It is thus useful that the ASTV/Manager surrogate channel in English, TAN Network has produced a translation of a column that has been central to the most recent case of a cameraman working for the red shirt-supporting satellite-based Asia Update TV channel being investigated for alleged lese majeste.

The ASTV/Manager account states that it has, since the Yingluck Shinawatra government won the election in July, a focal point for “numerous complaints about controversial comments made on social networks and the cyber world … comments that could be deemed as violating lest majeste laws.”

As self-appointed cyber vigilantes, ASTV/Manager reports that a “recent incident involves an individual who calls himself ‘Tanan Maneewong’ on Facebook.”

Reporters at he Government House are said to have “received complaints” – probably from the Manager itself -  about controversial statements on Facebook. Unnamed sources are said to have seen that some of these comments “could be deemed to violate lest majeste laws and Thailand’s Computer Act.”

Somehow it came to be known that the Facebook page belonged to “a cameramen employed by the Asia Update television station and [who] is assigned to cover the prime minister’s beat.”

Conspiracy! Up goes the shout! “The station is operated by Democracy News Network Company Limited and is widely known for its support of the Yingluck administration and the red shirt movement.” The Facebook poster is then anonymously claimed not to “have a very good opinion of the institution of the monarchy and has been known to make several strong criticisms in the past.”

Of course, this is inciting hatred against the unfortunate cameraman with not a named source in sight. The conspiracy angle is meant to show the government is somehow implicated in the whole thing. As we noted above, this is vigilantism, not journalism.

The ASTV/Manager report claims the “controversial post was made on his Facebook wall on the night of January 22, but was later erased on the 23rd when his associates warned him that it could be against the law.” But this person is seen to be insincere because he commented “I can’t even have an opinion. This is so Thai.” Indeed it is, but truth is not a factor here.

And, of course, it is all reflective of the fact that the Yingluck government is “disloyal.” This alleged crime is further “evidence” for ASTV/Manager maniacal claims about “the failure of government officials to curb the anti-monarchy movement.” Note that the idea that there is a “movement” is taken as a given for the vigilante media. Even Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubumrung is not doing enough.

And it is all to clear for the PAD that this is a pattern of behavior by the hated red shirts because Asia Update television is not only red shirt but is claimed – no evidence presented – that it was “founded” by now Minister of Information and Communication Technology, Anudith Nakornthap,with red shirts also involved.

The implication is that the an anti-monarchy conspiracy is proven. We assume that investigations of the cameraman is being undertaken based on ASTV/Manager’s accusations.

The bravery involved in standing up to the immense power of the hierarchical power of the forces that use and protect the monarchy is seen in how others squirm and flee principled political action.

The elected government under the Puea Thai Party has repeatedly expressed its unwillingness to to get involved in any principled action on lese majeste.

The pressure on supporters of Nitirat has been enormous and the threats are clear and real. Thammasat University law lecturer Sawatree Suksri revealed she had “received a letter from a military officer warning against proceeding with the campaign.”

Reflective of this pressure, former activist – “former” refers to an era now almost four decades ago – Seksan Prasertkul has distanced himself from Nitirat. He says he supports the monarchy but he is clearly fearful. He says he has “no plan to join the movement because I am fed up with conflicts…”. While Seksan hasn’t been politically progressive for years, his incapacity to take a principled stand is obviously also a product of fear.

Meanwhile, Nitirat have reiterated that its members are facing individual attack – including death threats – rather than being directed to the proposals themselves. “It claimed that facts and legal principles were also distorted to create misunderstandings among the public.” That is crystal clear.

The group insisted on the legitimacy of its proposals and its right to debate laws that are unjust or illegitimate.

United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship chair Thida Tawornsate Tojirakarn “urged all groups to maintain objectivity when discussing proposals, including amending Section 112.” She added: “Society should listen and we red shirts will do so. We live in an open society and criticism should be based on reason, not emotion…”.

