The 10th of May was the anniversary of the death in custody of lese majeste convict Ampol Tangnopakul. PPT has the whole sorry tale of royalist vindictiveness against an old man they believed had insulted the queen here.
As many readers will know, Ampol should never have been in jail and should certainly not have died there.
At Khao Sod it is reported that many activists marked Ampol’s sad passing and observes that his wife, Rosmalin, “called for immediate release of other political prisoners.” She specifically mentioned those held for lese majeste.
Ms. Rosmalin added that she is now “quite numb to the deep pain she feels because she needs to act as a model for the grandchildren so that they can see that she is still strong.”
Ampol’s lawyer restated that “there is no evidence of Mr. Ampon ever sent the offensive SMS.”
Academic Somsak Jeamteerasakul spoke of how case strongly moved him, stating: “any person with common sense can clearly see that Ah Kong was an innocent victim.” He added that the harsh treatment he received – no bail, 20 year sentence – as absurd: “Anyone with the slightest bit of humanity would not have come to this judgment since there was no evidence of Ah Kong’s guilt at all…”.
He also criticized “self-proclaimed civil rights groups” that lacked any shred of “bravery” in failing to “protest the ruling, even though they all believed Ah Kong was not guilty.”
Somsak says his own lese majeste case has “reached the proscecutor.”
It is a sad anniversary, yet Ampol’s case serves as a reminder of the feudal nature of the lese majeste law.
Serial lese majeste victim, outspoken social critic and conservative monarchist Sulak Sivaraksa had an 80th year birthday celebration at the conservative Siam Society. True to form, Sulak was outspoken about the recent PBS controversy.
The Bangkok Post reports that Sulak “lauded the Thai Public Broadcasting Service (TPBS) yesterday for being courageous in leading the public debate on important issues in the country, especially the lese majeste law.” He was more broadly supportive of PBS saying the talk show was “a good example of the station’s role in encouraging the public to discuss sensitive issues.”
He was critical of the “people who threatened the station with lawsuits and protested against the resumption of the programme,” saying they “were silly.” PPT isn’t sure if Sulak included Army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha in that silly group, but he reportedly “also hit out at the army chief for criticising certain guest speakers…”. Quite correctly, he pointed out that “…the military has done nothing but killed their own people.”
He also spoke highly of Somsak Jeamteerasakul “as a courageous Thai who actually complemented the existence of the monarchy with his long lists of reform proposals.” Sulak added: “Thais should be aware of the significance of this debate, especially the amendment of the lese majeste laws…”.
In the state of bourbon and horse racing there is a world of make believe called Creation Museum. It advertises itself thus:
The state-of-the-art 70,000 square foot museum brings the pages of the Bible to life, casting its characters and animals in dynamic form and placing them in familiar settings. Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden. Children play and dinosaurs roam near Eden’s Rivers. The serpent coils cunningly in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Majestic murals, great masterpieces brimming with pulsating colors and details, provide a backdrop for many of the settings.
One dinosaur and some unelected royalist senators
The idea that dinosaurs and children played together suggests that The Flintstones was a documentary. After reading about their latest bleatings, PPT imagine that the “Museum” will want to include the Group of 40 knuckle-dragging, unelected senators from Thailand, for they are still cavorting with dinosaurs.
Just as we finished posting a reference to four Neanderthal senators, the whole group of 40 yellow-shirted, military supporting royalist ninnies have begun a new campaign for a Stone Age Thailand. This bunch are reported to have:
lashed out at the ‘Tob Jote Thailand’ television talk show featuring a debate on the role of the monarchy under the constitution and the necessity to amend Section 112 of the Criminal Code, saying it could be deemed lese majeste.
Well, yes, if you are an extremist wanting to suppress reasonable conversation.
Appointed first by the military-backed regime, Truengchai Buranasompop “found the opinions voiced by the two academics very offensive and detrimental to Thai society.” She babbled a bit of “royalist creationism” and polished royal posterior. She was joined by Jate Sirataranont, who has a similar political profile who declared “the show hurt and outraged the Thai people.” Well, 20 of them, anyway, counting their kids. They were the ones who showed up to complain at PBS.
Another one, a former General, Lertrit Vejsawan, who is a former director of army-run TV Channel 5, displayed his qualifications as an enemy of the media and freedom of expression by declaring that “the contents of the programme constituted lese majeste.” As might be expected from a former general, he wants “punitive action against those involved.” Another one – Pornpan Boonyaratphan – agreed on the lese majeste charge, claiming that Somsak and Sulak quoted the king’s words, but without sufficient respect.
Interestingly, these unelected ninnies have failed to notice, in the words of a PBS statement:
that a day before that we invited former foreign minister Surakiart Sathirathai. And to not make the audience feel uncomfortable, we later invited retired police general Vasit Dejkunjorn, who is a well known royalist….
Whenever these royalist reactionaries have been agitated in the recent past, the Yingluck Shinawatra government has run for cover. Let’s see how they deal with royalists this time.
The Bangkok Post reports that after canning the fifth Torb Chote/ตอบโจทย์ on the monarchy and lese majeste on Friday, ThaiPBS has suddenly shown it, without prior notice or previous advertising (apart from the controversy).
[Update: The original video we linked to has been closed/removed. Here's a new link which includes the PBS "explanation" for the delayed telecast.]
Apparently, a “committee … at the station supposedly reviewed the tape of the debate between social critic Sulak Sivaraksa and Somsak Jeamteerasakul … and found it fit to show.”
A National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) sub-committee is “to probe whether Thai PBS’s station director had the authority to pull political talk programme Tob Jote off the air…”. Natee Sukonrat, chairman of the NBTC’s broadcasting committee, believes the investigation “will set a precedent for self-imposed delays or cancellations of TV broadcasts in the future.”
Meanwhile, the usual group of royalist and unelected senators has “claimed the content of the banned episode of Tob Jote was offensive to the monarchy.” These stooges demanded “a probe into the programme.” They believe that said “a debate on a sensitive topic such as the role of the monarchy or the lese majeste law could provoke rifts among the public.” They seem to consider the monarchy so “sensitive” that it may not be discussed (except in syrupy propaganda).
Perhaps, just perhaps, something sensible may result from this controversy.
Amidst great social media attention, Kong Rithdee has an account of a PBS program that has interviewed several commentators on Article 112 or lese majeste. PPT hasn’t watched all of the shows from beginning to end, but the couple we did were very good and pushed public debate further than we have previously seen in the mainstream media.Unfortunately, it seems PBS has decided that four shows debating lese majeste and the monarchy are enough and have pulled the show. More on this below.
Kong says of the show:
It was as close to an ideological thriller as we’ve ever had on Thai television, and I hope, my hand on my heart, that it will go down in history as the beginning of the time we finally realised the necessity of open, sane, civilised, televised, above-ground discussion as a way to scrutinise the great knots of our conflicts. Heavy flak has already flown and vilifying contempt has been heard at work, which is not unexpected, but I believe the first hurdle has been crossed.
The program is Torb Chote: The Monarchy Under the Constitution/ตอบโจทย์ สถาบันพระมหากษัตริย์ ภายใต้รัฐธรรมนูญ. The first, from 11 March, is the not particularly interesting but provides a background. One of the reasons it lacks interest for us it that it focuses on the relentless self-promoter Surakiat Sathirathai, looking like he just popped out from a meeting of the conservative Chinese Politburo. He has strong connections to the palace but his comments are all a bit drab and seem to us to merely reproduce “liberal royalist” nonsense that’s been around for years.Maybe we missed something as we got bored and moved to the more interesting interviews.
All of the clips are only in Thai.
Hosted by Pinyo Traisuriyathamma, the series moved onto historian and academic Somsak Jeamteerasakul, who speaks machine-gun fast, cramming in lots of information and views.
The third is with the ultra-conservative royalist Vasit Dejkunjorn. PPT has posted on this former royal policeman and royalist activist several times as a royalist racist, a royal spy, part of the cabal of palace intriguists, as propagandist for the monarchy, and anti-Thaksin warrior. We had some biographical details in our Old Men post. In the clip that follows, Vasit does all of these things over again, talking about a plot or plots to bring down the monarchy and sounding fearful that his era is ending.
In the fourth show, critical monarchist Sulak Sivaraksa and Somsak are put together. Kong describes them as:
sharp, outspoken intellectual firebrands with huge followers and nitpicker critics; they share a broad idea on the need to update the monarchical institution and the lese majeste law, though their lines of argument and rallying calls are different (sometimes starkly).
He goes on to describe this program:
Clearly the programme is pushing the envelope. And envelope-pushing is what we need when the same old blabbering inside our old, cobwebbed envelope isn’t taking us anywhere. The highlights of the five-night series were on Thursday and Friday, when Mr Sulak and Mr Somsak sat next to each other debating, eyeing up and staring down, hands moving in a complex telegraphy of their thought. First they exchanged pleasantries and then [verbal] punches, verbally wrangling, sometimes heated, sometimes cool, and altogether energising. What’s most important, however, is the fact that they said many things we never thought we’d hear on television. Names – Chuan Leekpai, Thaksin Shinawatra, MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra and his ancestors, and privy councillors – were dropped and dissected, sometimes in volleys of criticism, and the mentions of the monarchy were as frank, or as evasive, as the law allows. Of course they both wish the law would allow more, that’s the gist of it all.
In one startling stretch, Mr Sulak went on about Queen Victoria of England and how she really had no power to govern though she thought otherwise, then he described how the monarchical protocol is all “theatre”. Mr Somsak, meanwhile, homed in on a crucial point: slapping the wild-card charge of lom jao, “overthrowing the monarchy,” against anyone on the opposite side or anyone who wants to discuss the monarchy – as being an utter disgrace to the democratic system.
Kong points to the fierce debate that the program unleashed in social media and says that the debate, still ongoing, is significant:
We as the citizens, and we as journalists, who can now take comfort in the fact that some of the “sensitive” issues often talked about in murmurs, with hand covering mouth, or online, or totally underground, have made their way to national TV, in HD to boot. Television is known for accommodating emotion (think drama series) but in the right setting, it also encourages reason as a condition of being persuasive. It’s official: this five-day talk has raised the bar on possible discussion about the monarchy.
And that seems to be the point that has scared the royalists witless. Kong observes that:
Royalists are annoyed and irate, to varying degrees, and some have put forth the weirdest logic I’ve ever heard: Why on earth has Thai PBS, a public station funded by public money, brought above-ground and legitimises the figures and topics they believe should remain underground (or buried in an unmarked grave, especially Mr Somsak)? As if the job of public television was to keep feeding propaganda. As if the job of public television is to fawn and flatter and let us hear only what conforms to what we think. Switch to commercial channels then. To raise questions in good faith and in the service of society is precisely what public television must do, and not refrain from doing. It’s fine to disagree with – even to despise – Mr Sulak and Mr Somsak, but to try to stop them from speaking reasonably and intelligently is the mark of a backward and uncivilised society.
It does seem, however, that figures in PBS and the government have been frightened or had the frighteners put on them. Just a few hours after Kong’s story came out, he had to add this:
The article … was written on Friday, just hours before Thai PBS banned the broadcast of the last episode of the five-part series “Thai Monarchy Under the Constitution”, a talk programme hosted by Pinyo Traisuriyathamma.
While parts of the content in the commentary remain valid, a large chunk of it now sounds wrong and naive, especially my assertion of faith, now proved false, in the future of our public television. The censorship was a great disappointment, a heartbreak even.
It invalidates the contribution that the show had made during its first four episodes, because by banning it, the station has sent out clear signals that sane, reasonable and open discussion on “sensitive” subjects cannot be allowed.
It discourages any further attempt by journalists and writers to continue in the direction that the show has already started. After all, there’s no light at the end of any tunnel, proverbial or real, because once again, we’re kept like sewer rats in perpetual darkness.
Pinyo has also spoken out, writing that there are ludicrous claims that the program somehow infringed the sections of the constitution that protect the monarchy and pointing out that the same constitution is meant to protect freedom of expression. While he claims that the longevity of the monarchy can only be protected through a real constitutional monarchy, it seems to PPT that it is impossible for freedom of expression to exist while the monarchy is protected by royalist-military constitutions, feudal laws like Article 112 and a ruling class that owes its power and wealth to the primacy of the monarchy. Pinyo calls on the management of PBS to explain what has gone on and who has intervened. The last word in this post, also in Thai, belongs to Pinyo:
Update 1: At the Bangkok Post, there is a story that reports “Thai PBS executives have defended their decision to cancel the final episode of a debate on the constitutional monarchy.” It seems that because a handful of complaining royalists showed up at the station (the report says 20), the executives “feared broadcasting the discussions could spark social conflict.” Yes, the monarchy has moved so prominently into the political fulcrum following the palace-military coup in 2006 that just talking about the it ignites fear.Or at least that is their excuse. PPT thinks they got an order from someone, either in the government, in the military or in the palace. Of course, we have no evidence, but we can’t believe that the possibility of “conflict” was not considered even before the programs were made.
The seemingly spineless lot managing PBS decided that a “debate on proposed amendments to Section 112 of the Criminal Code, or the lese majeste law, was also [too ] sensitive,” and could not be aired.
As noted above, “Pinyo called on station executives to clearly explain their decision to cancel his programme. He insisted the decision to stop producing the show was not caused by any interference from the government or anyone connected to the royal institution.”
Update 2: Prachatai has a post with English-language details of the debate between Sulak and Somsak.
The “29 January United Front for the Release of Political Prisoners” is launching a campaign demanding that all political prisoners be released regardless of which political faction they belong to. Led by Suda Rankupan from Chulalongkorn University, the group claims 10,000 supporters, and is linked to anti-coup groups and political reformers such as Nitirat and academics like Somsak Jeamteerasakul, Suthachai Yimprasert and Pichit Likhitkitsomboon.
Suda says the group is actively campaigning for lese majeste and other political prisoners and correctly points out that: “The death of [lese majeste victim] Ampol [Tangnopakul] in prison demonstrates the cruelty of the country’s justice system…”.
Suda knows that “her group is pushing the government to take a political risk, [but] she said it had the responsibility to help people who support it.” She is absolutely right!
Prachatai has published some useful updates on a series of lese majeste cases. PPT will summarize here and will update our specific pages on each case as well:
In its first story, Prachatai refers to the truly bizarre case of two of the Royal Health Rumor 4. Back in October 2009 there were rumors that the king was seriously ill or had died. This caused a huge sell-off on the stock exchange, and the ridiculous Abhisit Vejjajiva-led coalition government began a witch hunt for those responsible for the rumors. Many observers considered the whole case so silly that it had been quietly brushed under the carpet. Not so. The Criminal Court is said to be “likely to deliver its ruling by the end of this year on a case” involving Katha Pajajiriyapong, then an employee in the trading a securities trading firm KT Zmico Securities (the firm sacked him). Katha is said to have posted comments on Same Sky or Fah Diew Kan web board. Apparently there is another charge against him from April 2009. He is charged under the 2007 Computer-Related Crimes Act. He has been on bail since his arrest in 1 November 2009. He is expected to get a verdict on 19 December 2012.
Also one of the Royal Health Rumor 4, Thiranan Vipuchanun, a former director of a finance and securities trading firm, is “accused of posting on the Prachatai webboard her translation of a Bloomberg news article which reported the slump of the Thai stock market on 14 Aug 2009 due to the widespread rumours about the King’s health. Her case is now pending a decision by the prosecution.”
Somyos Prueksakasemsuk is also scheduled to re-appear in court on 19 December 2012, and it seems that he may get a verdict then, having been held in prison since 30 April 2011 on lese majeste charges.
Akechai Hongkangwarn who was arrested on 11 March 2011 and charged under Article 112 – lese majeste – for being in possession of illegal VCDs of an Australian television documentary that presented an accurate picture of the state of the Thai monarchy and 10 Wikileaks documents. He is expected to appear in court on 22 February 2013.
One of the Bangkok 19 who were accused by the Army and its boss General Prayuth Chan-ocha, Yoswaris Chuklom or Jeng Dokchik, “a comedian turned red-shirt activist and politician, will appear in court for witness hearings on 11-12 Dec [2012]. He is being prosecuted for alleged lèse majesté comments in his public speech during a red-shirt rally at Phan Fa on 29 March 2010.”
In the first week of November 2010, Sqn Ldr Chanin Khlaikhlung became the first casualty of then Defense Minister Prawit Wongsuwan’s warning that the military needed to weed out anti-monarchists in its ranks. This was also a part of the Abhisit regime’s royalist witch hunt. He will likely appear in a military court (closed to the public) in February 2013, facing lese majeste and computer crimes charges related to 24 comments on his Facebook page.
Finally, Prachatai mentions a case PPT has not previously heard of when it lists Aswin (family name withheld) as likely to appear in Chiang Mai Court in February 2013 “to face accusations by an acquaintance of making lèse majesté remarks.”
In its second story, Prachatai mentions another case previously unknown to PPT. The case goes back to the days of high alert on lese majeste by the royalist regime under Abhisit and refers to an unnamed Malay Muslim man whose case is outlined at the iLaw database. The Pattani resident is accused of “hanging banners with the picture of HM the Queen on a pedestrian bridge in the town” also allegedly “containing messages about violent incidents in the south and other parts of Thailand, together with a picture of HM the Queen, on 12 Aug 2009, the Queen’s birthday…”. It seems that this may be another case pursued by the military who are also accused of beating and torturing the man to get a confession on a crime he was not even aware of (standard military practice). He has been on bail. It seems this case has been kept secret.
A third story refers to well-known Thammasat historian Somsak Jeamteerasakul who is said to be “pessimistic” and “both surprised and appalled by the decision of police to forward his lese majeste police complaint case to the Office of the Attorney General (OAG).” He is due to appear before the prosecutor sometime this month.
The last story also refers to there being “currently at least seven people detained under the law with hundreds more in the process of possibly being charged or having received police complaints made against them.” PPT knows of eight currently detained, although we assume there are more we don’t know about. We are not aware that there are “hundreds more in the process of possibly being charged or having received police complaints made against them.” That said, there are two cases above we had never heard of before, suggesting that the case load and backlog that is inestimable. The opacity associated with this most political of charges lends itself to both under-reporting and exaggeration.
In late 2010, based on data related to charges laid, prosecuted and known conviction rates, we had guesstimated that there may have been some 350 jailed following lese majeste convictions or related computer crimes charges. We have no idea how many accusations there are or how many cases are winding there way through the system. In any serious judicial system, this law would be declared unconstitutional and scrapped. Until that happens, Thailand can never be a truly democratic country.
Prachatai has reported a dismal story that first started with a Facebook notification a couple of days ago: police have, after more than a year of “consideration,” decided to send to prosecution a lese majeste charge against Thammasat University historian Somsak Jeamteerasakul. The complaint was made by the Army.
Somsak has been told “to report to the public prosecutor on 20 Nov.” He had earlier reported to the police in May 2011. The Army’s charges against him apparently relate to two articles he wrote “in response to Princess Chulabhorn’s interview and which had been published on several websites in late March and April that year.”
He has denied the offenses.
PPT thinks that this process is one that has been pushed in order to silence a critic and to tell academics that the monarchy is also off limits for their consideration. Readers might recall that various friends of the palace, including Abhisit Vejjajiva have said that academic criticism is permitted. We have a feeling that this is a charge the second generation in the palace wants to prosecute.
Yesterday PPT linked to events at Thammasat University commemorating the deaths of students and others on 6 October 1976. The Nation now has a story based on those events and they deserve some comment.
