Let the blood flow!

24 03 2014

Several readers have sent us links to reports of a speech by long-time yellow-shirt and (by definition) anti-Thaksin Shinawatra lawyer Kaewsan Atibhodhi. We are using a link we were sent for a Facebook post at Kaewmala ThaiTalk. It is revealing of the hatred of the red shirts and the desire for a final and bloody battle with the red shirts. Presumably martial law requires a military coup and the military then gunning down red shirts (again) for the likes of Kaewsan:

… Kaewsan Atibhodi caused a big stir with his fiery speech last night. How fiery? Aj. Somsak Jeam[teerasakul] has sourced a video (from Blue Sky Channel) and transcribed part of his speech which I have translated into English below.

[PPT: Kaewsan begins with the usual nasty personalized attacks on Yingluck Shinawatra and others he hates, calling them fools, dogs, jungle lizards and using foul language throughout. At times he refers to the "Thaksin regime" and members of the Shinawatra family and red shirts as a cancer on Thailand that needs to be surgically removed. Cuting out the cancer appears to require a bloodletting.]

Mr. Kaewsan is a former law lecturer, former senator, and a well known politician-turned activist in the establishment camp. He shows us how “righteous people” can be _very scary_ indeed.Kaewsan was saying if the Redshirts would ‘dare come’ (กล้าเข้ามา) to Bangkok, they would have to be “quashed” (ปราบ). [PPT: thinks "suppressed" or "crushed" is a better translation.]

Quote: “… Firstly, whenever the Redshirts, whether as a force within their party, an armed group, or a mass [rally], dare come and put a knife at the neck of the NACC, the Court or the Bangkokians, and say ‘Don’t move while we continue to rape you!’, whenever it comes to that point, there’s no need for any election. Declare martial law and quash them. Quash them! Enough, enough. Enough of this repeated [aggression?]. [They] reject the power of the Court, reject the law, insult and abuse, make corruption, issue laws for themselves. Again and again. In other countries, they would have all been shot f**king dead. That leaves just us, standing right here. Whenever it comes to that point, they say they’ll come on April 5, I say there’s no other way out. If the cancer is this aggressive, it calls for surgery. Declare martial law. Take care of them. Point 1, what I have just said is not Khun Suthep’s or PDRC’s opinion, but a legal opinion as to what course of action is needed for the cause. Point 2, after the force has been used to maintain order…”

“…หนึ่ง เมื่อไหร่พวกแดง ไม่ว่าในพรรคหรือกองกำลัง หรือมวลชน กล้าเข้ามาเอามีดจ่อคอ ปปช หรือศาล หรือคนกรุงเทพ (แล้ว)บอกมึงอย่าขยับขอกูข่มขืนต่อไป เมื่อไหร่มันมาถึงจุดนั้นเมื่อไหร่ ไม่ต้องเลือกตั้ง ประกาศกฏอัยการศึก ปราบมันเลย ปราบมันเลย พอแล้ว พอแล้ว ซ้ำซากพอแล้ว ปฏิเสธอำนาจตุลาการ ปฏิเสธกฎหมาย หยามเหยียด คอร์รัปชั่น ออกกฎหมายเพื่อตัวเอง ซ้ำๆซากๆ เป็นบ้านอื่นเมืองอื่นเค้าไล่ยิ่งแม่งตายไปหมดแล้ว มีพวกเรานี่แหละยังยืนอยู่นี่แหละ แต่ถ้าถึงจุดนั้นเมื่อไหร่ ที่ว่า 5 เมษายน จะมานี่นะครับ ผมว่าไม่มีทางออกทางอื่น ถ้ามะเร็งมันกำเริบขนาดนี้นะครับ ต้องผ่า ประกาศกฏอัยการศึก จัดการมันเลย ข้อที่ 1 ที่ผมพูดไปนี่ ไม่ใช่ความเห็นคุณสุเทพหรือ กปปส แต่เป็นความเห็นในทางกฎหมายว่า ว่าเหตุถึงขนาดนี้แล้วต้องทำอะไรบ้าง ข้อที่ 2 หลังจากใช้กำลังจัดการให้อยู่ในที่ในทาง …”

From Min. 25 in this video:

