Nine-year 112 sentence

Clipped from Prachatai

Based on Thai Lawyers for Human Rights reporting, Prachatai has an account of the quite bizarre case of Pakpinya (last name withheld), 31, a  hospital librarian, singer, and model living in Bangkok.

Bizarre is the right term for the whole “case,” cobbled together on yet another complaint by ultra-royalist vigilante Pasit Chanhuaton. He has filed Article 112 complaints against at least eight people with the police in Sungai Kolok.

On 19 October 2022, a court in Narathiwat sentenced Pakpinya “to 9 years in prison on charges of royal defamation and violation of the Computer Crimes Act for sharing Facebook posts about the use of violence to disperse pro-democracy protesters in 2020 and the public being prohibited from using Sanam Luang.”

Phasit searched for and identified six posts he attributed to claiming they constituted lese majeste. He claimed these shared posts were from Facebook pages belonging to activist groups.

Some of these posts criticized police crowd control when they used water cannon against protesters, He claimed that Pakpinya “added a caption saying that people would be able to enter if they wear a yellow shirt.”

The royally deranged Pasit also accused her of sharing a post from คนไทยยูเค claiming that the king ordered the use of violence against protesters. He alleged that she also shared a post critical of the royal use of Sanam Luang while the people were locked out.

Three other posts were about enforced disappearances and the regime’s mismanagement of the Covid-19 pandemic and vaccine production.

TLHR point out that while the police did little investigation and Pasit lied, the court still founf Pakpinya guilty in three of the six instances.

Pasit said:

… he has never met Pakpinya, but insisted that she is the owner of the Facebook profile he filed a complaint against.

During cross-examination, Phasit claimed that he was not involved with the royalist group Citizens’ Network to Protect the Monarchy, even though he stated when he filed his complaint that he was a member. He also claimed not to know who the group’s leaders or members were, and that he knew that the network has been filing royal defamation complaint against people in various provinces, but did not know where.

Phasit said that he took screen captures of the posts from his mobile phone and did not print them out from Facebook, so there was no URL for each post, and that he adjusted the size of each picture before putting them into Microsoft Word and printing them out.

The police apparently didn’t investigate any of Pasit’s claims or his “evidence.” For instance:

Pol Maj Natee Chansaengsri, an inquiry officer at Su-ngai Kolok Provincial Police Station, also testified that he did not ask to see Phasit’s mobile phone, or for the original files of the photos he printed out. The police also did not confiscate Phasit’s mobile phone and laptop, so he could not confirm whether the content used to file the complaint matched with what is on the Facebook profile.

He also said during cross-examination that it was not possible to determine the IP Address that uses the profile, and that identity could not be determined from a YouTube account. He admitted that it is possible for Facebook accounts to share names and that he does not know if information on Facebook can be changed by another person.

After the verdict, Pakpinya was later granted bail with a 200,000-baht security. She said: “I want to know how twisted the Thai justice system can be…”.

The answer is very twisted indeed.

House arrest

Teeranai Charuvastra has another excellent report with Prachatai regarding the house arrest of “two activists known for their campaign to reform the monarchy…”.

Read it an weep for the activists. Pour scorn on the royalist courts. Lament the decline of the justice system.

Wither the (in)justice system

Over several years, the (in)justice system has been crafted to ensure that “good” people are protected from the law. That protected species is made up of criminal masterminds, the well-connected, murderous generals, coup-makers, police, army, the wealthy, and more.

In the never-ending saga, dating back to 2012, of getting the wealthy Vorayuth “Boss” Yoovidhya off all charges associated with his murder of a lowly policeman, The Nation reports that. as expected, the “cocaine use charge against … [the fugitive is] nearing the end of its statute of limitations.”

An AFP photo clipped from ChannelNews Asia

The office on Wednesday released a statement on the results of the year 2021 and the direction of proactive action in 2022.

That will leave one charge: “rash driving causing the death of another person…”.

The only question now is how the corrupt (in)justice system can make that one go away. In the meantime, there’s stalling, delays and so on that mean justice is dead and those responsible for that death have probably become wealthier.

Meanwhile, to add emphasis to the death of justice, the Bangkok Post reports that an Appeals Court “upheld a Civil Court ruling dismissing a lawsuit filed against the army for compensation over the death of Lahu human rights activist Chaiyaphum Pasae, who was shot dead at a checkpoint in Chiang Mai province in 2017.”

