Thai national park head files lèse majesté complaint against NHRC

Originally published at Siam Voices on May 14, 2012 A long dispute between Thailand's National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and Kaeng Krachan National Park over the forced eviction of ethnic Karen people has escalated into a lèse majesté complaint filed by the park's head Chaiwat Limlikhit-aksorn against NHRC commissioner Niran Phithakwatchara and NHRC subcommittee members.

Prachatai reports the complaint was filed on Friday at the local police station:

Niran and the NHRC subcommittee, in response to a complaint filed by local residents, had intervened in projects, implemented by the National Park, to cut down forest vines and grow plants to feed wild elephants and other wildlife in honour of the King.

The subcommittee had resolved to order the National Park to cancel the projects and review its plan to expand the park in preparation for declaring it a world heritage site and to allow the participation of local and indigenous people for the protection of their rights.

Chaiwat accused the NHRC members of, among others, supporting the destruction of forest reserves in the National Park and lèse majesté by ordering the project to be cancelled, thereby not respecting the King’s and Queen’s addresses to government officials to protect watershed areas and to prevent illegal logging in the province.

He claimed that over 400 rai of the forest area along the border in the National Park had already been destroyed, with damage worth over 400 million baht.

"Lèse majesté complaint lodged against NHRC members", Prachatai, May 13, 2012

This is just the latest in a series of incidents in Kaeng Krachan National Park, located in Petchaburi province near the Burma border, involving Karen people, an ethnic minority group who are not regarded as Thai citizens though some of them live in the park area. The park's head Chaiwat says they are illegal immigrants who encroach on the forest ground to grow marijuana. They have also been accused of links with the drug trade and the Karen National Liberation Army amid reports of repeated harassment by park officials, border police and military forces:

According to sources that have visited Kaeng Krachan National Park and collected information, the harassment of Karen villagers has been going on for some time and became severe in May, June and July 2011, when many of the villagers’ houses and rice stores were burned and money, jewellery, fishing and agricultural tools were stolen by a group comprising National Park wardens and military forces. As a result, some of these villagers moved away and are now staying with relatives elsewhere and a number of them (allegedly around 70 people) are hiding in the forest in fear of meeting government officers, and are without sufficient food and shelter.

"Karen People forcibly expelled from the Kaeng Krachan National Park in Thailand", Forest Peoples Programme, January 31, 2012

Karen representatives have called upon the NHRC to investigate the raids against them, bringing their case to wider public attention. They are also being supported by the Lawyers Council of Thailand, who were helping to launch a civic lawsuit and demand compensation for the damages done to the villagers. More about the plight of the Karen in Kaeng Krachang can be read here and here.

The park head Chaiwat Limlikhit-aksorn is no stranger to controversy. When pro-Karen activist and former Pheu Thai Party candidate Thatkamon Ob-om was assassinated in September 2011, Chaiwat was implicated to be the one behind it. As of today, after he turned himself to the police, he is out on bail. Nevertheless, despite the revelation of the raids against the Karens, he was able to win back public approval by spearheading the rescue operations after the three military helicopters crashed in the area.

As you can see, this lèse majesté complaint is just the tip of the ice berg in a case of continuous harassment against the ethnic Karen tribe, who are still regarded with suspicion and distrust and are being treated accordingly by the Thai authorities. On the surface, it appears to be the rights of the Karen people against the conservation of wild animals, in particular elephants. But the real reason for Chaiwat lodging a lèse majesté charge against the National Human Rights Commission (the irony in itself is overbearing) is to invoke his public loyalty to the monarchy to publicly defame those who are actually trying to find a lasting solution to the problem.

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook here.

“Uncle SMS” death inspires hypocrisy, indifference among politicians

Originally published at Siam Voices on May 12, 2012 The death of Ampon Tangnoppakul on Monday, known as "Ah Kong" (grandpa) or "Uncle SMS" and imprisoned under the lèse majesté law for allegedly sending inflammatory text messages against the monarchy, has sparked widespread outcry, condemnation and anger — domestic and international alike. However, one group of people that have been very silent on this matter were Thailand's politicians - and if there were any statements from both sides, then they showed the hypocrisy, double standard and sheer cowardice in order to maintain an unstable status quo concerning Article 112 of the Criminal Code.

Among the first to respond when questioned about Ampon's fate and the re-ignited discussion over the lèse majesté law, was Abhisit Vejjajiva of the opposition Democrat party, who said that the death of the 62-year old grandfather "must not be exploited for political gain." He continued:

He said the government was duty-bound to explain what happened to Ampon as he was in the custodial care of the Corrections Department under the supervision of the government.

"Reds told not to exploit Ampon's death", Bangkok Post, May 10, 2012

What Abhisit completely neglects to mention is that it was during his time as prime minister that Ampon was arrested and brought to trial. What he also fails to mention is that it was his own personal secretary Somkiat Klongwattanasak who received those messages and reported them to the police — a fact that Abhisit still denies to have noticed until today, as heard recently at a FCCT event. That almost overshadows that there were no mentions of condolences or anything similar expressed by him reported in the press.

Another public figure who did actually expressed his condolences was (slightly surprisingly) army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha, but in the same breath also reminds the people of his idea(ls) of 'being a Thai':

"ประเด็นสำคัญคือ กองทัพเสียใจ ไม่ว่า ใครก็ตามก็ถือว่า เป็นคนไทย ขอให้ทุกคนสำนึกความเป็นคนไทยกันมากๆ ว่า ความเป็นคนไทยต้อง คือ ต้องเคารพกฎหมาย รักชาติ ศาสนา พระมหากษัตริย์"พล.อ.ประยุทธ์กล่าว

"The important thing is that we, the armed forces, are sorry. Whoever [he was], [he was] a Thai. I want everybody to be very aware of being a Thai. Being a Thai means to respect the law, to love the country, religion and the monarchy," said General Prayuth.

""ประยุทธ์"เตือน อย่าดึงปม"อากง"โยงสถาบัน เผยกองทัพเสียใจ ชี้ให้มองความเป็นจริง", Matichon, May 10, 2012

As the kingdom's top soldier, he sees his duty to serve and protect the monarchy from all threats against it, no matter how constructed and perceived they are. Ever since his inception, the army chief has been consistently showing loyalty to the royal institution and vowing to crack down on lèse majesté offenders - because everything else to him is apparently not Thai.

However, it was most anticipated what (if at all) prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra would say about the death of 'Uncle SMS' - it took her five days to say this:

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said yesterday she has no plans to amend Section 112 - the lese majeste law - despite an outcry over the death of a 62-year-old man jailed for the offence. (...)

"I want to reaffirm that my government's policy is to stay put," Ms Yingluck said in response to questions about possible reform of the law. I have already told groups who push for amendment that the government's urgent mission is to solve economic problems."

"PM adamant she will not reform lese majeste law", Bangkok Post, May 12, 2012

This is almost a carbon copy of her statement she did in July last year shortly after her party won the elections:

Question: “Do you have any plan to change the 112 law?”

Answer:  ”No, for me, I don’t have any idea to change the 112. I would not reform it, because it is not my policy and also this is an issue which is quite sensitive so we have to leave it to the people who have expertise to comment on that. I don’t want to see the misuse of this law regarding his majesty.”

"Will Yingluck amend Thailand’s lese majeste law?", Siam Voices, July 8, 2011

During the months following their election victory, it became clear that the new Yingluck government will NOT push for a reform of Article 112. Even worse, both the MICT minister and deputy prime minister Chalerm have vowed to crackdown even harder on alleged offenders, hinting to be part of a deal with the military not to touch this issue in exchange for a non-intervention against the government and potentially also not intervening against a potential return by Thaksin.

Nevertheless Yingluck's repeated refusal to touch the issue of lèse majesté is betraying a substantial part of her and the Pheu Thai Party's supporter base - many of which were hoping for a reform since they were the most targeted group under this law. Their loyalty has been put on the test before and a recent visit by Yingluck with Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanonda, regarded by many among her supporters as a nemesis, has divided opinions among the red shirts.

It appears that all sides have decided to maintain the status quo for the sake of stability. However, this stability of upholding Article 112 is not sustainable, as with each victim the opposition to this law will grow and could result in a backlash against the current government. The prisoners bear the brunt of a political battle, in which all sides could ultimately lose all their supporters.

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook here.

Tongue-Thai’ed! Part X: The one where Prayuth calls Nitirat 'abnormal'

Originally published at Siam Voices on February 7, 2012

“Tongue-Thai’ed!” encapsulates the most baffling, amusing, confusing, outrageous and appalling quotes from Thai politicians and other public figures – in short: everything we hear that makes us go “Huh?!”. Check out all past entries here.

Army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha is by a stretch the most outspoken highest-ranked military officer in recent history. No one has made his stance more clearly and more frequently than he. Whether it was his 'endorsement' before the elections, his message to the victims of lèse majesté and his contentious relationship with the media - Prayuth doesn't even try to appear neutral but instead dives right into the issues and, many times unwittingly, blurbs out his partisan views.

