The junta-installed National Legislative Assembly (NLA) voted 156 to 1 with 3 abstentions to remove National Human Rights Commissioner Jaran Ditta-apichai for his leading role in the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) which clashed with police during their protest in front of the residence of Privy Council chairman Gen Prem Tinsulanonda on July 22. Jaran tendered his resignation on the following day.

A panel set up by the National Human Rights Commission to investigate the incident is collecting information and evidence.

Jaran was the only NHRC member who vocally opposed the Sept 19 coup. After the clash, he and 8 other UDD leaders were detained in prison, and later were released on bail.

The National Human Rights Commission is an independent body created by the 1997 Constitution, while the NLA was appointed by the Sept 19 coup makers and it cited the interim 2006 constitution to remove Jaran.

The NLA decided to vote in secrecy, and was almost unanimous, except for Assoc. Prof. Surichai Wan'kaew, a political science lecturer from Chulalongkorn University, who cast the only disapproving vote against removal.

Prachatai: What is the reason for your vote against the removal of Jaran from the NHRC on Sept 27?

Surichai: Jaran's [political] views are another matter. It doesn't mean I agree [with his views] or not. I just thought of how to consider his alleged actions, whether it was right or wrong, and whether it was cause for removal, and importantly how the NLA should handle the matter.

I think Jaran is a public figure, and also an authority, a National Human Rights Commissioner. So he should be held accountable.

What did the NLA members say during the meeting, resulting in the almost unanimous vote to remove him?

That was held in secrecy, so I cannot talk much about it. But I can say what I think.

Why did it need to be secret? What were the sensitive points?

It is a rule that deliberation of such issues must be held secret, to appoint or remove someone.

Is the clash on July 22 the reason for the removal?

Yes.

Does the NLA consider Jaran's involvement with the UDD inappropriate?

Yes. I do see the point. A National Human rights Commissioner is entitled to freedom of speech and action. The problem is Jaran was openly a leader of the UDD, and the UDD's activities were likely to infringe on other people's rights. This puts the status of a Human Rights Commissioner in conflict with his status as a civilian. It's like his responsibility as a Human Rights Commissioner was in jeopardy, because a Human Rights Commissioner needs to be politically neutral. Therefore, the NLA motion to consider the issue is not without grounds.

However, I'm not sure and I don't think that what Jaran did was so serious that he needs to be removed. And I'm not sure about the legality of it, or in other words, how legitimate it is for the NLA to take such a role. Although I see the problem [of what Jaran did], I didn't want to get involved in the judgment, as I do not consider it as serious as some people do. And I'm not confident in the legitimacy of the NLA, especially considering the timing of the NLA in handling the issue.

How should we consider the role of an individual who has political rights and a role as a member of an independent body?

A Human Rights Commissioner is entitled to the rights and freedom as other people. But the Human Rights Commission is a body that can give legal judgments, can point out who infringes on whose rights, and is obliged to address the violations. Therefore, exercising individual rights and freedoms to the extent that it affects one's own legal duty and status as a Human Rights Commissioner is a problem.

It's OK if the UDD takes a non-partisan stand, fighting for democracy, and is not a support group for particular persons. But the UDD, especially some elements like the PTV, didn't adhere to the principle of democracy; their actions sometimes are not non-violent.

How is it different when the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) was at its peak with people from various sectors including the state attacking the government, and when Jaran joined the anti-coup UDD?

Expressing his views, taking the stage, is extraordinary. But more extraordinary was declaring himself one of the leaders; this is too extraordinary. Taking the political agenda of one camp as his own, despite his obligation that should be otherwise, could affect his function [as a Human Rights Commissioner]. This is the crunch issue. But I don't see the problem as serious as other people do. I don't want the NLA to take up the issue of removal without any dissenting opinions under the current circumstance.

Will the NLA's decision set a precedent for future political conflicts and human rights perspectives?

I think the NLA's decision will surely set a precedent, just as when the NHRC decides to do or not to do something, it also sets a precedent. The media's attention to and criticisms of the NLA also help set a precedent. We can ask if what one does is right or wrong. No one is above public scrutiny. If we don't look at this as win or lose, it would be good that we're building up a culture of democracy that allows differing views. If Jaran didn't act like that, we might have never discussed this.

Will this precedent set by the NLA affect Thai society in the future?

I have to say that the NLA came from the coup, so it doesn't have the kind of legitimacy people normally accept, a limited legitimacy. Everyone has their own opinion, and must respect those of others. I can say only on my part that I'm aware of the limited legitimacy [of the NLA]. And I'm also aware that the country cannot be without a legislative mechanism for a long period of time. Laws that are passed can have a great effect on people's lives. So I have to be very cautious in making a decision on each matter. It's not that the NLA can do everything like a normal parliament. With the result coming out that way, it becomes an issue for the public to consider how independent bodies and the legislative body should interrelate and keep each other in check. I want the public to stay aware and criticize as another check and balance, commending what is good, and questioning what is not. A strong society keeps political institutions like the NLA and others aware of their responsibility.