นี่คือคำพูดเต็มๆของแก้วสรร เมือคืนนะครับเมื่อคืน ผมฟังสด แล้วเขียนสรุปไป ไม่กี่นาที ผมก็ตัดสินใจ”ซ่อน”ไว้ เพราะมาคิดว่า น่าจะดูคลิปและถอดคำพูดเขาให้ตรงๆเป๊ะๆดีกว่า แต่ก็มีเพื่อนหลายท่าน “ไว” มาก capture ทีผมโพสต์ และบางท่าน ยังทำเป็นสไลด์ รูปแก้วสรร แล้วเอาคำทีผมสรุปไปโพสต์ด้วยว่าเป็นคำแก้วสรรจริงๆที่ผมสรุปก็ตรงนะ ไม่ได้บิดเบี้ยวอะไร แต่นี่คือ คำพูดของเขาจริงๆ คำต่อคำ นาทีที่ 25 นะครับ (ตอนแก้วสรรพูด “ปราบมันเลย” ย้ำ 2 ครั้ง นี่เน้นเสียงดุดันมาก) ขอให้สังเกตว่า “ตัวอย่าง” ที่แก้วสรรพูดว่า ถ้าเสื้อแดง “กล้าเข้ามา” นี่คือตัวอย่างจริง เรื่อง นปช นัดชุมนุม 5 เมษา ด้วย”…หนึ่ง เมื่อไหร่พวกแดง ไม่ว่าในพรรคหรือกองกำลัง หรือมวลชน กล้าเข้ามาเอามีดจ่อคอ ปปช หรือศาล หรือคนกรุงเทพ (แล้ว)บอกมึงอย่าขยับขอกูข่มขืนต่อไป เมื่อไหร่มันมาถึงจุดนั้นเมื่อไหร่ ไม่ต้องเลือกตั้ง ประกาศกฏอัยการศึก ปราบมันเลย ปราบมันเลย พอแล้ว พอแล้ว ซ้ำซากพอแล้ว ปฏิเสธอำนาจตุลาการ ปฏิเสธกฎหมาย หยามเหยียด คอร์รัปชั่น ออกกฎหมายเพื่อตัวเอง ซ้ำๆซากๆ เป็นบ้านอื่นเมืองอื่นเค้าไล่ยิ่งแม่งตายไปหมดแล้ว มีพวกเรานี่แหละยังยืนอยู่นี่แหละ แต่ถ้าถึงจุดนั้นเมื่อไหร่ ที่ว่า 5 เมษายน จะมานี่นะครับ ผมว่าไม่มีทางออกทางอื่น ถ้ามะเร็งมันกำเริบขนาดนี้นะครับ ต้องผ่า ประกาศกฏอัยการศึก จัดการมันเลย ข้อที่ 1 ที่ผมพูดไปนี่ ไม่ใช่ความเห็นคุณสุเทพหรือ กปปส แต่เป็นความเห็นในทางกฎหมายว่า ว่าเหตุถึงขนาดนี้แล้วต้องทำอะไรบ้าง ข้อที่ 2 หลังจากใช้กำลังจัดการให้อยู่ในที่ในทาง …”

Kaewsan has a long history of supporting anti-democratic causes, from the People’s Alliance for Democracy to the military junta in 2006 and every royalist and fascist group that has been created since.

Back when the military junta appointed him to “examine” Thaksin’s assets, the Assets Scrutiny Committee (or the Asset Examination Committee) was stacked with anti-Thaksin appointees and its work was only ruled legal because its work was undertaken under junta rules. PPT’s favorite example of “independence” of this mob was Kaewsan, as its secretary, claimed “evidence and witnesses are useless,” with one of its panels recommending legal action without hearing 300 witnesses or considering 100 additional pieces of evidence (Bangkok Post, 9 April 2008). Now he just wants a bloodletting. This is the kind of legal/political mind who wants to “reform” Thailand!





