22 Jul 69

"Supachai" social pendant examines the role of iLaw, receives foreign capital, moves politics, points out, socially responsible organizations should be verifiable to all parties, asks the image, iLaw moves-shows the stance, corresponds to the proposal of "opposition parties" or some political groups.

On July 22, 69, Thai Proud Party Post

iLaw to the role that society should examine.

Civil society organizations play an important role in democracies, whether studying, researching, proposing solutions to laws or reflecting public opinion, but at the same time they must be ready to receive scrutiny, as do governments, political parties and the mass media.

iLaw is an organization with an ongoing public role, both monitoring legislation, campaigning for constitutional amendments, proposing multiple legislative amendments, and providing a database on the right to freedom; it is therefore common for societies to question the organization's independence, transparency, and sources of support.

According to iLaw, the organization is supported by public donations and grants from various foreign organizations, such as Open Society Foundations (OSF), National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Fund for Global Human Rights (FGHR), American Jewish World Service (AJWS), Heinrich Böll Ètung, Access Now, as well as some project support from the Embassy of Switzerland and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), as revealed by the organization.

Foreign funding is not an offence under Thai law, but when an organization plays a role in pushing public policy, it is the right of society to inquire whether these funds are conditional, affect the direction of the organization, and how it has a regulatory system to maintain its independence.

Another issue that has always been criticized is the image of iLaw in public activism. Many times, the organization has expressed its position or campaigned on issues that align with the proposals of certain opposition parties or political groups, such as constitutional amendments, judicial reform, and certain legislative amendments, thus eliciting remarks from commentators that its operations tend to align with the guidelines of the opposition, rather than posing as impartial observers.

However, such observations are not proof that there is a coordinated or divided functional role with the opposition party; if it is to make a claim of that nature, direct evidence is needed to support it, it should not be concluded from the consistency of its stance alone.

Thai society should not have a space free of scrutiny, whether government, opposition, political parties, mass media, business sector or civil society organizations. The same principles should apply to all parties: open, transparent, verifiable and ready for public questions.

Because corporate credibility is not by declaring it to be in the public interest, but by showing that every operation can be described, verified and socially responsible.