Royal business I

The Bangkok Post recently had a seemingly innocuous headline: Ratchadamri condo ruling overturned. It reports on the Supreme Administrative Court overturning “a lower court’s revocation of a construction licence granted to a high-end residence project on Ratchadamri Road in Pathumwan district.” The court ruled that the Mahadlek Residence project met all of the necessary safety requirements and regulations on floor area and open space ratios, overturning the Central Administrative Court’s 2019 ruling that these were non-compliant.

It may seem odd that the lower court got these basic requirements wrong…. But then the story adds: “A 41-storey condominium project is planned for the 1.3-rai land plot owned by the Office of the Privy Purse.” In other words, the land belongs to the king.

A reader sent us some of the online information about this deal.

The story goes back quite some time. A Bangkok Post report from 2013 begins by noting that “residents of Mahadlek Luang in Bangkok’s Pathumwan district have had enough of construction and are gearing up for a struggle to get more green space for their community.” The report states that the plot where the “Mahadlek Residence Project will be built has many large trees and is highly prized in the locality.” It adds that the residents had “prepared a submission calling on the OPP to lease the land to them for development as a park.”

Those residents were said to “have for the past five years strongly opposed the construction of a 43-storey condominium on the site.” They planned to lease the land as a park with a royal moniker.

It is observed that the “OPP owns 67 rai in Soi Mahadlek Luang sois 1-3 on Ratchadamri Road in Pathumwan district. Most of the office’s land has been leased to land developers to build condominiums and hotels.”

At the time, the developer, Thai Factory Development PLC, used the royal name, stating that the Privy Purse had approved the design.

In 2016, the disgruntled residents later teamed up with Srisuwan Janya and his Anti-Global Warming group file a lawsuit with the Administrative Court against local officials and the Governor of Bangkok who had all approved the project. The lawsuit is reported to have been filed against the Privy Purse.

The Administrative Court ruled that “the applicant for construction permission is the Privy Purse Office, which is not a juristic person. Because it is only an agency under the Bureau of the Royal Household which has the status of being a government agency with the status of a department only therefore unable to apply for construction permission…”.

It also ruled on safety and space issues, stopping construction, because the building “is an exceptionally large building and has a length of less than 12 meters on either side of the land, and the road area is less than 10 meters wide in Soi Mahatlek Luang 2.”

This is the ruling that was miraculously overturned.

 

Updated: Opaque royal fleecing of the taxpayer

Prachatai bravely reports on the budget paper related to the taxpayer funding of the monarchy.

The bottom line is that the taxpayer will be fleeced of 8.4 billion baht – about $247 million. That’s a tiny decrease over the previous year.

As the report notes, “No details are available in the budget document except that the budget is part of a strategic plan for enhancing the monarchy. The document also does not name the projects the budget is to be used…”.

The document merely states, in 8 pages, how the budget is to be used for the “missions of the Royal Offices”:

1. 1. manage royal ceremonies, merit-making ceremonies by members of the royal family, and royal visits, and host visits by foreign heads of state;
   2. accept complaints and assist citizens affected by natural disasters and other problems in their living conditions;
   3. promote the royal family’s projects and preserve art and culture and “good customs and traditions of the nation;”
   4.  manage royal projects, foundations, and funds founded by the royal family to “develop and improve the living conditions of the people for the better” and “create secure development for the country;”
   5. provide security and peacekeeping on palace grounds and at locations of royal visits; and
   6. facilitate collaboration between the monarchy and the government, parliament, government agencies, the private sector, and other local and international organizations.

Essentially, this is is pointing out that the “good deeds” of the monarchy, so beloved of royalists and the nightly royal news, are mostly paid for by the taxpayer.

In 2017, King Vajiralongkorn had laws changed so that the “Royal Offices were brought under …[his] direct command…”.  The offices include the Office of His Majesty’s Principal Private Secretary, the Bureau of the Royal Household, the Royal Aide-de-Camp Department, the Royal Security Command, and the Office of the Royal Court Police, were all made “royal agencies and putting them ‘at the royal pleasure’.”

Update: A reader quickly pointed out that this is likely a fraction of the total taxpayer funded flood of loot to the royals, noting that each ministry has its own lines of funds that support and “protect” the monarchy.

Probing the Ananda death

The unexplained or covered-up death of King Ananda Mahidol in 1946 has been a sore point for royalists and the palace for all these decades.

In recent years, it has led to lese majeste cases, secret courts, and much trawling of archives to try to get a better perspective on the events that involved then Prince Bhumibol and the mother, Princess Srinagarindra.

