International criticism of 112

From 112 Watch

DW reports that “Some European lawmakers are pressuring the EU to include tougher demands on Thailand to reform its taboo lese majeste law that imposes lengthy prison sentences on those who criticize the monarchy.”

Jordi Sole, a Menber of the European Parliament (MEP) and a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, observed that “European Union relations with Thailand will be strengthened under a cooperation and partnership agreement signed last December, and this is an ‘an excellent opportunity for the EU to push for higher standards of human rights in Thailand, including the demand to abolish Thailand’s draconian lese majeste laws’…”.

The Europeans aren’t the only ones, as the story highlights:

In March … Democrat US senators Edward J. Markey and Dick Durbin, the Senate Majority Whip, introduced a resolution that called on the Thai government to “repeal and cease the promulgation of laws and decrees that are used to censor online content and speech related to the electoral process, including Thailand’s lese majeste law.”

Meanwhile, in the European parliament, in discussing amendments to the new agreement, there were several suggestions regarding Article 112:

MEP Jordi Sole last month sought to include an amendment to the European Parliament’s draft report on the EU-Thailand cooperation agreement that “urges the Thai authorities to repeal its lese majeste provisions.”

Tonino Picula, another MEP and member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, proposed an amendment to call on the Thai government “to review the lese majeste law.”

A third MEP, Fabio Massimo Castaldo, wanted to include a reference that Thailand’s “democracy remains deeply flawed, the regime continues to employ authoritarian tactics, including arbitrary arrests, intimidation, lese majeste charges…”

It is not yet known if these amendments will be accepted. Presumably Thailand’s royalists in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are busy lobbying against such reasonable suggestions. But the European Commission is weak:

EU spokesperson Peter Stano said that the bloc “is closely following developments regarding the use of the lese majeste law in Thailand.”

“The European Union continues to reiterate in its dialogue with the Thai authorities the crucial importance of up-holding human rights and the rule of law, including the principle of proportionality,” he added.

As soon as one talks of rule of law in the same breath as 112, you know the royalist arguments will be that Thailand has rule of law and 112 is a part of that. Of course, any reasonable observer knows that when it comes to lese majeste, there is no justice and no rule of law.

The past seeks re-election

A report on the upcoming election by The Nation finds its way to the Asia News Network. As ever, PPT was interested in how the military-backed parties of the past are using the monarchy.

The report begins by noting that Gen Prawit Wongsuwan has ditched efforts to be a newly-born and cuddly democrat, apparently for two reasons. First, political “moderation” had “failed to improve popularity ratings” Prawit and his Palang Pracharath Party, causing Prawit to leap “back to the conservative camp.” Second, Prawit “learned that the result of the 2019 election was a victory for the conservatives.” The alleged switch involves making “it clear that it [the military party] would not join hands with Pheu Thai and Move Forward, as the two parties have policies to amend, if not abolish, the lese majeste law, or Article 112, of the Criminal Code.”

Gen Prawit and Gen Prayuth in an earlier photo

We think this is exaggerated. For one thing, the notion that the 2019 election was a “victory” for conservatives is fudging. It was only by rigging the constitution and the election, and with last minute rule bending and breaking by the Election Commission that the “conservatives” managed to scrape together a ruling coalition. And second, Prawit is still seeking “moderate” votes. As we said recently, 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.

What the royalists, rightists, and military-backed dinosaurs are doing is making the monarchy their main platform. By doing that, they are laying the ground for party disqualifications, protests, and military coup should the opposition win.

The report then assesses the conservative camp.

Prayut is firmly in the conservative camp and has clearly announced his opposition to the liberals [PPT – not really a useful term]. He has vowed to defend the monarchy and prevent any amendment to Article 112.

As a former Army chief, Prayut is imbued with a spirit of loyalty to the monarchy. He rose from the line of command in the 2nd Infantry Division, Queen’s Guard, so he has been on the forefront to protect the monarchy.

As a result, Prayut is seen as the No. 1 politician in the conservative camp and many pro-monarchy voters are expected to pour their support for his party.

Prayut’s staunch pro-monarchy stand is expected to win a lot of votes for his party, but it is yet to be seen whether the number of votes will be enough to allow him to retain his prime minister’s seat.

As we said in our linked post above, this is obvious.

The Democrat Party is looking weak, and the report says this: “Several core members of the party, candidates and party financiers are pro-monarchy elites, so the Democrat will retain its conservative stand and continue to receive sizeable support from royalists.” Because the party has splintered, several of its high-profile ultra-royalists have gone elsewhere, and former Democrat votes will likely follow.

