On “defying” The Dictator

8 09 2014

The military dictatorship is using military courts to threaten and make examples of those who it considers “defy” it.

The Bangkok Post reports that a military court sentenced singer and activist Tom Dundee (Thanat Thanawatcharanont) to “a six-month jail term, suspended for two years … and a fine of 10,000 baht for defying a National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) order to report to military officials.”Tom Dundee

Lawyer Winyat Chartmontree said that Tom still has a lese majeste and the Computer Crimes Act case outstanding, which “was still being handled by police investigators.”

The military court “also sentenced Anurak Jentavanich, alias Fore Senthangseedaeng, to three months in jail and a fine of 5,000 baht for defying the NCPO’s order.” His jail term was also “suspended for two years.”

Meanwhile the case against Nitirat lawyer Worachet Pakeerut continued, and he “appeared before the Bangkok Military Court to testify in a case in which he is alleged to have defied the NCPO’s order.” The case was “adjourned the hearing to Nov 24.”

Defiance will not be counternanced by The Dictator or the dictatorship.





Obey us or face a kangaroo court

4 08 2014

Military dictatorships favor laws that favor them. Thailand’s military is, itself, pretty much lawless. More accurately, we might say that it ignores laws that distract it from its appointed task of protecting the monarchy and the system of privilege and class domination associated with it. Laws that relate to murder, torture, mutiny, corruption, and so on do not generally apply to the military.

Yet when it comes to its opponents, even civil laws are insufficient, and the military dictatorship concocts laws that are overseen by kangaroo courts run by the military itself.

Hence, we see something known as the Bangkok Military Court indicting former education minister Chaturon Chaisaeng and Thammasat University lecturer Worachet Pakeerut on charges that amount to refusing to accede to the illegal demands of an illegal regime.Military court

The dictatorship hates Worachet because he has said that the lese majeste law needs “revision.” He’s charged as a “warning” to all those the military considers suspect for failing to display totally blind loyalty to the feudal institution.

Chaturon could go to jail for four 14 years and was:

released on 400,000 baht bail on the condition he must not travel out of the country without the court’s permission, must not take part in a political rally and must not express opinions in a way that may lead to public unrest. He is required to appear before the court in 30 days to accept or deny the charges.

Yes, the “charges” are little more than an attempt by the military dictatorship to shut him up. He seems to frighten the supposedly tough military bosses.

 





Update: No progressive is safe

17 06 2014

Prachatai reports that the military has arrested Worachet Pakeerut, one of the significant figures associated with the Nitirat group of several legal scholars, centered on Thammasat University, where Worachet is a law professor.

Worachet was called in by the military dictatorship in an order on 23 May and then on 9 June. The report states that on 11 May, “Worachet’s wife went to the NCPO to report on his behalf saying that Worachet was sick and unable to report to the military by himself.”

A Nation photo

A Nation photo

The police now say that “Worachet is under detention by the military and he will be sent to investigation officer on Wednesday to be charged for violating the order of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO),” better known as the military’s junta.

Another Nitirat member Sawatree Suksri, was earlier “arrested the airport and detained by the military for three days, after she came back from a trip abroad with the United States embassy and did not report herself earlier” as demanded by the dictators.

The dictatorial military junta has issued orders “for 33 people, mostly politicians and activists from the red shirts and the anti-govt movement People’s Democratic Reform Committee [the anti-democrats]” to appear before military interrogators and propagandists. This includes the “[o]wner of Book Re:public, an activist book store in Chiang Mai…”.

The calling in of anti-democrats is nonsense window-dressing by the troglodyte regime as they hunt down anyone who is even mildly progressive in their politics.