And ever since the heated debate over the proposals by the Nitirat group to amend the constitution and reform the lèse majesté law, the general has not stayed at the sidelines and has more than often chimed in and absolutely without exception blasted them at every single goddamn opportunity - more often than not trying to emotionalize the issue by invoking the loyalty to the royal institution and at the same time questioning those actually daring to challenge the issues if they have any.

This excerpt is typicsl of his relentless tirades against Nitirat:

พล.อ.ประยุทธ์ จันทร์โอชา ผู้บัญชาการทหารบก ให้สัมภาษณ์ถึงกรณีที่กลุ่มนิติราษฎร์ (...) ว่า (...) มีคนอยู่หลายกลุ่มด้วยกัน กลุ่มหนึ่งอาจจะไม่ปกติ อยากจะทำโน่นทำนี่ โดยไม่คิดว่า อะไรควรไม่ควร แต่เป็นเพียงบางส่วนเท่านั้น กลุ่มที่ 2 คือ นักวิชาการบางกลุ่ม ซึ่งเป็นนักวิชาการส่วนใหญ่กว่า 90 % ยังรักและเทิดทูนสถาบัน อยากจะเรียนไปยังบางส่วนว่า ต้องกลับไปทบทวนว่า ตลอดระยะเวลาที่พระองค์ท่านครองราชย์มาจนมีพระชนมายุ 84 พรรษา มาแล้ว แต่คนที่เป็นนักวิชาการอายุเพียงแค่ 30-40 ปี เรียนหนังสือจบมาแล้วไปเรียนต่อ เคยได้ทำคุณประโยชน์อะไรให้กับแผ่นดินบ้างหรือไม่ เพียงแค่เรียนหนังสือจบมา แล้วเอาความรู้ต่างๆเหล่านั้นมาเพื่อจะแก้โน่น แก้นี่ ซึ่งยังไม่เคยลองปฏิบัติอะไรสักอย่าง

Army Chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha commented on the Nitirat group (...) that (...) there are groups of people that are abnormal. They want to do this and that without thinking what is appropriate or not, but that is just one section. The second group are some academics - of which more than 90 per cent are certainly loyal and respectful to the royal institution - you have to recall that His Majesty has ruled for so long that he is 84 years old now, but the academics are just 30 to 40 years old, who have graduated and continued their studies - what have they achieved for the fatherland? They have just studied and used their various knowledge to solve this and that, without really taking action whatsoever.

“(...) ผมไม่สามารถไปบังคับใครได้ ถ้าพูดแรงไปก็จะหาว่า ไปบังคับ (...) ไม่ใช่ แต่ต้องการให้ทุกคนระลึกอยู่เสมอว่า บ้านเมืองมีชื่อเสียงเกียรติยศในโลกนี้ ส่วนใหญ่ที่รู้จักประเทศไทย รู้จักมาจากสถาบันก่อนทั้งสิ้น (...) ถึงวันนี้ไม่รู้ว่าใครมาจากไหนเหมือนกัน ชาติตระกูลเกิดประเทศไทยหรือไม่ ไม่รู้ถ้าท่านพูดจาแรง พูดไม่ดีต่อสถาบัน ผมจำเป็นต้องใช้คำพูดที่ไม่ดีกับท่าน (...)” พล.อ.ประยุทธ์ กล่าว

"(...) I cannot force anybody, [but] if I speak with authority then people say I'm forceful (...) That's not right! But everybody has to remind themselves that the reputation of this country comes from the monarchy (...) Today, I don't know where they [the academics, in this case Nitirat group] come from or if their ancestors were born in Thailand at all. If they speak bad about the institution, I shall bad about them (...)" says Prayuth.

"'ประยุทธ์'ซัด'นิติราษฎร์'พวกไม่ปกติ", Kom Chad Luek, January 25, 2012 - translation by me

The dictionary defines 'abnormal' as something "deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying". Let's leave it here.

Thammasat University split as it debates for and against Nitirat

By Saksith Saiyasombut

The debates over the Nitirat group's proposals to amend the constitution and the lèse majesté law have become considerably heated and in parts downright ugly over the past weeks. Thammasat University became the venue and the center of controversy as most of the lectures of the group (consisting of 7 Thammasat law lectures) have taken place at that university and lately been banned by the administration, fearing that the university could be "mistaken to organize these events" or even seen to "agree with the movement".

The ban from the camps of "any activities related to the lese majeste law" has cast a large shadow over the university's stance on academic freedom. Ever since then, there are signs that its students and alumni are taking a stand for and against the ban and for and against the proposals of the Nitirat group themselves.

Tuesday was exemplary for this divide as two different groups were rallying on two different campuses of the university:

More than 200 current and former student members of the Journalism and Mass Communication Faculty staged a rally against Nitirat at the Tha Phrachan campus. Students and lecturers from other faculties and supporters joined in the demonstration.

They were countered by a group of students who gathered at Thammasat's Rangsit campus in Pathum Thani who oppose the ban on Nitirat. The group will hold a rally at Tha Phrachan campus on Sunday. (...) about 10 students came out to oppose the ban, saying it restricted freedom of speech.

"Nitirat ban splits student body", Bangkok Post, February 2, 2012

First off, let me express my astonishment that of all people, journalists and those striving to become one, should know better than anyone how important the subject of lèse majesté is and how threatening it is to their creed - the more mind-boggling and revealing it is to see these people rallying with posters (see above) like "Journalism [Faculty] against Nitirat", "Nitirat is not Thammasat, Thammasat is not Nitirat" and "Don't let knowledge distort morality!"

They called during a rally for members of the Thammsat community to oppose Nitirat's proposal for the amendment of Section 112 of the Criminal Code, for the university to launch a legal and disciplinary investigation of the seven law lecturers, for the mass media to exercise discretion in presenting information on the proposed amendment, and for people in all walks of life to oppose any move deemed insulting to the monarchy.

"Journalism students oppose Nitirat", Bangkok Post , February 2, 2012

Following the Thai Journalists Association welcoming (last sentence) last week's decision by Twitter to filter out tweets on a country-by-country basis (and Thailand rushing to endorse it), today's protest by journalism students against amendments to the ambiguous, but draconian lèse majesté law is a declaration of moral bankruptcy by Thailand's journalism.

For Thammasat University, considering its history and that it was once considered to be a beacon of liberal thinking, human rights and democratic freedom in Thailand, it is a dangerous walk on the tight rope. While its rector has given refuge to a young girl called "Kanthoop", who has been over the years witch-hunted by ultra-royalists and has to face a lèse majesté complaint, the university is risking to lose all its liberal credibility with the ban of the Nitirat group. In general this debate will test the ability of all Thais to listen and at least acknowledge opposing views and uncomfortable opinions - the outcome is yet to be expected.

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and also on his public Facebook page here.

No #outrage as Thailand adopts Twitter’s censorship policy

Originally published at Siam Voices on January 31, 2012

Last week, the micro-blogging website Twitter announced an implementation that gives them the possibility to withhold certain tweets to be viewable from certain countries, if legally required to do so. The backlash was expected and came in swiftly with countless of users express their #outrage. While some see an actual improvement in Twitter's new policy as they make the process transparent in contrast to previously just deleting the offending tweeting.

Of course many are fearing that this move will enable governments to curtail freedom of speech by requesting Twitter to blank out unwanted tweets that is going against a sovereign narrative and thus rendering campaigns of minority voices on the social media service, that has been often attributed to be a vital tool in the Arab Spring, ineffective.

One of these countries is of course Thailand, where freedom of speech has been steadily on the decline over the past few years and recents months have seen an intense and emotional debate of the Kingdom's ambiguous, but yet draconian lèse majesté law. While groups demanding a reform or the complete removal of Article 112 of the Criminal Code are battling with hardcore royalists and other opportunists, who are of course still upholding the notion that the royal institution needs to be protected above all else, the government of prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra are maintaining their past stance and denying any move to amend the law whatsoever.

On Monday the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT), in order not to be outdone by anyone, has come to endorse Twitter's new policy:

ICT permanent secretary Jeerawan Boonperm said Twitter's move to censor or block content regarded as offensive in particular countries was a "welcome development".

The ICT Ministry will contact Twitter shortly to discuss ways in which they could collaborate, she said.

Mrs Jeerawan added the ICT already receives "good cooperation" from companies such as Google and Facebook in ensuring that Thai laws are respected.

"ICT to lay down law on Twitter accounts", Bangkok Post, January 30, 2012  via TheNextWeb

Just in case you have missed it: Thailand is the FIRST government on this Earth to embrace Twitter's new censorship policy! They have even beaten the Chinese, who of course made their own spin on this! This of course has drawn in the attention of the international media, as it also inevitably draws attention to the lèse majesté laws, which is slowly becoming synonymous for the Southeast Asian country.

What this whole controversy also shows is that Twitter, while a significant web service in today's internet culture, is still a private corporation that is there to make a profit and expand in foreign markets, such as China. It is a ride on a razor's edge between financial interests and the interests of it's users - something that other web companies like Google and Yahoo have attempted by appeasing to the local laws and eventually damaging their reputation in the end.