Turning to the Bhum Jai Thai Party, the report ignores the dope party image and looks at Anutin Charnvirakul as a “defender of the monarchy. Bhumjaithai has made it clear that it does not want to see the monarchy used as a tool in political conflicts.” Except that he’s prepared to do it and so are his partners…. At least the report explains that being pro-democracy is not the party’s strong point. The report reckons that anti-democrat party built around patronage politics is still “expected to win some support from royalist voters.”

What we get from this report is that these parties of the past have little to campaign on in terms of policy or achievements and so must rely on the monarchy and the votes of royalists. Those votes look likely to be highly contested among these parties and thus are probably going to be splintered.

Rigging it again II

Rigging the election campaign is just a little more complicated this time than it was in 2019; even then it was a close call for the royalist-military parties and their allies. Part of the complication has to do with the convolutions of the former military bosses organizing their own political futures, together or separately. Gen Prawit Wongsuwan is even trying to pretend he’s now a democrat.

Meanwhile, tons of state money – taxpayer funds – are been lashed about by the regime, giving those officials who influence electoral outcomes locally large pay rises.

But royalists are gunning for Puea Thai, fearing that the party is likely to do very well.

Sonthiya Sawasdee, a former adviser to the House committee on law, justice and human rights, has petitioned the Election Commission seeking the dissolution of Puea Thai “based on an allegation that it has broken election rules.” The claim is that the party has violated the law by allowing a figure banned from politics – Nattawut Saikua – participating in party campaign events.

Given bias in the EC and in the courts, this petition is not frivolous. Even if dismissed, such cases eat up energy and resources. Of course, a complaint has also be made against the Move Forward Party.

 

Hear, see no anti-royalist “evil”

Efforts to silence anti-royal protesters have been expanded. This is not the silencing that comes from the use of Article 112, but the physical efforts by police to prevent royals for hearing or seeing protests that might offend their delicate ears and eyes.

For the latest effort, read Prachatai.

In fact, if anyone wants to know anything at all about such events or Article 112 cases, one must go to Prachatai or social media because the main news outlets simply no longer report on such events. We assume they have been ordered not to report, and suspect that the owners and managers of the major news companies are only too happy to accede to such censorship. It is not so much self-censorship or state censorship, but jumping on the royalist/palace/regime wagon.

Back to Prachatai, which reports on an effort to bring attention to monarchy reform in Nakorn Ratchasima:

On Wednesday (9 November), the activist group Korat Movement went live on their Facebook page while they were holding protest signs saying “Free our friends” and “Person = person. Everyone is equal” while surrounded by a group of plainclothes police. The protest took place while Princess Sirindhorn, King Vajiralongkorn’s younger sister, was traveling to visit nearby Boonwattana School. The 15-minute video clip also showed the police trying to pull signs out of the activists’ hands.

The protesters were mainly very young, One of them stated:

… while Princess Sirindhorn was visiting Nakhon Ratchasima, the activists had been followed by plainclothes officers and that officers were stationed near their homes. She also claimed CCTV cameras were put up near the house ahead of the Princess’ visit.

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.

Free detained monarchy critics

Human Rights Watch media release on the continuing detention of Netiporn “Bung” Sanesangkhom and Nutthanit “Bai Por” Duangmusit:

(Bangkok) – Thai authorities should immediately drop the charges and release pro-democracy activists detained for insulting the monarchy (lese majeste), Human Rights Watch said today.

Two of the activists, Netiporn “Bung” Sanesangkhom and Nutthanit “Bai Por” Duangmusit, have been on a hunger strike since June 2, 2022 to protest their pretrial detention at Bangkok’s Central Women Correctional Institution. Pending their release, they should immediately be transferred to a hospital where they can receive appropriate medical attention. On July 18, the two activists collapsed during a witness examination at the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court due to severe stomach pains and fatigue.

“Thai authorities should drop the politically motivated cases against Netiporn, Nutthanit, and others charged for their peaceful protests to reform the monarchy,” said John Sifton, Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. “The Thai government is harshly punishing these activists by unnecessarily holding them in prolonged pretrial detention instead of releasing them prior to trial.”

