Darunee’s lese majeste appeal fails

The Appeals Court has upheld the 15-year lese majeste prison term for Darunee Charnchoensilpakul. Da Torpedo is being punished for comments deemed insulting of the king and queen in a political speech in 2008. She was a strong critic of the 2006 military coup.

It was the so-called People’s Alliance for Democracy and its supporters who originally brought media attention to her speech at an anti-coup rally, baying for Darunee’s incarceration on lese majeste charges. Repeatedly refused bail and dragged through secret trials and a series of appeals, the royalist courts have repeatedly made it clear that Darunee is to be punished. Readers can see the details of royal and royalist retribution here.

It is worth noting that the charges were laid – under huge political pressure – by the pro-Thaksin Shinawatra government led by the late Samak Sundaravej.

The Appeals Court ruled that her conviction and long sentence on three counts of lese majeste and agreed with prosecutors that her speech “expressed her malicious intent against Their Majesties the King and the Queen.” The prosecutors say that the speeches “led to misunderstanding and caused DAAD [UDD] demonstrators to hate Their Majesties…”. YouTube has four excerpts from one of her offending speeches, in Thai, with limited English titling. Search for “Da Torpedo” at YouTube and the speeches come up.

The Appeals Court judges reportedly “saw that Daranee’s behaviour had caused damage to the reputation of Their Majesties and she deserved to be punished to warn others not to follow her example.”

PPT has made this point several times in the past – Darunee’s case is important for the royals and royalists as an example. Of course, the things that she said are widely known and, today, are all over social media. Yet she was one of the first to use these items as parts of political speeches in the post-coup era and is thus punished many times over in sham trials and repeated violations of her constitutional and other legal rights.

Darunee is a political martyr for free expression and in establishing a debate on the political role of the monarchy. Her case was one of the first to gain media attention – albeit tepid – in the massive increase of lese majeste charges hurled at political opponents following the coup.

Akechai on lese majeste

At Prachatai, academic Tyrell Haberkorn has translated a remarkable document by now-imprisoned lese majeste activist Akechai Hongkangwarn.

Sentenced at the end of March , Akechai has requested bail while he appealed the conviction, but bail has been denied and he remains in the overcrowded Bangkok Remand Prison.

Prior to his conviction, Akechai wrote an analysis of the history of the lese majeste law over more than 100 years, the  Computer Crimes Act,  and the recent efforts to changes these laws and implement political amnesties. This tract is long and deserving of study. Here, PPT mentions just a few highlights.

In noting the first lese majeste law on 1 June 1908, Akechai notes that the law applied to king, queen, crown prince and regent but also applied to historical royalty and could apply to “anyone who violated either of these two laws in a foreign country would be punished in Siam.”

The revised Criminal Code promulgated on 13 November 1956  “reduced the number of people protected to only include the present-day King, Queen, Heir-apparent, and Regent, eliminated fines and kept a maximum 7 year sentence, but set no minimum. Akechai says: “This was tantamount to repealing Article 100 of the Penal Code of R.S. 127 [1908].” The application to those overseas remained.

It was following the massacre and coup of 6 October 1976 and under the present king’s selected prime minister, Thanin Kraivixien, that Article 112 was strengthened, setting a minimum sentence of 3 years and a maximum of 15 years.

The only other times that even harsher measures were proposed was following the 2006 coup. First, when yet another king’s favorite, Surayud Chulanot, was prime minister. As Akechai notes, only heavy local and international criticism saw the proposed changes dropped. Second, under pro-Thaksin Shinawatra premier Samak Sundaravej, who was also involved in the regressions of 1976. This amendment was also withdrawn.

The 2007 Computer Crimes Act, first proposed during Thaksin’s government and made law under Surayud’s appointed regime, is “an attempt by the rulers to promulgate a new law in order to control lèse majesté from spreading on the internet, because it could not be addressed by Article 112.” Like laws of old, “anyone who violated this law in a foreign country would be punished in Thailand…”.

On amnesty, Akechai “found 3 amnesty laws which constituted an amnesty for Articles 98 and 100 of the Penal Code of R.S. 127 [lese majeste] and Article 112 [lese majeste] of the Criminal Code.” He notes that there “have not been any laws which provide an amnesty for the Computer Crimes Act.”