ALRC, lese majeste and the UN

26 02 2014

Reproduced in full:

ALRC-CWS-25-07-2014
February 24, 2014

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Twenty fifth session, Agenda Item 3, General Debate

A written submission to the UN Human Rights Council by the Asian Legal Resource Centre

THAILAND: Legal and Extralegal Threats to Freedom of Expression

1. The Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) wishes to raise grave concerns about the intensification of legal and extralegal threats to freedom of expression in Thailand. Carried out in the name of protecting the monarchy, this range of threats constitutes the entrenchment of the normalization of the violation of human rights and curtailment of freedom of expression. This statement is the eighth 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 Article 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). During the nineteenth session 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). During the twentieth session in June 2012, the ALRC raised concerns about the weak evidentiary basis of convictions made under Article 112 and the CCA (A/HRC/20/NGO/37) and the concerning conditions surrounding the death in prison custody of Amphon Tangnoppakul on 8 May 2012, then serving a 20-year sentence for four alleged violations of Article 112 and the CCA (A/HRC/20/NGO/38). During the twenty-second session in March 2013, the ALRC highlighted the January 2013 conviction under Article 112 of human rights defender and labour rights activist Somyot Prueksakasemsuk (A/HRC/22/NGO/44). During the twenty-third session in June 2013, the ALRC emphasized the regularization of the crisis of freedom of expression, and noted that constriction of speech had become constitutive of political and social life in Thailand (A/HRC/23/NGO/42). During the twenty-fourth session in October 2013, the ALRC emphasized the dangers of the normalization of the violation of human rights in the name of protecting the monarchy (A/HRC/24/NGO/35).

2. Over the course of the prior seven statements, the ALRC first noted with surprise the active use of measures to constrict speech, then tracked the expansion of this use, and finally, the entrenchment of the foreclosure of freedom of speech. The ALRC is again raising the issue of freedom of expression with the Council because the law has continued to be actively used to violate the right to freedom of expression and extralegal threats to freedom of expression, and human rights broadly, have emerged in Thailand. In the statement submitted to the Council in October 2013, the ALRC warned that the routine denial of bail and the use of vague references to national security to attempt to legitimize the violation of the human rights of those with dissident views had become normalized. In this statement, the ALRC wishes to alert the Human Rights Council to ongoing developments that indicate the urgency, and growing difficulty, of addressing the crisis of freedom of expression in Thailand.

3. There are two primary laws that are used to both legally constrict freedom of speech in Thailand and create a broad climate of fear for those who hold dissenting opinions. Article 112 of the Criminal Code 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.” The 2007 Computer Crimes Act (CCA), which was promulgated as part of Thailand’s compliance as a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, has been used to target web editors and websites identified as critical of the monarchy or dissident in other ways. The CCA provides for penalties of up to five years per count in cases that are judged to have involved the dissemination or hosting of information deemed threatening to national security, of which the institution of the monarchy is identified as a key part. While Article 112 has been part of the Criminal Code since the last major revision in 1957, available statistics suggest that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of complaints filed since the 19 September 2006 coup; how often these complaints become formal charges and lead to prosecutions is information that the Government of Thailand has continuously failed to provide up to the present. The CCA has often been used in combination with Article 112 in the seven years since its promulgation; similar to the use of Article 112, the Government of Thailand has not made complete usage information available. This failure to make information public about the frequency and conditions of use of both laws creates fear and diminishes the space for freedom of expression through the use of secrecy and creation of uncertainty.

4. In addition to the continued use of the law to constrict speech, recent events indicate that there is an increase in the potential for extralegal violence against those who hold dissident views. During the statement submitted to the nineteenth session (A/HRC/19/NGO/55) in March 2012, the ALRC warned the Council about the threats made against members of the Khana Nitirat, a group of progressive legal academics at Thammasat University who proposed reform of Article 112. In response, hundreds of threats were posted online against the group, calling for the members to be attacked, killed, beheaded, and burned alive. Subsequently, one of the members of the group, Professor Worachet Pakeerut, was assaulted outside his office at Thammasat by two young men who later told the police that they attacked him because they disagreed with his ideas.

5. On February 12, 2014, an attack on another progressive academic, Professor Somsak Jeamteerasakul, a history professor at Thammasat University and outspoken political and cultural critic, indicates a renewed increase in the permissive climate for extralegal intimidation and violence of those who hold dissenting opinions. Two assailants fired repeated gunshots at the home and car of Professor Somsak. Although he did not sustain any physical injuries, the damage to his car and house indicate that the violence was intended to be deadly. The attack took place during the day, while Professor Somsak was at home, which lends further credence to the idea that the perpetrators intended to inflict harm or death and that they were unconcerned with being seen.

