Updated: Protecting kings and courts

The reaction to the lese majeste sentencing of Somyos Prueksakasemsuk has unleashed a torrent of negative international criticism and, while muted by various laws, domestic criticism has been heard as well.

Predictably, the ultra-royalists reaction has been one of  exultation, for the madder PAD types believe that the monarchy is under threat. Rather than recognizing that royalists are destroying it by their demented actions, they prefer to conjure Thaksin Shinawatra as the financier of republicans. Thus they defend the kangaroo courts and cheer when enemies are locked up for years. They attack each and every one of those who criticize lese majeste convictions with xenophobic zeal. They damn foreigners for failing to understand “Thai culture” and denigrate Thai critics as dangerously “un-Thai.” They justify repression and censorship as absolutely required to “protect” the monarchy.

That the conviction of Somyos further extends the repressive scope of lese majeste is cause for royalist celebration.

The Nation notes that his conviction was the “first time a magazine editor has been sentenced to jail for violating the lese majeste law…”. In a sense, though, this chilling application mirrors the manner in which webmasters are held responsible for each and every comments posted on their sites.

The judgement deserves consideration for the way that the courts, as a bastion of royalist reactionary politics, interpret and broaden the scope of the law and how they justify this unconstitutional extension of “their” law.

The Nation says that:

… the four judges ruled that although the two articles never directly mentioned the name of HM the King or Rama I, their context suggested the fictitious name of “Luang Naruebarn” was in fact a reference to HM the King.

An unofficial translation of the summary of the verdict is available from Prachatai. Rather than reproduce it in full, PPT merely offers some commentary:

The plaintiff charged that in the period between the daytime of 15 February 2010 and the daytime of 15 March 2010, the defendant defamed, insulted and threatened His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the Head of the Kingdom of Thailand….

We looked at the Thai version and it doesn’t say “head,”  but refers to the monarch of the kingdom.

A first Voice of Taksin magazine article, which did not mention the king by name or title, defamed, insulted and threatened him because it:

conveys the message that His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej was the person who gave the order for the massacre in the 6 October 1976 event, and had been planning situations to slaughter a number of people mercilessly after the verdict to seize Thaksin Shinawatra’s assets.

The judges this was “unfounded.” In fact, while a good historical case can be made that the palace fomented murderous right-wing vigilantism that saw royalists go on a killing spree, no single order is ever likely to be revealed. Another article, which also did not mention the king by name or title, was construed offensive as it:

… conveys the message that His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej was implicated in various conflicts and bloodshed in Thailand, and that His Majesty masterminded initiatives which dismantled pro-democratic movements.

This was also said to be “unfounded.” Again, though, very good academic accounts of this king’s failure to promote democratic progress while supporting military coups and authoritarian regimes are already available. Ignoring this, the court decided that while neither of the articles mentions the king by name, they were:

written with the intention to link past events together. When events of the past are brought together, it can be implied that they refer to His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

“Implied” lese majeste has now been used against Somyos and Jeng Dokchik or Yoswaris Chuklom. This is a chilling interpretation of an already draconian law.

The court defends this real expansion of the law with threats. In another story at The Nation, it is reported that the “Criminal Court’s chief judge yesterday countered criticism by foreign organisations…”. Thawee Prachuablarb “warned that the court might take legal action against those who unfairly attack it.” We aren’t sure why “fairness” is used here, for this is the last concern of the court. He added that

the lese majeste law reflected Thailand’s culture, which is different from those of other countries. “It is narrow-minded to describe the court as barbaric or as an organisation that protects the monarchy,” he said.

Of course the culturalist argument is the usual royalist nonsense also peddled in palace propaganda. The idea that the court is not “an organisation that protects the monarchy” is simply ludicrous and a lie of royal proportions. However, we agree that the court is not barbaric; it simply serves and protects its feudal masters.

Update: Several readers have asked PPT to post the charges against Somyos. THese have been at the page we maintain for Somyos, now under Convictions. For ease of access, we reproduce our links here: His charges may be seen in this PDF in ไทย or this unofficial translation in English (Warning: readers should note that this document includes reproductions of the material determined to be in breach of the lese majeste law. Downloading it and/or distributing it may lead to a similar charge of lese majeste).