Netiporn, 26, and Nutthanit, 20, who are affiliated with the pro-democracy Thalu Wang group, have regularly advocated reforming the monarchy. The authorities have charged them with various criminal offenses, including lese majeste, for conducting a public opinion poll on February 8 about royal motorcades. Since May 3, the authorities have held them in pretrial detention, and that detention has been repeatedly extended.

Article 112 of Thailand’s Criminal Code makes lese majeste punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

The number of lese majeste cases in Thailand has significantly increased in the past year, Human Rights Watch said. After almost a three-year hiatus in which lese majeste cases were not brought before the courts, in November 2020 the prime minister, Gen. Prayut Chan-ocha, ordered the authorities to restore lese majeste prosecutions, ostensibly because of growing criticisms of the monarchy. Since then, officials have charged more than 200 people with lese majeste crimes in relation to various activities at pro-democracy rallies or comments on social media.

Holding those charged with lese majeste in pretrial detention violates their rights under international human rights law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Thailand ratified in 1996, encourages bail for criminal suspects. Article 9 states, “It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial.” Those whose charges have not been dropped should be tried without undue delay, Human Rights Watch said.

The ICCPR protects the right to freedom of expression. General Comment 34 of the Human Rights Committee, the international expert body that monitors compliance with the covenant, states that laws such as those for lese majeste “should not provide for more severe penalties solely on the basis of the identity of the person that may have been impugned” and that governments “should not prohibit criticism of institutions.”

“The Thai government should permit peaceful expression of all viewpoints, including questions about the monarchy,” Sifton said. “The authorities in Thailand should engage with United Nations experts and others about amending the lese majeste law to bring it into compliance with international human rights standards.”

Netiporn (l) and Baipor (r), clipped from Prachatai

Prachatai reports on the two women and their continued detention: “Monarchy reform activists Nutthanit and Netiporn, who are being held in pre-trial detention on … [Article 112] charges, have once again been denied bail despite being hospitalized after collapsing during a witness examination hearing from severe pain and fatigue from their hunger strike.” It adds: “On Tuesday (19 July), the South Bangkok Criminal Court denied bail for Nutthanit and Netiporn, claiming that their physical examination report shows that their health is normal.”

What is abnormal is the royalist judiciary.

The 1932 spirit

For those interested in the non-governmental response to the 90th anniversary of the 1932 revolution, there are a few stories to notice, with brief comments below.

Of course, the royalist government response is to ignore the event as if it never happened.

Thai Enquirer has a photo essay on the rally to celebrate the day. Some of the photos are quite something, and together they show how 1932 is intimately linked with contemporary struggles for democracy and monarchy reform. All of our photos here are clipped from Thai Enquirer.

Thai PBS reports on a seminar at Thammasat University’s Pridi Banomyong International College on 24 June, held “to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the 1932 Revolution.” Those attending and speaking included Sulak Sivaraksa and newly-elected Bangkok Governor Chadchart Sittipunt.

Various groups organized activities and events on June 24 to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the revolution which turned the country from absolute to constitutional monarchy. While academics and politicians discussed the future of Thai democracy at Thammasat’s Tha Prachan campus, youthful groups and activists gathered at Lan Khon Muang Townsquare, calling for the restoration of the revolutionary spirit, reform of the monarchy, abolish the lese majeste law, as well as make June 24 the National Day….

Thammasat University student activist Parit Chiwarak told Thai PBS World earlier that students and political activists had grouped together under the name of People’s Party 2020 a couple of years ago to carry on the revolutionary spirit. Their objective was to remove the gulf between Thai citizens and the established elite.

“One of the six principles laid out by the 1932 People’s Party is equality, which has never been achieved,” he said.

The report notes that in 1960,Thailand’s National Day was changed by the then military dictatorship, and in concert with the king, from 24 June to the then king’s birthday on 5 December. That change was just one part of the restoration of the monarchy that continues through the 20th century.

Monarchy reform and democracy activist Panusaya Sithijirawattanakul “said in a phone interview that she and her associates continued to demand reforms to the monarchy, despite being prosecuted for lese majeste under Article 112 of the Penal Code.”

In another event, former red shirt leader and Puea Thai politician Nattawut Saikua, in a talk show hosted by the Pridi Banomyong Institute, “said the people’s movement which fought for democracy before and after the 1932 Revolution shared the same spirit — to have equality and democracy.” He added: “I do believe that such a fighting spirit has been transferred from generation to generation,” acknowledging that “red shirts admired and expressed their gratitude to both People’s Parties, in 1932 and 2020.”