6. Professor Somsak Jeamteerasakul’s writing and teaching have inspired many students and citizens to carefully examine the past, present, and persecution of the powerless by the powerful in Thailand. His criticism often makes those in power uncomfortable, and there has been an attempt to use Article 112 to curtail his speech. In April 2011, a police investigation began against him in relation to a complaint likely made in relation to comments he made in article about a Princess Chulabhorn’s (one of the daughters of the current Thai king) appearance on a talk show. This case is still ongoing, even though Article 112 does not apply to Princess Chulabhorn, and so there is no legal restriction of comments made about her. In early February 2014, the deputy spokesman of the Royal Thai Army commented that the Army plans to file additional complaints of violations of Article 112 against Professor Somsak in relation to comments he posted on the social media website Facebook.

7. The ALRC is particularly concerned that the violent attack on Professor Somsak has come so close following the comments of the deputy spokesman of the Royal Thai Army regarding further proceedings under Article 112 against him. While the identities and motivations of the attackers remain unknown pending police investigation, the temporal link to the formal and legal action taken against him by the Royal Thai Army is striking. In addition, given the severe polarization in Thai society which began when the protracted protests against the elected government began in November 2013, this extralegal attack on Professor Somsak is a further indication of the ongoing breakdown of the rule of law in Thailand.

8. The ALRC would like to remind the Thai government that they are a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and are bound to uphold the human rights principles named therein. In particular, the ALRC would like to call on the Thai state to uphold Article 19 of the ICCPR, in particular, paragraph 1, which guarantees that, “Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference,” and paragraph 2, which guarantees that, “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.” It is imperative that the Thai state’s protection of the rights guaranteed in Article 19 and the remainder of the ICCPR be active, rather than passive. Upholding the ICCPR necessarily entails protecting those whose views are dissident and ensuring that they can safely exercise their political freedom. Failure to do so will signal to vigilante actors that attacking those who hold different views are acceptable within the Thai polity.

9. The ALRC would also like to remind the Government of Thailand that under Article 19 of the ICCPR, restrictions on the right to freedom of expression are only permissible under two circumstances: “for respect of the rights or reputations of others” and “for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.” Although Article 112 is classified as a crime against national security within the Criminal Code of Thailand, and this, along with the need to protect the monarchy, is frequently cited by the Government of Thailand when faced with the criticism that the measure is in tension with the ICCPR, a precise explanation of the logic for categorizing the measure as such has not been provided to date. Until this explanation is provided, the constriction of freedom of expression is arbitrary and contributes to a climate hostile to human rights.

10. The ALRC is gravely concerned about the ongoing legal and extralegal threats to freedom of expression in Thailand, and their effects on human rights, justice, and the rule of law in Thailand. The intensification of extralegal threats to dissenting citizens’ rights and lives as indicated by the February 2014 attack on Professor Somsak Jeamteerasakul represents a new point of crisis in the longstanding climate of constriction of political freedom in Thailand.

11. In view of the above, the Asian Legal Resource Center calls on the UN Human Rights Council to:

a. Call on the Government of Thailand to ensure that a full investigation into the attack on Professor Somsak Jeamteerasakul is carried out and bring the men who shot at his house and car to justice;
b. Call on the Government of Thailand to release all those convicted or facing charges under Article 112 and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act. At a minimum, those currently being held should immediately be granted bail while their cases are in the Criminal or Appeal Courts;
c. Demand that the Government of Thailand revoke Article 112 of the Criminal Code and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act;
d. Urge the Government of Thailand to allow and support the full exercise of freedom of expression and political freedom, consistent with the terms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which it is a signatory, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which it is a state party, and;
e. Request the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of opinion and expression to continue ongoing monitoring and research about the broad situation of constriction of rights and individual cases in Thailand; and, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to continue to monitor and report on those cases of persons arbitrarily detained under Article 112.

About the ALRC: The Asian Legal Resource Centre is an independent regional non-governmental organisation holding general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is the sister organisation of the Asian Human Rights Commission. The Hong Kong-based group seeks to strengthen and encourage positive action on legal and human rights issues at the local and national levels throughout Asia.

Read this online from AHRC

25th Session of the UN Human Rights Council – AHRC

Read this online from ALRC

25th Session of the UN Human Rights Council – ALRC





Fearing Somsak

15 02 2014

In reading an op-ed by Kong Rithdee at the Bangkok Post, we at PPT were reminded that lese majeste is about something more than the display of loyalty-expressed-as-hatred that is usually associated with ultra-royalist responses to what they define as an attack of the “revered institution.”