In the case of Thailand, Twitter is yet another frontline in the seemingly never-ending battle for freedom of expression online against a force that is curtailing the diversity of views and opinions in order to protect their sole, valid sovereign narrative of a Kingdom that is getting into world's spotlight more and more for all the wrong reasons.

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and also on his public Facebook page here.

2011 - Some Personal Thoughts

Originally published at Siam Voices on December 31, 2011 2011 is history and looking back on Thailand this past year, it has been yet another eventful year that brought some answers, but many more questions to the wide-spread problems that continues to plague the country in many aspects. However, 2011 brought many chances and changes, shed light on issues and topics left in the dark before, voices echoed by many and opinions uttered by a few, whether you agree with them or not.

This is a (definitely incomplete) list of these stories that happened in 2011...

Lèse majesté sees December surge

Let's start off with the most recent topic that has unfortunately brought Thailand into the world headlines for all the wrong reasons again and that is none other than the problematic issue of lèse majesté that is gripping freedom of speech. The whole month of December was filled with stories about high-profile cases and countless victims of this draconian law, the discussion to amend it and the (irrational) defenders of this law and the institution that is meant to be protected by it.

The recent surge of lèse majesté began in late November with the dubious sentence against Ampon "Uncle SMS" Tangnoppakul, despite doubtful evidence. The 62-year old grandfather is now being jailed for 20 years, five years for each alleged SMS sent. On December 8 the Thai-born US citizen was  sentenced to two and a half years prison for posting translated parts of a banned biography on the King. On December 15 'Da Torpedo', despite winning an appeal resulting in a restart of her trial, was punished to 15 years prison for alleged remarks made in 2008. These are just a few cases that happened in November and December compared to the countless other (partly ongoing or pending) cases over the past 12 months.

But the surge was also accompanied with growing and publicly displayed concern by the European Union, the United Nations and the United States Embassy in Bangkok over the increasing blatant usage of the lèse majesté law, only with the latter to be flooded with irrational, angry hate speeches and also the venue for a protest by royalists in mid-December (and also in a nearly instant iconic display of royal foolishness, the protesters are wearing Guy Fawkes masks, most likely inspired by the #Occupy-movement, but totally oblivious to its historical roots). It was not the first time this year that this issue got attention from the international community, as seen in October.

The government of prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra was elected into office last July (see below), and while she would have liked to see some change on the application of the law, not to the law itself though, the new ICT minister has vowed to exploit this to the fullest. He was only to be topped by deputy prime minister Chalerm Yubamrung a few months later, who went into full combat mode and declared war on lèse majesté web content with a THB400m ($12,6m) strong war chest, right after a meeting with the military's top brasses. The hopes of many supporters of the Pheu Thai Party, especially the red shirts, are at latest by now fully gone, as this government already has a tainted record on this issue.

But there was also an important protest by opponents of lèse majesté - the "Fearlessness Walk" shows that this issue can no longer be ignored and the consequences of its enforcement are doing exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to do. It is drawing attention to the ambiguous nature of Article 112 of the criminal code (as well as the Computer Crimes Act), it is drawing attention to the signs of changing times and those who refuse to see them, and ultimately it will draw more opposition - we will (unfortunately) hear more about this issue in 2012!

(Non-)Culture: Baring the unbearable and monopolizing "Thai"-ness

While we're on the subject on being subjected to the anachronistic ideas of a few, there were several stories in 2011 in the realms of culture that were disconcerting, to say the least. It wasn't so much the incidents themselves rather the reactions by those self-proclaimed cultural heralds of everything "Thai"-ness - a phrase I've been using too often in each of those stories: three girls dancing topless on Songkran, the then-culture minister calls for a crackdown on them as if they have attacked everything "Thai"-ness stands for. A few months later the same culture minister suddenly notices that infidels foreigners are getting Buddhist tattoos and calls for a ban (and back paddles after some considerable uproar). Shortly after his ministry senselessly attempts to crack down on a senseless internet meme because it's "inappropriate" and "not constructive". Later this year a rather curious guide for parents was published on their website. And finally a singer's rather raunchy video gets a ton of hits online and a sanctimonious scolding on national TV.

See a pattern here? The selective outcry borders on ridiculousness and fuels Thailand’s National Knee-Jerk Outrage Machine (“กลไกสร้างปฏิกิริยาอย่างไร้ความยั้งคิดแห่งประเทศไทย”, trademark pending), claims to uphold the only valid definition of "Thai"-ness, that isn't even fully spelled out yet, while they have not noticed that the world beyond their minds has moved on and come up with new and different definitions of what else Thailand could be. The problem is that these cultural heralds, by political office or class, claim monopoly on this. Everyone below their wage level is not entitled to even think about it. And if something doesn't fit their point of view, as guest contributor Kaewmala put it brilliantly, "Only taboo when it's inconvenient!"

The 2011 General Elections

Will he or will he not? In the end, Abhisit Vejjajiva did dissolve parliament and paved the way for early elections in May and also set off quite a short campaign season, which not only saw a few strange election posters and illustrious characters running for office, but it also saw the emergence of Yingluck Shinawatra as the lucky draw for PM candidate of the opposition Pheu Thai Party. After much skyping to Dubai discussion within the party, the sister of Thaksin was chosen to run and it turned out to be the best pick.

The Democrat Party were banking heavily on negative campaigning (a precursor to the upcoming, inevitable Thaksin-phobia in 2012), which reached its climax in the last days with their rally at Rajaprasong, the same venue where the red shirts protested a year ago. In this event, then-deputy prime minister Suthep Thuangsuban claimed to give the "full truth" on what really happened during the violent crackdown of May 19, 2010. What followed were hours of fear-mongering in case of a Pheu Thai win and an incident that almost caused a major misunderstanding:

The big screens flanking the stage on the left and the right are bearing a gruesome view. Footage of at times badly injured people from last year’s rally are being shown when suddenly at the sight of blood people started cheering – as it turns out, not for the brutally killed victims of the anti-governments protests of 2010, but for a woman with an Abhisit cut-out mask waving to the crowd behind her.

"Thailand’s Democrat Party rally: Reclaiming (the truth about) Rajaprasong", Siam Voices, June 24, 2011

The last days of the campaign were spent outside of Bangkok, for example Pheu Thai in Nakhon Ratchasima before the big day. On Sunday, July 3, election day of course meant a full-day-marathon for a journalist. Not only did it mean covering as many polling stations around town as humanly possible, not only to crunch the numbers of exit polls (which turned out to be total BS!), but also of course running the live-blog at Siam Voices. In the end, it went very quickly: Abhisit conceded, Yingluck smiled and at a lunch meeting later there was already a new five-party coalition.

The worst floods in decades: a deluge of irrationality

790.

This is the current death toll of the what has been described as the "worst floods in decades". Floods are an annual occurrence in Thailand during the rainy season. When the water was sweeping through Chiang Mai already back in late September, this natural disaster was somehow going to be different. But it took some considerable time, despite the unprecedented damage it has created in Ayutthaya to the ancient temples and the vital industrial parks, until the capital was drowned in fear of what was to come.

It was curious to observe that those who were least likely to be affected (read: central Bangkok) were losing their nerves the most. Back in November I attempted to explore one possible reason:

One of the real reasons why the people of the city react the way they did though is this: After a military coup, countless violent political protests and sieges of airports, government buildings and public roads, this city has a sense of anxiety not unlike New York after the 9/11 terrorist attacks: a sense of being constantly under siege by something or somebody that separates Bangkok from the rest of the country even more. An incident at Klong Sam Wa Sluice Gate (we reported) is a perfect example of the conflict between inside and outside Bangkok in miniature form.

"The Thai floods and the geographics of perception – Part 2: Certain fear of uncertainty", Siam Voices, November 23, 2011

On an anecdotal note I remember people around me hoarding bottled water, moving their belongings upstairs and barricading their houses waist-high - while I can understand these precautions, I was astonished to say the least when I started to read social media updates that accuse the government so much so to the point of deliberately drowning the people of Bangkok and other outlandish conspiracy theories, including the now ubiquitous "blame it on foreign media"-card.

There's no doubt that this natural disaster has not only shown the worst in people, but also it's helpful and charitable side (not only towards humans exclusively). During my work reporting from the floods for foreign news crews (hence there weren't many posts on Siam Voices), I admired the apparent resilience and defiance I saw from many victims of the floods - some of which are now struggling with rebuilding their lost existence. And a lot of clean-up will be needed to be done, both literally as well as politically, in order to prevent such a disaster from happening again!

What else happened in 2011? (in no particular order)

- Then-prime minister Abhisit urging then-president of Egypt Honsi Mubarak to respect the will of the people - while being totally oblivious that he exactly did not do that a year ago because, well, "They ran into the bullets" themselves!

- Half a dozen Thais walking through the border region with Cambodia and surprised that they're being arrested, in an arbitrary way to dispute the border demarcations between the two countries. This ongoing conflict, largely fueled by the ever-shrinking PAD, sparked into a brief armed battle. Two of the strollers are still sitting in a Cambodian prison.