The death caused political turmoil sufficient to force out Pridi Banomyong and his supporters and opened the way for royalists to regain political ground.

Part of the royalist muddying of the waters around the death was the charging, conviction, and execution of three royal aides accused of the murder of the king, Chit Singhaseni, But Patthamasarin, and Chaliao Pathumrot.

Searching PPT can lead to some of the links on the death saga (although a couple of these links are now not working).

We are reminded of this because Prachatai reports that the “family of Chit Singhaseni, a royal aide convicted for the murder of King Ananda Mahidol and executed in 1955, has filed a request with the Ratchadaphisek Criminal Court for a new trial.” It is reported that:

…the family wishes to seek justice for the three defendants, who were executed even though they were innocent. He also said that King Ananda’s death has been used by political factions against their enemies, and that he wanted society to learn about what happened.

The family’s lawyers say they have submitted “500 pages of what they claimed is new evidence.”

One of the lawyers, Kungwal Buddhivanid states “that no one has previously requested a re-trial in the case, and that he filed a request with the Department of Special Investigation (DSI), but no action was taken.”

He also states that he “contacted the Bureau of the Royal Household via Air Chief Marshal Satitpong Sukvimol, King Vajiralongkorn’s Lord Chamberlain, as he believes he should be given permission by the King before proceeding since the case is directly related to the monarchy.”

But he also added that:

Jaran Pukditanakul, a former Constitutional Court justice and former permanent secretary of the Ministry of Justice, recommended that he and Pricha file a request for a new trial if they are authorized to do so by the defendants’ next of kin. He said that Chit’s daughters, Phongphan and Phuangsi Singhaseni, have given power of attorney to him and Pricha so they can file the request.

We guess that this might simply fade away as royalists and palace want no uncomfortable truths. Hopefully not.

Why no announcements?

La Prensa Latina points out the obvious:

Thailand’s royal palace has maintained a deathly silence for five months about the health of Princess Bajrakitiyabha, first-born daughter of King Vajiralongkorn, who was hospitalized in mid-December over a serious heart problem.

Bajrakitiyabha, 44, seen as a possible heir to the throne, was admitted on Dec. 14 after losing consciousness while training her dogs for a dog competition in the city of Nakhon Ratchasima, some 250 kilometers northeast of Bangkok.

Of course, there are still “well wishers” who are paraded at the hospital, but it seems that no one is particularly interested to know why the palace is silent.

The Royal Household Bureau began reporting when the princess was transported to hospital in Bangkok, have been rumored to have died in a provincial hospital. As the report recalls, the Bureau:

reported the mishap the following day but did not specify her condition until a few days later when it said she was “stable to some extent” needing artificial support for several vital organs, such as her heart, lungs and kidneys.

The last statement was provided on 7 January. Then silence:

There has since been no information on the princess, for whom authorities organized [nationwide] mass prayers and offerings to wish her a speedy recovery in front of large portraits of her.

The lack of statements is highly unusual. Six months later there is “no news…”. After initial reports, there is no no mention anywhere “about the visits of her father or her relatives to the Chulalongkorn hospital in Bangkok, where she remains.”

We do not agree with the report that there was a similar lack of transparency about King Bhumibol’s long stay in hospital. There were semi-regular reports, even if these lacked detail and were often misleading.

That there are no reports regarding the princess is in line with the long public silence on the fate of royal consort Sineenat Wongvajirapakdi.

The monarchy and Thai society III

The Monarchy and Thai society

[Continued]

This is merely the opening scene of the transformation of the monarchy’s royal prerogative that poses a problem to democracy. It is the promulgation of law by a parliament of dictatorship. The next is that our monarchy has remained silent in excess of necessity and allowed people to progress by referencing the monarchy over and over again in order to damage those who think differently about politics.

The first person I am going to talk about, who has pulled the monarchy in to support himself is named Prayuth Chan-ocha. Brothers and sisters, do you recall that the constitution stipulates that before a person is to become prime minister, he must take an oath in front of the king? He must pledge that he will be loyal to the monarchy and rule faithfully, and, importantly, protect and act in accordance with the Thai constitution. But Prayuth Chan-ocha intentionally did not pledge in front of our king that he would protect and act in accordance with the Thai constitution.*

What is this meaning of this, brothers and sisters? What it means, brothers and sisters, is that Prayuth Chan-ocha did not give his word that he would not once again tear up the constitution. Prayuth Chan-ocha did not give his word that he would act in accordance with the constitution. But the monarchy still allows Prayuth to refer to them over and over again.

That alone is not enough. I do not believe that the monarchy, which has military units who serve as an intelligence wing, a wing that looks after social networks, are not aware of the how people like Major General Rienthong Nanna use the monarchy to smash us.** I do not believe that he does not know. But that the monarchy and the Bureau of the Royal Household do nothing even though they know that there are individuals who refer to the monarchy and then come down to smash the people. This makes us unable to resist asking, really, what does the monarchy think about us? If my voice reaches the monarchy and the Bureau of the Royal Household, allow me to call on him to express a neutral political stance. Deal with Major General Rienthong and do not let him hurt the people, don’t let him threaten us anymore.

In addition, this country still distorts many other important issues. The monarchy has been twisted so that it is the institution of a particular group of individuals, not an institution of all Thai people in the country. This particular group has claimed that the actions of those who call for the removal of Prayuth Chan-ocha are equivalent to the toppling of the monarchy. This is not the case. Calling for the removal of Prayuth is calling for the removal of Prayuth. The amendment of the constitution is the amendment of the constitution. Saying that the removal of Prayuth is the equivalent of topping the monarchy is an exaggeration.

That group of individuals must cease doing so before those in the country come face to face with violence. Additionally, each and every one of us must try to talk about this genuine problem openly and in public. Starting tomorrow and from now on, if I am invited to speak but those who invite me ask me to contort myself and not talk about the monarchy, I will not do it. I will only go up on stage when given the chance to speak the truth. And I maintain, on my manly honor and my human dignity, that I speak with respect and sincerity. If I lie, even a little bit, let me expire within three, seven days, brothers and sisters.

*Section 161 of the 2017 Constitution stipulates that: “Before taking office, a Minister must make a solemn declaration before the King in the following words: ‘I, (name of the declarer), do solemnly declare that I will be loyal to the King and will faithfully perform my duties in the interests of the country and of the people. I will also uphold and observe the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand in every respect.’” But on 16 July 2019, Prayuth Chan-ocha, the prime minister, led the cabinet in swearing the oaths of allegiance. Prayuth concluded by stating “I will faithfully perform my duties in the interests of the country and of the people.” But he missed the sentence of “I will also uphold and observe the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand in every respect.”

**Major General Rienthong Nanna is a retired army officer and physician who established an organization, the Rubbish Collection Organization, in 2013. The group carries out witch-hunts against critics of the monarchy, including publicly outing them and filing criminal charges of lèse majesté against them.–trans.

Updated: Military party ultra-royalism

A couple of weeks ago we posted on hick party royalism. Today we post on one of the military parties and its ultra-royalism.

Recall that it is the ultra-royalists who are quickest to bemoan any “politicization” of the monarch and monarchy. Yet their military-backed parties regularly use the monarchy as a political piece. This is because for decades the royalists have been promoting and “protecting” the monarchy as a national shibboleth and the keystone of the conservative ruling class.

Pirapan. Clipped from https://fetcherx.com/

In their latest use of the monarchy for political advantage, in its electoral campaigning, the leader of the inaptly named United Thai Nation Party, Pirapan Salirathavibhaga has “vowed to take action against ‘nation haters’ if his party forms the next government, saying Thailand is a land for patriots and those who don’t like it can live somewhere else.”

Predictably, “nation haters” are defined by Pirapan as anti-monarchists: “Thailand is a land for patriots and the land is holy with the monarchy serving as the pillar of the country.” He babbled on:

“If you don’t like it, you have no right to change it because the entire nation wants it,” he added.

“If you don’t like it, please go to another place. No one is stopping you. Go now. Any country you like, you can go and stay there. But Thailand will be like this forever.”

“Under the Ruam Thai Sang Chart (the Thai name of UTN), we will not change,” he said. “If the UTN is a core party that forms the next government, we will get tough against chang chart (nation haters) and those who want to overthrow the institution.”

Apparently Pirapan sees no contradiction in the “United Thai Nation” excluding those who do not subscribe to mad monarchism. But he wouldn’t, because the very wealthy like him tend to defend their pile.

And, of course, as a former judge, Pirapan reflects the judicial bias against those who do not bow to ultra-monarchism. As a mad monarchist, he has defended the king’s extraordinary powers, hunted down lese majeste suspects and blocked thousands of websites when minister, claiming that “Offences against the King, the Queen, the Heir-Apparent or the Regent are considered offences relating to the security of the Kingdom…”. Unsurprisingly, Pirapan was an extreme opponent of Thaksin Shinawatra and the red shirts.

