More MFA claptrap

In a recent post PPT commented on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs defense of monarchism and the lese majeste law.

In other posts earlier in the month, we reproduced the Asian Legal Resource Center’s statement to the U.N. Human Rights Council on continuing attacks on freedom of expression in Thailand and the death in custody of lese majeste convict Ampol Tangnopakul.

We now have the response of the government via the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. PPT won’t detail it all. Find the text here and the video here (in Thailand, we found it very slow). It’s a deathly boring piece of propaganda, so we won’t go into detail and provide just a few comments.

The statement has it that:

Like in other democratic societies, the people in Thailand enjoy the rights to freedom of opinion and expression. Differing views are aired widely and there are vibrant debates on all aspects of life.

This is a misrepresentation. No one engages in uncensored debate on the monarchy. While there has been more discussion of the monarchy under huge popular pressure, debate remains anything but vibrant. No one can criticize the judiciary in any “vibrant” way.

The statement continues:

… what has become the challenge for us as well as many others is how to strike the right balance between the right to freedom of expression and the rights of the rule of law.

We would have thought this a slip of the tongue as we can’t think of how a concept like “rule of law” has “rights.” However, we think the interpretation is that the Thai delegation is saying that the “democratic society” that the MFA calls Thailand, where “the people in Thailand enjoy the rights to freedom of opinion and expression,” is a fiction because the laws don’t allow freedom of expression.

The MFA continues:

As regards to Thailand’s lese majeste law, the Thai delegations would like to stress that the law itself is not aimed at curbing the rights and the legitimate exercise of academic freedom, including debates about the monarchy and the institution. Issues that have arisen with regard to the lese majesté law lie not in any fundamental problem with the law itself, but in the abuse of the law for political gain in the context of political conflicts which have been ongoing in Thailand for the past few years.

Of course, this statement, by moving the goalpost, immediately contradicts the earlier statements. “Vibrant” discussion is not limited to “academic debate.” The statement that the law is good but is used by political actors to curb rights and limit expression. The most significant actors are ultra-royalists, the Abhisit Vejjajiva government and the military. Other plaintiffs have included the Privy Council. The law is the problem; get rid of it and it can’t be abused.

The last statement in this paragraph is:

Indeed, an ongoing lively public debate has been taking place on the lese majesté law to which the Thai people will find an appropriate solution for themselves.

Of course, the government, the military, the palace, the opposition, and many more have stated that there will be no change to the law, ever. So much for “lively debate.” The royalist elite want no debate on Article 112 at all!

We are not sure if the MFA enjoys looking stupid and deceitful to international audiences.

Taking on monarchist claptrap

Over several years and several political administrations the monarchy’s taxpayer-funded ideologues at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have “responded” to articles in the foreign media. They worry that these articles cast doubt on the standard lines about the monarchy and the draconian law that “protects” it, Article 112.

Usually the sans-evidence responses are a repetition of the standard line: first, the  tautology that the monarchy is constitutionally above politics so can’t be politically active; second, the lese majeste law is just a libel law; and third, another tautology, all lese majeste legal cases are handled strictly lawfully.

Seldom do those receiving such missives respond. That’s what makes the tête-à-tête at Foreign Policy worth a read. Author Joshua Kurlantzick wrote a piece in May that prompts a response from the Thai Embassy in Washington DC, and then Kurlantzick responds to that.

Readers can view the results at the link above. However, we think Kurlantzick missed some significant points in his response, and we feel compelled to make them.

First, if Kurlantzick knew PPT, he’d note that it is not just Paul Handley and Duncan McCargo who have shown the monarchy’s political role. At one of our pages, we have commentaries on this back to the 1970s, and our list is not comprehensive. Perhaps the first serious academic work, from 1997, is here. In other words, the critical commentary on the monarchy did not begin with The King Never Smiles.

The claim by the MFA correspondent that the king and monarchy “exerts no control over the direction of the country’s politics” is, quite simply, laughable. The statement that “to argue that the Thai royal family has been interfering with politics is clearly misleading and highly inappropriate” neglects truth.

Second, the MFA claim on lese majeste is a fabrication. It is stated that:

Legal proceedings in such cases, including those of Mr. Lerpong Wichaikhammart (Joe Gordon) and the late Mr. Amphon Tangnoppagul(Akong), were carried out in accordance with the rule of law. All of them have been accorded due process as provided by the Thai Criminal Procedures Code including the right to fair trial, due opportunity to contest the charges and assistance from their lawyer as well as the right to appeal.

Joe Gordon

This is a monarchist fairy tale. There is no recent evidence that Thailand’s courts even follow the country’s laws. The courts are corrupted political tools of the royalist elite. If that sounds harsh, then a glance at the military-back 2007 constitution should assist, for that basic law states:

Article 39. … The suspect or the accused in a criminal case shall be presumed innocent. Before the passing of a final judgement convicting a person of having committed an offence, such person shall not be treated as a convict.

This Article is routinely ignored for lese majeste cases where all those denied bail are treated as convicts. Almost all lese majeste suspects are denied bail, whereas murder suspects are bailed all the time.

Article 40. A person shall have the rights in judicial process as follows:

(1) right to access to judicial process easily, comfortably, quickly and indiscriminately;

(2) fundamental rights in judicial process composing of, at least, right to public trial; right to be informed of and to examine into facts and related documents adequately; right to present facts, defences and evidences in the case; right to object the partial judges; right to be considered by the full bench of judges; and right to be informed of justifications given in the judgement or order;…

(7) an alleged offender and the accused in criminal case shall have the right to correct, prompt and fair investigation or trial with an adequate opportunity in defending his case, the right to examine or to be informed of evidence, right to defend himself through counsel and the right to bail….

Each of the highlighted points are simply ignored for lese majeste trials. It is a simple as that, and it is this unlawful and unconstitutional judicial system that MFA defends with lies and deceit. Ampol, who died in jail through lack of adequate medical attention, had judges who decided he was guilty even when the prosecution could not prove the facts of the case.

Ampol Tangnopakul

Ampol was denied bail eight times. Joe has been denied bail 10 times! Ampol,  poor, sick and old was repeatedly said to be a “flight risk.” Both men saw their incarceration drag on, and as is expected of lese majeste victims, they both chose to plead guilty in order to end their cases. Ampol sought a royal pardon, citing his old age and health problems, but died waiting for mercy.

Joe remains imprisoned for a “crime” allegedly committed in the United States and which was perfectly legal action there, although there has been no evidence presented that Joe committed any action leading to his monarchist madness arrest in Thailand. As Joe himself pointed out, “In Thailand, they put people in prison even if they don’t have proof.”

PPT considers the use of extended incarceration to force a guilty plea to be a form of torture, as defined by the U.N.

So much for the MFA’s rule of law. The law is about the fear and repression necessary for “protecting” not just a highly politicized, remarkably powerful and obscenely wealthy monarchy but the whole system of economic and political power that it represents.