There’s more in the article.

Meanwhile, at Khaosod, there’s an op-ed by Pravit Rojanaphruk, commenting on the long period of divisions between royalists and anti-royalists. He begins:

The 90th anniversary of June 24, 1932 revolt, which ended absolute monarchy, was only celebrated by those who believe Thailand has yet to achieve genuine democracy and aspire for more freedom and rights.

Conspicuously absent were the government, including Prime Minister Gen. Prayut Chan-o-cha, and royalist conservatives who did not observe the day and probably would rather forget that June 24, which falls on Friday this year, was not just arguably the most important day in modern Thai political history once a national day and a public holiday celebrated from 1938 to 1960….

For royalists who wish to see the monarchy … play a greater role in Thai society, to see the military continue to act as the state within a state, to limit the powers of politicians and the electorate whom they distrust, June 24, 1932 was a day of infamy….

Pravit notes that other countries “settled their differences through a bloody revolt.” He prefers a peaceful road to a democracy that provides for and accepts differences.

That’s all fine and good, but Pravit does not mention that the military has been all too willing to spill the blood of those who stand in their path and those who they consider challenge the monarchy and their Thai-style democracy. It has killed hundreds and jailed thousands.

Updated: On graduation boycotts

The Guardian has taken notice of the boycotts of royals at graduation ceremonies: “a growing number of young Thais who are refusing to attend their graduation ceremonies because they are presided over by members of the royal family.”

The article cites one student who: “identified as ‘anti-royalist’ and [stated] that attending her graduation ceremony would have been ‘a waste of time’.” She added: “I don’t know why the royal family has anything to do with our graduation.”

Academic Paul Chambers suggests an answer: “The monarchy makes a great deal of money overseeing graduations so I doubt this practice will end any time soon…”.

Responding to royalists who want to punish students, a student observed: “They don’t know that people have already changed, that our culture has changed, so they just keep saying the same things that worked before, but it doesn’t work any more.”

Update: A reader correctly observes that while royals can make money from the graduation ceremonies, the real reason for royal involvement has been to establish and maintain ideological hegemony, particularly of the middle class.

Royalist regime fighting for the past

While not a new revelation, Marwaan Macan-Marker’s article at Nikkei Asia is revealing of change on the monarchy. The royalists are fighting to restore what increasingly looks like the past. But it isn’t clear if they can prevail, at least in the short- to medium-term, given the huge resources the military-backed regime has been expending on shoring up a declining monarchy.

He explains:

Self-crowned

On a recent visit to a cinema in Bangkok, I was reminded of the dual role that movie theaters play in Thailand. One, of course, is to show films, local and foreign. The other is to reinforce in the audience a belief that their monarch serves as a unifying pillar in the Southeast Asian kingdom. That lesson plays out just before the main feature, when the screen in the darkened auditorium displays a message requesting the audience to stand as the strains of the king’s anthem fill the hall, accompanied by images of the king’s achievements….

The response of audiences — standing up for the anthem — was almost universal until the death of King Bhumibol Adulyadej in late 2016 ended a 70-year reign.

We think this is something of an overstatement. We recall that in the mid-1970s, when the royal stuff came on at the end of the film, many bolted for the exits to escape the hagiographic kitsch. By the late 1990s and early 2000s, audiences at movies and concerts often waited outside until the royal propaganda was finished and then rushed to their seats. But back to the story today:

But something quite different is now going on in cinemas….

[A]t Siam Paragon, a high-end mall in Bangkok’s upmarket shopping district…, [w]hen the familiar request to stand flashed across the screen to the strains of the royal anthem, only a middle-aged Thai couple stood up. The rest of the audience, which mostly consisted of younger Thais, sat impassively through the entire anthem as if it were perfectly normal.

… The display of silent defiance has gathered momentum in recent months; it has been noted by many Thais on social media and is discussed openly….

For the moment, the government appears at a loss on how to respond to this discreet but public challenge to the cinema reverence ritual. Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, the ex-army chief and former junta leader, has appealed to young people not to give in to peer pressure.

Yet, Thai cinemas have emerged as a new frontier for a generational zeitgeist. They have given a decisive answer to the question of whether or not to stand, something that seemed inconceivable just two years ago. From this perspective, Thai cinemas provide an inflection point in which the simple act of going to the movies becomes a political statement.

The royalist response to this anti-monarchism – or at least the rejection of the palace propaganda – is deepening. As they have for many years, it is the regime and the military are taking the lead.