The “court ruled to dismiss the lawsuit and said the army has no need to pay compensation to Chaiyaphum’s family. The court considered the M16 rifle that a soldier shot Chaiyaphum with was used in self-defence and out of necessity.”

This relates to a case where “officers claimed they found drugs in Chaiyaphum’s car and had to shoot him because he resisted their search and tried to throw a grenade at them.” Of course, witnesses had a different story, saying “Chaiyaphum was dragged out of the car, beaten and shot.” And, the CCTV footage of the military’s actions was taken away by Army bosses and never provided to any court. That’s because the military is more powerful than the courts, enjoys almost complete impunity for its crimes, and has the power to murder civilians as it sees fit.

Of course, occasionally a court does its work properly, but these occasions are surprises rather than the norm. Wither the justice system.

Further updated: “The end of Thailand as an open society”

Referring to the regime’s efforts to control and delete NGOs it despises for their independent political line, a Bangkok Post editorial states the obvious: “NGOs in society might be entering a dark age.”

It observes:

The government is jumping on the bandwagon of nationalist governments, like the one in China, or those increasingly looking inward, like India’s, to tighten monitoring of foreign NGOs….

Like it or not, the anti-NGO sentiment might signal the end of Thailand as an open society, too….

So far, society has tolerated NGOs. Even if some of their campaigns touch on politically sensitive issues, the government has never expelled any NGO.

Yet the bill — which is to be tabled in parliament for its final reading soon — will become a game-changer that turns Bangkok into a second Beijing…. If passed, it will give the authorities the power to further audit and regulate NGOs.

Under military and military-backed regimes, political space has always been limited and controlled. In general terms, these regimes – including the current despots – have concentrated on locals identified as enemies of regime, status quo and monarchy. At times this has let to massive bloodletting in order to maintain the status quo of the Cold War and post-Cold War eras.

As the (usually hopeless) National Human Rights Commission points out, this backward-facing regime has made the so-called justice system a political weapon. The NHRC reports that “violations of people’s rights in the judicial process were the most common form of complaints lodged with the … NHRC … last year.” It added that the “complaints concerned the Royal Thai Police, the Department of Corrections and the Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc).”

We are unsure how the military-political agency ISOC fits into to a justice system. But this is the military’s and royalists’ Thailand.

On the ground, repression continues unabated, mostly in the name of the keystone of the ruling class, the monarchy. A recent example is the police raid on one of the truly independent publishing outfits in the country, Same Sky, publisher of Fa Diaw Kan.

Some 30 police – yes, 30 – “raided the Same Sky publishing house on Thursday, but failed to find a book deemed a threat to national security.”

They mean the monarchy.

The police were desperate to find a book “Sathaban Phra Maha Kasat and Sangkhom Thai” (The Monarchy and Thai Society). The “book contains the speech human rights lawyer Arnon Nampa delivered at a rally at the Democracy Monument on Aug 3, 2020 calling for reform of the [monarchy].”

Yes, that’s a book the authorities fear is somehow threatening to bring down the whole ruling class and its state. All very Nazi-like, or borrowing from the Post above, rather more like the Chinese Party-State versus the independent media in Hong Kong.

The hordes of brown-shirted cops “did seize mobile phones and editor Thanapol Eawsakul’s computer, to search for incriminating evidence.” Maybe they’ll just put this evidence on his machines, as they have been known to do in the recent past.

Same Sky stated: “The publishing house does not distribute the book…”. But Same Sky is popular among those who oppose the military-backed regime and has a history of critical and well-researched analysis of the monarchy.

Add this to recent efforts to further constrain the already cowed media and Thailand’s future looks like a dark age, and not just for NGOs.

Update 1: This post marks PPT’s 13th Anniversary. It is not an anniversary to celebrate. Things are getting worse and there are more political prisoners than when we began this blog. PPT remains dedicated to those who are held in Thailand’s prisons, charged with political crimes.

Update 2: Prachatai has posted on the raid targeting Same Sky and Thanapol Eawsakul. PPT has posted the English version of the book the police want here.

Crooked business as usual

In an editorial, the Bangkok Post gets very excited, claiming that the politicized justice system has suddenly given cause for optimism that the courts will get better:

On Wednesday, Thais witnessed justice being served fair and square. In a trial that will be remembered as a landmark environmental case, the Supreme Court handed down jail terms of about three years to construction tycoon Premchai Karnasutra and two accomplices for poaching in Thungyai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary.

The editorial continues:

For those who believe in the much-used local adage that “Thai jails are only for locking up poor people”, the verdict came as a surprise. Understandably, Thais have felt demoralised in the past after witnessing rich and powerful people … running away from court, escaping the country.

Therefore, watching the billionaire being jailed as he was on Wednesday after a long court case, people feel inspired to hope that the justice system will work better….

The Post is grasping at straws and trying to be encouraging. But Premchai’s case is an exception.

Think about the National Anti‑Corruption Commission (NACC). This week it was chirping that it had “closed more than 4,500 cases this year…”. NACC chairman and buddy to The Watchman, Pol Gen Watcharapol Prasarnrajkit claimed great success while Prime Minister Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha “pledged to create a transparent government and a society free of corruption…”.

But what of the big cases?

Indeed, as Premchai was sentenced, the Bangkok Post reported that the NACC had “rejected a petition by the Move Forward Party (MFP) calling for a probe into the ethical conduct of Thamanat Prompow over his narcotics conviction in Australia.” Of course, this could not happen, especially given Thammanat’s close relationship with Gen Prawit Wongsuwan.

NACC secretary-general Niwatchai Kasemmongkol said that “based on the Constitutional Court’s ruling on May 5 that Capt Thamanat, a Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP) MP for Phayao and former deputy agriculture and cooperatives minister, was eligible to hold his MP and ministerial positions despite having served four years in an Australian prison.”

Niwatchai added that as the heroin trafficking conviction “took place before Capt Thamanat held the positions and before the code of ethics took effect,” no probe could be considered. An ethics probe into ethical conduct can only be launched when an MP or cabinet minister violates the code of ethics while in office…”. And, for good measure, he explained that “[a]ny action committed by an MP or minister before they took office does not warrant an inquiry…”.

Pedophiles, murderers, and drug smugglers all have their slates wiped clean.

Protecting the powerful criminals continued in another report where the NACC said it aimed “to wrap up the hit-and-run case against Red Bull scion Vorayuth … Yoovidhya within 14 months, with the completion expected by the end of 2022.”

We do note that 14 months means 2023…. But, then, this claim by the NACC is just another cover-up. Most of the charges will have expired by then.

Double standards are the rule for the rich and powerful.

Never ending “investigation”

Impunity and cover-ups sometimes become even more farcical than usual when there are multiple, sometimes competing, “investigations.” This is particularly the case when powerful interests are involved and various “investigations” drag on for years and years.

The Red Bull scion murder of a policeman is one such case as officials give the impression that they have been bought and sold several times over the years.

An AFP photo clipped from ChannelNews Asia

The Bangkok Post reports that yet another committee has been formed to “investigate.” A “seven-member committee has been set up to conduct a serious disciplinary probe against former deputy attorney general Nate Naksuk over his decision to drop the charges against Red Bull scion Vorayuth ‘Boss’ Yoovidhya in the infamous 2012 hit-and-run case.”

Pachara Yutidhammadamrong, chairman of the Public Prosecutors Commission (PCC), said “expressed confidence in the committee members, saying the panel has full authority and independence in doing its task.”

Such has been said of several committees. This new “panel is expected to wrap up the investigation in 60 days, but it can extend the deadline twice, but not exceeding 180 days in total, if it needs more time…”.

This is also likely to involve yet another “investigation” of how prosecutors managed to change “the reported speed of the car driven by Mr Vorayuth. It is believed that the greatly reduced speed estimate was an important factor in the decision by prosecutors to drop the charges against Mr Vorayuth.”

Seldom do we hear of any “investigation” of the motivations involved in diddling the evidence and allowing Boss to go free. That might explain something about how bent the whole justice system is.

Slithering through money and corruption

PPT has had several posts over almost a decade regarding the unexplained wealth of former national police chief Pol Gen Somyos Pumpanmuang. Thinking about this great wealth and his tenure, it is little surprise that he’s now caught up in the long cover-up of Vorayuth “Boss” Yoovidhya’s crime.

Along with Vorayuth’s lawyer,Thanit Buakhiew, The Nation reports that Gen Somyos “will be investigated by a Royal Thai Police special committee for their alleged involvement in altering the actual car speed at which Vorayuth was driving in the 2012 hit-and-run case that killed a motorcycle police officer.”

Gen Somyos, who has never been shy in flaunting his wealth and his connections, has prospered and his wealth has grown over the years and despite several “investigations” that have never been reported as finished or found little wrong with a junta ally being corrupt.

This latest “investigation” after the “Royal Thai Police … appointed a special committee to investigate the case…”:

Police Internal Affairs chief Pol General Wisanu Prasatthong-Osot, who chaired the committee, said on Wednesday that Pol Colonel Thanasit Daengjan, the investigation officer in Vorayuth’s case, had presented an audio clip indicating that Somyos and Thanit had allegedly told him to change the speed of Vorayuth’s car from 177 km per hour to just 76 km per hour.

“The reported reduction in car speed was the reason why the public prosecutor decided to drop the charge of reckless driving against Vorayuth,” Wisanu said.

As the Bangkok Post recalls:

A speeding charge against him [Vorayuth] was dropped after its one-year statute of limitations expired in 2013. A second charge — failing to stop to help a crash victim — expired on Sept 3, 2017. His drug and reckless driving charges remain active until Sept 3 next year and 2027, respectively.

The Office of the Attorney General initially dropped the last charge but later decided to reinstate it after a public outcry.

It may be that Gen Somyos slithers out of another “investigation,” but it is worthwhile considering the obvious: Why would the country’s top cop intervene in such a manner? Look at the photo above. Look at the record. Think of the way the rich “enjoy” the so-called justice system.

Reflecting the regime I

Some recent reports would be funny if they weren’t serious. These reports shed light on the nature of the regime.

Thai Enquirer reports on a turncoat politician. This time it is not the execrable Suporn/Seksakol Atthawong but “Ruangkrai Leekitwattana, a former party-list MP for the Pheu Thai Party turned member of the pro-junta and ruling Palang Pracharath Party, is not the brightest bulb in parliament.”

It may be that Ruangkrai is a complete lug nut or he might just be reflecting the level of impunity afforded the regime and its members when he is “telling everyone that he received two Mercedes from ‘kind adults’ since he switched sides.”

Clipped from Thai Enquirer

Author Erich Parpart is right to wonder “what is the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) doing?” He might have added the National Anti-Corruption Commission, but we all know that they are hopeless accessories of the regime.

Like Suporn, Ruangkrai is a useful political stooge. He has recently petitioned the “Election Commission (EC) to investigate the Move Forward Party (MFP) for bringing up the palace bureau during budget debate” and wants the party dissolved by the Constitutional Court. Both organizations are also regime accessories.

While mentioning the hopeless NACC, let’s nod to the story that the agency needs another “16 months to complete its investigation into alleged mishandling, by 15 officials, of the controversial hit-and-run case against Red Bull heir, Vorayuth ‘Boss’ Yoovidhya, including both retired and active high-ranking police officers and senior prosecutors.” No one who has followed this story of the escaped but very rich (alleged) cop killer would be at all surprised. After all, the cases against Vorayuth have gone on and on since 2012, with many of them expired and the rest of them buried, delayed and forgotten.

Both Ruangkrai and Vorayuth show how the legal system in Thailand is not just corrupt but provides a means to escape justice. Under the junta-cum-military-backed regime, what we used to call double standards in the judicial system has been transformed into a sytem of political repression with limited attention to anything resembling justice.

Trampling legal rights

Our readers will know that the royalist courts have, for some time, abandoned most pretenses of so-called blind justice, observing the constitution, or even following the law as it is written. But the (in)justice system extends further than the courts.

A recent statement by Thai Lawyers for Human Rights discusses breaches of confidential attorney-client by the Department of Corrections.

On 16 June 2021, Parit Chiwarak “raised his concern regarding the practice of eavesdropping on confidential attorney-client conversations in prison and proposed that … [a Parliamentary] Committee launches an inspection on the Department of Corrections’ conduct.”

Immediately, Corrections Department director-general Ayut Sinthoppan responded that:

Section 9(5) of the Rules of the Department of Corrections on Visit, Contact with Prisoners, and Study Visit to or Contact with Prison, B.E. 2561 (2018) clearly prescribes that an external party authorized to visit or contact prisoners must consent to have prison officials listen to their conversations, take photos and audio recordings, cut off communication if the conversation is considered inappropriate.

He added that “if a lawyer wants to keep the conversation with a prisoner confidential, they must inform a prison official.”

TLHR considered this statement as “an admission that the prison has been using its authority under the Department of Corrections’ rules to eavesdrop and record most conversations between attorneys and their clients in prison” and that “confidentiality is only occasionally permitted as a rare exception.”

TLHR observed that this is a serious “violation of the right to access counsel per Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),” to which Thailand is a State Party and has obligations to comply with the ICCPR’s provisions. Furthermore, it contradicts Section 7/1(1) of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code, which guarantees the rights of the arrested and suspects in detention or imprisonment to meet and consult with their lawyer tête-à-tête.

In addition, Article 61 of the Corrections Act B.E. 2560 (2017) states, “The prison shall arrange a place for prisoners to have a tête-à-tête meeting and consultation with their lawyer or persons to be appointed as their lawyer as specified in the rules of the Department of Corrections.” This provision ensures the right to meet a lawyer confidentially without imposing any restrictions on such a right.

Furthermore, the Rules of the Department of Corrections on Visit, Contact with Prisoners, and Study Visit to or Contact with Prison, B.E. 2561 (2018), which is a subordinate law, provide separate rules for external parties and lawyers. Section 9 in Part 1 allows the Department of Corrections to record the conversations between the external parties and prisoners. In contrast, Part 2 did not grant the same power in the case of attorney-prisoner communications. Section 19 states that the rules in Part 1 could be enforced mutatis mutandis. Nonetheless, it is still illegal to record attorney-prisoner conversations because that rule violates Article 61 of the Corrections Act B.E. 2560 (2017), whose status is higher than the Department of Corrections’ Rules in the legal hierarchy.

“Eavesdropping on attorney-client conversations does not only violate the right to fair trial and Article 61 of the Corrections Act B.E. 2560 (2017). It also seriously jeopardizes the entire justice system. The statement from the Director-General of the Department of Corrections, which cited Rules of the Department of Corrections on Visit, Contact with Prisoners, and Study Visit to or Contact with Prison, B.E. 2561 (2018), is unacceptable. The right to have confidential access to a lawyer is a fundamental principle of criminal law, which could not be precluded as an exception under any Rules. It also should not be the lawyer’s duty to request for the guarantee of this right.

Therefore, TLHR calls for the Minister of Justice, Lawyers Council of Thailand, National Human Rights Commission, and other relevant agencies to investigate this matter and take steps to amend the said Rules because any persons facing a charge must be entitled to their right to consult with their lawyer confidentially. If the justice system could not guarantee this right, such a failure could adversely impact their ability to fight the lawsuit, hindering their full ability to defend themselves in court effectively,” said Yaowalak Anupan, Chief of TLHR.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights

18 June 2021

Still on the lam

The 2012 hit-and-run case involving tycoon scion Vorayuth “Boss” Yoovidhya of Red Bull fame, when he killed a policeman while driving his luxury sports car while intoxicated is back in the news.

The Bangkok Post recently reported that, after all these years, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) is considering whether it might “launch an inquiry against at least 10 people for their alleged role in delaying justice…”. That means those officials who helped Boss and his associates tamper with witnesses and smooth his escape from the country to enjoy the high life on the lam.

It is not the NACC that has been investigating. According to spokesman Niwatchai Kasemmongkol it is the findings of an:

independent panel headed by former NACC member Vicha Mahakun [that] indicated a number of people, including several police officers and public prosecutors, played a big role in getting prosecutors to drop criminal charges against Mr Vorayuth.

That report was “taken up by a NACC sub-committee, which in turn recommended the NACC to launch a more detailed investigation into individuals which the Vicha panel believed had intentionally acted to derail the justice process.”

That’s the report. Will it do anything? Or is it just another stalling tactic? After all, as everyone knows, Vorayuth and his lawyers repeatedly postponed his court appearances before he fled abroad.

An AFP photo clipped from ChannelNews Asia

While Vorayuth was on the lam, “a speeding charge against him was dropped after its one-year statute of limitations expired in 2013…. Meanwhile, a second charge — failing to stop to help a crash victim — expired on Sept 3, 2017.”

Only a cocaine use charge and a reckless driving causing death charges remain. The former expires in September 2022 and the latter in 2027. Previously, the Office of the Attorney General had recommended dropping the reckless driving charge. It was the public outcry over that that saw Vicha’s panel put together.

Somehow, we feel that justice will never be served. In Thailand, for the rich, justice and injustice are commodities.