Updated: Al Jazeera on lese majeste

PPT hasn’t watched the whole story yet. However, we felt that readers would want to see this Al Jazeera documentary. It is about 25 minutes and interviews a few persons of considerable interest, not least interviews with lese majeste ideologues like the remarkably dopey Tul Sitthisomwong and academic toady for the military and royalists, Panitan Wattanayagorn. The blurb states:

The case of Ampon Tangnoppakul, 61, who was sentenced to 20 years in jail for sending 4 text messages deemed offensive to the Thai royal family has reignited debate over the country’s strict lese majeste law. On May 8, Ampon died of liver cancer in prison, still claiming he was innocent of all charges. 101 East explores Thailand’s lese majeste law and asks just who it really protects.

Update: Some readers tell us they are unable to view the embedded video. This is the link to it.

อากงเสียชีวิต ใครรับผิดชอบ?: This is lese majeste? VI

This is our sixth post (see one, two, three, four, five) related to the accusation that Pravit Rojanaphruk has committed lese majeste with seven items listed as evidence. All articles are from Prachatai.

อากงเสียชีวิต ใครรับผิดชอบ? ม.112 ขัดสิทธิเสรีภาพใครรับผิดชอบ?

Wed, 2012-05-09 01:00

ประวิตร โรจนพฤกษ์

ยังไม่ถึง 24 ชั่วโมงหลังจากที่อากง SMS หรือ นายอำพล (ขอสงวนนามสกุล) ผู้ต้องหาผู้ถูกตัดสินลงโทษ 20 ปีภายใต้กฎหมายอาญามาตรา 112 หรือกฎหมายพระบรมเดชานุภาพเสียชีวิตในโรงพยาบาลของเรือนจำพิเศษกรุงเทพในเช้าวันที่ 8 พฤษภาคม ก็เกิดการแสดงความเห็นหลากหลายในโลกออนไลน์ สิ่งที่ผมสรุปได้อย่างหนึ่งก็คือ บรรดาคนที่รักเจ้าอย่างไม่รู้จักพอเพียงสามารถหาข้ออ้างหรือ “ตรรกะ” มาโทษทุกอย่างได้ นอกจากการที่จะยอมรับว่า กฎหมายมาตรา 112 มีปัญหาและไม่เป็นประชาธิปไตย

 

พวกเขาสามารถโทษได้ว่า ทำไมทนายของอากงถึงดื้อรั้นอุทธรณ์แทนที่จะรีบขอพระราชทานอภัยโทษ (ทั้งที่ก่อนหน้านี้คนเหล่านี้ไม่เคยรู้สึกเป็นห่วงเป็นใยอะไรต่อชะตากรรมนักโทษทางความคิดซึ่งรวมถึงอากง) พวกเขาสามารถสรรหาทฤษฎีสมรู้ร่วมคิด (conspiracy theory) ว่ากลุ่มนักการเมืองเสื้อแดงจัดให้เกิดการดำเนินคดีกับอากง แล้วล่าสุด รัฐบาลแดงจัดการกระทำให้อากงเสียชีวิต เพื่อที่จะได้เอาการเสียชีวิตของอากงไปเขย่าสถาบันกษัตริย์

 

บ้างก็บอกว่า อย่าเอาความตายของอากงไปหาประโยชน์รณรงค์เรื่อง 112 ทั้งๆ ที่อากงก็ติดและตายในคุกภายใต้มาตรา 112 ที่คนเหล่านี้สนับสนุน

 

คนเหล่านี้มักไม่เข้าใจเรื่องการทำให้การแสดงความเห็นต่างต่อสถาบันเป็นโทษทางอาญา (criminalization of speech) ว่ามันขัดหลักสิทธิพื้นฐานในการแสดงออกอย่างไร หรือไม่เข้าใจว่า อะไรคือนักโทษทางความคิด หรือ นักโทษทางมโนสำนึก (prisoner of conscience) มีรายหนึ่งบอกว่า ก็คิดได้หนิ แต่ห้ามพูด ผมจึงต้องบอกว่า ก็พวกเขาเป็นนักโทษทางความคิดเพราะเขาติดคุกเพราะแสดงความคิดออกมายังไงล่ะ

 

คนเหล่านี้มักแยกไม่ออก ระหว่างการวิจารณ์มาตรา 112 กับการวิจารณ์เจ้า แล้วพอใครวิจารณ์ 112 ก็เอะอะว่าเป็นพวกล้มเจ้า รับเงินทักษิณ “ปลุกระดม” มวลชน แต่คนเหล่านี้กลับนึกไม่ออกว่า การยัดเยียดข้อมูล “ดีๆ” ด้านเดียวเกี่ยวกับสถาบันฯมากว่า 50 ปีควรจะเรียกว่าอะไรดี

 

พวกเขามักไม่ยอมรับว่า มีการยัดเยียดข้อมูลด้านเดียวเรื่องเจ้า และไม่รู้หรือไม่ยอมรับว่า สื่อกระแสหลักมีการเซ็นเซอร์ข่าวด้านลบเกี่ยวกับสถาบันอย่างสม่ำเสมอมาหลายสิบปี (เมื่อไหร่เราจะได้รับรู้ข้อมูลในสื่อกระแสหลักเกี่ยวกับรายละเอียดหนังสือ The King Never Smiles, WikiLeaks หรือสารคดีเกี่ยวกับสถาบันฯ ของสถานีโทรทัศน์ ABC แห่งออสเตรเลีย ที่ทำให้คนอย่างนายเอกชัย หงส์กังวาน ซึ่งขายซีดีนี้ต้องถูกดำเนินคดีภายใต้มาตรา 112) นี่ยังไม่รวมถึงการประจบเจ้าอย่างไม่รู้จักพอเพียง สิ่งเหล่านี้ทำให้ผมนึกถึงคำภาษาอังกฤษที่สามารถแปลได้ว่า คุณไม่สามารถกินเค้กที่คุณกินไปแล้ว (You cannot eat the cake and keep it at the same time.) หมายความว่าคุณไม่สามารถสนับสนุนกฎหมายที่ก่อให้เกิดการเซ็นเซอร์อย่างกว้างขวางแล้วบอกว่าไม่มีการเซ็นเซอร์

 

คนเหล่านี้พร้อมที่จะโทษทุกอย่างนอกจากตัวกฎหมายมาตรา 112 และตัวพวกเขาเองที่สนับสนุนกฎหมายที่ขัดกับหลักเสรีภาพและประชาธิปไตยพื้นฐานนี้

 

ผู้เขียนเกรงว่า หากสังคมไทยไม่สามารถเรียนรู้อยู่กับความเห็นต่างเรื่องเจ้าได้ โดยไม่ต้องปิดปากหรือโยนคนเข้าคุกจนต้องเสียชีวิต เมืองไทยคงคล้ายคุกมากกว่าสังคม แต่ท้ายที่สุดแล้ว ความรับผิดชอบร่วมของสภาพปิดหูปิดตายัดเยียดข้อมูลด้านเดียวและการโยนคนเห็นต่างเข้าคุก คงตกอยู่ที่คนไทยทุกคน หาได้เป็นความรับผิดชอบของบรรดาผู้รักเจ้าอย่างไม่รู้จักพอเพียงเท่านั้น