- The one-year-anniversary of the crackdown of May 19 and my personal thoughts on this.

- The somehow strangely toned-down five-year-anniversary of the 2006 coup.

- Army chef General Prayuth Chan-ocha going completely berserk at the press.

- The fact that Thailand got its first female prime minister and the (un)surprisingly muted reactions by Thailand's feminists.

- The saga of the impounded Thai plane on German ground, the curious case study on how Thai media reported it, the juristic mud-slinging, and how this mess was eventually solved. Which brings us to...

- The German government allowing Thaksin back into Germany, after heavy campaigning by a bunch of conservative German MPs. Still boggles my mind...!

- And while we're on topic, we are saying good-bye to a regular contributor of outrageous quotes - no one has been so focused to do a different job than written his business card than Thaksin-hunter and former foreign minister in disguise Kasit Piromya!

I'd like to thank my colleagues at Siam Voices for building a diverse and opinionated collective, our editor who keeps everything in check and YOU, the readers! THANK YOU for the support, feedback, criticism, links and retweets!

Here's to an eventful, exciting 2012 that brings us news, changes, developments to discuss for all the right reasons! Happy New Year!

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist based in Hamburg, Germany again (*sigh*). He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and now also on his public Facebook page here.

Video: 'Challenging the Sovereign Narrative' - (Social) Media in the Thai Political Crisis

Originally published at Siam Voices on December 23, 2011 (Note: This post was supposed to be up much, much earlier but was pushed back due to the floods and the re-relocation of the author back to Germany. Apologies to all involved for the momentous delay!)

Back in late September I was invited to hold a talk at Payap University in Chiang Mai and I chose to talk about a (social) media topic with the focus on the the 2010 anti-government Red Shirts' Protests, the knee-jerk demonizing of foreign media and what role social media played in this, if at all.

The talk is about 45 minutes long and includes 15 minutes of Q&A. The original full abstract can be found below the video.

Again, thanks to the people at Payap University for the invitation and organizing the event, especially Adam Dedman, Jessica Loh and Paul Chambers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzrtubI8cZM

“Challenging the Sovereign Narrative – Media Perceptions of the Thai Political Crisis and the (missing) Role of Social Media”

Speaker: Saksith Saiyasombut

When: Tuesday, 27 September 2011, 5-6pm

Place: Room 317, Pentecost Building, Mae Khao main campus, Payap University

The Kingdom of Thailand rarely pops up on the global news landscape and if so, then it is mostly for a so-called ‘soft’ story. In recent years though, political struggles, often escalating in violent protests on the streets of Bangkok, have dominated the airwaves of the international media outlets, only to disappear shortly after the protests have ended. With the Thai political crisis dragging on for several years now, reporters are struggling to properly report and explain the situation without simplifying this to just a color-coded conflict between two opposing groups. In particular, the anti-government Red Shirt protests of 2010 were a watershed moment for how Thailand and its political crisis are regarded, with many Thais objecting to the foreign media’s coverage, as much as to openly vilify the international TV news networks. On the other hand, the domestic media have failed in its role to objectively explain and provide context to the political developments of recent years.

The more important issue is the rise of social media to counter a sovereign narrative of the mainstream and state media – however, Thailand has yet to see a grassroots revolution fueled by the Internet. Nevertheless, online services like Twitter and Facebook provide Thais a way to read and express alternative viewpoints and also a platform to  fill the journalistic void left by other media outlets, but are threatened by the country’s ambiguously written Computer Crimes Act and lèse majesté law.

This talk looks at the perceptions of the international and domestic media of the Thai political crisis and why this struggle has not translated into an online uprising yet and aims to examine opportunities for “filling in the blanks” left by the mainstream media.

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai political blogger and journalist. He wrote for his hometown newspapers Weser Kurier and Weser Report in Bremen, Germany, before working as an editorial assistant for Asia News Network and contributing reporter at The Nation. He started blogging about Thai politics on his personal website  www.saiyasombut.com in early 2010 and since September 2010, Saksith now writes for Siam Voices, a collaborative blog on Thai current affairs on the regional blog and news network Asian Correspondent. He is also currently a graduate student of Southeast Asian Studies at the University of Hamburg, Germany.

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and also on his public Facebook page here.

International pressure mounts against Thailand's Lese Majeste law

Originally published at Siam Voices on October 14, 2011 The rising awareness of Thailand's draconian lèse majesté law is gaining scrutiny from the international community after several countries have questioned and criticized Article 112 of Thailand's criminal code during a Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Every four years, all members of the United Nations are required to submit a report about its human rights situation, and be questioned on it by other states. If you have the time you can watch all (and I mean ALL) hearings towards Thailand's report, go here.

Pravit Rojanaphruk wrote in The Nation:

Representatives from the United Kingdom, France and Slovenia shared the view that the lese majeste law affected freedom of expression and urged Thailand to consider this aspect of liberty. Hungary and Finland urged Thailand to invite the UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression to visit Thailand.

The representative of Norway - also a kingdom - made the most concrete suggestion, pointing out that although Norway has a lese majeste law, a charge can only be brought with the personal approval of the king in order to "avoid abuses". (...)

Other states whose representatives urged Thailand to amend the law included Switzerland, Brazil, Spain, Sweden and New Zealand. Some of these, including the Canadian representative, also raised the issue of the Computer Crimes Act, which critics say is also being used by the Thai government to curb freedom of expression.

"US mum on lese majeste law at UN rights hearing", by Pravit Rojanaphruk, The Nation, October 7, 2011

ARTICLE 19, an UK-based NGO advocating freedom of expression, were also present during the hearing and have caught this (and be sure to read former Siam Voices contributor Andrew Spooner's interview with ARTICLE 19's Senior Programme Officer for Asia):

Recommendations to Thailand to repeal or review the lèse-majesté law (Article 112 of Thailand’s Penal Code) and the Computer Crime Act (2007) were made by fourteen member states, including Western European countries, New Zealand, Canada, Brazil and Indonesia.

Indonesia was the only member state of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) to highlight the issue of freedom of expression in Thailand, a fellow member. It urged Thailand to carry out a comprehensive review of its laws to ensure that they fulfil the right to freedom of expression in accordance to international standards.

"Spotlight on Thailand’s Lèse-Majesté Law and Computer Crimes Act", ARTICLE 19, October 6, 2011

However, not all countries have raised their concerns towards Thailand:

The United States joined China, Syria, Singapore and Burma in not expressing any concern about the lese majeste law, (...).

"US mum on lese majeste law at UN rights hearing", by Pravit Rojanaphruk, The Nation, October 7, 2011

This is seemingly the first time vocal opposition against lèse majesté has been come in that quantity from the international community. British MPs lobbied for Prachatai webmaster Chinranuch Premchaiporn, whose trial continued in the past few weeks (see here), but due to the current flood situation, will continue in February 2012.

Another case mentioned during the questioning at the UPR was the trial against Joe Gordon, a Thai-born American arrested back in May for allegedly posting a link to a banned unauthorized biography of King Bhumibol Adulyadej and also allegedly translating parts of this book and later posted it on his blog. This was done while he was still in the United States, but was then arrested when he came to Thailand for medical treatment. His case started earlier this week, where Gordon pleaded guilty, in hope for a shorter sentence and eventually a royal pardon, something that has become almost standard procedure in similar cases of recent years.

Even more international criticism comes from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, who also urged Thailand in a press release to amend its laws:

“The threat of a long prison sentence and vagueness of what kinds of expression constitute defamation, insult, or threat to the monarchy, encourage self-censorship and stifle important debates on matters of public interest, thus putting in jeopardy the right to freedom of opinion and expression,” La Rue said. “This is exacerbated by the fact that the charges can be brought by private individuals and trials are often closed to the public.” (...)

However, to prevent any abuse of this exceptional rule for purposes beyond the intended aim, any law that limits the right to freedom of expression must be clear and unambiguous regarding the specific type of expression that is prohibited, and proven to be necessary and proportionate for the intended purposes.

“The Thai penal code and the Computer Crimes Act do not meet these criteria. The laws are vague and overly broad, and the harsh criminal sanctions are neither necessary nor proportionate to protect the monarchy or national security,” the expert noted.

"Thailand / Freedom of expression: UN expert recommends amendment of lèse majesté laws", Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations Human Rights Council, October 10, 2011

The special rapporteur rightfully points out the weaknesses of the laws that leave too much room for interpretation and the accused are likely to become, especially in these political times, victims of arbitrary acts by the authorities. While the Thai representatives at the hearing argue that the Thai government is "keen to prevent the misuse of the law", something that the Abhisit administration had promised but failed to deliver, and that "an ongoing debate on lese majeste law" is taking place, though failing to see how public and how thorough the debate still can not go.

Also, Thai Ambassador to the UN Sihasak Phuangketkeow says that Thai media can report and comment "freely". Again, while Thailand is still a far way from becoming the new Burma, the extent to which one can fully comment and report on the political developments in Thailand is highly limited, considering that there are more powers at play than those we elect.

