More on Duck 112

Prachatai and, unusually, the Bangkok Post have reported the case we posted on yesterday, adding detail that wasn’t available when PPT posted.

The Bangkok Post reports that it was Narathorn Chotmankongsin, aged 26, who was jailed for selling duck calendars that was interpreted as referring to King Vajiralongkorn and mocking him.

PPT may be daft, but it isn’t clear to us how a duck image mocks the king. He looks nothing like a duck. For instance, he has visible ears, and as far as we know, he doesn’t have webbed feet. Yet the court saw a duck as damaging to the king, observing the messaging involved.

Plastic ducks and chickens were prominent symbols in student-led monarchy reform and democracy demonstrations in 2020. Prachatai notes that:

… yellow rubber ducks, initially brought in as a mockery of the government and nicknamed “the navy,” as shields against water cannon blasts. The yellow rubber duck then became a symbol of resistance, appearing in several subsequent protests in 2020, and was given pseudo-royal titles by protesters.

Prachatai reports that Narathorn was arrested on 31 December 2020. He was charged under Article 112. It adds:

The police conducted a sting operation, posing as a potential buyer and ordering a calendar on Facebook and asking to have it delivered by a Grab rider. Officers then tracked the location until they located Tonmai’s residence and requested a search warrant. After searching his house and confiscating the calendar, the police arrested him and charged him with royal defamation on the grounds that the content of the calendar mocks King Vajiralongkorn.

During the witness examination hearing during October-November 2022, Narathorn:

… testified that the yellow duck is a character named Krommaluang Kiakkai Ratsadonborirak (Prince/Princess Kiakkai, the People’s Protector), which is a name given to the duck by some netizens, and the calendar did not mention the King or other members of the royal family.

Sawatree Suksri, lecturer at Thammasat University’s Faculty of Law, also testified that parody does not constitute an offense under the royal defamation law, since the law specifically refers to defamation and threat.

Activist Sombat Boonngamanong testified that the yellow duck is seen as a symbol of protection for the protesters, and does not refer to the King. Although the language used in the calendar is the same as that used for royalty, Sombat said that it has also been used in fiction where appropriate for a character’s status.

From Prachatai

Royalist “academic” turned royalist snitch Chaiyan Chaiyaporn became an “expert witness” – yes, seriously, a rabid royalist ideologue is an “expert” for the prosecution. This dolt declared:

… he saw the duck as representing the King and that the calendar is meant to show that the King uses taxpayer money for his own sexual gain, that he controls the military, and is above executive, legislative, and judicial powers.

Well, all of those claims are true, if that is what the ducks actually mean, but as we know, such claims are used as reasons for lese majeste charges.

When shown a picture from the March calendar, Chaiyan said he saw the duck with a condom on top of its head as meaning that the King is obsessed with sex or that he is promoting the use of condoms, but because he has never seen the King participating in any such campaign, he believes that the image is intending to mock the King as being sex-obsessed.

Again, with multiple wives, divorced and current, and a platoon of concubines, he is one who obviously likes his fornication.

Under cross-examination, Chaiyan noted that he is aware that a yellow rubber duck is a common item and that many images of the duck in the calendar represent crowd control police. He also agreed that the ducks were represented in many roles….

The court bought Chaiyan’s interpretation, probably because judges already hold such opinions. Clearly, the judiciary wants to suppress all notions of monarchy reform.

Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch also commented on this ludicrous case and the chilling impact it has:

“The prosecution and three-year sentence of a man for selling satirical calendars shows that Thai authorities are now trying to punish any activity they deem to be insulting the monarchy,” said Elaine Pearson, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “This case sends a message to all Thais, and to the rest of the world, that Thailand is moving further away from – not closer to – becoming a rights-respecting democracy.”…

“Thai authorities should permit peaceful expression of all viewpoints, including those related to the monarchy,” Pearson said. “The government should urgently engage with United Nations experts and others about embarking on a process of amending the lese majeste law to bring it into compliance with Thailand’s international human rights obligations.”