 

หากสังคมมันป่าเถื่อนและไร้อารยะขนาดนี้ แล้วประชาชนไม่ทำอะไร ก็ป่วยการที่จะไปโทษคนอื่น โทษกฎหมาย หรือแม้กระทั่งโทษบรรดาผู้รักเจ้าอย่างไม่รู้จักพอแต่ถ่ายเดียว

ALRC on Ampol’s death in custody

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 14, 2012
ALRC-CWS-20-09-2012

Language(s): English only

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Twentieth session, Agenda Item 4, General Debate

A written statement submitted by the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC), a non-governmental organisation with general consultative status

THAILAND: Dehumanization and death in custody of a Thai citizen accused of lese majesty: The case of Amphon Tangnoppakul

On 8 May 2012, Mr. Amphon Tangnoppakul (also known to his family as “Ah Kong” or “grandfather,” and to the public as “Uncle SMS”), a 61-year-old man, was found dead in prison custody. At the time of his death, Amphon was serving a 20-year sentence received upon being convicted of four violations under Article 112 of the Thai Criminal Code and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act in Black Case No. 311/2554 on 23 November 2011. Amphon was convicted for allegedly sending four SMS messages to Mr. Somkiat Klongwattanasak, personal secretary of the former prime minister, Mr. Abhisit Vejjajiva. These four SMS messages allegedly contained vulgar language defaming the Thai queen and insulting the honour of the monarchy. Amphon’s conviction rested on questionable electronic evidence presented by the prosecution. The circumstances surrounding his death suggest the presence of, at best, gaps within the prison healthcare system and, at worst, gross negligence.

While it is too late for action to be taken which will save Amphon’s life, the ALRC brings this case to the attention of the Human Rights Council in the hope of raising awareness of problems within the Thai justice and prison systems. While these problems are relevant to all those in custody in Thailand, the ALRC would like to note the additional dangers faced by those in custody who are accused or have been convicted of the crime of allegedly insulting the monarchy. In present-day Thailand, the social and political crisis surrounding the monarchy and the fraught relationship between the institutions of the monarchy and those of democracy mean that alleged insults to the monarchy are categorized formally as crimes of national security and informally as crimes of sedition. Within this context, it then becomes possible for those charged with or convicted of insulting the monarchy to be treated as less than human, and for their persecution to be naturalized.

On 3 August 2010, a group of 15 police officers raided Amphon’s house and arrested him over the four SMS. He was detained for 63 days without being charged, before being granted bail on 4 October 2010. Amphon entered detention again upon being formally charged with violations of section 112 and the Computer Crimes Act on 18 January 2011. At the time he was charged, he was already suffering from oral cancer for which he had been receiving regular treatment, and his counsel immediately requested bail while awaiting trial on this basis. The court denied this request, as it did seven subsequent requests made before his trial, at the time of his conviction, and up until several months before his death. At the time of Amphon’s last request for bail, in February 2012, the Appeal Court ruled that this frail and sick elderly man with little money or resources was a flight risk, and that his illness, which constituted one of the grounds for the request, did “not appear to be life-threatening.”

When questioned about the repeated denial of bail in Amphon’s case, Mr. Sorawut Benchakul, the Deputy Secretary-General of the Office of the Judiciary, noted that while the right to bail is a fundamental human right, section 108 of the Thai Criminal Procedure Code allows for its denial when the court fears that the defendant might flee. Sorawut claimed that when Amphon requested bail, the medical certificate presented did not indicate grave illness. While Sorawut claimed that the vast majority of those charged under section 112 and the Computer Crimes Act are granted bail, in the absence of full statistics released by the judiciary on these cases, the claim cannot be confirmed. No explanation has been given as to why the court might have perceived Amphon to be a flight risk but—if the deputy secretary-general is to be believed—why the vast majority of applicants in similar cases obtain bail.

The ALRC would like to take this opportunity to remind the Government of Thailand that under article 9(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a state party,

“Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment.”

The ALRC concludes that in the case of Amphon, the state in Thailand clearly and flagrantly violated this section. Amphon spent 63 days in pre-charge detention, and then 310 days detention prior to and during his trial. This is a total of 373 days in detention prior to being convicted, which represents a period of time in detention and trial length that is neither prompt nor reasonable.

Three months after the assessment by the Appeal Court that Amphon’s illness was not a threat to his life, he died in prison custody. While the full details have not yet been made available, the partial information made publicly available about the conditions surrounding his death point to significant problems of capacity and routine negligence, which together amount to a grave threat to the human rights of prisoners.

As reported in Khao Sod newspaper, several days after Amphon’s death, Police Colonel Dr. Supol Chongphanichkulthorn, spokesperson for the Police General Hospital, said that the preliminary results from the autopsy indicated that he died as a result of liver cancer that had metastasized throughout his body and caused respiratory failure. Dr. Cherdchai Tantisirin, a member of parliament from the majority Pheu Thai Party who was also present for the autopsy, commented that,

“We have to separate the issue of what is human from the issue of the case. If a person in detention is found to have cancer, he should be released in order to be treated outside . Moreover, in the case of Amphon, as far as I have seen, there are no indications of the actions of physicians or nurses trying to resuscitate him or otherwise help him.”

The ALRC would like to express concern over both the presence of metastatic cancer found in Amphon’s body as well as the observation by Dr. Cherdchai that there appears to have been no attempt to resuscitate him, which the ALRC would further note may have been due to a lack of adequate staff to closely monitor patients. Whether the failure to take action was an intentional decision to explicitly harm Amphon or the result of negligence or lack of capacity, the resultant violation of his human rights is the same. The ALRC would like to remind the Thai Government of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, and in particular section 22(2) of the rules, that mandate that:

“Sick prisoners who require specialist treatment shall be transferred to specialized institutions or to civil hospitals. Where hospital facilities are provided in an institution, their equipment, furnishings and pharmaceutical supplies shall be proper for the medical care and treatment of sick prisoners, and there shall be a staff of suitable trained officers”; and, to section 25(2), that:

“The medical officer shall report to the director whenever he considers that a prisoner’s physical or mental health has been or will be injuriously affected by continued imprisonment or by any condition of imprisonment.”

On 16 May 2012, Dr. Sunai Chulpongsatorn, a member of parliament from the majority Pheu Thai Party and the chair of the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, convened a meeting with representatives from relevant parties, including the Department of Corrections, the Prison General Hospital, the Office of the Judiciary, the National Human Rights Commission, as well as Amphon’s family and lawyers, to discuss his life and death. The comments made during the meeting suggest that the treatment of Amphon is not unusual and rather is representative of gross inadequacies that place Thailand far from meeting the guidelines outlined in the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

In particular, Dr. Bunmee Wibulchak, a doctor at the general hospital of the Department of Corrections, acknowledged that the conditions in the hospital were not as good as hospitals outside the prison system: they did not have a full staff, and on the evenings and weekends, there were no doctors on duty, only nurses. If a prisoner was in need of medical treatment that a nurse could not provide, then she would call the doctor, who would provide orders via telephone. He further noted that several months earlier, when Amphon had come to the prison clinic complaining that he felt as though his cancer had returned, the conclusion by the prison physician and the ear, nose, and throat specialist who examined his mouth and throat was that it was not cancer. When Amphon entered the prison clinic and then the hospital in the days before he died, he had a painful stomachache. By Friday, 4 May 2012, the decision had been made for further examination and testing, but could only take place during normal working hours and days. By Tuesday, 8 May 2012, Mr. Amphon Tangnoppakul was dead. Sickness and death frequently do not observe working hours.

In light of the above, the Asian Legal Resource Centre calls on the Government of Thailand to:

a. Conduct a special investigation into the death of Amphon Tangnoppakul and again table the findings publicly with a view to taking criminal legal action against the persons responsible for his death and administrative action against those officers who failed in their duty of care for a person in state custody, including prison officials, doctors and judicial officers, and ensure that compensation is given in accordance with international standards to his family.

b. Release statistics on the number of persons charged with lese majesty and offences under the Computer Crimes Act since the military coup of 2006, providing details on the average days spent in pre-charge detention, average days spent in pre-trial detention, average days spent in detention during trial, numbers of application for bail accepted and rejected and grounds for rejection, in order that the unsubstantiated and unverified claims on cases like those of Amphon be subject to public scrutiny.

c. Conduct a complete review of the current procedures and instructions to judges concerning the granting of bail, and in particular, the provision of bail in cases where detainees are elderly, infirm or sick and make the findings of the review known publicly and what action is taken on the basis of the review to ensure that bail is granted in accordance with the terms of international human rights law.

d. Conduct a complete review of the provision of medical services to persons in state custody, taking into account statements by the doctors in the case of Amphon both with regards to the circumstances of his death and conditions in prison medical facilities in general, again make the findings and recommendations of the review known publicly, and indicate what steps are taken to implement recommendations to ensure that no further tragic deaths in custody occur as in the case of Amphon.

e. Revoke section 112 of the Criminal Code and the Computer Crimes Act, both of which are vehicles for the abuse of human rights by state agents and neither of which serves its ostensible purposes of protecting Thailand’s national interests.

@PravitR: ทวีตนี้แด่อากง SMS: This is lese majeste? V

This is our fifth post (see one, two, three, four) related to the accusation that Pravit Rojanaphruk has committed lese majeste with seven items listed as evidence. All articles are from Prachatai.

@PravitR: ทวีตนี้แด่อากง SMS

Fri, 2011-11-25 11:10 ประวิตร โรจนพฤกษ์

@PravitR

วันนี้ (24 พ.ย. 54) ข่าวคราวเรื่องอากง SMS หรือ คุณอำพล ขอสงวนนามสกุล (ที่ผมไม่เคยรู้จักหรือเห็นหน้ามาก่อน) โดยตัดสินจำคุก 20 ปี ภายใต้ประมวลกฎหมายอาญา มาตรา 112 หรือ กฎหมายหมิ่นพระบรมเดชานุภาพ และ พ.ร.บ.คอมพิวเตอร์ฯ มาตรา 14 ทำให้ผมรู้สึกสลดใจมาก แต่แทนที่ผมจะหลบไปดูหนังเพื่อให้ลืมสภาพสังคมไทยยุคสองพันห้าร้อยกว่าปี หลังพุทธกาล ผมกลับตัดสินใจลุกขึ้นมาสื่อสารกับโลกภายนอกผ่านทางทวิตเตอร์ ต่อผู้ที่เห็นด้วย เห็นต่าง หรือมองไม่เห็นอะไรเลย จึงขอคัดมาบางส่วนเพื่อให้ผู้อ่านประชาไทลองพิจารณาดูว่า บ้านเมืองนี้สภาพเป็นจริงเรื่องเสรีภาพในการแสดงออกเป็นอย่างไร

1. คิดว่าลูกหลานอากง SMS คงตาสว่างเลิกซาบซึ้งไป 7 ชั่วโคตร

2. คุณไม่สามารถทำให้คนมารักและเคารพผู้อื่นโดยการขู่ขังเขาได้

3. Big Bag ก็ไม่ต่างจาก ม.112 เท่าไหร่ คุณจะรู้สึกดีและซาบซึ้ง หากคุณอยู่ฝั่งที่ได้ประโยชน์ อีกฝั่งเป็นไงไม่สน

4. จะอีเกีย (IKEA) หรืออากง พวกคลั่งเจ้าก็ยังคงคลั่งได้เสมอต้นเสมอปลาย

5. พวกคลั่งเจ้าเคยถามตนเองไหมว่า การโยนคนเข้าคุกจะทำให้คน ‘รัก’ ในหลวงมากขึ้นได้อย่างไร

6. จะสอนคิดวิเคราะห์ไปได้ไกลแค่ไหน ในเมื่อสังคมบอกคุณว่า การคิดวิเคราะห์บางเรื่องเป็นอาชญากรรม

7. ผมพบว่า การถกเถียงเรื่องสถาบันฯ บนทวิตเตอร์ สะท้อนความเป็นจริงหลากมุมมอง ต่างจากภาพที่ถูกควบคุมโดยสื่อกระแสหลักอย่างสิ้นเชิง

8. หากคุณขอให้เขาเคารพสิทธิในความเป็นมนุษย์ของคนที่เห็นต่างไม่ได้ คุณจะขออะไรได้เล่า

9. เมื่อคุณห้ามไม่ให้คนคิดวิเคราะห์เรื่องอะไรบางอย่าง สังคมมันจะเติบโตด้วยสมองของตนเองได้อย่างไร

10. อากง SMS ติดคุก 20 ปี เป็นอีกสัญญาณที่บอกว่า คนไทยไม่ควรมีสิทธิแสดงความเห็นต่างเกี่ยวกับสถาบัน

11. ทุกคนในสังคมไทย ต้องรักและไม่ตั้งคำถามต่อสถาบันกษัตริย์หรือ?

12. ม.112 เป็นหัวข้อที่ “ละเอียดอ่อน” สำหรับผู้ที่ไม่มีความละเอียดอ่อนเรื่องความยุติธรรมและเสรีภาพในการแสดงออก

13. ส่ง SMS หยาบๆ สี่ครั้ง โดนคุก 20 ปี ประเทศนี้เขาคำนวณความยุติธรรมกันอย่างไร

14. ผมไม่รู้จักอากง SMS แต่ไม่ว่า อากงหรือากู๋ ไม่มีใครสมควรต้องติดคุกเพราะการใช้โทรศัพท์มือถือ

15. ที่ต้องมาทวีตเรื่อง ม.112 เพราะสื่อกระแสหลักมักไม่กล้าวิเคราะห์ ลองถามอดีตอดีตนายกสมาคมนักข่าวฯ @Prasong_Lert ดูสิครับ

16. จงมั่นใจว่า สุดท้าย ความเงียบที่ยัดเยียดให้ผู้เห็นต่าง จะนำมาซึ่งแสงสว่างทางปัญญาแก่ผู้อื่นอีกมากมาย

17. คุณทำให้เขาเงียบได้ แต่คุณทำให้เขาหยุดคิดไม่ได้

18. เรื่อง ม.112 คือการถกเถียง ต่อสู้ขั้นพื้นฐาน ว่ามนุษย์ ไม่ว่าจะรวย จน ไพร่ หรือเจ้า ควรได้สิทธิแสดงออกอย่างเท่าเทียมกันตามกฎหมายไหม

19. ทุกหนึ่งเสียงที่ถูกทำให้เงียบ จะปลุกคนอีกร้อยพันให้ “ตาสว่าง”

20. ขอเรียกร้องให้ทั้งสองฝ่ายที่ถกเถียงเรื่องเจ้ากับ ม.112 ละเว้นการใช้คำหยาบ เหยียดหยาม และหันมาใช้เหตุผลมากขึ้น

21. ผมขอร้องให้ royalist เปิดใจให้กว้าง และมองให้เห็นว่า คนคิดเท่าทันสถาบันฯ มีอยู่มากในสังคม และควรพูดคุยกันอย่างสันติและสุภาพ

22. ผมขอร้องให้ผู้เห็นต่างเรื่องสถาบันฯ ละเว้นการด่าทอ และการใช้ข้อมูลที่พิสูจน์ไม่ได้ แล้วพยายามพูดคุยกับ royalist ด้วยเหตุผล

23. พวกคลั่งเจ้า อำนาจลดลงเยอะในทวิตเตอร์ เพราะพวกเขาไม่สามารถตะโกนกลบเสียงที่เห็นต่างได้

24. พอพวกคลั่งเจ้าบางคนโกรธ เขาจะหยุดใช้เหตุผล แล้วด่าพ่อล่อแม่ ผมสงสัยว่า ปกติเขาใช้เหตุผลหรือไม่

25. คุณยิ่งขัง ประชาชนเขายิ่งคิด

26. จะอยู่กันอย่างไร? คนกลุ่มหนึ่งบอก ต้องการพื้นที่เพื่อพูดเท่าทันสถาบันฯ คนอีกกลุ่มบอก จงเข้าตารางไป

27. Royalist เลิกหลอกตัวเองว่า คนไทย “ทุกคน” รักในหลวงเถอะครับ หากจงยอมรับและกล้าพูดว่า หากใครไม่รักในหลวง ควรติดตาราง

28. การโยนคนเข้าตารางเพียงเพราะคนคิดเท่าทันสถาบันฯ รังแต่จะทำให้คนตาสว่างมากขึ้น

29. เมื่อคุณกักขังคนที่เห็นต่างได้ คุณก็คงไม่ได้มองเขาเป็นมนุษย์ เพราะมนุษย์กับการคิดแยกกันไม่ออก

30. เหตุผลของการทำให้คนเห็นต่างต้องเงียบและกลัวคือ การไม่ต้องการให้คนคิดเป็นเหตุเป็นผล

31. มีอะไรไม่ชอบมาพากลในสังคมหรือ คุณถึงอยากให้ผู้เห็นต่างต้องเงียบ

32. คุณขังกายคนได้ แต่ขังใจเขาไม่ได้

33. ประชาชนไม่ได้โง่ พวกเขาคิดเองได้ ถึงแม้บางคนจะถูกจองจำเพราะข้อหาคิด “ตรง” เกินไป

34. ทักษิณไปเรียนรู้เรื่องการป้องกันน้ำท่วมที่เกาหลีใต้ พวกคลั่งเจ้าควรไปเรียนรู้อะไรที่เกาหลีเหนือ

35. ท่านผู้นำเกาหลีเหนือคงทึ่ง ที่เมืองไทยจัดการกับผู้เห็นต่างได้อย่างรวบรัดดี

36. คนไทยจะไม่ตกเป็นเครื่องมือใคร หากมีข้อมูลโปร่งใส ถกในสาธารณะได้ โดยไม่ต้องติดตาราง

37. คุณอยากให้เด็กคิดเองเป็น แต่คุณบอกให้เขาจงเชื่อ และยัดเยียดข้อมูลด้านเดียวให้ตลอดทุกๆ วัน

38. อย่าไปหวังว่า คนจำนวนมากจะคิดเป็น หากไม่สามารถคิดเป็นเหตุเป็นผลเรื่องสถาบันฯอย่างเปิดเผยได้

39. หรือเอาเข้าจริง เขาไม่ต้องการความรัก หากอยากสร้างความกลัว

40. ฝรั่งถาม: ทวีตเป็นชั่วโมงซ้ำๆ เรื่อง ม. 112 ได้อย่างไร?

ผมถามกลับ: คุณทนฟังข้อมูลด้านเดียวเรื่องสถาบันฯ ทุกๆ วันผ่านทุกสื่อได้อย่างไร?

41. ฝรั่งที่ถามผมเรื่องทวีตเยอะๆ เรื่องม.112 อึ้ง และตอบไม่ได้ เมื่อผมถามกลับว่า ทนฟังข้อมูลประจบเจ้าผ่านสื่อทุกวันได้ไง

42. อากงโดน 20 ปี หากใครจะพูดเรื่องปัญหา ม.112 ไปอีก 20 ปีก็ไม่เห็นแปลก

ปล. หลังจากที่ผมทวีตไปได้หลายชั่วโมง ก็มีผู้ใช้ทวิตเตอร์คนนึงบอกให้ผมไปกินยานอนหลับแล้วตายซะ (เขาใช้คำว่า “แดกยานอนหลับ แล้วไปตายซะ”) แถมบอกด้วยว่า จะคอยสาปแช่งให้พ่อผมซึ่งเขาเรียกว่าควายให้ตายเร็วๆ วันละสามเวลา ซึ่งผมก็ทวีตบอกอีกคนหนึ่งว่า นี่แหละครับ ผลของสังคมที่ถูกยัดเยียด ห้ามไม่ให้ใช้เหตุผล

พอตกเย็น ผู้ใช้ทวิตเตอร์อีกคนหนึ่งชื่อ คำนูณ สิทธิสมาน ผู้เป็น ultra-royalist ตัวพ่อ ตัดสินใจมาติดตามบัญชีทวิตเตอร์ผม ผมจึงทวีตไปว่า ประตูมีหู ทวิตเตอร์มีตา

ส่วนตาใครจะสว่างหรือไม่ ก็เป็นอีกเรื่องหนึ่ง

Tanthawut remembers Ampol

PPT highly recommends the moving account of the life and death of Ampol Tangnopakul,written by fellow lese majeste convict Tanthawut Taweewarodomkul, and expertly presented by Tyrell Haberkorn at Prachatai.The translator writes:

The letter is translated here because it is an account of the events leading up to Ah Kong’s death, which remains surrounded by questions. It is a historical document –one which bears witness both to the injustice Ah Kong experienced and the compassion and solidarity between two friends, Ah Kong and Tanthawut.