Lese majeste politics

Pravit Rojanaphruk begins his story on the ditching of the citizen-proposed lese majeste bill at The Nation with this:

Hope that the lese majeste law might be amended under the Yingluck Shinawatra government was unceremoniously dashed last week.

In fact, they were dashed during the election campaign and soon after. The timid government decided that lese majeste was simply too divisive and that having the military brass and palace on the war path accusing Puea Thai of disloyalty was best avoided.

Pravit refers to House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranond’s rejection and claims by Somsak’s spokesperson that “the issue was tied to the monarchy, the current charter forbids any changes of law related to the institution…”.

PPT thinks this is the usual spinelessness on the monarchy and doubts that the claim is sound. But legal soundness means nothing in royalist Thailand.

Pravit reckons that the summary rejection of the Campaign Committee for Amendment of Article 112 bill “will likely send people to seek other means to undermine the blanket censorship imposed on anything mildly critical of the monarchy institution…”. He adds that:

The shutting down of legal debate is unlikely to curb the sense of injustice suffered by Thais who value freedom of expression and who feel that it is long overdue for scrutiny and open criticism of the monarchy like those in the United Kingdom, Japan and Spain. They feel this is a fundamental right and that they can always compare how monarchies in other democratic countries are criticised and made publicly accountable.

We agree. PPT also agrees with Pravit’s observation that:

Some defenders of the law say the majority of Thais are not intelligent or mature enough to be able to separate fact from fiction, and lies from reliable information. Others may in fact be afraid that people are in fact smart enough and able think for themselves. While many ultra-royalists will readily venture to tell Thais and foreigners alike that most if not all Thais love and revere HM the King, these very people contradict themselves when they express fear about what may become of the institution if people are suddenly free, able to access and critically discuss, or even criticise the monarchy.

As long as this political and repressive law remains and continues to be used and abused, royalists and the palace itself remain defensive and skittish, knowing that there is remarkable dissatisfaction with the status quo and that there are some major obstacles for the palace ahead, including the greying of the palace, more health problems, and succession.

Truth?

As people begin to wade through the Truth for Reconciliation Commission report on the April and May 2010 violence, it seems that the initial public relations exercise of praising the report for “truth, balance, impartiality and fairness” is beginning to drain away in the face of more thoughtful and less propagandist accounts. The huge effort expended on tracing “men in black” – in some accounts there were apparently hundreds of them – seems to amount to almost nothing in the TRC’s report. Bangkok Pundit concludes: “The thought of reading the report given its length and that it really doesn’t tell us much more than what we knew before.”

Pravit Rojanaphruk, who seemed to have a leaked report (and a longer one!), is now more critical in his assessment than in his earlier account. At The Nation he refers to the TRC report as “a missed opportunity to establish truth and reconciliation.” He points out:

It is no secret that the TRCT’s birth was controversial. Then-prime minister Abhisit had hand-picked chairman Kanit na Nakorn and one of the key commissioners, human-rights lawyer Somchai Hom-laor, had shown signs of being partial towards the yellow shirts. In 2006, he had written to old friends asking them not to be too harsh with the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) in 2006.

Pravit adds that: “its credibility was further undermined when it appointed Maetha Maskaow, a former close aide and protege of PAD secretary Suriyasai Katasila, as a member of its investigation subcommittee.”

Hence, all the concentration on “men in black,” which begins to look like a yellow shirt account, is said to have been “presented in far too broad a brushstroke, leading to more questions.” Indeed, for PPT, it is just an account of previous accounts with little added. All it seems to do is look for reasons why the military killed so many. The fact is, the military was shooting before alleged actions by “men in black.”

Pravit points out the spurious claim by the TRC “of knowing the true ‘intentions’ of the ‘men in black’ was never substantiated…”. He concludes:

Nevertheless, without basing its “truth” on clear methodology and evidence that can be widely accepted and trusted on both sides of the political divide, reconciliation is very unlikely and impunity can almost be guaranteed.

Truth for Reconciliation report on Battle for Bangkok

Pravit Rojanaphruk at The Nation reports on the Truth for Reconciliation Commission final report on the violence associated with the Abhisit Vejjajiva regime’s several attempts to clear red shirts protesters in April and May 2010. Pravit states that he received an advance copy of the report, so PPT hasn’t seen it.

We won’t comment in detail on Pravit’s report, but as far as PPT can ascertain, there is nothing particularly new in the TRC’s account, and it’s methodology is unclear until the report is released.

Pravit focuses on claims that “men in black” were involved in the violence and that they “may have got cooperation from red shirts.” Neither claim is new, and in his account, Pravit sheds no light on the claims.

The report states that “security officers eventually used live bullets, deployed snipers and were likely responsible for the six deaths at Wat Pathumwanaram on May 19, 2010.” Again, nothing new in this, but as it is a  515-page report, PPT would expect that something original might be in there somewhere.

What isn’t at all clear is how the TRC concludes that: “Both [sides] believe they were victims. The operation by the ‘men in black’ were very instrumental in creating and elevating the violence with the aim of provoking the Army to use weapons against protesters and wanting to exact the loss of lives…”. The claim that the death of Colonel Romklao Thuwatham “led to the confusing and out-of-control use of weapons by soldiers”, seems to excuse the already confused and deadly actions by the army prior to that incident.

That the TRC is able to say that “soldiers then used rifles and fired ‘many’ live bullets in the direction of the red-shirt protesters” but is unable to “explicitly link… the deaths to soldiers” is bizarre.

The report’s claims about events at Wat Pathum Wanaram seem curiously outdated by recent events, at least as reported by Pravit.

We are sure that the report will unleash further discussion when it is released next week.

Updated: The religion of lese majeste

At Prachatai Pravit Rojanaphruk picks up on a picture PPT also commented on, where ultra-royalist/neo-fascists referred to an alleged incident involving the king’s photo and a foot.

Pravit says this equation of the king/monarchy with religion and god-like qualities is one of the “newer manifestations of the increasingly religious dimension of how some ultra-royalist Thais regard the monarchy institution, especially HM the King.”

We disagree that this is new, but do think that the battle for hearts and minds in recent years, that has increasingly come to focus on the preservation of the declining monarchy has seen an intensification of the cult of personality.

Pravit notes that:

In a country where politicians are often regarded as corrupt and evil, many royalists feel there is a need to inject a sacred dimension into society as opposed to the supposedly evil and profane corrupt and self-serving politicians. The monarchy institution, and particularly the current HM the King, is thus regarded by ultra-royalists as ‘sacred’.

PPT recalls an article by Thongchai Winichakul some time ago in the Journal of Contemporary Asia, where he made similar points relating to the denigration of politicians as venal and evil versus the alleged sacredness and goodness of the monarchy. Download that article here.

Of course, this is all propaganda, and Thongchai explains the history of the process of ideological development. But that this is all a fairy tale is hardly the point for the ultra-royalists who feel rudderless without the symbolic father figure to lead them in their battle with the evil and venal.

Pravit states that:

Many ultra-royalists think you cannot criticize God and laws such as the lese majeste and Computer Crimes Act will ensure that few will challenge the discourse of the King being purely good and benevolent.

We know that to be true and that lese majeste has become a convenient means to try and protect and prolong a declining social order. This is a rearguard action ultimately doomed to failure but is now an act of faith. This is because of the eye-opening events of recent years that has shown the royal image to be nothing but childish propaganda.

Pravit is right in his observation that: “The notion of good and virtuous person is hierarchical, as it stands in opposition (and above) that of bad as well as ordinary people.” At the same time, the basic failure of a monarchy in a democratic society is that in its very existence it is a medieval notion of hierarchy.

Update: A reader points out this YouTube video of Thongchai discussing “hyper-royalism.”

Pravit’s lese majeste allegation under investigation

Lisa Gardner at Siam Voices has a brief article that confirms the lese majeste allegation against journalist Pravit Rojanaphruk is being investigated by the police. No charge has yet been laid.

The allegation apparently relates to articles written for Prachatai, The Nation and even a tweet. PPT has posted all of them (see one, two, three, four, five, six and seven). The accusation is made by serial lese majeste accuser Wiput Sukprasert, an ultra-royalist based in Roi Et.

Pravit was questioned by police, as was the editor of Prachatai.

Updated: Red shirts and 24 June

PPT is sure that most readers will appreciate the significance of 24 June 1932. For those wanting a Wikipedia backgrounder, see here and here. Readers probably also know that red shirts are going to rally on 24 June – Sunday – and that the choice of date – the 80th anniversary of the 1932 Revolution – is no accident.