Bombings, shooting, threats, stalking, social media campaigns and long jail sentences have all been associated with those considered to have trespassed beyond the invisible yet  constantly moving boundaries of what is “acceptable” on the monarchy for royalist extremists. Kong refers to some of these nasty witch hunts in the context of the recent attack on historian Somsak Jeamteerasakul, led by the Army and then followed up by gunmen in support of the military and/or unknown royalist fascists.

Kong refers to “thoughtcrime in the land of crooked smiles…”. He observes:

It’s a cruel irony that while everyone — of all colours and inclinations — is parroting the true worth of democracy, we’re also living in a time when thinking and writing can be a crime. Hit-and-run suspects get bail (remember the Red Bull heir?), suspected murderers get bail (remember Kamnan Poh?), but thinking aloud on highly sensitive topics, like Mr Somsak did, could get unknown thugs firing at your house, or get you thrown in jail without bail — like Somyot Prueksakasemsuk was after he was convicted under Section 112.

Why is this? We think it is because Somyos, Somsak and other like them generate tremendous fear in their opponents.

The fear is that the emperor will be seen to be naked.

The fear that if the monarchy is seen for what it really is – a dysfunctional family that has been politically and economically rapacious – will quickly undermine the hierarchical system where the monarchy is a keystone institution. If it is undone, politically or ideologically, they fear that the royalist system will also collapse.

They fear that their regime of control and repression is brittle.

Protecting against these fears requires fascism, horrendous repression and hatred.

This is a fear that makes for a royalist elite nightmare. It is a nightmare they deserve.

 

 

 





Attacking Somsak

13 02 2014

A few days ago we posted on Army boss General Prayuth Chan-ocha going after historian Somsak Jeamteerasakul on some kind of beat-up story that he had demeaned the monarchy.

As is unfortunately expected these days, when such claims are made, thugs show up to attack and intimidate those accused. These could be Army thugs or they could just be the run-of-the-mill ultra-royalist thugs. It is clear that whoever

Somsak’s house was attacked with gunfire and one report mentioned a Molotov cocktail.

Khaosod reports that some anti-democrats were ecstatic:

A number of pro-monarchy commentators on the internet reacted with joy when they heard the news of attacks on Mr. Somsak′s house. Some publicly expressed their regrets that the historian somehow managed to survive the gunfire.

How does one deal with the “uneducate” lot who “protect” the monarchy and feudalism.

Fortunately, the more sensible Nitirat group of progressive academics “have thrown their support behind Mr. Somsak by condemning the incident as ‘barbaric’ and ‘uncivilised’.” It is surely that.





Protecting reputation I

8 02 2014

In a follow-up story to the lese majeste accusations leveled at historian Somsak Jeamteerasakul, the Army is reported at The Nation to have made it clear that “accusations” made against the monarchy “caused bad feeling for military personnel and public members who are loyal to … the [k]ing.” And as if to protect a manufactured reputation, an army spokesperson opined: “His Majesty has long made great contributions to the country…”.

And, it might be added, done very nicely himself and from the taxpayer.

The Army warns that it will “push for police action over cases of lese majeste, amid concern over spread of messages deemed damaging to the monarchy on the Internet.” The Army will “provide information about such acts against the monarchy to the relevant authorities.”

The Army brass seems agitated and says:

The Army will attempt to stop acts that are offensive to the public. Information will be supplied to relevant authorities and agencies for further action. The Judge Advocate General’s Department will work with the police to keep track of the progress of such cases….

General Prayuth Chan-ocha is said to have “expressed his concern about the spread of information deemed offensive to members of the Royal family.”

To be honest, we aren’t sure what this is about, but perhaps the story on the prince and troops.





Somsak faces another lese majeste threat

6 02 2014

Prominent Thammasat University historian Somsak Jeamteerasakul has faced several threats of lese majeste charges in the recent past. Some of his previous problems stemmed from Army boss General Prayuth Chan-ocha’s use of lese majeste to silence a dogged critic.Somsak

At Khaosod it is reported that Prayuth is at it again:

The Royal Thai Army is considering a legal action against a prominent historian for his remarks about the monarchy, according to an army spokesman.