It is a valuable document that everyone opposed to the draconian lese majeste law must read.

Freedom of expression (still) under attack

A written statement submitted by the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC), a non-governmental organisation with general consultative status

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 11, 2012
ALRC-CWS-20-06-2012

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Twentieth session, Agenda Item 3, Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression

THAILAND: Freedom of expression under attack

The Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) wishes to bring the crisis of freedom of expression in Thailand to the attention of the Human Rights Council. This statement is the third on this topic that the ALRC has submitted to the Council since May 2011. During the seventeenth session of the Council in May 2011, the ALRC highlighted the rise in the legal and unofficial use of section 112 of the Criminal Code and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act (CCA) to constrict freedom of expression and intimidate citizens critical of the monarchy (A/HRC/17/NGO/27). In February 2012, the ALRC detailed some of the threats faced both by those who have expressed critical views of the monarchy, both legal and extralegal, as well as those who have expressed concern about these threats (A/HRC/19/NGO/55).

The ALRC is again raising the freedom of expression to stress the persistence of the threat present, foreground the intensification of the dangers to human rights in Thailand broadly, and to acknowledge the continued courageous actions by citizens to revise or revoke section 112 and the CCA, despite these threats and dangers. As the ALRC has continually stressed, within the context of the political crisis that began with the 19 September 2006 coup and greatly increased with the violence of April-May 2010, the protection of fundamental human rights, including freedom of expression, is essential if there is to be the possibility of successful democratization and widespread access to justice in Thailand.

Section 112 criminalizes criticism of the monarchy and mandates that, “Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years.” Statistics provided by the Office of the Judiciary indicate a sharp rise in lese-majesty charges filed since the 19 September 2006 coup, with 33 charges filed in 2005, 30 filed in 2006, 126 filed in 2007, 77 filed in 2008, 164 filed in 2009, and an extraordinary 478 charges filed in 2010. While statistics released for the first five months of 2011 indicate a reduction in the number of charges filed, information for the second half of 2011 and 2012 to date has not been made available publicly. The failure of the Government of Thailand to provide information itself raises many unanswered questions about the use of the law to diminish space for freedom of expression through the use of secrecy and generating of uncertainty.

Court judgments in cases of individuals charged and prosecuted under a combination of section 112 and the CCA are similarly resistant to scrutiny and ready comprehension. Section 14 of the CCA notes that anyone can be jailed for five years if found to have imported to a computer “false computer data in a manner that it is likely to damage the country’s security or cause a public panic… any computer data related with an offence against the Kingdom’s security under the Criminal Code.” As section 112 also is classed as a crime related to national security, it can be powerfully combined with the CCA to punish dissent, or perceived dissent, carried out via electronic means. Two recent cases, of Mr. Amphon Tangnoppakul and Ms. Chiranuch Premchaiporn, illustrate the dangers to freedom of expression posed by categorizing criticism of the monarchy as a crime against national security and the lacunae in the CCA, which makes it a ready vehicle for enhancing these dangers.

On 8 May 2012, Mr. Amphon Tangnoppakul, a 61-year-old man, was found dead in prison custody. At the time of his death, Amphon was serving a 20-year sentence received upon being convicted of four violations under section 112 and the CCA on 23 November 2011. Amphon was convicted for allegedly sending four SMS messages defaming the Thai queen and insulting the honor of the monarchy. In this submission, we concentrate on the legal ambiguities and lacunae in the case that go to the criminalizing of free speech through the use of section 112 and the CCA in Thailand:

a. Similar to other court decisions in cases of alleged violations under section 112 and the CCA, the judges in this case had to infer the meaning of the four SMS messages in question (which was imprecise), the alleged intention of the defendant, and speculate on any potential damage caused to the monarchy and national security. At best, the court’s interpretation could be described as legally inexact. At worst, it can be described as complete fiction.

b. The court’s logic in finding the four SMS messages in question criminal rested on an argument about the validity of the information contained within them and on what this might cause readers of the messages to believe. More specifically, the judgment reads that the messages were

“… the import to a computer system of false computer data, that was defamatory, insulting, and threating to the king, queen, heir-apparent, and regent. would cause those who saw it to believe that the content of the messages was the truth, which would damage the nation’s security. As a result, some of the aforementioned actions of the defendant are likely to damage the honor and reputation of the king, queen, heir-apparent, and regent and to cause them to be insulted and despised. With an intention to cause the people to dishonor, fail to venerate, and threaten the king, queen, heir-apparent, and regent.”

Throughout the decision the adjective “likely” is used; in other words, damage was not caused by the SMS messages, but was probable in the opinion of the court. The ruling was not one that found the defendant guilty beyond doubt, but rested on a highly uncertain balance of probability.

c. In addition, to interpret under the CCA the sending of a rude SMS message as “the import to a computer system of false computer data” is to stretch the category of “false computer data” beyond the already broad ambit provided by the law. Several pages later in the court decision, “false” is elaborated in political, rather than scientific or legal terms. The judges write that the four SMS messages in question

“… are entirely false because the truth reflected for the people around the country is the king and the queen are full of compassion. They are concerned for every person in the land and perform their royal duties for the benefit and happiness of the Thai citizenry.”

While this may be the judges’ opinion of the monarchy, to categorize it as truth is an ideological stance inappropriate for an ostensibly independent judiciary to take, and does not constitute any form of grounds for conviction under law. Further, given the increased frequency with which section 112 is being enforced, this statement is difficult to appeal against, either in law or in public debate, without also risking being charged under the law.

d. Finally, even if the accused in this case had committed the offences as alleged, the 20-year sentence raises significant concerns about the proportionality of punishment for crimes of defamation in Thailand and speaks manifestly to an imbalance in the law of Thailand as written and as currently enforced between protecting the sovereign and protecting the human rights of people residing in the country.