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Bangkok, Thailand. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and now also on his public Facebook page here.

Announcing: Talk at Payap University on September 27, 2011

This is an open event, anyone is invited to come and you can RSVP on the Facebook event page. Also, you have any suggestions and hints for material, links, videos etc. send me an email, tweet or post on my Facebook page.

"Challenging the Sovereign Narrative - Media Perceptions of the Thai Political Crisis and the (missing) Role of Social Media"

Speaker: Saksith Saiyasombut

When: Tuesday, 27 September 2011, 5-6pm

Place: Room 317, Pentecost Building, Mae Khao main campus, Payap University

The Kingdom of Thailand rarely pops up on the global news landscape and if so, then it is mostly for a so-called ‘soft’ story. In recent years though, political struggles, often escalating in violent protests on the streets of Bangkok, have dominated the airwaves of the international media outlets, only to disappear shortly after the protests have ended. With the Thai political crisis dragging on for several years now, reporters are struggling to properly report and explain the situation without simplifying this to just a color-coded conflict between two opposing groups. In particular, the anti-government Red Shirt protests of 2010 were a watershed moment for how Thailand and its political crisis are regarded, with many Thais objecting to the foreign media's coverage, as much as to openly vilify the international TV news networks. On the other hand, the domestic media have failed in its role to objectively explain and provide context to the political developments of recent years.

The more important issue is the rise of social media to counter a sovereign narrative of the mainstream and state media - however, Thailand has yet to see a grassroots revolution fueled by the Internet. Nevertheless, online services like Twitter and Facebook provide Thais a way to read and express alternative viewpoints and also a platform to  fill the journalistic void left by other media outlets, but are threatened by the country’s ambiguously written Computer Crimes Act and lèse majesté law.

This talk looks at the perceptions of the international and domestic media of the Thai political crisis and why this struggle has not translated into an online uprising yet and aims to examine opportunities for "filling in the blanks" left by the mainstream media.

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai political blogger and journalist. He wrote for his hometown newspapers Weser Kurier and Weser Report in Bremen, Germany, before working as an editorial assistant for Asia News Network and contributing reporter at The Nation. He started blogging about Thai politics on his personal website  www.saiyasombut.com in early 2010 and since September 2010, Saksith now writes for Siam Voices, a collaborative blog on Thai current affairs on the regional blog and news network Asian Correspondent. He is also currently a graduate student of Southeast Asian Studies at the University of Hamburg, Germany.

Foreign web host company 'snitched' lese majeste critic to Thai authorities

By Saksith Saiyasombut

Earlier this month, the United States has expressed "disappointment" over the prosecution of Joe Gordon, a naturalized US citizen from Thailand who was arrested in May and charged with lèse majesté. Gordon has allegedly linked to the book "The King Never Smiles", an unauthorized and banned biography on Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej and posted translated parts on his blog back in 2007.

The technology website Ars Technica noq has a piece about another Thai-turned-US citizen who ran into trouble with Thailand's draconian lèse majesté law:

In May 2006, Anthony Chai, a naturalized United States citizen from Thailand, took a flight back to the land of his birth to catch up with relatives and friends. He visited his nieces and nephews and spent some time at the resort town of Hua Hin.

But according to a new lawsuit, when Chai tried to return to California via Bangkok airport, he was stopped by a quintet of security agents. Employed by Thailand's Department of Special Investigation, they informed him that they had a warrant for his arrest for committing an act of lèse majesté—a public statement that supposedly violates the "dignity" of a ruler. (...)

The DPI [sic] officers took Chai to an interrogation center and allegedly deprived him of food, water, and sleep until 3.30am while barraging him with accusations and threats. "I know where your relatives live in Bangkok and California," Chai says that one policeman told him. "If you want them to live in peace, you must cooperate."

"Thai censorship critic strikes back at snitch Web host", Ars Technica, August 29, 2011

Just a reminder: this took place in May 2006, back when the numbers for lèse majesté cases were by far not as high as they were today! The article goes on to describe the interrogation, including that Chai allegedly had to hand over passwords and e-mail addresses so the officers could access his confiscated laptop.

At one point during the interrogation, Chai was presented with a document that revealed the e-mail addresses that he and an associate had used to post comments to manusaya.com. (...)

Did Anthony Chai even make statements against the Thai monarchy? No. Using an anonymous e-mail address, he had posted comments critical of Thailand's lèse majesté law to the website www.manusaya.com (...) The site was eventually shut down by its Canadian host, Netfirms, at the request the Thai government.

"Thai censorship critic strikes back at snitch Web host", Ars Technica, August 29, 2011

This shows the problem of the ambiguously worded lèse majesté law, which states "Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years" - without saying though what actually constitutes defamation or insult, criticizing the law itself doesn't seem to fit it.

The fact that Chai could be charged for something he did outside the Kingdom is thanks to the Section 17 of the Computer Crimes Act that basically states anyone, Thai or not, can be charged under this law no matter from where the offense was committed.

The Ars Technica article then highlights a rather strange and blatantly impudent acts of a Thai police Colonel personally showing up in California to meet Chai - that has to be read in its entirety...

So, how did the Thai authorities found out about him...?

But Netfirms didn't just close the site, say Chai and his attorneys.

"Sometime before May 2006, also at the request of Thai officials, Netfirms.com provided Mr. Chai's IP address and the two e-mail addresses associated with that IP address," Chai's complaint charges, "without Mr. Chai's knowledge or consent." In addition, the Canadian company allegedly handed over this data without requesting a court order, subpoena, or warrant from Thai authorities, and without contacting the US State Department for guidance.

"Thai censorship critic strikes back at snitch Web host", Ars Technica, August 29, 2011

This procedure mirrors Yahoo!'s outing of Chinese cyber dissidents over the last several years. What differs in Chai's case though is that Netfirms is not based in Thailand and did not need to appease the Thai government by making amends with their internet services - so it seems quite strange why this Candian company was so willing to snitch him to Thai authorities without any kind of documentation.

This is why Chai is now, with the help of the World Organization for Human Rights, suing Netfirms $75,000 in damages. It will be interesting to see how this court case will turn out, since this is the first time (at least to my knowledge) that a foreign internet firm has actively assisted Thai authorities with the prosecution of alleged lèse majesté offenders.

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Bangkok, Thailand. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and now also on his public Facebook page here.

Thailand's 'beer-heiress' supports crackdown on anti-monarchy websites

Originally published at Siam Voices on August 22, 2o11

Some readers may remember a certain Miss Chitpas Bhirombhakdi, the daughter of Chutinant Bhirombhakdi, executive vice-president of Singha Corporation and thus often-referred to as the "Singha-heiress". We have previously reported on her and and her campaign for MP during the run-up to the elections, which she lost in her constituency. But she seems to already have a new job post-election and is already making her mark:

The Democrat Party is urging the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to act quickly on closing down websites insulting the monarchy.

Deputy Democrat Spokesperson Ms. Jitpas Pirompakdi has expressed her gratitude towards ICT Minister Group Captain Anudith Nakornthap for taking a serious clampdown on any websites displaying content to insult the monarchy as there are quite a number of them at present.

According to her, disrespectful contents are widespread in social media, cyber space, as well as television and radio programs, and this has raised the question as to where webmasters receive the financial support from. She insisted that she had no intention to intervene in the work of the ICT and she would support their mission. She urged the public to report to authorities if they had seen such websites via email: yeswecan5555 [at] gmail.com

"ICT to close down more websites insulting the monarchy", National News Bureau of Thailand, August 20, 2011

Nevermind the different spelling, Ms. Chitpas Bhirombhakdi is now indeed deputy spokeswoman for the Democrat Party. And while a spokesperson is primarily there to tout the party's line, which is without a doubt a very difficult one to take a different side on, she made sure to also add in a little bit of herself into this statement. Here's from the official website of the Democrat Party:

“สมัยที่ทำงานในกระทรวงกระทรวงเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสาร ได้เคร่งครัดดูแลเรื่องนี้อย่างสม่ำเสมอ พร้อมทั้งได้ดำเนินการภายใต้กรอบกฎหมายของประเทศไทย ตนเชื่อว่าคนไทยทุกคน ไม่ต้องการเห็นสถาบันสูงสุด ถูกใส่ร้าย โจมตี ในข้อมูลอันเป็นเท็จ และไม่เป็นธรรม” นางสาวจิตภัส   กล่าวและว่า วันนี้พรรคประชาธิปัตย์ ขอเป็นกำลังใจให้  รัฐมนตรีว่าการกระทรวงเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสาร (ไอซีที)  ให้หนักแน่น และดำเนินการกับกระบวนเว็ปไซต์หมิ่นสถาบันอย่างจริงจัง และขอประชาสัมพันธ์ไปยังคนไทยทุกคน หากพบเห็นการกระบวนเว็ปไซต์หมิ่นสถาบัน  สามารถแจ้งมาได้ที่ yesmecan5555 [at] gmail.com

"When I worked at the MICT, I eagerly took responsibility over this matter [regularly] [by] enforcing under the legal framework of this country. I believe, no Thai should see harm done to the highest institution by wrong and insidious information," Ms Chitapas said, "today, the Democrat Party wishes to express their great gratitude to the Minister of ICT for his mission to clampdown on websites insulting the monarchy. We want ask to all Thais if they come across any websites that are insulting to the royal institution, they can inform at: yesmecan5555 [at] gmail.com*"

"“จิตภัส” ให้กำลังใจ รมว.ไอซีที ดำเนินจริงจังและเด็ดขาด กับกระบวนการหมิ่นสถาบัน", Democrat Party, August 20, 2011 - translation by me

Chitapas has worked as a secretary at the MICT in 2009 (see here again), I do doubt however that she already took charge over such a high profile task. She refers to a statement of the new Minister of the ICT Captain Anudith Nakornthap (as previously reported), who said that his ministry will be even more vigilant pursuing anti-monarchy offenders and punish with the full force of the law - practically breaking nearly all hopes that the new government will reform the draconian Article 112 of the Crminal Code and the equally controversial Computer Crimes Act, which undoubtedly has been used in the past to silence political opponents or simply those challenging the official narrative.