Former red shirt, now paid turncoat, Seksakol/Suporn Atthawong, a vice minister attached to the Office of Prime Minister continues his boss’s conspiracy theory-inspired campaign against NGOs. Amnesty International is his main target. He claims – and it is a lie – that “NGOs that are supporting the three-hoof mob [he means the 3-finger salute] to destroy the country’s stability and abolish the royal institution…”. He means the monarchy.

He salivates over the AI target:

Amnesty International is an illicit organization that must be held accountable for its actions, and must be prosecuted to the fullest…. We should not give in to organizations that undermine national security.

Here, by national security, he means the monarchy. What did happen to his lese majeste charge? Oh, yes, he sold himself to the military rightists.

As in so many other places struggling with authoritarianism,

Seksakol’s gambit is typical of Thai ultra-royalist fringe politics. But as his position in the prime minister’s office attests, the fringe has migrated gradually to the center and the top of the Thai governing establishment since the military coup led by Prayut 2014. Facing a legitimacy deficit, Prayut’s current military-backed administration (direct military rule technically ended with the holding of a flawed election in 2019) has relied heavily on the blunt force of Thailand’s controversial lese majeste law, which outlaws any critical comment about the king or the monarchy, to silence critics and quash protests.

The regime is planning to stay. Forget all of the parliamentary realigning. This is about maintaining the political status quo well into the future through another rigged election. And just to help it along, the regime has extended its state of emergency. Thailand has been under this kind of draconian control for most of the period since the 2014 coup. This situation allows the military, police, ISOC and the judiciary to keep a lid on anti-royalism.

How it deals with the more passive rejection of the monarchy and the regime requires more propaganda, more surveillance and more repression. It means keeping Thailand in its past and rejecting the future. All in the name of the monarchy.

Silencing the media I

The regime has congratulated itself on its ability to repress anti-government/anti-monarchy protests. The king must feel confident returning to Europe later in the month.

But at what cost? In its annual report, Human Rights Watch says:

Thai authorities have prosecuted dissenters, violently dispersed peaceful protests, and censored news and social media…. Respect for human rights in Thailand has gone from bad to worse while the government’s promises of reform remain unfulfilled.

Read HRW’s World Report 2022. We assume that HRW is in the regime’s sights for repression next year.

The regime’s moves to shut down political expression has been going on for several years, and much of this has been posted by PPT. Of late, we have had several asides regarding the apparent constricting of the media. Some of this has to do with business decisions – look at the Bangkok Post where the “news” is obliterated by advertorials and “stories” that are promotional. Some of it has to do with the political proclivities of owners.

But much of it has to do with repression, censorship and self-censorship. That screw has been being wound down for some time, but the Constitutional Court’s support of the regime in its ludicrous judgement on political reform now seems like a turning point, sending the country further down the repressive royalist rathole. That decision silenced much of the media reporting on monarchy reform.

With that stimulus, as Khaosod recently reported, the regime has conjured “a draft law that would allow suspension of media license on grounds of publishing contents deemed against ‘good morals of the public’.”

The bill,  formally called “Draft Media Ethics and Professional Standards Promotion Act,” was proposed by the government’s Public Relations Department and approved by the Cabinet on Tuesday. The department is chaired by Lt. Gen. Sansern Kaewkamnerd, who served as the spokesman for the junta….

We all know how the regime defines “good” and “good people.” It has nothing to do with goodness, but with supporting the regime and monarchy. And, we also know that morals have no meaning for a regime full of shysters and murders, not to mention a convicted heroin trafficker. Of course, they are all “good.”

The new law establishes a new licensing and watchdog agency called “Press Profession Council.”

The law will limit press freedom: “It stipulates that while freedom of the press is guaranteed, ‘the exercise must not go against the duties of Thai people or good morals of the people’.”

The Bangkok Post reports that the “draft bill on the promotion of media ethics and professional standards has cleared the cabinet…”.

Supporters of media repression

Regrettably, the Post is already under control, choosing to suggest, in Orwellian style, that an obvious effort to silence the media is, about “the rights, freedoms and independence of media organisations and practitioners.” This is buffalo manure, and the Post’s owners know it, but they have chosen to support repression.

Chavarong Limpattamapanee, chairman of the National Press Council of Thailand, is equally supine, describing “the bill as the best media-related piece of legislation to date.”

With the backbones of jellyfish, such support bodes ill for Thailand’s political future.