Update: According to Prachatai, police have charged Worachet “for not reporting himself to the junta — on time.” In fact, Worachetis said to have been detained at Don Muang airport, returning from Hong Kong. He was taken to the “the Army Club in Theves, Bangkok. He was later taken to the 11th Infantry Regiment for interrogation.” Further interrogation was undertaken at the police Crime Suppression Division. Police charged him “for defying the coup makers’ order …[and] he was later taken to the military court as the police submitted custody petition.” The military court granted him bail and he “was released from Bangkok Remand Prison at about 6.30pm of Wednesday.”





Updated: Election is the answer

18 05 2014

One of the major impediments to progress in Thailand is the Election Commission. It has repeatedly refused to do its lawful duty. When it hasn’t refused it has delayed and even abandoned voters. Hence it is important that increased pressure be placed on this agency to do its duty.

In The Nation it reported that the the Assembly for the Defence of Democracy (AFDD) has declared that the “caretaker government has full authority to push for an election…”. Of course it does!

The AFDD added that the election should be called “with or without the blessing of the Election Commission…”. It should issue the required royal decree and the EC should do its duty. As academic lawyer Worachet Pakeerut states, “Article 195 of the charter states that only a Cabinet minister has the authority to submit a request for a Royal Decree for a new poll, and not the Election Commission.”

The AFDD is “comprised of law lecturers, academics and activists, said elections were the only constitutional path out of the prolonged political conflict.”

Worachet acknowledged that the Constitutional Court may nullify an election again but that the government should not be deterred.

He described “the PDRC and its allies were like a pack of wolves surrounding the government, adding that the Kingdom had reached a dead-end because people did not want to stick to the law. He also said the selection of a new Senate speaker was illegitimate as the charter clearly states that the upper House cannot convene when there is no Parliament.”

Update: So anti-election is the Election Commission, that these statements by the AFDD, broadcast on Channel 11, caused EC member Somchai Srisuttiyakorn to go into tantrum mode. Khaosod reports that the anti-election commissioner “threatened disciplinary action against state-owned Channel 11 for broadcasting a lecture about the need to hold elections.” He hissed: “I will have the Election Commission (EC) formally ask the Minister who oversees Channel 11 about the broadcast … to determine who ordered the broadcast, and how much money has been spent in the process…”. Somchai reckoned that the remarks above “causes rifts and confusion among the public…”. Of course, not holding an election and delaying even discussing an election is somehow good and proper in his cockeyed view.

 

 

 





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





No surrender to intimidation

3 12 2013

Khaosod reports that a group of Thammasat University academics have defied their rector’s order to close the campus, and have taught classes.

The rector is Somkit Lertpaithoon, a well-know anti-government academic. He closed the university for three days, “citing security concerns over the escalating anti-government protests in Bangkok,” protests he’d already supported.

The defiant academics viewed the rector’s “instruction as the cooperation with anti-government protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban, who has called for a nationwide strike by bureaucrats and closure of all universities to pressure the government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra into resigning.”

It is no surprise that those involved were from the Nitirat group that has bravely campaigned for “a more liberal change to Thai political system, such as the amendment of the draconic lese majeste laws, and spoken out against Mr. Somkid′s alleged conspiracy with anti-government factions.”

Members of the Nitirat told students that “Somkid′s order to close down the university is unacceptable as it leads to impression that Thammsat University has taken a side in the political crisis.” Their clas was a teach-in on the principles of democracy, a direct challenge to Somkid and the Suthep Thaugsuban plans for a non-democratic Thailand.

Academic Worachet Pakeerut stated that “the rector′s call for an unelected Prime Minister is not based on any academic principle and can be seen as supportive of an extra-judicial political change.”

Several acts of defiance were reported at Thammasat campuses.





Updated: Courts support junta constitution

21 11 2013

The outcome of the Constitutional Court’s (close) ruling yesterday is that the court has essentially ruled that changing a basic law that came from an illegal act is out of the question.