Even though Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra publicly stated she wants to see the misuse of this law reduced and will review it, it remains to be seen if the new government will do anything about it without being branded by their enemies as anti-monarchy, thus eliminating desperately needed rational discussion about the state and the future of the royal institution.

*P.S.: Anybody noticed the two different, equally unprofessional looking email addresses to denounce incriminate inform anti-monarchy websites?

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Bangkok, Thailand. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and now also on his public Facebook page here.

As opposition against Thailand's lese majeste law continues, it claims another victim

Originally published at Siam Voices on August 16, 2011 Earlier this month, a 23-year old graduate from the Kasetsart University has been arrested for allegedly posting content on his blog that is deemed insulting to the monarchy - also known as lèse majesté. Prachatai and The Nation's Pravit Rojanaphruk (and unsurprisingly no one else) with the details:

The person who filed the charge was said to be a vice rector for students affairs, who reportedly said he was pressed to file the charge by the University Council and that the complaint was filed in a bid to protect the university's "reputation". (...)

The man made remarks on his blog that were allegedly offensive to the monarchy while he was a senior student at the university. These were apparently first spotted by fellow students, prachatai.com reported.

He faces charges both under the lese majeste law, which carries a maximum 15-year jail term, and the Computer Crimes Act, which has punishment of up to five years in jail.

"Student held for alleged lese majeste", The Nation, August 7, 2011

Meanwhile, Prachatai reports that he has been released on bail. This student, whose name and picture has been widely published, is another victim of Thailand's infamous Article 112 of the Criminal Code, also known as lèse majesté. In recent years, this law has been excessively abused, the number of such cases has skyrocketed from just a few cases in 2006 to almost 500 in 2010 and, in conjunction with the equally controversial 2007 Computer Crimes Act (CCA), thousands of websites have been shut down. On the other hand, due to the volatile political atmosphere in Thailand, it has enabled an excessive witch-hunt, as detailed here:

[Name of accused] was apparently 'witch hunted' by a Facebook group calling itself the Social Sanction (SS) group, according to his father. His name, photos, personal address and numbers were posted online, and he was heavily criticised by members of the SS group. (...)

Sawitree Suksri, a law lecturer at Thammasat University, described the SS group's method as "vicious" and "irrational" and a form of online violence that parallels the real-life violence in Thailand. She also noted in a signed article that the ongoing Social Sanction phenomenon appeared to have the support of the Thai authorities.

"THAILAND: Student blogger charged with lèse majesté", University World News, August 13, 2011

As charges for lèse majesté grow in numbers, so does the resistance against this law. We have previously reported about an open letter by a group of 100 young writers calling to amend this law and stop its excessive abuse. This group has now grown to 359 writers and they also have published a new open letter, key excerpt:

We hereby appeal to the Members of the Thai Parliament who are the representatives and law makers for the Thai people to take the lead in amending Article 112 of the Criminal Code. This is our call for courage to politicians, academicians, the media and intellectuals from all sectors of Thai society to awaken their conscience and to recognize that the suppression of freedom of speech and expression through the misuse of Article 112 by means of physical threats, pressing charges, lawsuits and intimidation by government officials in power or among members of the Thai public including the mass media, is a grave danger to the stability of our nation. This is of utmost national concern and in urgent need of reform.

A society will fail not as a result of diversity of opinions, nor lack of solidarity in political discourse, but a society will fail due to its inability to respect basic human rights, to allow opportunities for the public to voice their opinions, and to cherish and learn from the constructive exchange of different points of view. For our society to progress and prosper, it must develop a spirit of cooperation and cultivatean understanding of human rights, freedom and equality. The goal is for all Thais to live harmoniously under the constitutional monarchy rather than privilege those few who hold their view supreme, above and untouchable by common law and legal provisions or even the constitution which governs the nation.

"359 Thai Writers Manifesto", via Prachatai, July 25, 2011

The numerous cases show the problem about how this law is applied. In theory, anybody can file such a complaint at the police, who are obliged to investigate everyone of them, no matter how nonsensical they are. They can forward them to the prosecution and subsequently to the court which then has to decide on the very ambiguously worded law as well. Throw in the also very vague 2007 Computer Crimes Act (which was at one time planned to be replaced by an even worse new draft), then you are in a very (perhaps deliberately) unchartered legal territory - as the trail against Prachatai webmaster Chrianuch Premchaiporn has shown.

Many have laid their expectations on the new government to change something about this. But hopes for a quick solution to the problem were quickly dashed when the new prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra said that she has no intention to amend Article 112, but does not want see this law misused. Any administration even thinking publicly about reforming or changing this problem will have to face attacks by royalists who will brand them anti-monarchist, a severe accusation which is a killer argument that prevents any rational discussion about possible political and societal reforms.

Even worse, the new Minister for Communication and Technology (MICT) Captain Anudith Nakornthap of the Pheu Thai Party has gone on record declaring this:

(...) นับจากนี้ไป จะมีการกำชับให้ข้าราชการ และเจ้าหน้าที่ของกระทรวง ในทุกระดับ มีการเข้มงวดมากยิ่งขึ้น ในการกำกับดูแลปราบปรามการกระทำผิด พ.ร.บ.เกี่ยวกับคอมพิวเตอร์ และการหมิ่นสถาบันผ่านเว็บไซต์ต่างๆ โดยจะดำเนินการบังคับใช้กฎหมายอย่างเด็ดขาด

(...) from now on, the ministry's officials and staff members of every level have been urged to be more stringent in the pursuing of violations against the Computer Crimes Act and lèse majesté on websites, by enforcing the law to the fullest.

"รมว.ไอซีทีประกาศปราบเว็บหมิ่น ก่อนประเด็นลามถึงในเฟซบุ๊ก เจ้าตัวย้ำจะบังคับใช้กม.อย่างเป็นธรรม", Matichon, August 13, 2011

The new MICT minister made clear that nothing will change about the status quo, which means a continuation of the online witch-hunt, with support from a state-sponsored volunteer 'cyber-scout' network of denunciators and like-minded people who act on anticipatory obedience (see this link again for the aforementioned Social Sanction group and how students feel intimidated to speak their mind). All that in an atmosphere of when the army feels the urge to overemphasize their loyalty to the royal institution and openly threatens to crackdown on lèse majesté offenders. It sets a dangerous precedent of a black-and-white dichotomy against the Thai people, who think out of the norm.

It will be a long process until those who claim to protect the institution see that they are doing more harm than good in the long-run. One of the country's most outspoken social activist Sulak Sivaraksa was recently quoted in an foreign newspaper interview that "loyalty demands dissent. Without dissent you cannot be a free man, you see." Ironically, due to the same legal reasons as discussed here, I cannot provide a link to the source of that quote...!

Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Bangkok, Thailand. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and now also on his public Facebook page here.

The impounded Thai plane is free - but not for free

Originally published at Siam Voices on July 21, 2011 A German court has decided on the fate of a Royal Thai Air Force aircraft, belonging to Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn - or to the Thai government, depending on who you listen to - which was impounded last week by a liquidator for the bankrupt Walter Bau AG construction company. For more background, see Bangkok Pundit's posts here and here. From Reuters:

A German court on Wednesday ruled Thailand's Crown prince would have to pay a 20 million euro deposit ($28.40 million) for the return of his plane, impounded during a long running commercial dispute.

The Landshut court in Bavaria said in a statement on Wednesday the 20 million figure was based on the estimated value of the plane. It said a deposit was necessary as it had not yet decided on the ownership of the plane.

"German court wants $28 mln to free Thai prince's jet", Reuters, July 20, 2011

AFP further details the verdict:

But a court in nearby Landshut said it had received an assurance under oath from the Thai Department of Civil Aviation's director that the plane belonged to the prince, not the Thai state, as well as a 2007 registration certificate.