The first granted amnesty to the 1932 People’s Party. The second was under Kriangsak Chomanan, in 1978, when he “passed the Amnesty for those who committed offences in the demonstrations at Thammasat University between 4 and 6 October 1976′.” It covered a lese majeste case. The third was in 1989, under the “government of General Chartchai Choonhavan [that] issued an amnesty for those whose actions were a violation of national security of the state in the kingdom following the Criminal Code and offences under the Anti-Communist Activities Act of 1989.” It also applied indirectly to at least one lese majeste case involving Veera Musigapong.

When he examines drafts of amnesty laws in the current period, Akechai states:

Among all 8 of the draft amnesty laws proposed by various sectors during the past 2 years, there is not even one that mentions amnesty for lèse majesté or Article 112 of the Criminal Code/Computer Crimes Act at all. Yet it may be incorrect to conclude that these amnesty laws do not provide an amnesty for lèse majesté.

I have examined the 8 draft amnesty laws and found 2 drafts of interest. These are the Draft Constitution for Amnesty and Eliminating the Conflict (proposed by the Khana Nitirat in 2013, timeframe of 19 September 2006 — 9 May 2011) and the Draft Act for Amnesty for People Imprisoned and Undergoing Prosecution Resulting from Political Conflict from 1 January 2007 until 31 December 2011 (proposed by the UDD in 2013, timeframe of 1 January 2007 – 31 December 2011).

… Upon examination of these two drafts, I am certain that these are amnesties for lèse majesté, but not that every case of lèse majesté can be covered by the amnesty from these two draft laws.

 

Further updated: Gubernatorial election round-up

As regular readers will know, PPT didn’t have much interest in the gubernatorial election campaign of the last few weeks. We did post on Abhisit Vejjajiva as damaged political goods and had a comment on what was Democrat Party desperation as the polls were against them.

When all the votes were tallied, the incumbent Democrat Party Governor Sukhumbhand Paribatra won by 100,000+ votes over his Puea Thai Party opponent. Both candidates secured more than a million votes each, a feat only achieved once before by any candidate, and that was Samak Sundaravej in 2000.

As one commentator at New Mandala summed it up, about as well as any of the professional poll watchers:

Everyone got it wrong. All the pollsters (pre-election and exit) got it wrong with all predictions towards a landslide win by the Yingluck-Pongsapat PT team. Bangkok Pundit got it wrong … and this guy follows and reads only Thai polls these days. Even the eventual winner reelected Bangkok governor Sukhumband got it wrong: at a televised interview just after the election closed he was just about to choke and in not so many words was almost apologizing/expecting a loss (believing the exit polls no doubt) saying he’ll probably just return to a lowly position in the Democrat Party.

Not everyone was wrong, with the Democrat Party’s Korn Chatikavanij having predicted a Sukhumbhand victory last week.

Interestingly, the official red shirts were quick to congratulate Sukhumbhand:

UDD co-leaders congratulated Mr Sukhumband on a fair and clean victory in Bangkok’s gubernatorial elections on Sunday:

Dr Weng said, “We would like to congratulate Mr Sukhumband and welcome him again as the governor of Bangkok…. We want to thank Bangkokians for defying the rain and going out to vote. It is crucial for us to express this right because, in so doing, we strengthen democracy in Thailand.

The post adds that the red shirts, who had 12,000 monitors, considered that the polling had been “according to the rules” and with few incidents.

In addition, the “UDD co-leaders reacted positively to the marked increase in support for the Pheu Thai candidate since the last election.” The Bangkok Post also commented on this, citing Wuthisarn Tanchai of the King Prajadhipok Institute, who observed that:

Despite the Democrat victory Mr Wuthisarn noted a significant increase in the number of votes for the Pheu Thai Party in the city. Pheu Thai’s political base in Bangkok is apparently expanding and the Democrats need to be wary of the threat this poses, he said.

He added that: “Voters seemed to be split between the Democrats and Pheu Thai, with few votes going to independents.” That last point is significant as the two major parties dominate and the political division remains strong. This is shown in one of the graphs produced by Bangkok Pundit in his post-election report.

