A nasty drama is playing out online over comments by Senator Angkhana Neelapaijit, a former member of the National Human Rights Commission, amid the atmosphere of mutual distrust caused by the border conflict.
Her comments have upset many, particularly the so-called ultra-nationalists who accused her of being unpatriotic — or a Thai national with a Cambodian heart. On the opposite side, human rights groups and some media outlets are rallying behind her, praising the senator as heroic and courageous.
Senator Angkhana spoke out on the conflict on July 23, during the five-day skirmish between Thailand and Cambodia. Recently, unfriendly types in the media and some ultra-nationalists have dug into her social media posts to form narratives against her.
In that context, it might be constructive to look at what she actually said. On July 23, Senator Angkhana posted a comment on Facebook, condemning the laying of landmines in the Chong An Ma area of Ubon Ratchathani province and demanding Cambodia adhere to principle of human rights and peaceful means to resolve any conflict with Thailand. This comment was useful and fair enough.
On July 24, Cambodian missiles and artillery shells landed on Thai civilian spots including hospitals, a convenience store, a petrol station and houses in some northeastern border provinces, killing Thai civilians, including a child, and injuring many others.
Senator Angkhana criticised not the attacks, but the Thai army, for blocking the public’s access to information. It had sought people’s cooperation not to disseminate information which may cause public confusion or exacerbate the situation.
Her comment seemed out of touch with reality on the ground and out of place. Critics asked where she was when Cambodian bombs killed and maimed Thai civilians and destroyed their properties, including a hospital, which are traditionally protected by international laws during wars. How could she have missed this opportunity to issue a strongly-worded statement against Cambodia?
Instead, she chose to comment on a side issue — the army’s blocking the public’s right of access to information. Didn’t she realise that, during a war or armed conflict, information censorship is a widely accepted practice for security reasons?
She kept her silence on the conflict until July 28 when a peace agreement, brokered by Malaysia and witnessed by the US and China, was signed between Thailand and Cambodia in Kuala Lumpur. She posted urging both sides to observe the peace deal, exercise restraint towards provocation and give victims access to humanitarian aid, medication and compensation.
But that belated gesture does not clear the question marks and suspicions that she was selective in commenting on human rights issues. Her stance was interpreted by ultra-patriotic groups as favouring Cambodia.
Fortunately for her, sentiment against her was not strong enough at that time, perhaps, because her comment was not widely shared.
On July 31, she wrote another post, criticising Sappasitthiprasong Hospital for its refusal to accept all Cambodian patients, claiming this was an act of discrimination and against international human rights law. Again, that is a fair and productive comment.
On Aug 1, Senator Angkhana posted a comment defending the Cambodian Defence Ministry’s spokeswoman, Maj-Gen Maly Socheata, who had come under Thai criticism.
The senator claimed she was merely performing her duty, despite her assiduous attempts to spread fake news against Thailand during the conflict.
She also said Maj-Gen Maly, as a woman, should not be degraded or dehumanised through the use of AI technology. Fair enough.
On Aug 8, the human rights activist posted a comment, criticising the Thai army’s appointment of local celebrity, Panadda Wongphudee, for help dealing with Maj-Gen Maly’s fake news campaign, warning this may cause trouble and may contradict the role of the Thai Foreign Ministry.
Later, on Aug 13, she expressed her concerns about a report that a Senate committee had suggested the government cut education funds for Cambodian children studying at schools in Thailand. That concern is justified and praiseworthy given the fact that children are not parties to the conflict and should not be affected.
On Aug 28, she wrote another post, expressing concern over the fate of a 13-year-old Cambodian student detained at a police station, awaiting his deportation to Cambodia. Detaining a boy simply because he is an illegal immigrant is shameful, according to Angkhana, which is a commendable stance on her part.
A key moment came when a reporter asked why she remained silent over Thai civilian casualties, including a child, from Cambodian missile attacks. She was quoted to have said Thailand’s F-16 fighter jets had bombed Cambodia, killing many Cambodian soldiers.
Such a remark by a human rights advocate of her calibre is simply childish. How can civilian casualties be compared to the deaths of soldiers? Military installations and troops who pose a serious threat during wartime are considered a legitimate target while civilians and hospitals are not.
But what touched the nerve of Thai nationalists the most was her recent post, sharing a complaint by Keo Ramy, chairman of the Cambodian Human Rights Commission, to the UNHCR about the Thai use of powerful loudspeakers to blast ghostly sounds and the sounds of aircraft engines towards Cambodian civilians living in Sa Kaeo province.
Influencer Guntouch “Gun Jompalang” Pongpaiboonwet has been broadcasting the sounds from large speakers and sound trucks he set up in the border area, where he has been waging a nationalistic campaign against Cambodia, much to the delight of his fan club.
Senator Angkhana, however, claimed the use of sound as a weapon against Cambodian civilians may constitute a form of psychological torture under the CAT Convention, and Thaland’s image may suffer on the global stage.
She asked why the army let Gun Jompalang broadcast the sounds in such a flashpoint area along border, which is under martial law. Her specific comments against the influencer provoked many commentators to pour scorn on her, calling her unpatriotic. Needless to say, Gun Jompalang joined in, asking where she was when the bombs dropped.
Some organised an online campaign to strip her of her senatorial status. Others suggested she better spend her time looking for her husband Somchai, victim of an enforced disappearance over two decades ago. Unfortunately, her critics did not ask why the army permitted such an ultra-nationalistic campaign from the border area when Thai and Cambodia are trying to make peace talks work.
Such cruel and inhumane criticism is unacceptable and irrelevant to the context. She was subject to a witch hunt, punished for simply expressing a different opinion.
But the drama over the border conflict should, at least, serve as a lesson for Senator Angkhana and her ilk about their roles and narratives. As a human rights activist, she should be more balanced in expressing her views on such sensitive issues.
Regardless of public perception of Senator Angkhana, the hate speeches against her must stop. Any constructive criticism can only come from those with a cool head, an open heart and goodwill.