Competition on succession?

PPT has heard all the rumors about intra-family competition on succession, yet a picture can tell a story.

Updated: Abhisit and political toxicity

As the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) brings further charges against  former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Suthep Thaugsuban related to the 2010 military crackdown on red shirts, Abhisit’s Democrat Party continues its retreat from reform.

Who’s the boss?

In one report at The Nation, Abhisit and Suthep were summoned by the DSI to hear charges that they conspired:

with others to take actions that could be expected to lead to murder in connection with the killing of a boy, Kunakorn Srisuwan.

They also heard charges that they conspired:

with others in actions leading to attempted murder in connection with the attack on Samorn Maithong, which left him seriously wounded.

More charges may follow as the Criminal Court completes more inquests into more deaths during the May 2010.

Meanwhile, Abhisit and his coterie have managed to see off calls for the reform of the failed Democrat Party. At The Nation, it is reported that “a reform plan proposed by deputy party leader Alongkorn Ponlaboot” has been deferred.

More significantly, “[t]he party called off a [pre-arranged] press conference to announce its decision…”. Both Alongkorn and Abhisit were said to be unable to attend, meaning that the party is split. This is confirmed when the party spokesman, an Abhisit acolyte, must claim that Alongkorn:

was not upset about the decision, insisting that there was no rift within the party and executive members were disciplined and did not express disagreement outside the party.

Abhisit’s group, which has led the party to repeated electoral defeats and which owed its period in government to the military and its guns, refuses to acknowledge its failures and political toxicity.

Update: In a recent story at The Nation, Alongkorn expresses his anger as he “slammed his party colleagues for accusing him of lacking ideology and principle, and for saying he … follows in the Pheu Thai Party’s footsteps of ‘intoxicating people with populist policies’.” He states he “was attacked” by some in the party “because I have disseminated a reform plan entitled ‘The party reform blueprint and 21 years of election defeat’ in a straightforward manner since I do not want the blueprint to be distorted.” Meanwhile, Abhisit blathered about the party needing more time to think about reform, meaning no reform that is not Abhisit’s proposal.

Somyos and his jailing

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Media Legal Defence Initiative (MLDI), and Media Defence – Southeast Asia (MD-SEA) have filed a legal brief in support of the appeal by Somyos Phruksakasemsuk.

They note the courts’ continuing refusal to grant bail pending his trial and appeal.

PPT reproduces the announcement below:

On 23 January 2013, Somyot was convicted by the trial court to ten years’ imprisonment for two violations of Thailand’s lese-majeste law (Article 112 of the Criminal Code), which prohibits defamation of and insult to the monarchy. As editor of the Voice of Taksin (“Voice of the Oppressed”) magazine, Somyot is accused of allowing publication of two articles that were deemed to be “insulting” to the monarchy. In April, Somyot filed an appeal against the decision of the first instance court and also filed his 14th request for bail. The appeals court rejected Somyot’s bail request due to the “severity of his crime”, which had “affected the morality and feelings of the people”.

This submission by FIDH, MLDI, and MD-SEA suggests that the grounds on which the court refused bail to Somyot do not comply with Thailand’s obligations under international law. It requires that, in light of our fundamental right to liberty, denial of provisional release can only be justified if the court is able to demonstrate meaningfully that it is necessary to prevent an actual threat to public security or the judicial process and that no alternatives to detention are possible. FIDH, MLDI, and MD-SEA additionally opine that Somyot’s freedom should be granted because his detention results from the exercise of the rights and freedoms of expression.

FIDH, MLDI, and MD-SEA urge the courts to take Thailand’s obligations under international law into consideration in their review of Somyot’s appeal and to grant Somyot bail.

The briefs can be accessed in Thai and English (clicking on either link downloads a PDF).

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.