THE ANNUAL REPORT APPEARS TO CONTAIN A LOT OF CRITICAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE KINGDOM. HOW DID AI THAILAND CONTRIBUTE TO IT?

I have to explain that research on Thailand was conducted by staff from the AI headquarters in London, not by us. It is AI’s practice worldwide that branches do not research the countries where they are stationed for the sake of safety. The research was conducted according to a research methodology so it can be assured that our facts and figures are provable. AI is also willing to reveal the data to any party upon request.

AI Thailand, however, did help to facilitate the researchers when they visited, for example finding places for them to stay. We also helped with fact checking and provided some corrections when requested. That’s all we did in relation to the annual report.

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF AI THAILAND THEN?

We are not meant to write reports on the Kingdom, yet that does not mean that we are not active on domestic issues. We’ve conducted a number of campaigns and sessions on human rights – not to mention made comments and taken action to communicate issues with Thai authorities.

For instance, last year we visited student activists in jail. They were detained because the military claimed that they had broken the ban on the gathering of five or more people. It is our concern, as a human rights watchdog, that freedom of expression is fundamental to citizens.

We have also been notably active on the Muslim Rohingya issue, as Thai authorities prevented the Rohingya at sea from landing in the Kingdom. We campaigned on the issue, provided comments and proposed to our headquarters urgent action.

This agenda is related to international human trafficking and indeed human rights abuses. We are concerned that Thailand could be sanctioned or lose privileges in the international community if the issue remains unresolved.

Apart from those, we also conduct research in neighbouring countries where AI branches are not stationed, for example Myanmar.

CONCERNS OF AI THAILAND AND THE AI HEADQUARTERS SEEM TO FOCUS ON THE MILITARY’S BEHAVIOUR. DOES HEADQUARTERS SET AN AGENDA FOR YOU TO TRACK SPECIFIC ISSUES?

We do have a common agenda that all AI branches work on, such as the death penalty and the abolition of torture. However, on military issues, it can be generally observed through the news that the military’s actions have tended to infringe on citizens’ rights in recent years.

So, it isn’t uncommon for both offices to keep an eye on the issues. The headquarters, however, told us that we must not touch sensitive issues, such as lese majeste. Any remarks on the issue will be delivered by headquarters only.

SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT AI IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE JUNTA RULE?

It is our principle that AI never makes political comments as we consider politics an internal affair. Once any government appears to violate human rights, regardless of how they came to power, we will keep an eye on them. The word “military”, as appearing in the annual report, is basically used to classify a type of government without political implications.

BUT COULD IT BE SAID THAT HOW THE REGIME TOOK POWER DOES AFFECT THE HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATIONS IN CERTAIN WAYS?

I recall an incident shortly after the coup took place, when the military told us to cancel a session on Israel and the Gaza Strip, reasoning that it was related to international politics. Although they never prohibited further actions, it could be said that things have not been the same since the junta came to power.

More civilians have been put on trial in a military court since the last coup. Also last year, temporary military detention for civilian detainees was authorised. All this makes the torture of civilians more likely.

The country is also struggling with issues of freedom of expression, something that other countries have dealt with and do not need to discuss anymore. May I ask, how many countries pursue criminal charges for pressing “like” on a Facebookstatus like Thailand does? All these actions make Thailand rank at the top in both global and Asia-Pacific evaluations of human rights concerns.

HOW HAS THE MILITARY-INSTALLED GOVERNMENT REACTED TO AI THAILAND?

The government appears to worry about our actions. Sometimes they ask us why we don’t present well-rounded information or why we don’t mention the bright side. We can only insist that it is our role, as a watchdog, to observe and question concerns in the country. Moreover, like others who the military is concerned about, I have been invited for “a talk” a few times. Fortunately, maybe, the talks went smoothly and I didn’t have to sign any agreement.

AND VICE VERSA, HOW DOES AI TREAT THE GOVERNMENT?

We basically do what we can and consider this as helping the country. We observe the situation, issue statements and distribute reports while the government can verify our information. In fact, we never think of them as foes. We even collaborated with government sectors, such as the Justice Ministry and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), to enhance the situation.

By working with them, however, I have seen that their capacities can be improved. For instance, I see issues with the NHRC as many of its commissioners are not directly experienced in the field of human rights. The Justice Ministry has worked well with us, but it appears, however, that some officials conclude cases using a form of “vigilantism”, which we don’t think is a righteous way to practise justice.

LAST BUT NOT LEAST, HOW DO YOU SEE HUMAN RIGHTS TRENDS IN THE KINGDOM THIS YEAR?

I only hope they won’t get any worse.