Better to abolish it.

Royalist determination

There are now at least two cases where royalist “academics” have shown quite dogged determination to shut down normal academic debate and expression.

One is the mad case against historian Nattapol Chaiching, accused of having “falsified information in his PhD thesis” years ago at Chulalongkorn University. In this case, the royalist fervor can be attributed to Chaiyan Chaiyaporn, of the Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, who has proclaimed himself a defender of everything royal. He claims “errors” in Nattapol’s work (since corrected), but himself makes errors. In the mad world of royalists, Nattapol’s error is grievous, while Chaiyan’s is ignored.

Another, recently reported by Prachatai, is of royalist and former Chiang Mai University dean of Fine Arts Asawinee Wanjing and the vendetta against students and lecturers who defied him when he sought to ban student theses considered anti-royal or potentially so. This is a story of a royalist determination to punish anyone who defies royalist hierarchy and values.

After several cases have failed, Asawinee has filed complaints of trespassing against Faculty of Fine Arts lecturers Sorayut Aiemueayut and Thasnai Sethaseree and Faculty of Fine Arts student Yotsunthorn Ruttapradid. They broke open a gate to allow students to exhibit their work, as required by the university.

Royalist determination becomes royalist vendetta. All Asawinee seeks is to harass, intimidate and silence.

Further updated: Mad, mad, monarchism III

For those wanting an update on the mad royalist effort to prevent serious academic study of the monarchy in Thailand, Prachatai has it.

The story there opens with this:

Chaiyan

After it was disclosed that an investigation report into allegations that historian Nattapol Chaiching falsified information in his PhD thesis may itself contain falsehoods, political scientist Kullada Kesboonchoo Mead has published an open letter to the Chulalongkorn University Council, calling on it to reject the report.

Much of the royalist fervor can be attributed to Chaiyan Chaiyaporn, of the Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, who has proclaimed himself a defender of everything royal. In claiming “errors” in Nattapol’s work (since corrected), Chaiyan has himself made errors. In the mad world of royalists, however, his error is an “honest mistake” by a “good person.”

Update 1: PPT has yet to obtain a copy of the Bangkok Post article published on 18 December 1950, which the Post stated it had reproduced. Any reader have a copy they can send us?

Update 2: While on the topic of academic research and monarchism, we noticed that Pavin Chachavalpongpun’s recent article “On His Majesty’s Service: Why is the Thai Foreign Ministry Royalist?” is available for free download.

Mad, mad, monarchism II

One of the traits of royalism in Thailand is the way in which royalists seek to annihilate those they identify as opponents.

Back in the news is the “case” being mounted against historian Nattaphol Chai­ching. Beginning from 2018, academic royalists sought to censor his work. As a royalist stronghold, under pressure from mad monarchists, it considered the claims against Nattaphol.

The royalists viewed Nattaphol’s books and their popularity as a threat. In particular, the execrable yellow-shirted political “philosopher” Chaiyan Chaiyaporn targeted the author, calling for his 2009 PhD to be revoked. The university set up an investigation committee to review the thesis that was the basis for the books while barring public access to the thesis. It appears the university found some errors – most corrected in the books – but would not allow them to be corrected in the thesis. It apparently found no misconduct.

As a footnote, the most contentious point related to a Bangkok Post story from 18 December 1950. The Post claimed to “clarify” and claimed to reproduce the original article. It didn’t and it still hasn’t.

That royalist assault was paired with a ridiculous (except in royalist Thailand) defamation case by minor royal, MR Priyanandana Rangsit, against Nattaphol and publisher Fah Diaw Kan (Same Sky), seeking to protect the “honor” of a long dead relative.

We would have hoped that such a malicious set of actions by mad monarchists would have faded away. It hasn’t.

Prachatai reports that the “Civil Court said on Tuesday (9 November) that it will issue a ruling on 30 November in a lawsuit filed against historian Nattapol Chaiching and his publisher, Same Sky Books for producing two books based on Nattapol’s PhD thesis about Thai politics during the Cold War period.”

Priyanandana is seeking compensation of 50 million baht for the “damage” done to the dead relative, Prince Rangsit:

She initially asked the Court for a temporary injunction stopping the circulation of both books, but later withdrew her request, noting that there was no point to a temporary injunction as the books have been widely circulated. She is also suing Nattapol’s PhD thesis supervisor, former Faculty of Political Science lecturer Kullada Kesboonchoo Mead; Chaithawat Tulathon, editor for “Dream the Impossible Dream”; Anchalee Maneeroj, editor for “The Junta, the Lords, and the Eagle”; Same Sky Books, the publisher of both volumes; and Same Sky Books editor-in-chief Thanapol Eawsakul.

Apart from the usual royalist nonsense, why Prince Rangsit? Essentially because the Prince is seen as one of the driving forces for the political and economic restoration of the palace and for steering it through the difficult times after the abdication and then the death of Ananda Mahidol and the rise of Bhumibol.

Rangsit spend several years in detention, accused of treason and of plotting a coup in 1938, but was released at the end of WW2. He became regent in 1946 and was quick to support royalists and military men opposed to the People’s Party. Even if the original claim – that Rangsit interfered with cabinet – is not supported by the Bangkok Post story in 1950, it is clear in several accounts that Rangsit repeatedly interfered, seeking advantages for the palace and for royalists.

Thai Enquirer reports on the inclusion of Dr Kullada in the case and her response. She laments that “Chulalongkorn University … failed to protect her against a lawsuit even though all she did was approve a thesis while she was teaching at the school.” She said: “To prosecute me as a thesis adviser is defying the principles of academic freedom and this will have a serious impact on the academic sector in the future as well…”.

Hopefully her student is defended as well. But we fear that the most recent absurd decision by the Constitutional Court will empower mad monarchists, including those who are judges.

Royalist academic unfreedom

Dr Nattapol with his books. The photo, supplied by Same Sky Books, is clipped from New Mandala

Just over a week ago, PPT post Clown royalists and the monarchist laundry where we began with a story from the Bangkok Post about minor royal, MR Priyanandana Rangsit, “taking legal action and seeking damages of 50 million baht from writer Nattapol Chai­ching and publisher Fah Diew Kan (Same Sky) for alleged slander.”

That story is taken up at New Mandala, where Thongchai Winichakul and Tyrell Haberkorn detail the silliness and nastiness associated with this case. It particularly highlights the role of royalist troll Chaiyan Chaiyaporn, who operates like a fascist cheerleader, seeking to further diminish the already severely curtailed academic freedom (and pretty much every other freedom) in Thailand.

We urge readers to consider the New Mandala piece in its entirety.

Clown royalists and the monarchist laundry

The Bangkok Post had a report that, if it wasn’t from royalist, neo-absolutist Thailand, would seem odd, even crazy. It is about a nutty minor royal, MR Priyanandana Rangsit, “taking legal action and seeking damages of 50 million baht from writer Nattapol Chai­ching and publisher Fah Diew Kan (Same Sky) for alleged slander.”

Minor princess Priyanandana, is “a granddaughter of the Prince of Chai Nat” and in the name of her princely grandfather, has lodged “a complaint with the Civil Court against Mr Nattapol, his two PhD thesis advisers and two executives of the Fah Diew Kan publishing house for disseminating false information.”

All of this stems from the work of royalist/yellow-shirted academic Chaiyan Chaiyaporn at Chulalongkorn University, who spent his time combing through Nattapol’s thesis seeking any error he could identify. He accused Nattapol of “false references,” in the thesis one of which was to a:

Bangkok Post article published on Dec 18, 1950, which said the Regent [Prince of Chai Nat] had been expanding his political role by frequently attending cabinet meetings led by prime minister Field Marshal Plaek Phibulsonggram. This move was said to have made Field Marshal Plaek unhappy and that he responded by demanding that he be allowed to sit in meetings of the Privy Council if the Regent continued to interfere with the administrative and legislative branches.

The Post later denied it had reported such information, “and said the article merely reported that several cabinet members had voiced concern over 50 senators being appointed by the Privy Council without the government being consulted.” Nattapol has admitted that error in referencing. As far as we know, the Post has not reprinted the article online and we have been unable to find an archive.

In any case, the claim that Phibul had problems with Rangsit and, at the time, actively worked against the royalists and their political machinations is hardly news. But what’s going on here is a royalist laundering of critical scholarship that tells the real story of the royal insurgency against the remnants of the People’s Party.

We were struck by the parallels with current writing on the British monarchy. This one seemed relevant:

Having a monarchy next door is a little like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and has daubed their house with clown murals, displays clown dolls in each window and has an insatiable desire to hear about and discuss clown-related news stories. More specifically, for the Irish [Thais], it’s like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and, also, your grandfather was murdered by a clown.

Double standards again and again

Double standards are the politicized judiciary’s only standard. In another case of blatant double standards.

Khaosod reports that three men “who participated in a symbolic protest against the junta-sponsored charter referendum in 2016 were sentenced to four months in prison by a court on Tuesday.” The Criminal Court “found activists Piyarat “Toto” Chongthep, Jirawat Ekakkaranuwat, and Songtum Kaewpanphreuk guilty for ripping a ballot paper in a polling station and posting a video of the protest on the internet.”

While the sentence was suspended, “the defendants were fined 4,000 baht each.”

Piyarat said: “My feelings today remain unchanged. It was civil disobedience that I have to receive the consequences of today…. If I could turn back time, I would do it all over again. I’ve never regretted doing it.”

It was Piyarat who declared: “Down with dictatorship, long live democracy!” as he ripped up the ballot.

Why do we say double standards? It is worth recalling that, back in 2010, in a case from the 2006 election, rightist and yellow-shirted Chulalongkorn University political science lecturer Chaiyan Chaiyaporn was acquitted after he tore up ballot papers. The court found a technicality that meant it could let Chaiyan off the hook as he blatantly used the courts to highlight his anti-Thaksin Shinawatra campaign.

And then there’s the issue that the charter was a junta scheme for prolonging its rule – as has proved the case. That draft charter was put to a bogus referendum. But even after that the junta changed several sections, demonstrating that it was bogus. The changes were mostly prompted by the king’s desire to live in Germany and to control his palace world.

Going to the goats

Prime Minister and junta boss General Prayuth Chan-ocha went south in what some say was a campaign trip and a publicity exercise.

It did not go well.

The Dictator’s mobile cabinet meeting took him to Pattani and Songkhla where many promises were made and billions of baht in infrastructure and other projects highlighted.

Listening but not hearing

With his jet black Chinese Politburo hair and Prem Tinsulanonda-style, “royally-bestowed,” but invented “traditional” suea phraratchathan looked suitably 1980s as he campaigned for his “election,” whenever he decides to bestow one on the Thai people.

The Dictator promised to do something about falling rubber prices. Interestingly, because of their political profile in supporting anti-democrats and The Dictator’s military coup, the rubber growers seem to have Prayuth on a string. Thailand’s rubber price follows market prices which were high earlier in the year. The Dictator wants to shore up his political support among growers.

After those efforts, things went south.

General Prayuth seemed to throw doubt on local elections, telling “local administrative organisations not to merely focus on elections…”.

The police and military lit into 500 protesters opposing a coal-fired power plant project in Songkhla’s Thepha district. With images of the authorities pushing people to the ground, “16 people, including four leaders, of the  were arrested Monday after their rally resulted in three injuries during a clash with police.”

Can that one vote?

Many of the protesters also fall into the groups that (previously) supported the junta and the coup. They are now finding out what it means to be considered oppositional. Predictably, The Dictator defended the authorities and their violence.

The Dictator was also short-tempered with potential voters and was accused of being deaf to locals. Worse, The Dictator and his “government” were “perceived as ‘unfriendly’ to residents.”

In another incident, The Dictator launched a pail of “vitriol at a fisherman during his visit in Pattana’s Nong Chik district on Monday when Paranyu Charoen, a 34-year-old fisherman, asked the prime minister to change fishing regulations to increase the number of days that fisherman can put to sea.”

Prayuth’s PR people soon apologized “for his foul temper.”

The Democrat Party sought to make political mileage, saying Prayuth did not understand “the problems of fishermen…”.

Chulalongkorn University political scientist and devout yellow shirt Chaiyan Chaiyaporn warned the junta “to abstain from being a political player.”

It is a bit late for that. What he means is that the junta should not get involved in political campaigning so that it may continue to dominate politics following any “election.”

Protecting the “referendum”

A few days ago we posted on the case of Piyarat Chongthep who, wearing a No Coup t-shirt, ripped his ballot in half while shouting “Down with Dictatorship, Long Live Democracy.” This was at a Bangkok polling booth when the junta managed, directed and controlled referendum on the military dictatorship’s constitution took place.

He faced from one to 10 years in jail when he faced court earlier today. Prachatai reports on the outcome of that appearance.

Interestingly, the court “acquitted him of the offence under the Public Referendum Act in which he was accused of obstructing the referendum, reasoning that the action of the accused was peaceful.” As he pleaded guilty to three other charges, his sentence was halved and then suspended.

Similar cases against “Jirawat Aekakkaranuwat and Thongtham Kaewpanpruek, were also acquitted and were not given any jail term or fine.”

That might be a reasonable outcome, yet it stands in stark contrast to the 2010 case of yellow-shirted Chulalongkorn University political science lecturer Chaiyan Chaiyaporn, who was acquitted on a technicality after he tore up ballot papers in 2006.

The message seems to be that, whenever the junta decides to hold its “election,” civil disobedience is to be illegal.

Justice system no longer makes sense

Double standards rule in the justice system. Sure, some yellow shirts get to courts for their actions, but their cases are slowed to a crawl, subject to seemingly endless appeals and so on. But when it comes to those who are accused of lese majeste or actions the military dictatorship considers threatening or unsettling, the cases sail through courts.

Khaosod reports on the case of Piyarat Chongthep who, wearing a No Coup t-shirt, “stared down a security officer as he ripped his ballot in half while shouting ‘Down with Dictatorship, Long Live Democracy’ at a Bangkok polling station.”

He soon goes to court and is facing 10 years in jail.

While the court outcome is not yet known, there are several things worth considering in this case.

Piyarat declares that he “engaged in civil disobedience,” but he was “charged with obstructing the referendum, causing a disturbance at a polling station and destruction of state property for tearing the 25 satang ballot.”

His aim “was to draw attention to suppression of the public’s right to oppose the junta-sponsored draft charter in an unjust process that give it the veneer of democratic legitimacy.”

As Khaosod reminds us, the military dictatorship enacted “a special referendum law … that criminalized campaigning against it [the referendum].” This draconian law “criminalized all forms of campaigning, but the airwaves were filled with pro-charter messages from the regime while only opponents were arrested.”

Like others we have recently posted on (here and here), Piyarat is disillusioned by the (in)justice system:

After learning the referendum passed by a sizeable margin, he felt the law had been so twisted by the junta that Thailand’s justice system no longer made sense. As a result, when he was released from the police station, he quit his evening law classes.

It is also worth remembering that, back in 2010, in a case that went back to the 2006 election, rightist and yellow-shirted Chulalongkorn University political science lecturer Chaiyan Chaiyaporn was acquitted after he tore up ballot papers. The court found a technicality that meant it could let Chaiyan off the hook as he used the courts to highlight his anti-Thaksin Shinawatra campaign.