Added to all of this, while Pirapan spouts loyalty when it comes to the monarchy, he has had little loyalty to the various parties he’s joined. Of course, his lack of party loyalty is not unusual among royalists. Back in 2021, when was in the ruling, military-backed Palang Pracharath Party, he was an “advisor to powerful party leader Gen Prawit Wongsuwan.” Now he’s touted as number 2 to Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha in the new UTN and Prayuth reckons he should be prime minister after Prayuth’s ludicrous extended term is over.

When Pirapan sprouted his hate declaration it was “during the party’s first major campaign rally at Benjakitti forest park in Klong Toey district…”. Supporting his extremist monarchism were a gaggle of rightists: Gen Prayuth, ML Chayotid Kridakon, ultra-royalist Rienthong Nan-nah, who is now “chairman of the party’s committee on quality of life improvement,” and party secretary-general Akanat Promphan, stepson of Suthep Thaugsuban, who “paved the way for the military coup led by Gen Prayut” in 2014.

Pirapan said the UTN “will live forever under the policies of Uncle Tu (Gen Prayut’s nickname) and the heart of the party is the nation, the monarchy and people…”.

But there seems more going on within what Thai PBS called an “old boy network.”

Gen Prawit, who is also deputy prime minister, revealed recently that he has maintained close ties with Pirapan since the time they served together in Abhisit Vejjajiva’s Cabinet from 2008 to 2011. Prawit served as defense minister and Pirapan as justice minister.

However, their relationship actually began long before they entered politics.

Apirat back then. Clipped from Khaosod

Both studied at the all-boys Saint Gabriel’s College. Though Prawit was Pirapan’s senior by many years, both were part of an alumni network that also included former Army chief Gen Apirat Kongsompong, who is now a deputy to the Lord Chamberlain of the Royal Household Bureau, which oversees day-to-day operations of the Palace.

Rumors have it that Apirat helped get fellow alumnus Pirapan his advisory job at Government House after the latter left the Democrat Party in 2019.

The plan for the 2023 election seems to be for Pirapan and Prayuth to represent the extreme right for royalist voters and maybe a few military types, banging on about monarchy. Prawit’s party represents the “cuddly” royalists, rightists, and military, appealing to a “middle” of voters, sprouting (new) words about reconciliation and democracy. The hope may be that they can get sufficient seats to form another coalition, drawing in some of the parties-for-sale.

Update: According to the Bangkok Post, Rangsiman Rome of the Move Forward Party has responded to the ultra-royalist Pirapan’s hate speech.

Princess mystery

A few days ago an Australian website posted “The mystery surrounding the hospitalisation of Thailand’s Princess Bajrakitiyabha.” It is a timely reminder that the palace has simply locked down on news about the presumed death of the king’s eldest daughter.

As the report states, “Thailand’s Princess Bajrakitiyabha has been mysteriously away from the spotlight after being hospitalised last December, with no word from the palace since.” Well, not after a couple of Royal Household bulletins.

The report reminds readers that she was probably “heir to the Thai throne,” and that she collapsed on 14 December 2022, “after which she was taken to a local hospital before being transferred to Chulalongkorn Hospital in Bangkok, where she was said to be in stable condition on December 15th.” Stable means on a life support system but probably dead.

Nationwide prayers were organized for the 44 year-old, but “there was no word for a while,” when an odd statement was released “on January 11, 2023 … sharing that Bajrakitiyabha was still unconscious, being treated for severe heart arrhythmia, resulting from inflammation from a mycoplasma infection.” That seems remarkably unlikely.

As the report says, there “have been no updates on her condition since then…”.

So, mystery reigns. We might also ask where Koi is. Disappearing royals….

Out of hospital and (still) campaigning I

Tantawan Tuatulanon and Orawan Phuphong were only discharged from Thammasat University Hospital on Thursday. It had taken 12 days for medicos to nurse them back to health after their 52-day fast.

Yet, as the Bangkok Post reports,

Within hours they were in Ayutthaya, attending a Pheu Thai Party campaign event for the May 14 general election. Carrying a large placard, they began to circulate through the crowd, asking party faithful to mark down whether they favoured repealing Section 112 of the Criminal Code, the royal defamation law. A second question asked whether freedom and economic prosperity were possible at the same time.

Clipped from Bangkok Post

The two women approached the party’s campaign stage, and were “eventually allowed onstage. Paetongtarn Shinawatra, the face of the party and presumptive prime ministerial candidate, made some general remarks about freedom of expression and the moment passed without incident.”

The Post gleefully writes: “Like most parties campaigning for the May 14 poll, Pheu Thai does not want to make lese-majeste an issue, or even mention it at all, beyond saying that is open to discussing possible amendments.”

