Updated: More political prisoners

28 06 2020

Along with every other media outlet, Khaosod reports that, on Friday, the Supreme Court upheld rulings by lower courts against five leaders of a July 2007 protest that marched from Sanam Luang to the taxpayer-funded residence of the then president of the king’s Privy Council, Gen Prem Tinsulanonda. The rally accused Prem of fomenting the 2006 military coup.

Nattawut Saikua, Veerakarn (then Veera) Musikapong, Weng Tojirakarn, Nopparut Worachitwuthikul, and Wiputhalaeng Pattanaphumthai were sentenced to two years and eight months in prison for “illegal assembly and using violence to resist police orders.”

Fellow UDD leader Thida Tawornsate Tojirakarn observed that these men are political prisoners. The five were immediately taken from the court to prison.

While the reports refer to the five as red shirts, it needs to be noted that the wearing of the color hadn’t taken off at this time and the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship-led rally and march had most people wearing yellow shirts, which was a display of “loyalty” following the 2006 60th anniversary of Bhumibol’s reign.

Another UDD leader, Jatuporn Promphan, reflected on the double standards in the judicial system: “I once said to them that on our way of fighting, it’s either death or imprisonment…. Over the past decade, we took turns getting in and out of the prison.” Jatuporn is “also due to stand trial on the same offense…”.

The double standards refer to the efforts by several royalist regimes supported by the pliant judiciary to lock up red shirts and UDD leaders while those from the royalist People’s Alliance for Democracy and People’s Democratic Reform Committee who also occupied parts of Bangkok and several state properties for extended periods, with considerable violence, get off quite lightly.

Few of the reports said much about the rally at Gen Prem’s free lodgings, so PPT went back and looked at reports from the time.

Asia Sentinel had a perceptive report. It began by observing:

On Sunday night, UDD leaders caught police unaware by marching with thousands of supporters to the house of Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda, a former army chief and prime minister who is held in high respect by much of the Thai public due to his proximity to the king.

King, queen, Prem and military coup leaders

The protesters accused Prem, who was in the compound at the time, of acting as the puppet master behind the coup last September that ousted Premier Thaksin Shinawatra. They called on Prem to resign.

The UDD set up a makeshift stage in front of Prem’s house on Sunday afternoon and made speeches for five hours or so, according to witnesses and news reports. But in the evening, after the protesters vowed to permanently camp outside the residence, riot police attempted to break up the gathering and arrest the leaders, prompting demonstrators to hail rocks, chairs, sticks, water bottles and pieces of broken flower pots at the police, who eventually retreated.

Most reports put the UDD crowd at 5,000 to 10,000, with some counting up to 20,000. The police eventually mobilized about 2,000 officers. The police:

made two more attempts to arrest the protest leaders, charging at  demonstrators with clubs, pepper spray and tear gas. Each time the demonstrators fought back with fists, rocks, sticks, bottles and anything else they could find.

Weng said the protesters withdrew when threatened with the army, saying, “We didn’t want anybody killed from this event.”

The police claimed that 200 of their officers and about 70 protesters were injured. Six protesters were arrested and charged with “causing chaos, obstructing the work of authorities, and damage to state property…. Police were also seeking arrest warrants for eight or so other UDD leaders…”.

The report wonders about the police action, saying:

It’s unclear why authorities attempted to break up the protest this time as many similar
protests had occurred earlier without incident. Some observers said the army may have been spooked by UDD statements that the group would camp out in front of Prem’s house — an unacceptable scenario for generals who swear allegiance to the royal advisor.

It also notes Prem’s coup role:

Although Prem is supposed to be non-political as a privy councilor, coup opponents blast the 86-year-old for a series of speeches he gave a year ago in which he donned full military garb and said soldiers should be loyal to the king instead of the government. Many observers said the speeches set the stage for the coup.

The Irrawaddy (July 23, 2007) carried a report that royalists declared Thaksin behind the UDD. The then president of the Constitution Drafting Committee Prasong Soonsiri, cheered the arrests, saying: “He [Thaksin] is probably responsible for supporting the clash, and he won’t stop there…”. This was a widely held view among the military-installed regime led by former Privy Councillor Gen Surayud Chulanont.

Shortly after the event, the Union for Civil Liberty issued a statement:

Declaration concerning the avoidance of violence during a conflict of opinion

During a protest by the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DADD) at the home of Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda in the Thewes district of Bangkok, there occurred violent clashes between police and demonstrators. Alleging the part played by General Prem in organizing the military coup of 19th September 2006, protestors called for his resignation. As a result of the clashes which took place in the late evening of Sunday 22nd July, according to news media, 106 persons were injured.