Pravit Rojanaphruk at The Nation has an article that summarizes some of the thinking. PPT won’t detail all of the article, just highlight a couple of points.

Pravit begins by noting that:

On Monday this week, a group of Thammasat and Chulalongkorn University students wearing pseudo-1930s military uniforms gathered in front of Army Headquarters to urge the military to stop staging coups d’etat for good.

What a great idea! Of course, it is not a little ironic that the military once considered itself as the protector of the 1932 changes, and now considers itself the protector of the monarchy.

Memorial of the Revolution on the Royal Plaza: “…ณ ที่นี้ 24 มิถุนายน 2475 เวลาย่ำรุ่ง คณะราษฎร ได้ก่อกำเนิดรัฐธรรมนูญ เพื่อความเจริญของชาติ”; “…here, in the dawn of 24 June 1933, the Khana Ratsadon has brought forth a constitution for the glory of the nation” (From Wikipedia)

Pravit also reminds us that it was two years that the red shirt June 24 Democracy Group led by the now jailed lese majeste accused Somyos Prueksakasemsuk, ” called for the re-designation of June 24 as National Day…”.

The reason for the call is the recognition that in 1960 the royalist military dictator Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat ditched 24 June as National Day in an ideologically-driven decision to make the current king’s birthday, 5 December, the National Day.

This was a clear denigration of the overthrow of the absolute monarchy as Sarit continued the royalist restoration as remembrances of the historic event of 1932 were gradually erased.

On the linking of red shirts and 24 June, Chulalongkorn University historian Suthachai Yimprasert argues that:

After the coup, people recognised that democracy was under siege and they went back to search for the meaning and origin of democracy [in Thailand]. Events [commemorating] June 24 have grown bigger year by year [since the 2006 coup],” said Suthachai. He added, however, that all activities related to the day have been organised by private groups and citizens, in contrast to the period between 1938 and 1960, when they were organised and celebrated by the state as National Day.

Pravit points out that one of the few physical reminders of 1932 is “the modest bronze plaque [see above] marking the spot where the June 24 revolt took place, set in concrete in the ground at the Royal Plaza…”. There have been attempts in recent years to stop people gathering at this plaque.

That red shirts see links between their struggle and that of 1932 is deeply troubling to royalists, not least because they have spent decades trying to erase the event, and now the red shirts inject it with new meaning.

Update: Readers might also enjoy this rendition of the 24 June National Day song, which is virtually never heard today.

Monarchists and royalists on lese majeste

PPT has finally had the time to compose a comment on two recent discussions of lese majeste. We think both efforts, while useful in keeping the issue on the international agenda, were problematic.

At Siam Voices, Lisa Gardner has a bit of detail on the “Rhetoric and Dissent: Where to next for Thailand’s lèse majesté law?” discussion from a week or so ago. The discussion involved two of the respected and aged gentlemen of Thai studies, Sulak Sivaraksa and Benedict Anderson along with two younger generation journalists,  Pravit Rojanaphruk and Andrew MacGregor Marshall.

Frankly, we found the discussion rambling and not particularly revealing of anything new. Still, that probably shows how far things have moved on monarchy and lese majeste in recent years. The comments we felt were most problematic were from the outspoken Sulak. While he has been on the receiving end of lese majeste charges in the past, this doesn’t mean that everything he says on the topic makes sense.

We agree with Sulak that: “If journalists had more guts, if they can speak critically, openly, things would change enormously – but they all avoid the issues…”. He’s certainly right when he observes:

I think, on the whole, people don’t take the monarchy as that sacred, that wonderful, as they try to tell you in the media. As they try to tell you in educational institutes.

His comment on the greed of the Crown Property Bureau is also worth repeating:

I think if the monarch (keeps) clear from the greed that is the Crown Property Bureau – if they’re clear from the army, which represent power – I think the monarchy will become less powerful. Like it used to be….

But we stop agreeing there. His next claim is that: “I think the King made it very clear. The case of LM – each case – harms him personally and undermines the monarchy. He made that very clear…”. PPT thinks, and we’ve said it several times, this is a patently false claim. In fact, Sulak knows it. In one of his own cases, the Royal Household Bureau was crucial in determining that he should be “taught a lesson.” Following the king’s statement on lese majeste, nothing changed except that cases have increased. Not only was the king’s statement far from clear, but we find it astounding that anyone can think that if the king wanted the law changed that it wouldn’t be done.

Sulak then asks:

But why [d]oes this government not carry out the King’s wishes? Because Thaksin [Shinawatra] wants more and more cases of lese-majeste, to undermine the King and to harm him personally…

For PPT, this is utter nonsense. It is clear that the Thaksin-Yingluck position is defined by their belief that the lese majeste law is non-negotiable. The Army, other ultra-royalists and the palace have made this plain.

It is not just the current government that has kept the law. The government led by privy counselor Surayud Chulanont was perfectly placed to implement the king’s supposed will. It didn’t. Perhaps the biggest user of the law against political opponents – the Abhisit Vejjajiva government – was less likely to do the king’s alleged will yet we don’t Abhisit and his lot thought they were doing the king’s will by throwing red shirts in jail.

Sulak’s claim is largely driven by his anti-Thaksin politics. He claimed his most recent lese majeste case was a result of Thaksin trying to get him. Frankly, we doubt this for several reasons, not least being that Sulak is simply not as politically significant as he thinks he is.

We now turn to the recent Al Jazeera program on lese majeste. We posted the link a couple of days ago, and have just had a chance to watch the show. There was much of interest in the first half of the story and quite a lot of it  very sensible.

The first scene that caught our attention was when self-described ultra-royalist Taweesak Suthakavatin explained why the monarchy is so important for him and Thais in general. He states that Thais are not suited to “Western” democracy because they are not rational in politics! Because they are prone to patronage, Thais are best off with the supposedly benevolent king at the head of the patronage system. Thus  Taweesak manages to denigrate Thais as incapable of engaging in politics and in need of a stern and loving father.

Remarkably, half of the Al Jazeera show is handed over to an interview with a monarchist (Sulak, again) and two royalists (Tul Sitthisomwong and Panitan Wattanayagorn). We’re not sure why the producers decided on these three, but having Sulak as the “opposed to lese majeste” speaker against an academic who has sold his soul and services to the military and the so-called Democrat Party and the clown royalist Tul is a strange combination.

Sulak says pretty much the same as he does in the above-mentioned discussion. In this program, though, he comes across as sensible and reliable when compared with the dolts Tul and Panitan.

Panitan is the most annoying because he seems to want to reinvent himself as a disinterested academic. For example, when asked why there are calls for the lese majeste law to be amended, his first point is that the law has been vigorously used in recent years. He doesn’t mention that he was the spokesman for the government that most abused this law, and that he wholly supported throwing political opponents in jail. When he adds that “several divisive groups have tried to use the law to their own advantage,” he is demonstrating a remarkable degree of arrogance.

His arrogance is meant to mask his deliberate deceptions. When asked about the misuse of the law, he does not mention the government he served and their repeated use of the law against political opponents. When he says anything about the Abhisit government it is to claim that its committee on lese majeste, which oversaw the biggest rise ever in cases charged, dropped a case against BBC journalist Jonathan Head. PPT has seen no independent evidence for this claim, and when we heard Panitan earlier on lese majeste at the FCCT, he made no mention of this. When he speaks of prosecutions he makes it sound like those charged are somewhere other than in jail.

Does he really believe that he will not be seen as a dissembler and a charlatan? Panitan can’t help himself as he arrogantly lies and conjures fantasies with no hint of shame.

He’s more real when he speaks of the lese majeste law as important for national security and when he babbles about the king being vital for everything Thai and for the “well-being” of the country. That’s the line that allows the law to be endlessly abused.

Panitan supports the law, and Sulak makes him look rather silly when he declares the law “antiquated, old-fashioned, useless.”

Having Tul on the program is pretty much a waste of space. He’s indisputably vacuous and has a single line: don’t change the law. He simply can’t explain why in any cogent way.  When listening to him rail against red shirts and that 3-15 years in jail for offenders is a reasonable sentence, he demonstrates a breathtaking ignorance.

There’s much more from Tul and Panitan that is bizarre, fatuous and untruthful. We could say that they come across as the Laurel and Hardy of lese majeste, but that would be insulting to the great comedy duo.

สังคมที่ทุกคนต้องคิดและพูดเหมือนกัน มิใช่สังคม: This is lese majeste? VII

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

สังคมที่ทุกคนต้องคิดและพูดเหมือนกัน มิใช่สังคม

ประวิตร โรจนพฤกษ์

1. สังคมที่ทุกคนต้องคิดและพูดเหมือนกัน มิใช่สังคม มันคือคุก

2. รัฐเซ็นเซอร์หลายสิ่งหลายอย่างเพราะกลัว

กลัวว่าประชาชนจะมีวุฒิภาวะมากกว่าผู้ปกครองที่มองพลเมืองเป็นเพียงเด็ก

เป็นลูกที่ไม่มีวันโต และไม่จำเป็นต้องโต

หรือมิเช่นนั้นก็มองเป็นผู้ต้องถูกเอาเปรียบที่อาจลุกฮือ

หากเข้าใจความจริงบางอย่าง และตาสว่างขึ้นมา

3. ความจริงเป็นสิ่งไม่ตาย แต่มีกี่คนต้องติดคุกเพราะความจริง

4. คนไทยเป็นไทเพียงแค่ชื่อ ตราบใดที่ยังไม่เข้าใจว่า ความเป็น “ไท” คืออะไร

5. บางคนเซ็นเซอร์ผู้อื่น เพราะรู้สึกไม่มั่นคง เพราะไม่แน่ใจว่า

สิ่งที่ครอบงำประชาชน จะยังคงมีประสิทธิภาพอยู่หรือไม่

6. ถึงคราบางคน “ปลดรูป”

บางคนบอกไม่เคย “แขวนรูป”

รูปที่ไม่เคยแขวน บูชา ไม่จำเป็นต้องปลดลงมา

วิถีประชาธิปไตยไม่ควรบูชาใคร ไม่ว่ารูปทักษิณ หรือรูปผู้พิสดารใด

7. จะบูชาใคร ไปใยทำไมกัน ในเมื่อทุกคนก็คนเหมือนกัน

8. นี้หรือสังคมไทย สังคมที่อวดอ้าง ว่าเป็นดีเสรีหนักหนา

ดีจนความจริงหลายประการ ถูกทำให้เป็นสิ่งที่พูดเขียนไม่ได้ เป็นอาชญากรรม

ต้องโทษร้าย ยิ่งกว่าฆ่าคนตาย

9. คุณกล่าวหาว่าเขาไม่เป็น “ไทย”

คุณทำอย่างกับว่า ความเป็นไทยเป็นของพวกคุณเพียงกลุ่มเดียวในสังคม

10. ยิ่งคุณเซ็นเซอร์เขา เขาก็ยิ่งเกลียดคุณ

11. การเซ็นเซอร์ย่อมไม่ระงับด้วยการเซ็นเซอร์

12. การยัดเยียดข้อมูลเพียงด้านเดียว ย่อมนำมาซึ่งความเสื่อมโทรมและอ่อนแอแก่สังคม

13. เขียนจดหมายถึงฟ้า มันก็หาว่าจาบจ้วง

พอจะจัดทอล์กโชว์ มันก็บอกว่าวันนี้ไม่เหมาะ

พอนายพลใหญ่บอกใครวิพากษ์กษัตริย์ต้องถูกจับ พวกมันกลับแซ่ซ้องสรรเสริญ

เขียนระบายในส้วมปั้มน้ำมันก็อาจทำให้เจ้าของต้องติดคุกได้

ระบายลงเน็ตก็ยังถูกไล่ล่าดั่งแม่มด

หรือพวกคุณจะให้ผมคิดว่า นี้คือสังคมในอุดมคติ

สังคมที่ผู้คนต่างต้องคิด เขียน และพูดเหมือนกันไปหมด พร้อมตะโกนโห่ร้องว่า

“ทรงพระเจริญ!”

“ทรงพระเจริญ!”

“ทรงพระเจริญ!”

14. คนไทยจำนวนหนึ่งต้องติดคุกเพราะวิพากษ์สถาบัน

วันที่ 5 ธันวา วันที่คนจำนวนมากเฉลิมฉลองเทิดทูนกษัตริย์

ว่าพร้อมซึ่งทศพิธราชธรรม

ผมกลับนึกถึงคนที่ต้องติดอยู่ในคุกเหล่านั้น

ทั้งๆ ที่ผมไม่เคยรู้จักพวกเขาด้วยซ้ำไป

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