The 2007 constitution resulted from an illegal action by a military junta that overthrew an elected government and a widely-accepted constitution. It replaced it with a constitution drawn up by the junta’s hand-picked committee that was tutored by the junta and its unelected government. One of the reversions to type in that junta constitution was creating a Senate that could be controlled by palace-associated conservatives. That control came through appointed members and meant that opposition plus senators were likely to prevent popular change to law and the elite’s state.KangarooCourt

Those unelected senators are essentially appointed by panels of judges, creating an inherent conflict of interest when this conservative and undemocratic aspect of the constitution is challenged.

PPT went looking for some of the claims made by the promoters of the 2007 constitution when they were fixing it.

We found this commentary in an academic paper* that kind of summarizes the situation in 2007:

ConstitutionYou get a picture from this that parliament was to have control over the amendment of the constitution, and, indeed, amendment was to be by a simple majority in parliament. You also see that the current government has been struggling and campaigning to amend the constitution since it was being doctored into place by the military and associated royalist politicians.

The court has now made it clear that democratizing the Senate is virtually an act of treason by invoking Section 68:

Section 68. No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

Of course, this is a logical and legal nonsense, but the kangaroos of the court know that their rulings create precedents for elected governments, while juntas can do what they like and make it “legal” later.The court’s ruling also made it clear that it remains an essential politicized element of the conservative control of Thailand’s politics.

While not making these same points, the logic of this analysis is reinforced by Nitirat lawyer Worachet Pakeerut’s statement reported at the Bangkok Post. He calls on the “government and its MPs should reaffirm their democratic rights by continuing with the charter amendment despite the Constitution Court’s ruling…”.

He argues that “the court has no right to halt the charter rewrite, which he considers is part of the democratic duty of elected parliamentarians.” There’s nothing incendiary in this, for that is exactly what the constitution says, and using Section 68 is a ruse by the court to maintain its control and to preserve the junta’s undemocratic constitution. Worachet is correct to observe that “the ruling showed the court reaffirming its role in counter-balancing the ongoing process of progressive democratisation.”

His challenge to “the Pheu Thai Party executives, the prime minister and self-exiled leader Thaksin Shinawatra to make a bold move and reassert their rights despite the court’s ruling,” is, PPT guesses, unlikely to be taken up for his suggestion that “parliament ignore the ruling” and “simply wait for the King to either endorse the amendment or return the bill untouched” shifts the political challenge to the monarchy, and the ruling party is scared witless about such a challenge and is petrified by the idea of pitting parliament against the king.

Not only are they petrified on the power of the palaces networks but they are frightened of the opening it allows opposition political grifters.

Update: The New York Times has a useful account of the court’s decisions, quoting one of the judges:

Supot Kaimook, one of the nine judges of the Constitutional Court, said in the court’s decision Wednesday that the rights of the minority were being trampled.

“Thailand’s democratic system allows the majority to set the standard,” he wrote. “But once it uses its power arbitrarily and suppresses the minority without listening to reason, this makes the majority lose its legitimacy.”

He said the system could no longer be called “democratic” when the majority acted this way. “It results in the tyranny of the majority,” he said.

This is the mantra of the Democrat Party, which loses elections with such regularity that it appears to use a political laxative, and supports the views of anti-democratic protesters who see their rich and privileges selves as a “minority.” The Times added:

To outsiders, the court’s reasoning may appear odd — the direct election of senators would seem to be a move that strengthens democratization. But in a country where mistrust of politicians runs deep and vote buying is common [PPT: we disagree for recent elections], the court argued that if both houses were fully elected, the “political class” would have “absolute dominance of power.” (Many law experts disagreed, with one saying on television that the court’s decision was bizarre.)

That bit in the brackets is in the story and not added by PPT. We could also describe the decision as “bizarre,” but, in fact, all Constitutional Court decisions in recent years could carry that description. In this sense, they are “normal” rather than “bizarre.” In other words, the court has made the bizarre normal.

++++++++++

*We are having trouble getting this link into the post. The academic paper is available as a PDF: kevinhewison.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/hewison-2010_hku_book.pdf








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 157 other followers