Siam Voices also has a useful post-election coverage, concluding:

Governor Sukhumbhand is the unlikely winner of the election, considering various failures during his last term – conflicts during the floods of 2011 and ending at the Futsal arena fiasco. Sukhumbhand has been given a second chance to rule the capital, but for the Democrat Party it is the very last chance.

Of course, it is also a chance for Abhisit who was probably facing major internal opposition if Sukhumbhand had lost. He hadn’t wanted Sukhumbhand to run, but when Sukhumbhand said he’d run as an independent if the party didn’t choose him, Abhisit had to back him as a split Democrat Party vote would have handed Bangkok to his rivals.

Update 1: After initially chortling about the result, it is interesting that The Nation is now taking a more sober look at the outcome. The Bangkok Post also reports that the Democrat Party is worried by the big gains made by the Puea Thai Party.

Update 2: Songkran Grachangnetara in an op-ed at the Bangkok Post: “I voted for MR Sukhumbhand because Mr Abhisit opposed his candidacy. I’m sorry, but anyone Mr Abhisit thinks doesn’t deserve to run under the Democrat banner must be doing something right. The lack of support for MR Sukumbhand’s candidacy from the bumbling leaders of his own party is nothing short of betrayal.”

Abhisit’s continuing mendaciousness

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva has long been short on truthfulness. His latest foray into his parallel world of twisted words and actions is revealing of habitual conjuring of propagandized unreality.

The Bangkok Post cites Abhisit’s latest conjuring. To most observers the Democrat Party is deeply embedded within the dinosaur movement Pitak Siam. By their own words and deeds the Democrat Party has shown its continuing reliance on anti-democratic political movements, just as it has relied on the anti-democrats in the palace, military and ultra-royalists in the past.

So when Abhisit is “demanding the government take responsibility if violence erupts at the Pitak Siam anti-government rally this Saturday,” it becomes clear that Abhisit and his party are hoping for violence and the catalyst of a 2008-like movement against the elected government, again.

Abhisit’s mendacious statements were legendary when he was premier, and nothing has changed. When the Puea Thai “government claimed it knew of some parties who planned to create untoward incidents during the protest,” Abhisit sprang to the defense of his “party,”  daring the government to crack down “to prevent violence.” Of course, he relishes the idea that ultra-royalists will become violent so that his party can benefit.

The tendentiousness of Abhisit’s claims are immediately indicated by Democrat Party spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut’s claim that “the government of trying to block people from joining the Pitak Siam rally.” Clearly, Abhisit’s blaming of the government is seen as nothing by Democrat Party for undemocratic politics.

Meanwhile, the government and red shirt qualms regarding the plans by the dinosaur movement were well-expressed by “Deputy Commerce Minister and red-shirt leader Nattawut Saikuar said yesterday the anti-government rally would not be able to overthrow the government in one day without a ‘special situation’.” He observed that such a situation was possible “with support from the party that had overthrown the past governments of Thaksin [Shinawatra], Samak Sundaravej and Somchai Wongsawat.”

What party might that be? The Democrat Party can be excluded for they are followers, not movers and shakers. We suspect he points to the military-palace coalition.

Unelected senators back on the job

As readers will know, PPT hasn’t been following the rice pledging policy in any detail. We had an earlier post on political voice, regarding opposition to a bunch of yellowish academics and other hangers-on at the National Institute of Development Administration petitioning the royalist Constitutional Court on the policy and scheme. Their petition was rejected.

Now, however, the word seems to have gotten to the Group of 40, mostly unelected senators and a few of their brethren, all stridently anti-Thaksin Shinawatra (and opposed to the present government) that they should also petition the Constitutional Court on the scheme, with more hope of success.

The military junta’s 2007 constitution was blatant in its anti-democratic sections that included ensuring that the Senate would be representative of the interests of the conservative elite, whether their preferred party was elected or not. It seems that the decidedly yellow-shirted senators have again been activated in an effort to challenge the government on one of its core election promises, now being implemented.