The claim is that Somsak “gravely insulted the Royal Family in his Facebook posts.” Somsak seems to think that the Army is simply dim, misunderstanding comments where “he has been simply parodying and criticising certain type of royalists.” And goodness knows, they deserve parodying. Somsak asks: “Can′t the Army Commander-in-Chief read Thai?”

He probably can, but only through a lens that distorts meanings of political opponents, so the “army has instructed its legal team to determine which parts [of Mr. Somsak′s posts] can be considered as libelous toward the monarchy…. Because the army is a part of civil authorities dedicated to protect the monarchy and preserve its dignity.”

The Army has “warned that any further action that ‘falsely’ insult the Royal Family or lessen the public′s faith in the democratic regime with the King as Head of State would be met with legal action from the army.” The Army also promises “unspecified ‘social measures’ to deter such inappropriate action.”

And as is now usual when political tensions are high, the Army launches a witch hunt, demanding that “every sector … keep careful watch, in order to prevent anyone from slandering or insulting our beloved monarchy…”.





Insulting dead kings

2 12 2013

University World News has an article considering the impact of the recent court decision that has bizarrely applied the lese majeste law to dead kings of this dynasty, effectively making the law “lese dynastie” if such a term is even comprehensible to thinking people.

The article notes that Thai academics are worried by the neanderthal ruling, although presumably not the academics who run about screaming for monarchy and for an end to electoral democracy.

Kullada Kesboonchoo Mead, a political historian at Chulalongkorn University stated:

“In the past, most history and social science academics exercised self-censorship in how they described the present monarch. The latest ruling would render all future study impossible, whether dealing with the monarchy only in the present or in the past…”.

It seems to PPT that the ruling is not meant to deter historians who lavish treacle on the present dynasty and dance for their royalist masters, much like monkeys dancing for the organ grinder. It is only meant to deter serious scholars seeking to reveal the truth of Thai history.

Kullada, author of well-known English-language study, The Rise and Decline of Thai Absolutism, “said the ruling directly affected her work, which looks at past monarchies.” As she prepares a Thai-language version, she has been advised that the book “should be reviewed to ensure it complies with the wider interpretation of the law.” We doubt that it would pass given that the recent court ruling was made on comments that alluded to well-known historical circumstances about the existence of slavery.Locked books

Kullada revealed that:

the Thai studies programme at Chulalongkorn University had banned her book, along with those of Somsak Jeamteerasakul and Suthachai Yimprasert, Thai historians known for their critical research on the Thai monarchy.

Is there no end to the royalist stupidity at Chulalongkorn University. Are the administrators all yellow-shirted to the extent that they have forgotten what it means to be an academic and to seek truth and expand knowledge? It seems not.

While the authorities may not choose to enforce the new understanding of lese dynastie, the chill it creates set back serious scholarship in Thailand about several decades. The royalists want a new dark age in Thailand, filled with half-truths, careful omissions and complete lies.

In all of this, the stunning silence from the palace means that they condone academic feudalism.





Listen to them

31 10 2013

Pravit Rojanaphruk’s little story in The Nation on red shirt opposition to the ill-conceived amnesty bill deserves to be read and considered, especially by those at the top of the Puea Thai Party government. All that follows until the final paragraph is snipped from Pravit’s article:

Suthachai Yimprasert

Suthachai

The move is being loudly opposed by activists and intellectuals in the red-shirt camp, such as Thammasat University historian Somsak Jeamteerasakul, political scientist Sirote Klampaiboon, Chulalongkorn University historian Suthachai Yimprasert and former Thammasat University rector Charnvit Kasetsiri to name a few.

Separately, Red Sunday group leader Sombat Boonngam-anong … is calling on more red-shirt supporters to … make their voices heard.

… Somsak said the loss of nearly 100 lives in 2010 would be “in vain” if the blanket amnesty bill were pushed through.

Sombat

Sombat

Red-shirt lese majeste detainee Somyos Prueksakasemsuk … said both the Pheu Thai Party and Thaksin Shinawatra would be making “a foolish move”, akin to “digging one’s own grave”, if they continued pushing for the bill.

