The Rose Cafe talk on torture was not a lighthearted one. Much like the talk on cowardice, this harrowing talk, made by Nick Cheesman and his human rights activist associate from Thailand highlighted a controversial issue that still plagues autocratic and democratic countries alike. Dr. Cheesman’s talk offered no easy solution, but instead provided a thorough interrogation into the phenomenon of torture using examples from Southern Thailand and from other experts who have done research on the topic before.

His associate talked about how the socio-political situation in Thailand led to the escalation of the instances of torture in the country and how it is used as a tool to speed up the bureaucratic process as well as maintain national security. According to his associate, while the Thai government claims to condone torture, police officers employ torture in order to quickly (often sloppily) solve high profile cases such as rape and murder. The use of torture allows the authorities to easily create a scapegoat which appeases the media and superiors of the authorities. The instances of torture has also risen in the past few years due to the attempted coup in 2014 in the south of Thailand. Because of this attempted coup, the Thai government put many cities in South Thailand under martial law, thus allowing the military to exercise unconstitutional means to obtain information for the sake of national security. Dr. Cheesman’s associate’s description of the torture was as mortifying as it was enlightening; illustrating that even with the advent of modernity, torture is still considered a just mean to an uncertain end.

I later asked Dr. Cheesman about the efficacy of torture as a way of extracting information from a suspected criminal. His response was surprising and demonstrated why the issue of torture is still so fiercely debated to this day. According to Dr. Cheesman, my questions was in fact a loaded question that presupposes torture functions as an instrument, rather than a result of political ideology. My loaded question necessitated an affirmative response (yes it is effective, but should we use it?) that much of academia is currently wrapped up in debating yet the debate seems to lead to no useful answer, precisely because the premise is flawed. Instead Dr. Cheesman guided me to think about torture as an inevitable result of political ideology and as a natural result pertaining to the nature of the state as an institution. Only after have we thoroughly interrogated the purpose of the state can we begin to fathom how torture arises out of political ideology. Torture, in effect, is a symptom of an imperfect ideological system. Understanding under what circumstances torture arises can we then be able to prescribe means to reduce the causes of torture and prevent further atrocities that we see occurring in Myanmar, Thailand, and China from happening in future generations.