The vice president of the court, Christoph Fellner, said however that since these documents provided only a "presumption of ownership," 20 million euros ($28.2 million) had to be deposited in the form of a bank guarantee.

"No guarantee means no take-off," he said. "If everything goes well for the prince and we establish that the aircraft really belongs to him, than he will get his bank guarantee back."

"German court releases Thai prince's plane", AFP, July 20, 2011

In a nutshell the court gave the Thai government the benefit of the doubt over the ownership of the plane and if this assurance would be decided as wrong, it will cost the Thais 20 million Euros.

But how do the Thai media outlets report on this, given how gingerly they handled this story in the past week? The Nation goes with the headline "German court releases Thai plane", Bangkok Post writes "Royal jet released", which both wrongly imply that the plane can now leave Germany. But the biggest offender is MCOT who went with:

German court rules royal jet doesn't belong to Thai government: Thai Foreign Ministry (MCOT, July 13, 2011)

But the court said its decision was only preliminary so a bond was requires and 20 million euros (US$28.2 million) must be deposited as a bank guarantee. When the court finally establishes that the aircraft does belong to the Crown Prince, it will return the bond.

A German court on Wednesday ruled that the impounded aircraft used by Thailand's Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn does not belong to the Thai government and agreed to release it on condition that a 20 million euro (over US$28 million) bank guarantee must be deposited, according to Foreign Ministry's Information Department deputy director-general Jesda Katavetin. (...)

He said the Thai legal team was working on the details of the ruling and could not reveal the details at the moment, but the ruling could be considered as a successful crucial step for the lawyers. (...)

You couldn't be further from the truth! That's what you get when you only speak to government officials: you only get opinion soundbites that aren't necessarily true - and of course they will try to sell this as a success, which clearly isn't. This whole piece is only topped by the last paragraph, which basically contradicts the whole article! Even the Thai language media, both press and TV, were more accurate in their reporting.

All in all, this is not to be considered a victory by the Thai side but the final verdict has not been delivered yet - until then, the plane will remain grounded and with it hopefully the rabble rousing by all people involved as well.

[UPDATE] The liquidator Werner Schneider has issued a statement in German through his law firm (PDF here), some excerpts:

"Even though the plane has been released, with the deposit of 20 million Euros we have achieved an important, successful interim result. It will be interesting to see who will pay the security deposit," says Werner Schneider, liquidator of the WALTER BAU-AG. Eventually, the point of the impoundment was not to turn the Thai plane into account, but to push [the Thais] for the required payments. In the point of view of Schneider, Geiwitz & Partner [the law firm], we have gone one big step ahead. (...)

Schneider sees the responsibility for potential diplomatic disturbances between Thailand and Germany only at the Thai government, because of their refusal to pay. "Thailand violated a bilateral intergovernmental agreement to protect investments for years - without any effective reactions from the [German] Federal Government," continues Schneider.

From: "Pressemitteilung: Insolvenzverwalter Schneider: Pfändungsaktion war ein Erfolg" (PDF), Kanzlei Schneider, Geiwitz & Partner, July 20, 2011 - translation by me

I think Schneider can now really forget about a holiday to Thailand anytime soon...!

The impounded Thai aircraft and lessons from the Thai media

Originally published at Siam Voices on July 20, 2011

You may have heard by now that last week a Boeing 737 airplane of the Royal Thai Air Force was impounded by a German liqudator and is now in a hangar at Munich airport. And by now you might have also heard that this plane belongs to Thailand's Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn - or does it? The outgoing Thai foreign minister Kasit Piromya is claiming and trying to prove to the German judiciary that this plane is not Thai government property, but the Crown Prince's personal aircraft. The German court is not convinced and sees this plane as of the Royal Thai Air Force plane and thus as a government vehicle.

This is where things stand at the moment before said German court will, after the examination of countless documents provided by the Thai side, decide on Wednesday if the plane remains impounded or not. For more on the background on why this plan was seized in the first place, read Bangkok Pundit's coverage here and here.

What's interesting to see was how the Thai media handled this story - or not at first, given the sensitivity of the subject. This story broke exclusively on Financial Times Deutschland (google for “Der Insolvenzverwalter des ehemaligen deutschen Baukonzerns Walter Bau streitet sich mit Thailand um Millionen”) last Tuesday, which quickly was reported in German and international media - only in Thailand the media was predictably silent.

This was until outgoing foreign minister Kasit Piromya called in for a press conference on last Wednesday evening shortly before he got on a plane to Germany (a regular Thai Airways flight, mind you!) to get this plane back, thus effectively making this issue a state affair. Still, despite explaining the legal reasons (the debt to be paid by the Thai government), many Thai media outlets were treading a fine line on what to mention and what not. Let's take this article from The Nation as an example:

Thailand will make all efforts to release a Thai national's Boeing 737 impounded in Germany due to a payment conflict between the government and a German construction firm, outgoing Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya said yesterday.

"Germany made the great mistake of confiscating property that does not belong to the Thai government," Kasit told reporters yesterday. (...)

"I made it clear that this matter has nothing to do with the royal court," he said. "It is a huge mistake for Germany to do this and we will not allow this issue to jeopardise relations between the two countries."

"Thailand's making 'all efforts' to end aircraft spat: FM", The Nation, July 15, 2011

As you can see, no references to the Crown Prince were made here. But slowly over the course of the next day the newsrooms realize they couldn't tell the story without the owner of that plane. So bit by bit they started to mention the Crown Prince as the owner of this aircraft, for example Thai Rath, Bangkok Post and also the evening news on Thai TV (with ThaiPBS even leading in with this story on Friday).

Only The Nation was most likely the last media outlet to hold off mentioning the Crown Prince's name - even when they put articles together from foreign news agencies as they referred to it only as a "Thai national's personal plane". It took them until Sunday, two whole days after everyone else, when they have finally mentioned his name, albeit again only with agency material.

The only original content from The Nation on this whole plane saga was an opinion piece by a certain Alexander Mohr, who wrote:

(...) first of all, the seizure of a plane from a royal fleet is simply not the most straightforward approach. One cannot help thinking that the insolvency manager went for the most sensational approach. Seizing a plane from the Thai royal fleet guarantees media attention and exposure. (...)

But while the identity of the aircraft's owner may remain unclear, the action of seizing a vehicle used by a member of the Royal Family exceeds all bounds of a reasonable approach towards a solution. The damage is done.

The Thai side tried to solve the issue on a political level last week. Foreign Minister Kasit flew to Germany where he met with Cornelia Piper, an under secretary of the German foreign ministry. The German side does not want to intervene in the case and refers to the independence of the judiciary. (...)

It is very likely the dispute will be settled soon. However, the avoidable damage caused to bilateral relations between Germany and Thailand is done, with both the economic and also political ties suffering.

"Plane stupid: the damage is done", by Alexander Mohr, The Nation, July 19, 2011

First off, the author is billed as a "partner for International Relations at the government relations firm Alber & Geiger in Brussels", which is a "political lobbying powerhouse (...) known for representing foreign governments" - so pretty much this was most likely written for the Thai government who wants to get their message across. What this piece reveals as well is that the Thai side seems genuinely astonished that the German government cannot influence its judiciary whatsoever and that only the they see the bilateral damage, since they made it a state affair.

It was an interesting lesson in how the Thai media handles such sensitive stories - if at all. After the void of total silence at first was mostly filled by the international media and the internet, the floodgates opened as soon as this was made into an affair of upmost national importance by the foreign minister. Granted, due to the legal restraints no one is allowed to publicly say why the Crown Prince and that plane is in Germany in the first place...

Will Yingluck amend Thailand's lese majeste law?

Originally published at Siam Voices on July 8, 2011 Earlier today, fellow blogger Bangkok Pundit wrote about whether Yingluck Shinawatra will amend, reform, change or even do away with Thailand's draconian lese majeste law. He quotes from an interview in The Independent where she states that she wants this law to not be "misused". BP continues...

If BP’s memory serves BP correctly, the last time that lese majeste law was amended was in the 1970s by a military/military-installed government so don’t expect any amendments immediately because to do so will just invoke Thaksin-wants-to-overthrow-the-monarchy-argument.

"Yingluck on Thailand’s lese majeste law", Bangkok Pundit, July 9, 2011

Earlier this morning, Yingluck faced the foreign press at a conference inside the Pheu Thai Party HQ, where she was also asked about this. TAN Network tweeted later today:

Yingluck says she is considering amending Article 112 involving lese majeste; denies she's meeting Thaksin

Tweet by @TAN_Network, July 9, 2011

Erm, no she didn't! Here is what she actually said ad verbatim:

Question: "Do you have any plan to change the 112 law?"

Answer:  "No, for me, I don't have any idea to change the 112. I would not reform it, because it is not my policy and also this is an issue which is quite sensitive so we have to leave it to the people who have expertise to comment on that. I don't want to see the misuse of this law regarding his majesty."

TAN Network were in the same room as us, how could they get this so wrong?!