The Union for Civil Liberty (UCL) maintains that the holding of non-violent protest to make known a political viewpoint is a civil right and a fundamental component of the democratic system. It is the duty of government to assure that the right of citizens to exercise this right is respected at all times, whether their action is against or in support of government, or to express other political opinion.

It is a matter of great regret that the protest on 22nd July last could not enjoy such a right to free expression due to the action of the police in blocking the protest march to the residence of General Prem in the Thewes district. The action angered some participants in the protest leading to the use of force and many casualties both among the protestors and the police.

To avoid the recurrence of such violence, perhaps on an even larger scale, the Union for Civil Liberty submits the following proposals:

1. Appoint a committee of persons acceptable to the public to investigate the events which occurred on the evening of the 22nd July for presentation to the Government and to the public.

2. Take court action against those who have acted illegally, whether the police or the protestors, in order that justice be done and human rights be protected.

Statement issued on 23rd July 2007
Union for Civil Liberty

So, for seeking to exercise their freedom of expression, these men are jailed. The regime that went after them was a junta-appointed administration that was vehemently royalist and anti-Thaksin. The double standards are as clear as they ever were.

Update: For another take on double standards, especially in comparing red shirts and yellow shirts, read this op-ed.





Anti-red shirt/pro-yellow shirt

8 07 2010

It has never really been clear why the government didn’t push ahead with earlier allegations against red shirt leaders. But with regime boss Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday saying “a group of red shirts are planning further political activities,” the government is now pushing, trying to crush its opposition.

The public prosecutor has just “indicted four leaders of the UDD on charges of leading red shirts in laying siege to the Si Sao Thewes home of Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanonda in July 2007. Veera Musikhapong, Natthawut Saikua, Wiputhalaeng Pattanaphumthai and Weng Tojirakan were indicted yesterday in the Criminal Court.” Three others Nopparut Worachitwutthikul, of the 2006 White Pigeon group, Weerasak Hemathilin and Wanchai Naphuttha have also been charged.

Apparently, the prosecutor alleges that the red shirts “violated the rights and liberties of Gen Prem while causing difficulty to people who could not use the roads around his home.”

Meanwhile, yellow shirt sympathisers have mobilized against the ICG report PPT posted on yesterday. While the Bangkok Post seemed to cautiously welcome the report, the yellow-hued 2Bangkok.com editorialized as follows [with PPT comments in brackets]:

“The recommendation of this think tank shows a complete lack of awareness of what the recent and current unrest is related to [We are not at all sure how such a conclusion could be reached, but read on]. It is incredible that the International Crisis Group could issue such a high-handed recommendation without commenting that they realize they are asking the government to completely accede to Thaksin’s goals of elections so budgets and military appointments can be influenced [Aha! Thaksin’s evil plan all along has been to gain control of government via the ballot box. The evil genius stumbled upon such a devious plan and it undercuts the elite’s usual way of ruling via the barrel of a gun, dictatorship and royalist nonsense.]

Even though their recommendations might be perceived as fair [Hmm. Perceived as fair… well, maybe they are! See the Bangkok Post], it seems ridiculous to make this sort of call knowing the government would never give into the Red Shirt’s key demands–especially after the recent turmoil that threatened the authority of the state itself [Can’t have the authority of the state being challenged! That would be mutiny. A bit like the PAD demonstrations and the military’s failure to follow orders]. Any call for elections before November would not “bridge Thailand’s divide” as International Crisis Group suggests, but undoubtedly result in a new coup [Yes, can’t have elections when the election-shy Democrat Party might lose].

Nearly every part of their report has assumptions from a Westernized perspective with very little Thai historical perspective [When in doubt, use jingoism]. For instance: “The ruling royalist establishment cannot unilaterally push forward its “road map” to national reconciliation while simultaneously suppressing the Red Shirts’ dissenting voices.”

In fact, this is exactly the two-pronged approach the Thai establishment has historically used after bloody political upheavals of the past [Now we have Thai-style reconciliation, and it probably has its roots deep in Sukhothai]. Rightly or wrongly, the establishment will be believing that this approach would be the appropriate and customary one for Thai society [We assume the reference is to the 1980s. But look at “historical reconciliation” by the elite post 1932…. Look at the reconciliation with Pridi…. Look at post 1976…. Nonsense really.]

It is usually thought that “think tanks” are commissioned to validate partisan political opinions and stances [PPT does not understand the reference here and in the Thai media about ICG being a “think tank”. That seems a misrepresentation]. However, it is just as likely that the International Crisis Group has no understanding of the background of present Thai events and are simply drawing conclusions based on Western notions of common sense [When in doubt, hit the nationalism button].