That seems unlikely as the full power of the royalists has been rained down on a group that has dared to challenge laws and rules that limit democracy in Thailand.

Nitirat’s efforts are remarkably brave and leave them open to the kinds of nasty pressure and intimidation usually reserved for individuals accused of lese majeste.

Of course, they were never really apart, have surreptitious but passionate meetings during their supposed separation on things like Cambodia.

Democrat Party deputy spokesperson Jitphat Bhirombhakdi has joined the Nitirat bashing and political use of the monarchy (again) by calling on “Thais to rally to pledge loyalty to His Majesty the King and to oppose amendment to the lese-majesty law.”

We guess pledging loyalty to a monarch is fine while a monarchy pledging loyalty to a constitution is like unprotected sex, a no no.

Jitphat has called the rally at the Royal Plaza on Saturday. She added “that it was her personal campaign and had not been sanctioned by the Democrats.” Hopefully she has resigned. Probably not, but nobody believes this bogus claim anyway.

Her plan, supported by PAD acolytes like Tul Sitthisomwong will take part. They will join hands and “pledge loyalty to the King” before signing “names to express opposition to the planned amendment of the Criminal Code Article 112, which the Nitiraj group is pushing for…”.

Jitphat seems to think that the Nitirat proposals “violated the monarchy.” Others planning to join the royalist engagement apparently “include students of Chitralada School and members of the We Love the King Facebook page.”

Have the students at the palace school replaced the Privy Council in providing palace sanction for these events and alliances?

We are sure that the public reconciliation will be an important event as it is showing the kind of royalist coalition that was so significant prior to the coup in 2006 and again when PAD were supported in their parliament and airports occupations.

When we began Political Prisoners in Thailand on 21 January 2009, we hoped it would be a temporary endeavor. Instead, three years later, we are still at it. We do not anticipate being able to end our work anytime soon.

Initially, we saw a gap in the work that existing news and human rights organizations were doing in terms of keeping track of the various political detention cases, which at the time were all related to charges under Article 112 (the lese majeste law) and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act. In the years since then the cases under these two instruments have grown exponentially, harsh sentences have been handed down for the utterance of a few words and even for presumption about a few texted words, and new categories of political prisoners have emerged. We also declared, from the beginning, that we wanted to draw attention to human rights abuses and they are still all too common.

The most striking events in the current political crisis in Thailand have been the 19 September 2006 coup and the red shirt uprisings of 2009 and 2010 and their violent suppression. They have been accompanied by an expansion of repression and censorship.

The  other side of expanding repression is the determination for dissidence and the bravery and willingness of some to take risks to expose injustice. Nitirat is the most recent example. Our work supporting these dissidents will continue.

We thought readers might be interested in some statistics on PPT over the past three years. To date we (auspiciously) had more than 888,000 page views at our main site and the mirror we use when PPT is blocked. Average page views increased between 2010 and 2011, and average nearly 1,000 a day. Not surprisingly, the months of heaviest traffic were April and May 2010. Even so, total page views increased in 2011. We posted earlier on the most popular pages/posts.

We want to thank our readers for sticking with us through all the attempts by the Abhisit Vejjajiva and the Yingluck Shinawatra censors to block PPT. We trust that we remain useful and relevant and we appreciate the many emails of support and advice we receive.

The lese majeste and computer crimes laws must be repealed.

This rearrangement of anti-Thaksin Shinawatra political activists has ensured that Nitirat’s reformist proposals on lese majeste and rolling back military junta laws have become big news. We say “reformist” because there is, for example, no call from Nitirat to abolish the lese majeste law.

PPT has also pointed out how the reform proposals by the Nitirat team have been deliberately construed to make reformist proposals seem like revolutionary republicanism.

That’s why the always difficult to follow Thirayudh Boonmee’s Rip Van Winkle claim that lese majeste “become ‘a very big’ issue if not handled properly” seems both late and misses any political point. Lese majeste is the big issue and has been for some time. “Loyalty” was a theme chosen by the anti-Puea Thai/anti-red shirt lot from the time of the “lom chao” map in 2010, and it became the chosen weapon following the election last July.