The Bangkok Post reports that the demon-seed senators have petitioned the court “to rule whether the rice scheme needs parliamentary consent under Article 190 of the charter.” This is the section that has been used previously as part of the effort to undermine and eventually bring down the pro-Thaksin Samak Sundaravej government in 2008. That section reads, in part:

… A treaty which provides for a change in the Thai territories or the Thai external territories that Thailand has sovereign right or jurisdiction over such territories under any treaty or an international law or requires the enactment of an Act for its implementation or affects immensely to economic or social security of the country or results in the binding of trade, investment budget of the country significantly must be approved by the National Assembly. In such case, the National Assembly must complete its consideration within sixty days as from the date of receipt of such matter.

It is the yellow ones’ contention that claimed government-to-government rice trade deals constitute a “treaty.” In fact, most of these senators have been baying for government blood, claiming that there are no government-to-government rice deals, and the government is lying about them. Now they claim that these (non-existent) deals are the equivalent of a treaty.

There is no doubt the government should be more transparent on these claimed deals, but the shenanigans of the unelected should also be carefully scrutinized for the forces that are motivating them to nonsense claims. Of course, the Constitutional Court is not averse to upholding nonsense.

Remembering the 2006 military-palace coup

It is six years since the yellow-tagged military rolled its tanks into Bangkok’s streets to oust Thaksin Shinawatra and his Thai Rak Thai Party government. Thaksin had many faults and made many mistakes. Paramount amongst them was his development as a popular leader – in February 2005 his party had won the biggest ever landslide in Thailand’s electoral history – and the threat this apparently posed to Thailand’s royalist elite.

Behind government administrations lurked the real power holders in the military brass, the palace and the upper echelons of the bureaucracy who together comprised the royalist state. Thaksin’s reliance on votes and the fact that he accumulated them as never before was an existential threat to the powers that be. Their final response after destabilizing the elected government was to get the military to chuck it out.

Six years later, with Thaksin’s youngest sister in the prime minister’s chair, the political struggle continues. PPT felt that our best way of observing the anniversary of the military-palace power grab is to re-link to the Wikileaks cables that reflect most directly on that coup. Here they are:

• Prem Tinsulanonda prepares the ground for the coup
• The king’s relaxed and laughing attitude to the coup
• Samak Sundaravej’s comments on the queen and her political position on the coup
• The junta as the Council for Democratic Reform Under the Monarchy
• Prem relaxed, confident, and very pleased with the course of events
• Abhisit Vejjajiva welcomes the coup
• Human Rights Watch’s Sunai Phasuk on the coup of last option
• U.S. Ambassador on the coup as good news
• Anand Panyarachun on supporting the coup
• Bowornsak Uwanno as a messenger for the junta

There are more cables on the figures circling around the coup and the events immediately before and after the coup, giving a pretty good picture of how the royalist elite behaved and what they wanted the embassy to know.

Sondhi and lese majeste

AFP reports on Sondhi Limthongkul’s lese majeste case as the extreme royalist and nationalist People’s Alliance for Democracy ideologue prepares for court once more in the next few days. He is accused of repeating excerpts of a speech by red shirt political activist Darunee Charnchoensilpakul that has seen her sentenced to 15 years in jail following sham trials.

Sondhi, who is often obtuse in his comments on his activities, has “denied charges of insulting the monarchy, saying his trial was politically motivated.” He did not nominate who the political opponents pushing the case were, but added that his “aim was to tell people that there was an insult against the monarchy, and to encourage the police to take legal action against those who said it…”. In other words, he claims to have been charged for “protecting” the monarchy while acting as a highly public snitch.

Sondhi claims that he had no “intention to insult the monarchy and all my past actions show my loyalty to the monarchy…”.That said, Sondhi has not only been in dispute with pro-Thaksin groups. As we posted not long ago, he has a long dispute with people close to Privy Council President General Prem Tinsulanonda. The 2009 assassination attempt on Sondhi has not been consistently attributed to either side.

The legal action on his case goes back to 2008, under the pro-Thaksin Shinawatra government led by the late Samak Sundaravej. Darunee, arrested at about the same  time,  has been through two trials and has been locked up for the whole period; Sondhi has been free and the trial delayed over the whole period.

As well as mentioning several convictions that have been handed out to Sondhi – yet he remains out of prison – the AFP report adds: “The Yellows claim allegiance to the throne and are backed by the Bangkok-based elite…”. While PAD has declined, it remains a potential political weapon and is much admired by senior members of the Democrat Party.

Panic in the senate

A couple  of weeks ago, PPT posted that the military-royalist appointees were trying to retain control of the Senate Speaker’s position.

As we explained then, the undemocratic constitution, put in place in 2007 by the military junta’s flunkies, changed the Senate from an elected body to one that is half appointed by a coterie of royalist judges and notables. This arrangement was meant to be the royalist elite’s fix to ensure that the parliament didn’t engage in any further dangerous democratization.

They lost, with an elected senator elected to the Speaker’s position. According to the Bangkok Post, the fanatically yellow-shirted Group of 40 Senators are squealing about “impartiality. This group of totally partisan senators, most of them unelected, are questioning Nikom Wairatpanich’s impartiality. Nikom was elected to the senate and then elected Speaker, but, as we know, yellow shirts hate elections.

The Post, seemingly showing its yellow credentials, states:

Mr Nikom’s support mainly came from elected senators who usually vote in favour of the Pheu Thai-led administration. He was also nominated for the job by Direk Thuengfang, a staunch supporter of the government’s charter amendment and reconciliation bids.

It seems that elected senators electing another elected senator to be president of an undemocratic body is just too much like… well, democratic representation. The Pos bleats about Nikom’s links to former pro-Thaksin Shinawatra premier Samak Sundaravej and yet is forced to add “in his capacity as deputy senate speaker, did not show his political leanings.”

The unelected lot and those who want them there are desperate because they fear constitutional reform could get rid of their undemocratic control of parliament.

Maintaining the Yubamrung clan

The Puea Thai Party should be embarrassed by the antics surrounding Deputy Prime Minister and former policeman Chalerm Yubamrung and his efforts to promote his sons. The nepotism involved in the continued rehabilitation of Chalerm’s disgraced son reflects poorly on the party and government.

The latest report at The Nation is bizarre and might even be a joke if it didn’t involve murder. The Nation reports that Chalerm’s youngest son, now Police Lieutenant Duang Yubamrung, has “reported to his new job yesterday as a shooting instructor at the Metropolitan Police Bureau’s training centre.”

The report reminds readers that:

Duang was accused of shooting dead on-duty Pol Senior Sgt-Major Suwichai at a Bangkok nightclub in 2001 and then fleeing, which resulted in him being discharged from the Army the following year…. After Duang surrendered in 2003, he was acquitted on grounds of insufficient evidence and conflicting witness accounts. Later, in 2008, then-prime minister Samak Sundaravej approved Duang’s application to return to the military.

Duang’s transfer to the police was described by Police Colonel Supat Peungpoung, who oversees the training centre, as:

a good move because he was very skilled in using pistols and hence could put such knowledge to good use by teaching it to other officers. Since the centre usually invited experts to lead training sessions, Duang would be the centre’s first in-house shooting expert and instructor, he added.

The stupidity of calling the former Duangchalerm “skilled” with pistols even when his case of a 2001 murder using a handgun was acquitted after being in exile several years ago seems lost on the Chalerm supporters in the police (see here and here for earlier stories). The nepotism of having the son of the minister in charge of the police reinstated also seems lost.

Wikileaks: The Democrat Party and following orders

In a Wikileaks cable signed by U.S. Ambassador Eric John and dated 30 July 2008, the main story is about the defection of a tiny party from the Samak Sundaravej coalition government.

At the time there had been some discussion of a “national government” that was thought by a few to be an opportunity for crating “unity.” Embassy people raised the issue with “Isra Sunthornvut, Secretary to Democrat Party Leader Abhisit Vejjajiva…”. His response is recorded:

 Isra told us there were currently no plans for the Democrats to join a “government of national unity” … and it was difficult for him to imagine the formation of such a cabinet. Isra assured us that politicians would not come to such an arrangment [sic] by themselves, although, if instructed to do so by the palace, they would obey.

That seems a clear statement of who was the boss for the Democrat Party at the time. No mumbling in this conversation about the monarchy or palace being “above politics.”