On 30 May 2012, Ms. Chiranuch Premchaiporn, a 44-year-old human rights defender and webmaster of Prachatai, an independent online news site, was found guilty of one count out of ten alleged charges of violating the CCA. The charges against her in this case stemmed from her alleged failure to remove comments deemed offensive to the monarchy from the Prachatai webboard quickly enough. The prosecution alleged that this indicated her support of and consent to the comments, which constituted a violation under the CCA. She was sentenced to one year in prison and a 30,000 baht fine, which was reduced to a suspended sentence of eight months and a 20,000 baht fine.

a. In the decision, the judges responded with an assessment of the appropriate length of time. The decision notes that in nine of the ten comments in question, they were removed within one to eleven days, and that this indicates that Chiranuch did not intentionally support or consent to them. In the instance of the tenth comment, which remained online for twenty days before she removed it, however, the court concluded that this duration indicated “implied consent.”

b. Of particular concern to the ALRC was a statement in the ruling that while apparently endorsing freedom of expression in fact does precisely the opposite by imposing on the public the obligation to self-censor or be subject to criminal actions:

“The court acknowledges that freedom of expression is a basic right of citizens that is guaranteed and protected in every Thai Constitution. This is because freedom of thought and expression reflects good governance and the democratization of a given entity or nation. Criticism from the people, both positive and negative, provides an opportunity to improve the nation, given entity, and individuals for the better. But when the defendant opened a channel for the expression of opinions within a computer system, she was the service provider and it was within her control. The defendant had a duty to review the opinions and information that may have impacted the country’s security as well as the liberty of others which deserves similar respect. the defendant cannot cite freedom of expression in order to be released from liability.”

This statement, far from being an endorsement of free expression, is a direct attempt of the Court to disavow the right to freedom of expression found both in the Constitution of Thailand and in the ICCPR. The role of the Court and the judiciary in a broad sense should be to aid the development of justice and the rule of law, not aid in its dismemberment.

The ALRC is concerned that the cases of both Amphon Tangnoppakul and Chiranuch Premchaiporn are both indicative of how the judiciary in Thailand is marshaling spare evidence to convict persons of offences under political laws, and in so doing, of its role in eroding institutions and structures that are supposed to guarantee human rights and protect freedom of expression.

The ALRC also wishes to draw the Council’s attention to the courage of human rights activists, media advocates, and citizens in Thailand who continue to call for reform of section 112 despite the growing legal and extrajudicial threats they face. Under the 2007 Constitution, if at least 10,000 citizens sign in support of a proposed amendment to law, then it must be examined by the parliament. On 28 May 2012, the Campaign Committee for the Amendment of Section 112, a coalition of human rights and media activists, writers, artists, and citizens, presented 26,968 signatures in support of an amendment to section 112 limiting its use and reducing the punishment for violations. It is essential that in the coming months, the 26,968 citizens who signed in support of the draft amendment do not experience harassment or other repercussions for doing so.

The Asian Legal Resource Centre expresses solidarity with those persons in Thailand working to have laws aimed at narrowing the freedom of expression revoked or amended, and calls upon the Human Rights Council and also Special Procedures of the Commissioner for Human Rights to contribute to their efforts by urging the Government of Thailand to make the necessary changes to protect this fundamental human right. In this regard, the ALRC calls on the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression to continue to monitor the situation on the ground in Thailand and to request the government to make an official visit to the country at the nearest possible opportunity to meet with concerned persons and produce a report with recommendations to the Government of Thailand for legal and institutional changes to the same end.

More official nonsense on monarchy and lese majeste

During the period of the Abhisit Vejjajiva regime, it was reasonably common to see various Thai diplomats leaping to their keyboards to send off letters to magazines and newspapers to “correct” what they considered “incorrect” on the monarchy. Of course, what they produced was the usual officially-sanctioned royalist nonsense.

If a recent letter to The Economist is any indication, it seems that the Yingluck Shinawatra government is going to retrace the ideological path taken by Abhisit’s royalist regime. This is not surprising given the efforts Yingluck has made to accommodate with the royalists and royals who were previously on the other side. And, it was under Thaksin Shinawatra that a couple of foreign journalists were harassed on lese majeste accusations and The King Never Smiles was banned.

In the letter to The Economist, Rutchabhoom Boonrawd, First Secretary at the Embassy in London, writes to provide “facts,” presumably considered missing in the short story on the death in custody of lese majeste victim Ampol Tangnopakul. As that (rather innocuous) story (12 May) caused the whole of that issue of the newspaper to be withdrawn in Thailand, PPT posted it.

Rutchabhoom’s response is little more than the royalist blarney of the past, but includes some new twists and squirms. The letter begins: “First, we are deeply saddened by the death of Mr Ampon.”

None of the rest of the letter suggests that there is any sadness. And, the judiciary’s propensity for enormous sentences suggests no sympathy at all. Ampol got 20 years and just yesterday 72 year-old Surachai Danwattananusorn was slammed with a total of 25 years! Yes, it was reduced by half for a guilty plea, but 12.5 years is a death sentence. There’s no sympathy or sadness at all.

Rutchabhoom almost immediately attacks those who see Ampol’s death as a travesty of the (in)justice system and the political use of lese majeste, stating: “It is regrettable that certain groups have tried to gain publicity from his death for their own political means.”

That line was sprouted by numerous ultra-royalists in Thailand after Ampol’ss death. Conveniently those making this point neglect that Ampol’s arrest, jailing, charging, trial and verdict were all used by royalists in making a very particular political point: no one can criticize the monarchy because it is the linchpin of the repressive royalist state. The “protection of the monarchy” and its accoutrements requires that even sick and poor old men must be left to rot in horrid jails.

Rutchabhoom goes on to “explain” that “Mr Ampon, as with other prisoners with health problems, was provided with proper medical treatment for his illness in the corrections department hospital.” It seems that Rutchabhoom thinks that Thai prisons are a bit like a health resort. We doubt whether anyone else considers Thai prisons such great places. Indeed, even the lese majeste-hopeless 2011 human rights report of U.S. State Department states:

Prison conditions were poor. Most prisons and detention centers were overcrowded. There were approximately 250,000 prisoners in prisons and detention facilities designed to hold 150,000. Sleeping accommodations were insufficient, medical care was inadequate, and communicable diseases were widespread in some prisons

Rutchabhoom’s nose is looking pretty long as he adds that Ampol “was allowed to leave the corrections facility to receive chemotherapy treatment at an MRI centre five times in 2011 and twice this year.” We can only assume that Rutchabhoom is misinformed as MRIs are diagnostic. Ampol died of liver cancer, and if he was having MRIs then even as a diagnostic tool this would not necessarily be especially helpful in finding the cancer. Perhaps Rutchabhoom just gets all of this wrong. Perhaps he’s making it up.

Unsurprisingly, Rutchabhoom then states:

the legal proceedings against Mr Ampon were carried out in accordance with Thai law and due process, including the right to a fair trial, assistance from lawyers and ample opportunity to contest the charges. He was also entitled to appeal.

This is little more than really stupid propaganda. Ampol was detained without bail while awaiting trial. This meant that he and his lawyers were unable to prepare his case adequately. The trial was a travesty of justice, with the court unable to prove that Ampol sent the messages but still convicted him because he could not prove that he didn’t send them.

The final paragraph of the letter is another plagiarism from the Abhisit regime:

the lèse-majesté law is part of Thailand’s criminal code, which also contains provisions on defamation and libel for private individuals. The law gives protection to the rights or reputations of the king, the queen, the heir-apparent or the regent in a similar way that libel law does for commoners. It is not aimed at curbing people’s rights to freedom of opinion and expression, nor the legitimate exercise of academic freedom, including debates about the monarchy as an institution.

This is royalist nonsense. Sure, due to extensive political conflict in recent years, debate has emerged, but that is one reason why the law has been used so enthusiastically: trying to limit discussion. There is no similarity in the way that the lese majeste law and libel laws are implemented. The former is a political law that defends a political and social regime. It is used to limit political opposition. In addition, the logic of the claim is missing: if the libel law was indeed similar, then why have the lese majeste law at all!

Readers can read a very similar account of lese majeste by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs under yellow shirt Kasit Piromya here. As far as defending the monarchy in the MFA, nothing seems to have changed since the bellicose Kasit was running the show.

US and UK governments and lese majeste

It has long been known that the Government of the United States couldn’t care less about lese majeste in Thailand. Not even when one of their own – Joe Gordon – is incarcerated for totally legal actions in the Unites States does the government get off its lazy, politicized and collective posterior and do or say anything principled.

PPT has posted on the recently published but hopelessly, probably deliberately, deceitful U.S. “human rights” report for Thailand in 2011. If it wasn’t deliberately deceitful, then we imagine that everyone on the Thailand desk at the Department of State and in the Embassy in Bangkok has been lobotomized to the extent that they are deaf, dumb and blind on lese majeste and other political prisoners in Thailand.

A reader points out a useful story at IPS News reflecting on the hopelessly unprincipled and contradictory approach to human rights by the U.S. The rport coincides with the release of the annual human rights reports.

The report quotes the head of Amnesty International’s Washington office who criticizes the U.S. for “selectively champion[ing] freedom and human rights when convenient…”. PPT entirely agrees.

Of course, we also wonder what AI does about its own selectivity on lese majeste in Thailand. What they criticize for the U.S. government has long been characteristic of AI Thailand’s selectivity and Benjamin Zawacki’s unprincipled position on lese majeste.

As the IPS story makes plain, the State Department has explained its unprincipled actions in terms of President Barack Obama’s “theory” of “principled engagement”, where human rights are contingent, limited and inconsistently prioritized.

All of that says quite a lot about lese majeste and political prisoners in Thailand. They are ignored because other interests – economic, military, ideological – hold sway.

But what about the Government of the U.K.? Readers may recall that a week or so ago, we briefly mentioned questions posed regarding lese majeste and political prisoners by the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kerry McCarthy Labour MP. The responses are instructive. Here they are:

Q. 1: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Thailand on the imprisonment and death of Ampon Tangnoppakul.

A. 1, by Jeremy Browne (Minister of State for South East Asia/Far East, Caribbean, Central/South America, Australasia and Pacific, Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Taunton Deane, Liberal Democrat):  In November 2011, following the sentencing of Ampon Tangnoppakul, the UK issued a statement jointly with our European Union partners to express concern about the court decision to convict and imprison Ampon for 20 years. The statement reiterated the importance attached by the EU to the rule of law, democracy and respect for human rights. The EU also urged the Thai authorities to ensure that the rule of law was applied in a non-discriminatory and proportional manner consistent with upholding basic human rights, including freedom of expression.

PPT: This is essentially a non-response, and completely ignores the question related to Ampol’s death in custody. As weak as this is, at least “concern” has been expressed.

Q. 2: … what recent assessment his Department has made of access to health care for prisoners in Thailand.

A. 2: Conditions in Thai prisons are generally poor. Prisons are old and often have run down infrastructure. However, basic medical treatment is available in all prisons in Thailand and prisoners may be transferred to a local hospital for more complex medical treatment.

As part of our consular responsibilities, embassy staff in Thailand visit British detainees every eight weeks. These visits are carried out by trained consular staff, who check the welfare of detainees. Any issues of concern can be then brought to the attention of the prison authorities, including any medical or dental problems a detainee might have.

PPT: This is essentially a non-response. At least conditions are described as “poor,” but then any visitor to a prison recognizes this within seconds, so not great insight. There seems no idea of how many prisoners die while incarcerated or of the actual availability of medical care to prisoners. The rampant corruption of prisons is not mentioned. Lese majeste detainee Darunee Charnchoensilpakul has been waiting some 4 years for proper dental treatment. Ampol died while in a prison “hospital.”

Q. 3: … what assessment his Department has made of the treatment of people (a) arrested and (b) convicted under lèse majesté laws in Thailand.

A. 3: The UK attaches great importance to human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right of every human being. We are closely following the development of freedom of expression in Thailand and are concerned by the significant increase of lese-majeste cases in the country and the application of the laws and length of sentences in recent cases.

With our European Union partners, the UK expressed concern last year at the conviction and imprisonment for 20 years of Ampon Tangnoppakul for violating the lese-majeste laws.

Our embassy in Bangkok continues to monitor the ongoing trials of high profile lese-majeste and freedom of expression on the internet cases. We have urged the Thai Government to ensure that the rule of law is applied in a non-discriminatory and proportionate manner consistent with upholding basic human rights, and will continue to take appropriate opportunities to do so.

During my visit to Thailand in 2010, I raised the issue of conditions for detainees in Thailand, referring specifically to the importance of access to exercise, proper food and medical facilities.

PPT: This is more like a real answer. Yes, the trite human rights response is repeated, but Browne indicates that there is concern for the development of freedom of expression in Thailand, about the large increase of lese majeste cases and the length of sentences. That the Embassy monitors trials is presumably useful. His representations on the conditions of detainees apparently had no impact at all.

Q. 4: … what assessment his [Browne's] Department has made of the compliance of lèse majesté laws in Thailand with Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and what representations he has made to the government of Thailand on freedom of expression and the lèse majesté laws.

A. 4: We understand the particular reverence the people of Thailand have for the monarchy. The Government attaches importance to the respect of fundamental human rights in line with the universal declaration of human rights. Specifically on article 19 which covers freedom of opinion and expression, the UK thinks that it should be possible to discuss constitutional reform without fear of coming under the purvue of laws that were designed for non political purposes. In October 2011 at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the human rights situation in Thailand was reviewed as part of the Universal Periodic Review process. The UK played an active role, including raising our concerns about freedom of expression and specifically recommending that the Thai Government seek to review its lese-majeste laws. The report of this session can be found online at the following link: http://www.upr-info.org/IMG/pdf/a_hrc_wg.6_12_l.6_thailand.pdf

Our ambassador in Bangkok has raised the issue of freedom of expression with the Thai authorities. I also raised the issue when I visited Thailand in September 2011. We will continue to take appropriate opportunities to do so.

PPT: A reasonable answer suggestive of the U.K. Government being concerned about the suppression of discussion of constitutional matters, including the position and role of the monarchy.

While the answers do sound like the usual parliamentary careful responses, if they are compared with the pathetic U.S. human rights report “there are no political prisoners” nonsense, then the U.K. response is downright explosive.

PPT can’t help thinking that readers can bring pressure on their local and national politicians to ask more questions of Thailand’s government and embassies about these issues. We have some links that readers might find useful here.