Jakrapob

Jakrapob

Jakrapob Penkair, a former Thaksin aide and ex-PM’s Office Minister who is living overseas to evade lese majeste charges [PPT understood the charges had been dropped??] , earlier this week posted a message on Facebook calling on the ruling party not to betray those who struggled for democracy and the future generation.

Meanwhile, Thaksin’s lawyer, Robert Amsterdam, who enjoys a large following on Twitter, tweeted on Monday: “The proposed blanket amnesty provides absolutely no benefit… I am deeply saddened by Pheu Thai’s position.”

Amsterdam

Amsterdam

Red-shirt leader and MP Weng Tojirakarn said yesterday that three red-shirt MPs would abstain from voting in the second reading of the amnesty bill. He explained that this abstention was necessary for two reasons: to not confuse people about the red’s stance on the issue and to not lend support to the opposition Democrat Party.

Somyos

Somyos

These people are not engaged in a war to bring down the government and nor are they disgruntled opponents. Many have given much to the red shirt cause and the fight for democracy. We count four who have gone to prison for the red shirt cause and one living in exile amongst this group of people sympathetic to red shirts.

Listen to them!





Can the Puea Thai Party change?

28 10 2013

In our last post we commented on the Democrat Party’s apparent incapacity for change. In this post, we ask if the governing Puea Thai Party can change. Can it be diverted from a path that will damage the party? Can it reduce its apparent capacity for self-harm?

Both the official red shirt leadership and rank-and-file red shirts seem united in their opposition to the nonsensical changes proposed for the amnesty law, although their opposition may focus on slightly different aspects of the bill.

At the Bangkok Post, there is a useful report of the Red Sunday Group, which mobilized more than 200 people on Sunday at Rajaprasong to oppose the government’s  amnesty proposal.

Red Sunday “voiced particular opposition to the amnesty for Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva and Surat Thani Democrat MP Suthep Thaugsuban…”.

Sombat Boonngamanong “said the party’s move to provide a wholesale amnesty was beyond his understanding and ran against the red shirts’ stance.” He made an excellent point:

“Thaksin and other party leaders fail to explain to their supporters what is really behind this compromise deal. They must tell us. Politics can no longer be kept exclusive and dictated by back-door negotiators,” Mr Sombat said.

Sombat urged red shirts to rally: “More people will come out on the street if the party defies the will of the red shirts who shed blood and tears to put it into power…”.

Historian Somsak Jeamteerasakul claimed that “red shirts felt cheated as they had shown full support for the Worachai [Hema amnesty] bill which was later changed.”

Former lese majeste convict Suchart Nakbangsai demanded that “lese majeste offenders should also be included in the deal.”

Different ideas, but the same message: this amnesty is a lose-lose situation for the Puea Thai Party. It risks losing the support of red shirts and it will see demonstrations by the broader opposition of anti-Thaksin Shinawatra yellow shirts.

The way out is for Thaksin to disown the amended proposal and remember his promise to red shirts on the Worachai proposal. A return to that amnesty draft will preserve the Puea Thai Party’s electoral base.

Can Thaksin and the party display collective good sense and political savvy?





Protecting them

20 10 2013

PPT wants to draw attention to a report at Prachatai. It states:

The Ad Hoc Parliamentary Committee on Law Enforcement and Measures for Protecting the Monarchy on Friday summoned all five organizations who sponsored the publishing of the book “Yamyuk Rooksamai” (Repeating the Era, Advancing the Generations) which was distributed free of charge to those attending Oct 14 commemoration week at Thammasat University at Tha Pra Chan.

The book is a collection of articles and interviews featuring prominent academics and activists including Thongchai Winichakul, history professor from Wisconsin-Madison University, Prajak Kongkirati, political science lecturer from Thammasat University and Somsak Jeamteerasakul, history professor from Thammasat University who is known for his open advocacy of reform of the monarchy.

The five organizations sponsoring the event and the book were:

Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand, the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives, PTT Thailand, the Department of Local Administration and the National Village and Urban Community Fund Office to meet with the Committee for further questioning.

The Committee wants to discuss the “current situation on defamation and disrespect towards the monarchy…”.

Predictably, the Committee is dominated by royalists like unelected Senator Somchai Sawaengkarn and seems to be intent on threatening, frightening and forcing censorship in the name of protecting a monarchy and its political regime.

The story might be read in conjunction with another at Prachatai on the event where the book was distributed.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers