More yellow shirts bailed

And why not? Yellow shirts seem to be bailed as night follows day, while red shirts get locked up and double standards prevail. At The Nation it is reported that another bunch of People’s Alliance for Democracy airport occupiers from late 2008 have been indicted and bailed.

This is reportedly “the sixth group of suspects arraigned in Criminal Court over the seizures of Don Mueang and Suvarnabhumi airports, joining 83 defendants…”.

This group included military PAD leader General Pathompong Kesornsuk, former loudmouth foreign minister Kasit Piromya, ultra-royalist loudmouth Tul Sitthisomwong and ultra-royalist propagandist Pramote Nakhonthap.

All bailed with a nod and a wink.

Fighting amnesty

As PPT has pointed out previously, the royalist right has decided that the next battle with Thaksin Shinawatra and against the Yingluck government is to be on amnesty. Yes, we know that they have always opposed it, but now they see it as the looming reason for undermining the government.

Deputy House Speaker Charoen Chankomol has been busily sending out invitations for up to 10 or 11 political and politicized groups to come together and consider a way forward.

At The Nation, it is reported that the People’s Alliance for Democracy wants to include eight groups:

the Pheu Thai Party, the red shirts, the Democrat Party, the PAD, the people affected by the political turmoil, Nicha Hiranburana Thuwatham – wife of Colonel Romklao who was killed, the Truth for Reconciliation Committee of Thailand and the anti-government Pitak Siam group.

Immediately, it is clear that Nicha is not a “group,” but the wife of royalist “martyr,” intent on pushing an agenda to exclude lese majeste victims from any amnesty. We guess that the royalist dolts from Pitak Siam are included for the same reason. Even so, this bunch of old soldiers and coup plotters wasn’t a group formed until after the events of 2010. Perhaps this lot are included by PAD because they are allies of both PAD and the old men behind the 2006 military coup.

PAD seems to be engaged in dinosaur crowd sourcing.

In the end, Charoen has:

invited representatives from 11 groups, including the Pheu Thai Party, the Democrat Party, the Bhumjaithai Party, the armed forces, PAD, UDD and Pitak Siam. Also invited are Nicha Hiranburana Thuwatham, representing families of state officials killed on duty at political rallies; business operators affected by political violence; the defunct Truth for Reconciliation Commission; and the multi-colour group, led by Tul Sitthisomwong.

Army boss General Prayuth Chan-ocha demands “representatives from all the armed forces” involved. He set the tone for the combined royalist approach to amnesty: “Before granting amnesty we have to look into what the laws say what to do about wrongdoing…”.

Despite all of this compromising and inviting, PAD spokesman Panthep Puapongpan declares: “I have a sense that there might be a [political] rally soon.” Remarkably, he accused the Puea Thai Party was “forcing other groups to join in.” We assume he understands that the “Democrat” Party has refused to enter any discussions.

The yellow shirts are likely to oppose anything they think or imagine “affects the status of the monarchy, or any law is passed granting amnesty to fugitive former premier Thaksin Shinawatra and his group.” So amnesty for them is nothing more than an excuse for a fight. At the Bangkok Post, the “Democrat” Party believes that the monarchy is under threat from amnesty and that “Pheu Thai’s real motivation was to whitewash fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and co-leaders of the red-shirt group.” That sounds exactly like PAD.

Also at the Bangkok Post, the “so-called multi-colours,” who are just yellow shirts by another name, “will not take part in a planned discussion of a proposed new amnesty bill … because it is not the right time for it, their leader Tul Sitthisomwong said…”. For the dullard Tul, the right time is after “alleged offenders” have been convicted:

He said what should be done first was to speed up the judicial process against alleged offenders of the laws in connection with political protests. Amnesty should be considered individually after the court delivered a verdict on each one, he said.

According to another report at the Bangkok Post, “the Democrats [meaning the party, for it includes few democrats], PAD, Pitak Siam, Ms Nicha and Dr Tul – have announced they would boycott the meeting.”

Another yellow-shirt front group, the Green Politics Group, had its coordinator Suriyasai Katasila announce that the proposed meeting would “fail because it is driven by politicians with hidden agendas who have failed to gain the trust of the public.” He means the popular and elected government….

In the end, as the Post reports, a half-hearted, half-attended meeting was held to agree with a set of platitudes.

Streckfuss at the FCCT

Continuing the series of clips from the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand discussion of lese majeste on 31 January 2013 following the sentencing of Somyos Pruksakasemsuk. Earlier clips from the series are Chiranuch Premchaiporn’s comments and those by Sukanya Prueksakasemsuk.

Streckfuss begins with some apparent refutation of remarks by royalists including Bowornsak Uwanno and  Tul Sitthisomwong and then turns to comparisons of Thailand’s lese majeste law with analogous laws in Europe.

Royals to be scrutinized by parliament

It is reported that:

Parliament’s most powerful watchdog, the Public Accounts Committee, is expected to launch an inquiry later this year into the finances of the … Royal Family. This follows a change in the law which, for the first time, gives MPs oversight of royal finances.

But before Tul Sitthisomwong and his bunch of mindless ultra-royalists descend on parliament to protest that the sky is falling, they might note that this is in the U.K., where the monarchy is far closer to the meaning of constitutional monarchy than the secretive, opaque and politically-interventionist lot in Bangkok (also see ควีนอังกฤษเตรียมถูกตรวจสอบการใช้จ่ายงบประมาณสาธารณะ).

Debating lese majeste and responses to it

Saksith Saiyasombut at Siam Voices has a very useful post summarizing the debates that have arisen regarding lese majeste since the sentencing of Somyos Prueksakasemsuk.

He mentions the strong international reaction, including one by the U.S. State Department that PPT hadn’t previously seen. Also mentioned is the spineless response by those in Thailand who should be concerned, including the  such as the National Human Rights Commission and the Thai Journalists’ Association.

Picture from Siam Voices, where the credit is: via Twitter/@Anuthee.

He also mentions some of the domestic reaction, including the widely publicized demonstration at the:

… football match between the universities of Thammasat and Chulalongkorn on Saturday, students (including Somyot’s son) from both sides were seen showing a large banner in the stands saying “FREE SOMYOT” and protesting around the stadium. The public protest happened in the opening ceremony – from which they were forbidden to participate – where giant paper-mache figures lampoon political figures, which was obviously this year prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

Add to this the actions by Chiang Mai students similarly demonstrating and a range of other protests, including a constant barrage of events and actions seen at Facebook and other social media, and it is seen that outrage is being expressed quite vigorously.

Saksith also mentions the debate over lese majeste at and about the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand. On the debate held there, a useful link is made to a transcript of the statement by the self-lampooning royalist Tul Sitthisomwong. On the raging controversy regarding the FCCT itself, Saksith states:

There’s been some controversy that the FCCT did not issue a statement on the Somyot verdict – understandable, since the club board has been targeted with a lèse majesté complaint in the past that was utterly politically motivated. However, the club itself defended their decision on the night of the panel discussion by saying that the FCCT is a club and not a journalist’s association.

For PPT the most basic point is that the FCCT has sidestepped its own claims on freedom of expression. Being part-time defenders of this freedom sets a dangerous precedent and, as royalist Tul explains in his comments linked above, it gives succor to the lese majeste defenders:

I am Dr. Tul Sittisomwong from the group of „Citizen Protecting Homeland“ including the monarchy that the Thai people love…. I want to be here, invited by the FCCT and (I am) so relieved that the FFCT [sic]. won’t have any statement about this sensitive issue. That will be a big thing after the EU.

The debate on the FCCT continues at New Mandala and at ZenJournalist, where even PPT is chastised for recalling that “the FCCT bravely put on talks by lese majeste opponents,” while posting about the FCCT sadly ducking the issue of freedom of expression and the draconian sentencing of Somyos.

Warped world royalism and lese majeste

Following our links to the comments by ZenJournalist in a recent post, PPT also wants to link to a report of a discussion of lese majeste at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand, reported in the Bangkok Post. It is worth noting that the FCCT has a record of putting lese majeste on its agenda. This time they had  Sukunya Prueksakasemsuk who has been vigorous in campaigning for her husband, Somyos, academic David Streckfuss, and Chiranuch Premchaiporn, a victim of the lese majeste-like computer crimes law. They also had the dreadful and dull royalist Tul Sitthisomwong. We will highlight just a couple of parts of the report.

Chiranuch noted that while the Somyos case had some similarities with her own in that both “were charged over material written by someone else,” Somyos was kept in prison and “presented at court in heavy shackles, transported hundreds of kilometres to various provinces for hearings headed by several different judges and allowed only limited access to family and lawyers. Chiranuch was allowed bail and had unhindered access to lawyers and family.” Chiranuch added that this treatment amounted to an “attempt to dehumanise Somyot.”

The defense of lese majeste and all things royalist came from Tul, a self-appointed defender of the monarchy and its political system. His story is “that it was inappropriate to look at the lese majeste issue from the perspective of human rights and free expression.” He sees lese majeste as a law that protects “national security,” by which he means that “red shirt stage rhetoric had become so inflammatory that it was clear they desired a new state no longer defined as a constitutional monarchy.” Tul’s view is that “Somyot had been a prominent voice of that movement…” and states that Somyos needed to be locked up to protect monarchy and the system it underpins: “Somyot’s case, he argued should be seen as a necessary action to protect the state and its institutions against a movement intent on undoing them.”

Remarkably, Tul expresses what other ultra-royalists often feel when he insists that the lese majeste law is “as vital to Thai society as prohibitions against murder or drug trafficking. Like those laws, lese majeste cases serve to remind the public about what acceptable behaviour is in society.” He adds that to “repeal Article 112 would be tantamount to pulling out the foundations of Thai society.”

In Tul’s warped world, the fact that  there was an escalation of lese majeste charges following the 2006 military coup and when military-backed governments were in place “was proof of a movement to undermine the Thai state and its institutions…”. This warped logic is not uncommon amongst the yellow shirt brigade of ultra-royalists. Thankfully, Streckfuss pointed out that the rise in cases “was due to a political and military will to preserve the status quo.”

And, we’d add, don’t forget the crusty lot in the palace. Their fears meant that they demanded action that, like Tul, they saw as threatening “their” system and its economic and political privileges.

 

“Reforming” lese majeste to save the regime

The Bangkok Post is a conservative newspaper. It has been the preferred newspaper of the English-reading Thai elite and tends to reflect their interests. In recent years it has demonstrated the royalism of that elite, hoping that the relatives and friends in military- and palace-backed governments (under on-again-off-again Privy Councilor Surayud Chulanont and elite scion of the royalist elite, Abhisit Vejjajiva) could get royalist rule back on track.

So it is significant that the recent lese majeste conviction of Somyos Prueksakasemsuk has caused the Bangkok Post to issue a call for “reform” of this draconian, medieval law. We assume that this call represents one thread of discussion within the higher echelons of the royalist elite who now see lese majeste as a problem for royalist rule.

We make this assumption because the Post editorial begins by observing that the “trial and conviction of Somyot Prueksakasemsuk has once again put Thailand in an uncomfortable spotlight.” We can imagine that the fact that “Thailand is increasingly criticised as a nation where authorities trample on the media and on freedom of expression” bothers the elite. We guess that some of them are tired of having to defend Thailand and its “protection” of a fabulously wealthy and privileged monarchy as somehow “culturally unique.” They probably get prickly at having to defend the sentencing of chained and caged journalists, aged men and political activists as being “culturally appropriate.” The idea that two men are sentenced for things they didn’t say and articles they didn’t write is probably causing them to squirm in their bespoke suits and Thai silk designer dresses.

Hence, the editorial demands action be taken to address the discomfort felt by some of the royalist upper crust about the lese majeste law (the editorial also briefly mentions the Computer Crimes Act). To be sure, Article 112 is defined by the Post as “a special law about the most special high institution,” and it makes no political or class mistake by demanding that the law is required, necessary and foundational:

The purpose of a lese majeste law must be to protect the monarchy and the royal family. They are otherwise defenceless against libel, slander, defamation, and against attacks on the system of democracy under a constitutional monarchy.

So the Post’s argument is that the lese majeste law might be reformed in ways that maintain the status quo and continue to “protect” the monarchy and the system of elite rule that it underpins. [Of course, "defenceless" is a bizarre term when referring to a body that wields huge political and economic power, but the monarchy continues to fear a situation where normal law might be applied to it and its privileges.]

The Post appears to be calling for a thinking person’s royalist “reform” of lese majeste as the “ultra-nationalists” are too hardline [read this as meaning: ultra-royalists are a nasty lot only good for street demonstration at needed times to protect our ruling class] and “advocates of legal change too often play into the hands…” of the yellow-shirted “knee-jerk” protection-of-the-monarchy lot. Hence, the “key to any reasonable amendment of the Criminal Code cannot proceed rationally from simple opposition to a law. The question is what the country needs, and what best serves the nation and all its institutions.”

In other words, how do “we” keep the law, “protect” the monarchy which “we” maintain as foundational to our class rule and not have to be “uncomfortable” and seen as knuckle-draggers locally and internationally.

Reflecting this ruling elite position, the editorial then claims to speak for all Thais:

… there is no disagreement among Thais. All citizens want to protect the national institutions. Protection of the monarchy, in particular His Majesty the King, is the aim of all citizens. No rational person or group has called for abolishing laws which protect His Majesty and the royal family. So any discussion of legal change can start on level ground:

This is pompous upper class nonsense. Of course there is disagreement! Clearly, there are rational Thais who do wish to abolish the law. Others, for reasons of political limitations, powerful threats and extant fears of attack, demand thoroughgoing reform rather than going the extra step.

The Post is right to observe that “[r]easonable people also can agree that Section 112 of the Criminal Code is out of date and deserves careful and factual study.” It observes that “it is obvious that the law is sometimes used by unscrupulous people in a political manner to harass those with whom they disagree.” This charge must include Abhisit, Suthep Thaugsuban and a gaggle of Democrat Party politicians, pretty much everyone in the leadership of the People’s Alliance for Democracy, Tul Sitthisomwong, Army boss General Prayuth Chan-ocha, several high officials in the Interior ministry, a number of politicians associated with pro-Thaksin Shinawatra political parties, amongst many others.

Tacitly acknowledging that many of the charges currently going through the courts were politicized charges brought by the Abhisit regime, the Post calls for an “amended Section 112 [that] would cause lese majeste charges to be brought only in cases where legal experts were certain that the offence was indeed against the monarchy _ not against a political ideology.” The editorial advocates “… change to make it relevant to the current situation.”

Without acknowledging that  lese majeste charges have declined very significantly under the the Yingluck Shinawatra government, the Post blames politicians for being tardy on lese majeste reform and its abuse. Yingluck’s timidity on lese majeste is based on a fear that “an amendment to Section 112 could be political suicide.” To then compare her political reticence with “silence” by her predecessors is disingenuous. Surayud and Abhsit weren’t “silent” on lese majeste; they used it again and again to repress political opponents and to demonstrate loyalty and their royalist credentials. They were deafening in their use of this political weapon. They spawned hundreds of other knuckle-draggers on monarchy and lese majeste through their collaboration with those who considered the monarchy and monarchy’s state under threat from republicans.

The ruling class is trying to save the royalist state it has constructed.

Aljazeera on lese majeste

Aljazeera has a video story on lese majeste. Watch for the dullard ultra-royalist Tul Sitthisomwong defending a law that is draconian, keeps people locked up for decades and limits democratic development:

With 3 updates: Pitak Siam rallies

Some early pictures of the Pitak Siam rally, together with the bizarre story of escaped snakes at a rally car park are available at Manager Online.

Update 1: It didn’t take long before Pitak Siam protesters got in the face of police, surging through barbed wire and being hit with tear gas. This made a mockery of the fake claims by the Pitak Siam leadership that there would be no violence, and if there was, the rally would end. Of course, that wasn’t what the dinosaur leadership wanted; they prefer confrontation and the police seemed willing to respond. Several protesters were arrested and several of them and police suffered minor injuries.

Dinosaur-in-chief General Boonlert Kaewprasit:

vowed to retaliate against the police for detaining a group of demonstrators. He threatened to storm the prime minister’s Government House office complex, a tactic used in the 2008 demonstrations by he yellow-shirted People’s Alliance for Democracy.

He claimed the police “broke the promise that will allow us to stage a peaceful rally” when the video shows the protesters breaking through. Boonlert blamed the police for “trying to lure us into violence…”. He added: “If the police don’t stop doing something like this, I may ask the military to help me.”

Reports: The Nation, Bangkok Post, AFP.

Video from 2Bangkok.com:

Update 2: By mid-afternoon, it is clear that Pitak Siam is seeking to mount a PAD-like effort to provoke violence and occupy areas in the city. Organizers have used claims of lese majeste to damn the Puea Thai government and enrage supporters. This was followed by further efforts to occupy areas of the city. For no other reason than to provoke police, royalist dunce Tul Sitthisomwong went on the warpath, leading protesters to occupy Makkhawan Rangsang Bridge. This effort saw more tear gas used by police against protesters.

Meanwhile, Defence Minister Sukampol Suwannathat “ordered Army chief Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha to prepare troops to assist police to keep law and order should police fail to control the situation…”. Prayuth was reported as ordering “the First Division, the Second Cavalry Division and the Anti-Aircraft Artillery Division to prepared 8 companies of troops each to provide reinforcements to police when asked to.”

Boonlert was reported as stating that the rally would continue, even as numbers remained lower than he hoped for.

Update 3: Reports of protesters preparing weapons emerge. PPT is not going to update this post further as both Bangkok Pundit and Siam Voices are live blogging (connect from our links above, right).

Bringing down the government

Many in Pitak Siam are gleeful that the Constitutional Court has refused to seriously consider petitions against its rally and that the Yingluck Shinawatra government has been spooked into invoking the Internal Security Act.

But apart from that, little seems to have changed amongst the groups that are coming together to further undermine the elected government.

According to the Bangkok Post, the big rally supporters are from “the yellow-shirt People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) … [and] several active and retired soldiers will also join the ranks, along with strategic and tactical advisers…”.

Then there is the misnamed “multi-coloured-shirt group led by Tul Sitthisomwong,” which are simply ultra-royalist-fascists; the equally misnamed ultra-nationalist “Peace-Loving Thais group led by Kanchanee Walayasevi.” Of course the shock troops provided by PAD’s Chamlong Srimuang’s Dhamma Army will be there. So will the Democrat Party-aligned “Group of People from 16 Southern Provinces led by Sunthorn Rakrong” and the dinosaur  “group of state enterprise labour union activists led by Somsak Kosaisuk, a former PAD co-leader.”

The Post tries to claim that there will be new groups attending, including “the People’s Movement for a Just Society (P-move), which consists of landless farmers, displaced people, and those affected by state projects; the Network of Small-Scale Northeastern Farmers; and the Assembly of the Poor.” All were part of the anti-Thaksin Shinawatra movements in the past and aligned with the PAD, so there is nothing new here.

It is somewhat surprising that the AoP is returning to the fascist-yellow side given that its grassroots supporters have previously rejected PAD. PPT imagines that the old pro-PAD leadership is struggling to regain control of the AoP.

For all of this claim to “variety”, the basic hue remains yellow and the “anti-government rally tomorrow is expected to be mainly Bangkok residents and supporters of the opposition Democrat Party, many of whom are unhappy with the Yingluck administration.”