Hence, that Puea Thai claim there is a “conspiracy” is not really news to us. After all, the opposition has made it clear that it was going to use the “loyalty” card against Puea Thai and its government. Their suggestion that it is a funded campaign is new, but unlikely to be surprising to many. The claim that the old coup team from 2006 is back together seems like a shot across the bows of privy councilors. We wait to see if Puea Thai or the red shirts name names.

If anyone needs convincing of the use of the Nitirat/lese majeste issue to raise the political temperature need only look at some of the English-language news for the past week:

PT, army, police all back lese majeste law

Thai Divide Growing Over Lese Majeste Law

Nitirat has second thoughts about campaign

PT: Conspiracy to topple government

Lese majeste debate is completely justified

Prayuth tells Nitirat group to think again

PM vows to protect lese majeste law

Lese-majeste law leading to censorship

PT: Conspiracy to destabilise govt

PM to people: Protect monarchy

Thailand lese-majeste law leading to censorship

Abuses in Thailand Continue, Says Human Rights Watch

New heads of state should be sworn in: Nitirat group

Both sides of the argument over lese majeste law

Update: From the Bangkok Post:

The ruling Pheu Thai Party on Friday issued a statement insisting that it has no plan or thought of amending Section 112 of the Criminal Code, the lese majeste law, reports said.

The statement, read out by party leader Yongyuth Wichaidit, said Pheu Thai respects the high institution and abides by a democratic system in which His Majesty the King is constitutional the head of state.

Pheu Thai has no plan or idea to alter the law, as claimed by some people and reported in some  media, the statement said.

After they have said it, written it, proclaimed it and demonstrated it you’d guess that the conspiracy claim would be getting stronger. How does the Puea Thai Party respond to an obviously biased mainstream media and the yellow-shirted lese majeste onslaught? They tried doing the work of the yellow shirts and that has led nowhere. Where to now? Arrest the Nitirat lawyers or wake up?

As we said about six weeks ago, no matter how many people this government arrests and jails for lese majeste, the royalists will never see it as a “loyal” government. Doing the work of royalist zealots for them is a dumb political strategy.

‎

Over the past several years we have pointed to Veera’s op-eds. In April 2009 we pointed out that, like the deeply yellow-shirted media, Veera was calling for “protection” for General Prem Tinsulanonda from red shirt criticism. He got angrier on this in November 2009. Also in that year, in September, he called for more watchful control of the media (to prevent Thaksin Shinawatra getting airtime). He’s also had a record of accusations of disloyalty against (guess who?) red shirts and calling for the use of “pre-emptive” action against them while applauding the use of draconian emergency security laws. And, of course, he’s been supportive of every other royalist attacking “the enemy,” including defending the demonstrably corrupt judiciary. Readers are sure to get the picture.

Hence it is no surprise that this compromised writer would want to join in the attack on Nitirat. He does it like one of those gutless kids who is a hanger-on with bullies who slips in when the one being bullied has already been knocked down.

He begins by noting that the big boys have already thrown verbal punches at the Nitirat academics, claiming that they have “overstepped the line and provoked uproar among the military and within pro-monarchy academia.”

His problem is that the Nitirat group came up with a proposal that the head of state – the king – “take an oath before the parliament to protect the constitution.” PPT would have thought this a reasonable proposal in a country where there has been little attention to constitution by either the military or the king.

He goes on to cite “the most vociferous critics is Dr Bovorksak Uwanno of King Prachadhipok Institute, who targeted Dr Vorajate.” Bowornsak is meant to be a senior legal scholar but according to Veera, Bowornsak engages in nasty personal attack:

He said that as a recipient of a King Anand scholarship, Dr Vorajate should have taken an oath himself, that he would not be ungrateful to the King who bestowed the scholarship on him. The scholarship made it possible for Vorajate to finish his PhD in law in Germany, Dr Bovorksak pointed out.

So much for scholarly debate. So let us suggest that Bowornsak should probably have a doctorate in academic prostitution. This is a shameless man who has sold himself to several governments and privy councilors. And, yes, he is an academic defender of lese majeste whose arguments are shot through with error and he sounds more like propagandist than scholar. His account of lese majeste was corrected by the Dutch ambassador.

Even before that, another member of the Nitirat group suggested that His Majesty the King should not be allowed to address the public.

The Nitirat group is in favour of amending or totally scrapping the lese majeste law, or Secton 112 of the Criminal Code, claiming that it is undemocratic, obsolete and goes against free expression.

Veera gets going again and compares his version of Nitirat’s proposals as reminding him of “the Soviet Union under Stalin…”.  Yes folks, Stalin. Boy, he must have had to really dig into his bucket of smears to come up with that one!

And who does Veera call on for support in dismissing Nitirat? Not Stalin, but Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung. Adding in big boss General Prayuth Chan-ocha, Veera proceeds to dub Nitirat’s proposal that a head of state should vow to uphold the constitution as “outrageous.”In case readers missed it, Veera repeats that it is an “outrageous, insulting and stupid suggestion…”. Simply unacceptable he says.

PPT can only wonder why Veera and his ilk should think the proposal so hopeless and unacceptable that they need to spend so much time on it. If it was such a hopeless idea, wouldn’t it just fade away?

We can only repeat from an earlier post: Why is this set of proposals so threatening? Are the foundations of the whole royalist regime so weak that a set of proposals threatens to bring the whole thing crashing down? Perhaps the the system is weaker than we would have guessed.

Prayuth seems decidedly put out by the notion that anyone should suggest amending the lese majeste law. His spiraling blood pressure suggests that the law is of deep significance for the royalist regime that is rapidly coming together to attack, denigrate and threaten Nitirat.

Prayuth is quoted as declaring:

Law professors who demand amendments to the lese majeste law must realise the great contribution which the royal institution has made to the country and learn to help their motherland….

While PPT doesn’t recall Nitirat saying anything that challenges this royalist position, it seems that calling for a reform of the draconian lese majeste law is considered to negate the royalist trope.

Then Prayuth makes a claim for hierarchy based on age:

They [Nitirat] must realise His Majesty the King has reigned for so long that he is 84 years old, and ask whether academics who are 30 or 40 years old and have only furthered their own studies have done any good for the land….

We are sure everyone is aware that the king has reigned since his brother’s unexplained death in 1946. But here Prayuth is trying to denigrate Nitirat as a group of youngsters challenging a very old man. In fact, though, Nitirat are not attaching the king but calling for reform of a law that royalists repeatedly claim the king doesn’t like. Prayuth might do well to also recall the challenge of youth in 1973.

It seems that Prayuth has convinced himself that Nitirat are attacking the king for he feels the need to defend the monarch:

But if you speak negatively of the monarchy, then I must speak negatively of you, because you refuse to see the good in Thailand

Of course, Nitirat are not speaking negatively of the monarchy but of a law. The distinction seems lost on Prayuth and those of his ilk.

He said Thailand owes its presence on the world stage and the respect it commands within the global community to the role of the monarchy. His Majesty the King has done nothing to harm the nation and everything to help it.

This is Prayuth seeming to believe the never-ending royalist propaganda. That might seem rather too North Korean but it does suggest a dangerous turn of mind for Prayuth that is confirmed when he rages:

Today, I do not know where some people come from, or if their ancestors were even born in Thailand.

Where do you go from there? Racist nationalism and monarchism spiraling down into fascism? And wasn’t the king born outside Thailand? Prayuth’s mouth seems ahead of his thought processes here, spitting fury and hatred with little forethought.

His final comment seems tame compared with this when he says that Nitirat “is hurting people’s feelings.” But recall that this from a man who commanded troops in murderous attacks on protesters.

Meanwhile, police chief General Priewphan Damapong has “vowed to take action against those who violate Section 112″ as special branch police are said to be “monitoring comments by academics and would take swift action if anyone breaks the law.”

Yet another threat to Nitirat. Readers may recall that even under the horrendous censorship regime led by Abhisit Vejjajiva there were statements that claimed legitimate criticism of the monarchy by academics was tolerable. As we have pointed out several times, the Nitirat academics aren’t even criticizing the king but are calling for legal and constitutional processes to amend a law.

Why is that point so difficult for royalists to comprehend? Is it because the law is critical for the prestige of a monarchy? Is the law the keystone of the royalist regime that will bring the whole structure down if removed? PPT would have thought that the response by royalists to both questions should be negative. That it isn’t suggests that the foundations of the system are considered weaker than we would have guessed.

As a footnote to this post, we add a link to Asia Update TV’s report on Prayuth’s claims, which includes responses from Nitirat (in Thai/ไทย):

… a cameraman working for the satellite-based Asia Update TV channel is being investigated for alleged lese majeste. Department of Special Investigation deputy chief Yanpol Yangyuen said evidence is being collected against a suspect with a Facebook login name of Tanan Maneewong.

As PPT has noted before, each of the recent lese majeste cases that has been attributed to the Yingluck Shinawatra government has been one that began earlier. While further details are necessary, this case may well be the first that originates and is processed under the Yingluck government.

Update: We included a link to Asia Update TV above. As might be expected in a story like this, it is a red shirt outlet.

While no date has yet been set for his next appearance in what is becoming a kind of show trial, the court has denied his request for the prosecutor witness to be heard in Bangkok. In the previous provincial appearances by Somyos, just a singke witness has been heard in each place.

His fourth appearance will see Somyos in Songkhla on 13 February 2012.

The international media really do need to highlight this process that amounts to a travesty of justice for yet one more victim of the politicized use of lese majeste repression.

Prayuth’s comments are brief but the impact is meant to be wide-ranging. He “expressed concern for the royal institution over the call by a group of academics for a change in the lese majeste law.”

Like other ultra-royalists who seem to have never read beyond their high school history books Prayuth states:

There are some academics who are trying to create a movement but I believe that most academics respect the royal institution since it has brought many benefits to the country over a long time and the country wouldn’t be here today without it…. I want to ask some academics what benefits have they brought to the country….

The army chief said he was ready to protect the institution if some scholars made offensive comments about it.

PPT added the italics for emphasis. We did this for three reasons: (i) to highlight the schoolbook version of history, which ties the whole nation-country to the monarchy; (ii) to suggest that Prayuth ask the question on “what benefits” to his own force. Corruption, coups, murder of citizens, impunity, might all be mentioned in the response; and (iii) to highlight the threat made.

This is an unashamed attempt to censor and silence.

On this point, coincidentally, at The Nation, Pravit Rojanaphruk writes of the impact of the draconian lese majeste law and the continued efforts of ultra-royalists to prevent discussion of things they don’t like.

Pravit writes of censorship and self-censorship “of anything that can be considered even mildly critical of the monarchy.” He says: “The lese-majeste law has left people afraid of speaking honestly and allows for the circulation of rumours…”.

He explains that “[d]ecades of self-censorship have left many royalists increasingly intolerant of people who criticise the law. Those calling for the amendment or abolition of the law are being regarded as outright anti-royalists.” And there is no reasoning with ultra-royalists.

For them, the monarchy “must remain above any criticism and scrutiny…”. Not a word of criticism can be tolerated and the idea of amending a law that has no relation to the stature of the monarchy is blasphemy. (Yes, we know that the royalists think the law is needed to prevent criticism, but they also claim that the monarchy is loved by everyone…).

Pravit points out that the royalists are doing the work of republicans: “While it’s difficult to quantify the actual cost on society, there is a growing resentment against the highest institution in some sectors of society.”