The hospital also has not given any official paper to acknowledge the deaths, except one for Boonma because his relatives went to the district office to demand it. The paper says only that Boonma was shot and killed. Meanwhile, the doctor who conducted the autopsy is reported to have handed the bullets over to the police, but it is now not known where the bullets have been sent. According to the source of that information, however, the village head was killed with a .38 calibre weapon (the size of police-issue pistols).

While the target of the killing seems to have been Seng Sae, the family members of the three other men insist that it was impossible for them to be drug sellers, as they never even smoked cigarettes or drank alcohol. However, when the case was reported in the media the police informed newspapers that all four were “suspected drug dealers” When contacted further on this point, the investigating officer Major Amnuay Yamark said that police believed it was a case of “killing to cut the link” because the village head was a big drug seller. He said that he didn’t have details about the other three men’s backgrounds and their names were not on the blacklist. After relatives complained to him and other police that there had been no progress in the investigation, they were told that police are investigating the case ‘secretly’.

In a similar case, six local leaders were shot dead in Ban Pang Khon, Huay Chompu sub district, Muang (‘Central’ district, Chiang Rai, while returning in a pick-up truck from an anti-drug meeting on February 27. They were all ethnic Yao villagers, identified as 46-year-old Ban Pa Luang village head Kiattisak Saksrichompoo, 40-year-old Kaoguay Sae Tern, 36-year-old Ulong Sae Fan, and 29-year-olds Bunma Sae Fan, Uguay Sae Tern and Somdej Sae Tern. All but Kiattisak were local administration officials of Huay Chomphu sub-district. At around 4pm, while they were away at the meeting at the Supanimit Foundation, a pickup truck with four men reportedly came to the village and stopped in front of the headman’s house. One of the men told neighbours that they had come from the district governor’s office regarding road construction matters. He explained they were newly transferred to the area, having previously been situated in Nan. A neighbour told them that the headman had gone to Pang Khon village and would return in the evening. One of them gave 200 Baht (US) and saying that they would be back the next day asked for some chicken to be prepared for them. After this they returned to their car and drove to Pang Khon village. Near the end of the road, they parked and asked another group of villagers about the Ban Pa Luang headman. At that time, one of the men in the car recognized a man among the villagers and told him, “Don’t you remember me? I tried to arrest you but you fled.” In fact, police had previously detained that villager on drug charges, but he and his associates had managed to escape custody. Ten days after this chance meeting, that villager was reportedly also shot dead. After the group of men in the car parted from the villagers, not long after the sound of repeated gunfire reached Ban Pang Khon from about two kilometres away. Shortly after, villagers saw the car carrying the four men driving away from the scene. When they went to the site, they saw the headman’s car and the six men riddled with bullets. Kiattisak and Bunma, in the driver and passenger seats, had both been shot from behind; the other four men were all dead in the tray of the pickup truck. Police allege Kiattisak was a drug dealer and speculated that ‘a drug ring might be behind the attack”. They were investigating to find out whether the other five victims also had drug links. Kiattisak’s name was on the local blacklist, however some villagers doubt that he was a drug dealer, as he was active in working with the local administration in drug suppression and anti-drug education programmes. Around 15 years ago he had been involved in opium trading, but at that time this was common in the area. In 1995, he was arrested on a charge of being a heroin producer, but after a two-year court case he was found not guilty. He had not been implicated in any drug-related affairs after that. Bunma’s father, Lek Sae Fan, also denied his son had any drug-trafficking history. In other reported cases where victims were shot while returning from drug suppression meetings, in Narathiwat the head of Chanae Hahama Bado subdistrict, 44-year-old Hahama Bado, and his aide, Rapeng Teuramae, were shot while riding home on a motorbike on the night of February 28. Likewise, the 54-year-old head of Mae Tao sub-district, Mae Sot district, Tak, Bunpan Lanoi, was shot in the chest and right shoulder as he was returning from an anti-drug meeting at around 10pm of March 5. He was wounded in his right arm and shoulder, and later admitted to Mae Sot district hospital.

In another alleged case of “killing to cut the link” 42-year-old Jamnian Nualwilai, a former drug peddler who had turned into a police informant was shot dead in Hinkong sub-district, Muang district, Ratchaburi on February 13. Jamnian was found with four bullet wounds to the head and one in his back. Police said he had 200 methamphetamine pills, 11,000 Baht cash and a mobile phone in his possession. The police say that a drug gang killed him to prevent him betraying them, but Jamnian’s wife ‘Kik’ does not agree. She believes the police killed her husband and made it look as though his old drug gang had done it. Kik said her husband had joined a voluntary government program under which small-time drug traffickers quit and helped authorities with their crackdown. Jamnian joined two years ago and sent in his urine sample every month to prove he was still clean. He even brought other traffickers to the program. Kik did not understand how her husband could be murdered when the police had guaranteed him protection. Five days before the killing, police commended Jamnian for his conduct and told him his name would be removed from the blacklist. “I had not the slightest idea that delisting would end up with my husband being shot dead,” Kik said. “Traffickers would be reluctant to join the program if they had to expose themselves to vengeful acts by drug rings or police. People like my husband would be better off not joining – at least they would not be making themselves sitting ducks. The program application forms are like death warrants,” Kik said. “Gunning someone down will not stop drugs. It is merely a way for officials to glorify their achievements,” she observed. The wife of Jaruk sae Tan also called for authorities to protect – rather than kill – former drug dealers who had given up the illicit business. Jaruk, who had stopped selling drugs more than two years earlier, was shot dead on February 25 while watching television in his restaurant in Muang district, Phuket. During the shooting, a stray bullet injured a four-year-old girl, Suthanma Iamsam-ang, who lives in the neighborhood.

One characteristic of the killings across the country was that they often occurred in daylight and in the presence of witnesses, despite the killers being “unidentified’. For instance, Bussaporn Pung-am, a 39 year-old woman whom police allege to have been a major methamphetamine dealer, was shot dead in her home in Muang district, Nakhon Pathom, on February 11, while having lunch with two neighbors. Witnesses told police that an “unidentified man” got out of a pickup truck, walked inside the grocery store that is part of the house, and shot Bussaporn five times. Police said they found court documents in a bag in her house showing she had acted as a guarantor for more than 200 drug suspects who had been released on bail. Bussaporn herself was once arrested and released on bail, said the deputy commander of Muang district police station, Lt-Colonel Panlert Tangsriphairoj. Similarly, 37-year-old Sommai Thongmee was killed in his house in Pak Pun sub-district, Muang district, Nakhon Si Thammarat on February 4. His wife, Thippawan, said that three men in a double-cab pickup truck had arrived at their house, asking to see Sommai. The men went inside and talked to her husband, before one of them pulled out a pistol and shot Sommai dead. Police said Sommai was a “major drug dealer” and was on the regional blacklist. On the same day, 30-year-old Yongyuth Jongjit was shot dead by a group of nine “unidentified men” at his pig farm in Kanchanadit district, Surat Thani, in front of his workers. Again, the victim was on the local blacklist and police put the killing down to “killing to cut the link”. Likewise, on March 6 a sub-district municipal councillor was shot dead in his car at the Udon intersection of Mitraphap highway, Muang district, Saraburi, while two passengers and three employees in a nearby shop were wounded. The Thap Kwang sub-district official, 40-year-old Manoj Khamsat, was shot in the face, head, chest, legs and arms when a pickup truck carrying about seven men pulled up alongside and one man opened fire with an M16 rifle. Manoj fired back with a pistol, jumped from the truck and attempted to flee, but was shot down. Police said Manoj was on a blacklist, and the killing may have related to drugs or other illicit businesses. Manoj had earlier survived an attack on February 21 in which his wife was shot.

The case of 75-year-old Samniang Chusri stands out as an example of how anybody with her name on a blacklist could be a target for execution. Samniang had been called in by village authorities in Koh Plabphla sub-district, Muang district, Ratchaburi and told she was on a blacklist. Officials tried to coerce her to sign a confession, and renounce drug-related activities. One of her daughters had last year been charged with possessing 21 methamphetamine pills, but Samniang insisted that she had nothing to do with it and refused to sign anything. Days later, on February 25, two men arrived on a motorcycle at the front of a neighbouring shop, where Samniang was having a soft drink on the porch. One pressed his hands in supplication and asked for Samniang’s forgiveness before shooting her in the head and chest. Samniang’s daughter, Pranee Fakchin, said that her mother had been blacklisted, and she had repeatedly gone to the police to try to convince them to take her name off. “Police prepared their suspect list on rumours and they didn’t try to get evidence,?Pranee said. “Now my mother had to die as a consequence. This isn’t fair.?Another daughter, Nitaya Poonsak, added, “They should have arrested her and put her in jail–at least then I could have visited her.?

Messrs. Patiwat and Nganadeeleg, I am pleased to note, at least acknowledge the logic in posters that Thaksin Shinawatra had grievously abused his powers, and violated the rule of law, in the Y2003 extrajudicial murderous directed by Thaksin Shinawatra himself against defenseless villagers merely because they were in some village policemen’s blacklist.

But Pundit in the meantime make every effort to picture Thaksin Shinawatra blameless in the affair. Tut tut Pundit, our slip is showing my dear.

What should bother people about the Y2003 extrajudicials was that Thaksin Shinawatra could have stopped the insane killings wants the first reports of body counts started coming in. But that was not case . . Thaksin instead intensified the pace of the killings impatient at some targetted body count numbers he felt he had to meet, as promised to his Khmer shaman perhaps?

Pundit what is extrajudicial killing? Thaksin and his then Interior Minister Wan Muhammad defined ‘extrajudicial’ in Y2003.

“They will be put behind bars or even vanish without a trace. Who cares? They are destroying our country.” – Then Interior Minister Wan Muhamad Nor Matha said of drug traffickers

“In this war, drug dealers must die” -Thaksin

“There is nothing under the sun which the Thai police cannot do” -Thaksin

And to make sure that the Police gets the message, Taksin amended ‘regulations on rewards for narcotics arrest-convictions’ that bonuses are to be paid in full if “suspects are killed during arrests or later”. But arrests without convictions won’t get the full bonuses.

Bangkok Pundit said:
‘So does Thaksin bear responsibility because they happened on his watch, or does Thaksin bear responsibility because he was behind the killings? There is a big difference between the two.’

on his watch – definitely
behind the killings – he didn’t pull the trigger, but he gave the green light, set targets etc.

As for the Kings comments – please understand his position:
– over 2000 people killed in 3 months does not look good for the country
– the country was facing stong criticism from groups like amnesty & hrw etc
– does he want the country to be seen as so barbaric that government sponsored killings are acceptable?