PPT was pleased to note that Thammasat historian Somsak Jeamteerasakul “called for the release of people being detained for violations of Article 112 of the Penal Code – the lese majese law – as they are all political detainees.” He is undoubtedly correct and it should not be forgotten that the royalist and ultra-rightists government led by (now privy councilor) Thanin Kraivixien used lese majeste against political opponents following the 1976 massacre and coup.
Thammasat University student Panitan Prueksakasemsuk also spoke. His father, Somyos, is detained on lese majeste charges, and has been held in jail without bail since 30 April 2011. Panitan observed that the Administrative Court and the Constitution Court “could not really protect the people’s rights.” He also called for strong penalties for those who use state power like those who acted against the people in 1976. In other words, state officials who act illegally should no longer feel guaranteed impunity.
We also appreciated the comments by deputy dean of Chulalongkorn University’s Faculty of Political Science, Pitch Pongsawat, who stated:
From October 6, 1976, although there were calls for finding the truth, they were not for reconciliation. There was no ‘single truth’…. In my opinion, reconciliation must be based on the principle that everyone must undergo the justice procedure, all evidence must be revealed and everyone must face legal cases fairly, rather than saying all parties are responsible for the mistakes….
We were less impressed by the comments of Thammasat University rector Somkit Lertpaithoon. Somkit is described at another blog in this way:
Dr. Somkit is perceived as a royalist and supporter of the 2006 coup. He was one of the drafters of the 2007 Constitution. He has challenged the merit of a proposal by a group of young progressive Thammasat law lecturers known as Nitirat to nullify all legal effects of the 2006 coup and to amend the lèse majesté provision in the Criminal Code.
At the same time, as that blog makes clear, he copped some ultra-royalist flak when he admitted a student accused of lese majeste to Thammasat.
His comments on 6 October began with an “expressed concern that the tendency of people to not respect others’ rights and freedom of expression could lead to political violence.” That seems a fair point except that he immediately adds that “he disagreed with the red shirts’ protest against lecturers of the National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA) for their opposition to the government’s rice-pledging scheme as it disrespected the lecturers’ right to have different opinions.”
He added: “People have to learn more to respect the rights of others as well as protest within limits…”. That seems a rather biased and intolerant position when expressing a view that there should be more tolerance. Why should only lecturers and their supporters be permitted an opinion and be allowed to propagate it? Peaceful disagreement by farmers seems “within limits” and does not stop the academics and their political supporters from propagating their views. It is striking that senior academics see almost any challenge to their views as inappropriate simply because it challenges them. Perhaps it is because the poor and less educated also challenge their pomposity.
While noting that “the anti-dictatorship mindset has been cultivated deeply among Thais,” Somkit adds that “there were times when people may have supported a military coup,” as he himself had done. Yet he is confident that “Thai society will find a solution” to the political divide.
We suspect that he is right but that the solution will not be a return to the comfortable conservative order of the past. That order ruled through military repression that demanded royalist ideological conformity. It was an order that established a system that was not, borrowing some words from Pitch, justice was thwarted, the legal system corrupted, and where impunity ruled over responsibility.
In the case of Ah Kong, all sides in Thai society have shown a lack of moral courage to do what is right. They have been concerned with their own status, positions and politics, and have done nothing. Ultimately, an ordinary old man has fallen victim, having to die away from his family….
This is an important point made by Somsak and reported in a post at Prachatai that has photos and videos of Ampol Tangnopakul’s funeral on Sunday. Ampol succumbed to cancer in prison while those without a shred of moral courage had him locked up on lese majeste charges.
Somsak adds:
The court must have been aware that the repeated denial of bail and the guilty verdict were not right. Academics and members of the elite, like Anan Panyarachun, Bowornsak Uwanno and Khanit Na Nakhon, who have come out to say that the lèse majesté law is problematic, have been silent in this case. Why have they not come out to say that the verdict was wrong? Where is their moral courage, he asked?
Our answer is that these people and those all the way up to the very top of the royalist elite are not just morally bankrupt but frightened. Frightened that they might do or say something that their liberal and conservative friends might object or call them out, but are even more frightened that the structures and institutions that make them privileged and keep them privileged may come tumbling down.
update our specific pages on each case as well:
