Political prisoners in West Papua

PPT wants to inform readers of a new blog about political prisoners in Indonesia called Papuans Behind Bars. It follows a new report by UK-based NGO, TAPOL, which:

… forcefully challenges the Indonesian government’s repeated assertion that the country has ‘no political prisoners.’ The report urges President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to open up democratic space in West Papua and order the release of all those jailed for expressing their legitimate opinions and aspirations.

The 31-page report, ‘No political prisoners? The suppression of political protest in West Papua,’ documents the cases of 40 detainees who were known to be in prison at the end of March 2013, challenging the government’s claim that there are no political prisoners in West Papua, but only criminals who have broken the law.

Korkaew bailed

After two failed bail applications (see here, here and here), the MCOT reports that the Criminal Court has finally “granted bail for Pheu Thai Party MP and Red Shirt activist Korkaew Pikulthong with Bt600,000 in assets being accepted as collateral.”

Korkaew declined to ” apologise to the Constitution Court judges given that the judges filed defamation charges against him, and to do so may affect the case.”

The Criminal Court agreed “that the defendant’s explanation was acceptable and that he had softened his stance, demonstrating repentance for his offence after 37 days in jail.”

The court added to Korkaew’s bail conditions, demanding that “he must avoid any slanderous comments and he renounced his right to speak publicly or making remarks that could damage other people reputation.”

 

Red shirts, courts, coup and truth

As we have been saying for several days, the political temperature in Thailand is rapidly rising. Watching courts, military and royalists becomes important.

The courts remain significant players. As the red shirts rallied against the Constitutional Court, at Prachatai there is a detailed report on red shirts who were earlier sentenced to some very long terms for allegedly burning the Ubon on 19 May 2010.

The Appeals Court in Ubon “upheld the previous court’s decision to sentence Patthama Munnin (female), Thirawat Satjasuwan, Sanong Ketsuwan, and Somsak Prasansap to 34 years in prison.” They were sentenced on “terrorism and arson” charges, and 34 years was a reduction in sentence!

The reports says that the “Appeals Court also upheld the sentences on 7 other defendants: two acquitted, one imprisoned for one year, and four imprisoned for two years.”  The report has all the details.

Interestingly, unlike yellow shirts on terrorism charges from 2008, these red shirts have been in prison without bail since they were arrested. Double standards remain and it is always interesting that these are reinforced in times of rising political crisis.

While discussing double standards, it is worth looking at a story at The Nation which reports on support for misogynist and ultra-royalist cartoonist Chai Rachawat. The cartoonist was so incensed by a speech where premier Yingluck Shinawatra finally spoke with some conviction about democracy that he engaged in a childish tantrum.

The defense of Chai is equally childish and emanates from the likes of aged yellow-shirted academic Khien Theerawit. Writing in Naew Na newspaper, Khien apparently found “13 reasons to support Chai’s comment…”.

Khien reckons that speaking about the challenges of democracy is “selling the country” by “defaming the country.” Khien has the view that “[t]ravelling on taxpayers’ money … the PM must speak for the country’s interests…”. Mentioning that “her brother’s government was brought down by a coup and his parties were dissolved by independent agencies, but without saying why” is a half-truth.

In fact, if she’d told the truth, she would have said that the coup was planned in the palace and the “independent agencies” were military junta appointed agencies that were anything but independent. If she had spoken these truths, the royalists would have been as mad as cut snakes.

Apparently, “Khien defended Chai, saying that as a Thai citizen, the cartoonist has the right to do a great service to the country by protecting the country’s name and interests.”  It seems that “defending the country” involves infantile rants.

And it is important to note that the Yingluck speech and the actions of red shirts, especially in denouncing the Constitutional Court and promoting political amnesty seems to be irritating the military.

So much so that the brass has reportedly had its tanks out on the streets. Putting its tanks out in late night Bangkok traffic is clearly a warning to the Yingluck government to get back in line with the royalists and palace.

Remembering Ampol

The 10th of May was the anniversary of the death in custody of lese majeste convict Ampol Tangnopakul. PPT has the whole sorry tale of royalist vindictiveness against an old man they believed had insulted the queen here.

As many readers will know, Ampol  should never have been in jail and should certainly not have died there.

At Khao Sod it is reported that many activists marked Ampol’s sad passing and observes that his wife, Rosmalin, “called for immediate release of other political prisoners.” She specifically mentioned those held for lese majeste.

Ms. Rosmalin added that she is now “quite numb to the deep pain she feels because she needs to act as a model for the grandchildren so that they can see that she is still strong.”

Ampol’s  lawyer restated that “there is no evidence of Mr. Ampon ever sent the offensive SMS.”

Academic Somsak Jeamteerasakul spoke of how case strongly moved him, stating: “any person with common sense can clearly see that Ah Kong was an innocent victim.” He added that the harsh treatment he received – no bail, 20 year sentence – as absurd: “Anyone with the slightest bit of humanity would not have come to this judgment since there was no evidence of Ah Kong’s guilt at all…”.

He also criticized “self-proclaimed civil rights groups” that lacked any shred of “bravery” in failing to “protest the ruling, even though they all believed Ah Kong was not guilty.”

Somsak says his own lese majeste case has “reached the proscecutor.”

It is a sad anniversary, yet Ampol’s case serves as a reminder of the feudal nature of the lese majeste law.

Knowing the obvious on the military

At The Nation there’s a story that seems all too obvious to PPT and probably to anyone else who watches Thailand’s politics: the military is politicized, runs coups and rejects any modern notion of civilian control.

It seems that when an academic recites these truths, it is newsworthy, especially when a foreign academic, Professor Aurel Croissant, is making these points.

That “Thailand remains among those countries that have failed to institutionalise civilian control over the military,” is clear, despite efforts by  premiers as diverse  as Chuan Leekpai and Thaksin Shinawatra.

The professor says that “Thailand ranks fifth the world in terms of having the most number of military coups,” with 18 “successful” coups since 1932.

Nicholas Farrelly at New Mandala some time ago pointed out that counting coups is difficult:

Here on New Mandala we recently hosted a discussion about Thailand’s coup history where I suggested that counting the number of coups (attempted and successful) is a complicated business. Often, when somebody asks “how many coups have there been in Thailand?”, the final number that is cited is 18 but I fear that this may be a product of force of habit rather than hard number crunching.

He adds:

As it stands I have 11 “successful” and 9 “unsuccessful” coup efforts in the 20th century [sic. he adds 2006 in] for a total of 20.

The army’s real task: coups and repression

Readers at that thread add several more.

Croissant tells us that “the risk of a putsch remains high,”another point widely discussed, even in the past few days.

Sadly, but not unexpectedly, “Croissant predicted it will be a long time before Thailand can achieve genuine civilian control over the military.”

Oddly, though, in the way he is reported, the professor seems to blame civilians for the problem.

It [civilian control] will depend on not just the military refraining from getting involved in politics but also on strong civilian support and consensus that civilians should have oversight of the military.

“There’s no consensus on that they will not pull the military into political conflicts,” said Croissant, who jointly conducted research on the topic over four years in which more than 180 people in the Kingdom were interviewed.

We guess it depends a bit on who you interview….

Croissant adds:

… the military’s power can be exerted not just through the staging of coups d’etat but also through influence over the government’s decision-making processes. The lack of coups doesn’t automatically mean that civilian oversight exists, he said. “The military can exercise control over policy because democracy is weak.”

And who do we blame for that?Certainly the military, but we will come back to this point below.

On the brighter side, the academic “sees the September 19, 2006 coup as a sign of the army’s ‘eroding military control’ over Thai politics and society.”

What is missing in this account -and, yes,we know it is only a news report – is any discussion of the forces that have institutionalized the military’s coup  mentality.

From 1932, the military became a “protector” of the state. By the late 1950s, the military was transformed – with considerable U.S. funding and advice – into a “protector” of the state with the monarchy as the central defining element. This latter role has demanded a military that was pretty much hopeless in terms of usual ideas about  warfare and was trained and armed for domestic warfare. This meant fighting communists, insurgents,and as required, civilian protesters, who have been murdered by the military in very large numbers.

Protecting the monarchy and state also meant support for and from the Sino-Thai tycoons who expanded their economic and,later, political power through this period. The military was rewarded, with awards, decorations and loot (especially in border zones and in “commissions”).

Of course, the Abhisit Vejjajiva regime represented a complete alliance of military power and civilian weakness. Abhisit was anointed by military and monarchy and was beholden to them.

The alliance of capitalists, monarchy and military is strongly in favor of military interventionism  to protect their interests, political and economic. Some saw Thaksin’s rise as a weakening of this alliance and 2006 was a way to put things right. Some predict this alliance will weaken again at succession.

Panic, coups and courts

It is difficult to miss the increase in political panic attacks on the two main sides of the political contest in Thailand.

As PPT has already posted, the yellow-hued opponents of the elected government of Yingluck Shinawatra have had multiple panic attacks that have caused them to shout their real political views out very loud. When Yingluck speaks to a meeting on democracy, the royalists and anti-Thaksin Shinawatra coalition has its leading figures shout about treason, selling out the country and greater “crimes.” The main “crime” seems to be Yingluck’s failure to again kowtow to the old men who think they run Thailand and continue to concoct a royalist version of the country’s recent political history. A few statements by a younger woman about political reality suggest to the geriatric royalists that their presumed control of her has weakened and that she does not “know her place.”

The tried and royalist trusted method for attacking elected governments, apart from the military coup, is judicial harassment and intervention. And so it is that as the political temperature rises ever more panicked and preposterous royalists charge off to their buddies at the Constitutional Court seeking judicial interference.

At the Bangkok Post it is reported that the latest move is appointed senator  – that is, unelected senator – Paiboon Nititawan who “represents” something called “other sectors,” which really just means he’s an unelected spawn of the military junta, has begged the kangaroo court to consider Thaksin Shinawatra’s alleged “order for Pheu Thai to amend the constitution,” which the senator claims “violates Section 68 of the charter, pertaining to acts that could undermine the constitutional monarchy or grab power through unconstitutional means.”

The Post states that some yellow-shirted intellectuals think the “Constitution Court is likely to take up a complaint…”. At the same time, “Somchai Srisuthiyakorn, a political science lecturer at Sripatum University, said the allegation that Thaksin’s Skype call breached Section 68 is far-fetched.” That won’t bother the court or the royalists.

Somchai reckons that a more likely constitutional court intervention is over the “MPs and senators [who] have declared they will not accept the authority of the charter court…”. He says: “Such an announcement is bound to be a violation of the law…. Many MPs and senators may realise their action carries a risk.”

Panic has also set in on the government and red shirt side. PPT has already posted on the political foot-in-mouth calisthenics by Information and Communication Technology Minister Anudith Nakornthap. Equally panicky seems to be red shirt supporters claiming that a coup is in the offing. The clearest English-language statement of this was at New Mandala where Jim Taylor makes this claim:

The army, if a little confused about royal futures, are talking about a coup (yes, yet again) among themselves and many senior army officers (including Prayuth Chan-ocha) dropping strong hints in the media…

Several readers have emailed PPT with similar claims. We don’t doubt that the military brass around boss Prayuth Chan-ocha were shocked by Yingluck’s Mongolia speech, but we have yet to see any strong evidence of the tanks warming up. We would expect to see and hear a lot more from the top brass if they were at any serious level of plotting. That said, Yingluck’s speech and the failure of the king and queen to appear as scheduled probably mean that the military men have the coup jitters.

Meanwhile, while red shirt anger over the Constitutional Court shenanigans saw a mobile protest. Reports from the protest site are mixed, with some saying the protesters preparing to leave and others reporting an expansion of the protest (both in the same newspaper on the same day….). The very same newspaper is back to its old tricks of producing material filched from yellow-shirt sites and dressing it up as an op-ed rather than concocted propaganda.

The latter report also refers to:

hundreds of yellow-shirt Thai Compatriots and Territory Protection Front members, gathering since Tuesday at Sanam Luang, are refusing to clear the site.

They say they will stay until Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra is ousted and that their presence won’t interfere with Royal Ploughing Ceremony on the grounds next Monday…. They are also demonstrating to offer moral support to the Constitutional Court judges and oppose the Preah Vihear court case.

The Bangkok Post, which says the rally is called off, has a spurious headline at its website, seems to say that the red shirt protest at the Constitutional Court was all Thaksin’s doing, when the story itself implies something else again, even suggesting that the Puea Thai bosses and Thaksin were out of sync with the protesters. Apparently the protest was called off:

after losing the backing of Pheu Thai, other red-shirt groups and, more importantly, ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra, sources say.

Some ruling party MPs initially sponsored the protest by the Radio Broadcasters for Democracy movement formed by some red shirts, the Pheu Thai sources said.

Apparently, the MPs got cold feet when the rallies turned to those close to the palace:

The MPs had also joined the protest in front of the Constitution Court on Chaeng Watthana Road in Bangkok.

But they later withdrew their support after demonstration leaders ignored their warnings and attacked Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanonda, threatened Constitution Court judges and used obscene words.

The MPS and Thaksin apparently worried that the rally could destabilize the government. If Thaksin is the ring master in all of this, he seems to have been unable to control the situation or to fathom the impacts of his sister’s speech or the red shirt rally against the hopeless bunch at the Court. Always murky, the arm wrestle continues.

Panic, censorship and the Democrat Party

W e have already posted several times on the continuing and seemingly heightened political struggle as disgruntled royalists seek to undermine the elected government of Yingluck Shinawatra. Part of the increase in political tension revolves around issues such as constitutional reform and amnesty. The most recent panic for royalists was Yingluck’s speech in Mongolia airing several truths about the anti-democrats who oppose her. That panic attack saw some nasty and deeply sexist remarks and crazy incantations of treason. At the same time, PPT indicated its position on the defamation regime.

So we are dismayed to read at the Bangkok Post that Information and Communication Technology Minister Anudith Nakornthap has said that he will seek “to silence websites that allow criticism of the prime minister.” This is dumb politics and a stupid over-reaction that allows the yellow-hued lot to prance about talking about “democracy” and “freedom of expression.” Of course, these elitists have no ground to stand on these issues but the minister has allowed them to make these claims.

That the Democrat Party has jumped on Anudith’s silly statement with glee is to be expected. However,  it is more than a little nauseating to listen to its leader Abhisit Vejjajiva claim that Anudith’s statement is a “violation of democratic principles…”. That it might be, but for Abhisit to lecture anyone on democracy is an affront.

Neither the Democrat Party nor Abhisit know anything at all about democracy and their track record is of undemocratic action.

When Democrat Party deputy spokeswoman Mallika Boonmeetrakul lectures that the “minister had no power to close websites, which could be shut down only by a court order…”, this is a practices that her party repeatedly flouted when in government.

When she says that “Users of social media, along with the press, have the right to freedom of expression and to comment on and criticise public figures, including the prime minister,” Mallika ignores the Abhisit regime’s massive censorship of all opposition media.

The Abhisit regime was undemocratic at birth and its time in government was the most repressive for three decades.

Anudith needs to be criticized, but not by a Democrat Party that is disingenuous and pathetic.

Lese majeste and Yingluck

In a translation posted at the Red Shirts blog, lese majeste prisoner Somyos Prueksakasemsuk has written to Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. We reproduce that translation here, from a letter dated 9 April 2013:

9 April 2013

To: PM Yingluck Shinawatra

Thai people should be pleased that the Pheu Thai lead government is fulfilling its campaign promises with the rice pledging scheme and the increasing of the minimum wage to 300 baht per day in every province. These changes are improving the lives of the people. The most exciting project is the construction of double track railway and the high speed train that will run throughout the whole country. These infrastructures can only reshape and increase our economy competitiveness through the advancement of transportation technology.

But we should not forget that the appreciation for the current elected government comes with the price of bloodshed and freedom. It is unfortunate that political prisoners are being incarcerated like animals. This ill-fated circumstance is preventing us from welcoming the success of this government and the true democracy that we have fought for.

Reality is always painful. Members of the Coup Council who tore up the constitution and destroyed Thailand’s democracy, a crime which is punishable by death, received amnesty and their freedom but, because of a judicial conspiracy that has became a double standard in the process, ordinary citizens whose only crime was to stand up against martial law and a military appointed government are locked away without bail.

Granting amnesty will provide justice for the political prisoners. We deserved it because we are fighting for democracy, for peace and the prosperity of the country and we are part of the reconciliation process in the future.

Therefore we urge the government to release all political prisoners through amnesty legislation in all cases where the offender is punished for the struggle of democracy or as a result of political conflict and political rallies. We also ask the government to listen to the proposals made by Mr. Jaturon Chaisnag and Mr. Kanin Boonsuwan which suggest that the government; 1. Grants amnesty to all political prisoners 2. Passes the bill that was drafted by NRLC or Mr. Worachai Hema and 3. Drafts constitutional amendment on the amnesty law.

During the amnesty legislation process, we also urgently ask that the government take serious action to ensure bail for all political prisoners whose case is under appeal or in the supreme court of inquiry, which is their fundamental right under Article 39 to 40 Constitution 2550.

Sincerely yours,

Somyot Prueksakasemsuk

Updated: Defamation

As dopey, enraged and bitter yellow shirts try to equate defamation with lese majeste – a mistake they have long made in defending lese majeste – Asia Provocateur has a useful post on Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s defamation action against Chai Ratchawatra for his nasty sexist rant.

Some time ago, PPT posted on another set of defamation cases. We said then:

PPT has criticized several court decisions as royalist politics. However, occasionally some good sense emanates from a court. The Criminal Court has made a useful decision when it “dismissed a libel case lodged by former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva against red-shirt leader and former MP Jatuporn Promphan…”. The court ruled that democratic politics meant that, “… a verbal attack cannot be regarded as defamation in accordance with the Penal Code…”. That seems to us to be a reasonable point.

Abhisit has fired off at least four defamation cases against Jatuporn and seems likely to appeal this decision. Of course, politicians on both sides of the current political sandwich are equally likely to shout defamation and head for the courts.

Thai politics is full of allegations, some of which are outrageous claims. It makes little real sense for politicians to use defamation laws against each claim yet they tend to see the courts as a political resort when they feel  injured. It is related to what, in the context of lese majeste, David Streckfuss calls the “defamation regime”: “a social and political formation that over time develops a kind of ‘defamation thinking’ and ‘impulse’ that focuses on the insult of the defamatory statement, often at the expense of the truth” (xv).

In the current circumstances, we think this account remains accurate. Frankly, we don’t recall a single yellow shirt doing anything other than cheering Abhisit’s multiple cases against Jatuporn, so we don’t see why they are howling now. However, Yingluck’s response to Chai’s tawdry bleating is a part of the now well-developed defamation regime that is reinforced by the royalist use of the courts for political purposes in recent years. Even so, we can’t help thinking that Chai’s political and chauvinist potty mouth deserves a strong political challenge rather than a legal response, even if royalist politics has joined the two.

Update:  For all their histrionics regarding defamation, the Democrat Party has rushed to accuse Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Surapong Towijakchaikul, for describing the Democrat Party-led government as a “non-elected government”. While everyone recognizes that the Abhisit government only came to power through the intervention of the royalist judiciary, the behind-the-scenes machinations of the palace and very public puppetry by the military, the rather pathetic Abhisit and his party repeatedly plead that they were “elected by parliament.” Their defamation action again indicates the embeddedness of the defamation regime and voids any yellowish complaints about Yingluck’s defamation action.

Royal non-appearance

As PPT posted yesterday, the  Bangkok Post proclaimed that both the king and the queen will “appear at a ceremony to commemorate Coronation Day in the Amarin Winichai Throne Hall Sunday, according to an announcement by the Royal Household Bureau.” We noted that the appearances were significant as the king has again been ill and the queen has been hidden since her stroke in July 2012.

Now the Bangkok Post has not one but three slightly different stories at its online site about the non-appearance of the king and queen. One story is here, another here and the third notes that: “Previously, the bureau said Their Majesties the King and Queen would appear at the ceremony.”

Prince Vajiralongkorn took over the Coronation Day event meant to mark the king’s coronation 63 years ago, following the death of his elder brother.

According to the Royal Household Bureau, “a team of royal physicians has advised His Majesty the King, 85, to suspend all royal activities…” due to continuing “inflammation in the lungs,” tiredness and an inability to “take much food…”. At The Nation it is stated that the king continues to receive “intravenous antibiotic medicine…”.

Of course, these things should have been known 24 hours earlier when the first announcement was made, so more rumors will swirl.

The queen’s failure to appear is left unexplained.