It then seems to want to attack Move Forward:

On Friday evening, Ms Tantawan and Ms Orawan — Tawan and Bam to their supporters — took their campaign to a Move Forward rally in Chon Buri, where they found an enthusiastic reception. Party leader Pita Limjaroenrat even invited them onstage and expressed support for their efforts.

It adds:

Only Move Forward has an explicit policy proposal to reform the law to reduce the current harsh punishments. The party also says that only the Bureau of the Royal Household should be allowed to file criminal complaints. Currently, anyone can file a lese-majeste complaint against anybody else and the police are obliged to investigate it.

Tantawan and Orawan have said they will “visit all the parties, even the ‘dictatorial’ ones, on the campaign trail to find out where their leaders and supporters stand on the lese-majeste issue.”

The Post suggests potential violence if they show up at the United Thai Nation (Ruam Thai Sang Chart) party “fronted by the acting prime minister, Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha, the reception might be less than warm. One of the big names who joined the party this week is Dr Rienthong Nanna, a ultra-royalist vigilante infamous for inciting supporters to go after reformist activists.”

This reporting is lop-sided, but at least the report includes available data on lese majeste cases long-missing from the Post’s reporting. We can probably thank Tawan and Bam for that!

Updated: Bodies

There has been a minor social media kerfuffle following a Facebook post by Pavin Chachavalpongpun that was interpreted as saying that the king’s first wife Princess Soamsawali passed away. Of course, she has been seriously ill and incapacitated for several years.

While the still unreported death of her daughter Princess Bajrakitiyabha Mahidol did get some attention on social media and official announcements that have parked her in non-death, there’s been no reporting on Soamsawali.

Likewise, there’s been no reporting on the fate of Sineenat Wongvajirapakdi/Sineenat Bilaskalayani who disappeared from public view months ago. We note that her Wikipedia page stopped adding to her profile following her restoration in 2020. 

PPT knows no more than what is reported in the media. The problem is that nothing is now reported on these three women. Even the Royal Household Bureau, which usually has announcements on royal health is tellingly silent.

Update: We changed expression and added a couple of points to the last paragraph.

Absurd 112 trials

We were surprised to see that the Bangkok Post wrote something on the situation of monarchy reform advocates. Perhaps it is because the report is about the Clooney Foundation for Justice, where the superstar connection might have been the trigger.

The Foundation issued a statement made the all too obvious point that the current military-monarchy regime “should dismiss the case against 22 protest leaders charged with insulting the monarchy, sedition and a range of public order offences…”. Of course it should!

To do so would mean Thailand would “adhere to its international human rights obligations…”.

The Foundation’s TrialWatch Expert Kevin Bell AM KC submitted “an amicus brief submitted to the Bangkok Criminal Court.”

Clipped from The Nation

TrialWatch monitors criminal trials globally against those who are most vulnerable, including journalists and opposition figures, and advocates for the rights of individuals who are unfairly imprisoned. Since late 2020, CFJ’s TrialWatch initiative has been monitoring and evaluating criminal proceedings against the protest leaders, who face between seven and 15 years in prison if convicted of all charges (in Thailand, if a defendant is being prosecuted for multiple offenses for the same conduct, the defendant is to be punished for the offense with the most severe punishment).

Of course, the spinelessness of the Bangkok Post editorial policies means it only summarizes the most important bits of the statement. Here it is in full:

… The charges are based on the prosecution’s allegation that while giving speeches at a protest the defendants lied about the Thai King’s expenditures and his frequent travel to and from Germany, including during the COVID lockdowns and allegedly in violation of quarantine rules.

As documented by TrialWatch monitors who have attended the trial, the prosecution has not presented evidence that the defendants’ statements were false and the court has refused to order institutions like the Crown Property Bureau, the Royal Office, and Thai Airways to provide financial and travel records, despite the defense’s repeated requests. This has undercut the defense’s ability to prove the statements were true. As one defendant noted at a recent hearing, without access to information to prove the truth of their comments “it is as if the defendant’s side is chained with one hand to the boxing ring, preventing them from punching and fighting with the other side.” If the court does not dismiss the case, it should at least allow the defense access to the materials it needs to both mount a defense and to challenge the prosecution’s evidence and arguments, today’s amicus brief said.

… “In violation of international principles, the court has tied the accused’s hands by obstructing their attempts to obtain documents that would prove the truth of their statements about the King. The absurdity of this situation is highlighted by the fact that the defendants are charged with lying that the King was not in Thailand during certain periods at the same time as defense lawyers have been prevented from accessing routine travel records,” said TrialWatch Expert the Honourable Kevin Bell AM KC, who has fifteen years of judicial experience in the conduct of criminal trials, including as former Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia.

Read the whole statement.