I do agree with BP (and several other Twitter users as discussed on Sunday) that even thinking about amending Article 112 would give their enemies an opportunity to paint the Pheu Thai Party and the red shirt movement (since they're all under Thaksin anyway, from their point of view) as anti-royalist. One has to question how the next government will reduce the misuse of this law without any form of change in one way or another...?

Thailand: Pressure mounts to amend lese majeste law

Originally published at Siam Voices on May 26, 2011 The debate about Thailand's draconian lèse majesté law, Article 112 of the Criminal Code, gains more traction with several groups either discussing or demanding to at least amend the law, which forbids any discussion about the royal family and can be punished with up to 15 years in prison - and there's at least one discerning person who begs to differ...

First off was a panel discussion at the Foreign Correspondent Club of Thailand (FCCT) on Tuesday evening on that very subject, with veteran social critic Sulak Sivaraksa, academic David Streckfuss and Benjamin Zawacki of Amnesty International Thailand. Particularly the presence of Zawacki and his views on the law raised some high interest. More background on that at Bangkok Pundit. We will have more on the FCCT panel in the coming days.

In a separate development, the National Human Rights Council's (NHRC) sub-committee on civil and political rights has announced to look into the content of the law and how it's been used.

NHRC sub-committee chairman Niran Pitakwatchara said on Monday that the controversial use of the lese majeste law was urgently called into question, since it could be a condition leading to violence in society.

The NHRC sub-committee held its first hearing on the problem of the application of the lese majeste law last week with some 60 participants, including those being imprisoned, harassed and implicated as a result of people citing Article 112.

Dr Niran said after the four-hour-long session that the sub-committee was hopeful that in the next few months its research into the subject would be completed and a report forwarded to the government and the public for consideration.

He said the sub-committee, which included well-known human rights activists Somchai Homla-or, Jon Ungphakorn, Boonthan T. Verawongse, and Sunai Phasuk, would examine human rights abuses in the cases of Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, a trade unionist and a red-shirt editor of the Voice of Thaksin, and Somsak Jeamteerasakul, a senior historian at Thammasat University [as a study platform]. (...)

"Dealing with the issue has never been an easy matter and I could not pledge how much we can do to resolve the problem as we are also surmounting internal self-adjustment difficulties within the (NHRC) office," said the chairman of the sub-committee on civil and political rights.

"NHRC to study lese majeste clause", Bangkok Post, May 23, 2011

The two cases mentioned in the article are of Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, the editor of a pro-Thaksin publication and a trade unionist who most likely got arrested for collection signatures for a petition to repeal Article 112, and Thammasat historian Somsak Jeamteerasakul, a vocal critic agains the lèse majesté law, who went public saying that he has been threatened and eventually charged, possibly for the contents wrote in an open letter to Princess Chulabhorn about a recent, much discussed TV interview.

Another story dealing with this law was published earlier this week, when a group of 100 young writers joined in an open letter calling to amend the law and stop its use as a political weapon.

Signatories include wellknown youngergeneration mainstream writers such as Probed Yoon and Waning Prasertkul [sic! the whole sentence!]. In an open letter issued yesterday, they urged other writers, irrespective of their political ideology, to defend freedom of expression as a fundamental aspect of a free society.

"We believe you agree that enjoying freedom of expression and freedom of expression is a fundamental part of being writers in a democratic society, disregarding whatever genre of writing one subscribes to," part of the open letter reads. It also called on the army to stop using the monarchy institution as an excuse to crush its opponents.

"100 young writers join forces calling for change in lese majeste law", The Nation, May 21, 2011

The authors are actually named Wansing Prasertkul, Prabda Yoon - but that can happen at The Nation, especially since they misspelled the name of the son of The Nation's executive editor Suthichai Yoon! Many of these writers, including Binla Sankalakiri and Sakariya Amataya, are winners of the prestigious S.E.A. Write Award. The full open letter in Thai can be read here.

So, all in all a lot of debate about Article 112, that undoubtedly has severely damaged Thailand's freedom of speech in both the real and the online world and with very few people in power realizing that the more they stress the need to protect the royal institution from a perceived threat, the more it apparently backfires.

More staggering is how self-proclaimed herald of 'Thai-ness‘ and culture minister Niphit Intarasombat responded to this petition in Matichon, which the colleagues at Prachatai have translated:

On 22 May, Niphit Intarasombat, Minister of Culture and the Democrat Party candidate for Phatthalung, said, in response to a public call to amend the law made by a group of writers last week, that he did not see any problem with the lèse majesté law and its enforcement. (...)

‘I’ve never seen Article 112 being used as a political tool, and over 99% of politicians have no problem with the law. I’ve travelled to several countries which used to have monarchies. People there all said in unison that they regretted that they no longer had monarchs, and they wished to have them restored as head of state and a unifying figure. But Thailand still has a monarch as head of state and a unifying force, so we should have the law to protect the institution,’ he said.

"Minister of Culture sees no problem with lèse majesté law", Prachatai, May 24, 2011

So, he claims to have never seen the law being used as a political weapon? He probably isn't aware that this law actually politicizes the royal institution to a worrying extent. Second, of course why should any politician be against this law and commit career and social suicide, especially everyone since seems to overbid themselves with their loyalty (also arguably a political tool). And finally, I don't know to which former kingdoms he has traveled to and to whom he has spoken to (surely he doesn't ask the common man on a European street, does he?), but I cannot imagine that many people in France, Russia, Germany, Italy, Austria, Greece, Persia (Iran), Iraq, Mexico etc. all want their former monarchs back?

P.S.: Niphit is now the second government minister after finance minister Korn who has openly asked if a former monarchy is sad that they have no king anymore. If only the countries in question could respond...

Behind the scenes with Thailand's 'cyber-scouts'

Originally published at Siam Voices on May 11, 2011 AFP ran a story on Wednesday about Thailand's 'cyber-scouts', who patrol the internet for material deemed offensive to the monarchy. It follows the work and the motivations of one of the mostly young volunteers:

Wearing his special "cyber scout" polo shirt with pride, Thattharit Sukcharoen scans the Internet pages on his computer in search of remarks deemed offensive to Thailand's revered monarchy. He is one of several dozen volunteers recruited by the Thai justice ministry to patrol cyberspace in search of anybody violating the kingdom's strict lese majeste rules -- an offence punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

"My inspiration to be a cyber scout is the king. There are many ways to protect the institute, and this is one of them," Thattharit, a 39-year-old administrative worker at a school in Bangkok, told AFP. "Sometimes there are just fun conversations among teenagers and they think it's not important, but for those who love the royal institute, some comments that I see are not appropriate. I must report them to the authorities." (...)

According to the project's website www.justice-cyberscout.org, volunteers "will have a duty to monitor information and actions dangerous to the country's security and will protect, defend and hold the royal institute in esteem."

Students in particular are invited to sign up. Thattharit attended one day of training to become a cyber scout. "I learned about the history of the king, his majesty, and how divine he is ... and also how to use a computer, the Internet and Facebook," he said.

The project is in its infancy and so far Thattharit has not reported anybody to the authorities. He explained that if he finds comments deemed offensive to the king he plans to contact the person who posted them to first to warn them and give them a chance to change their views, before informing officials. "Not many people know about the project. They may think they're talking to a friend because I don't tell them I'm a cyber scout," he said. "I feel I am doing an important job. I can give back to the country."

"Thai 'cyber scouts' patrol web for royal insults", by AFP, May 11, 2011

We have previously blogged about the launch of the 'cyber-scout' initiative back last December, where the ministry of justice has organised an introductory seminar and laid out the objectives of the project, including first and foremost "observing [online] behavior that is deemed a threat to national security and to defend and protect the royal institution," and "promote the moral and ethics with the help of the volunteers, to ensure the correct behavior".

This reveals how the cyber scouts work (emphasised in bold above): They seem to roam around certain websites and social networks more or less incognito and look for seemingly insulting posts, only to step in, reveal themselves as a cyber scout and give out a warning "to change their views", otherwise the authorities will be informed - and regular readers know by now how severe the consequences are.

The same notion I had back last year still stands...

But it is quite clear that this is a general trend of over-emphasizing the loyalty by all means and more than a sudden urge to protect the royal institution against a perceived, invisible threat. And since the internet is a quite an anonymous place, it’s an even more frightening threat. Thus these mental and cultural barricades are built with the recruited man-power and the social dogma of loyalty – both off- and online. The term ‘Cyber Scout’ reflects some historical parallels to the ‘Village Scouts’ of the 1970s, which were set up for almost the same reasons in order to battle a perceived communist threat.

"Become a cyber-scout, clean up Thailand’s internet!", by Saksith Saiyasombut, Siam Voices, December 17, 2010

We will probably hear more about their work and their results pretty soon.

BONUS: AFP has posted the accompanying video report on the same topic with the same people involved:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAJeSS8-LXc

Thailand’s cyber-police draft new Computer Crimes Act

Originally published at Siam Voices on May 2, 2011 Thailand's authorities have been patrolling the internet more and more vigorously, mostly to clamp down on content that is allegedly lèse majesté and to silence political opponents. In recently published research by Freedom House, the US-based think-tank has labeled the kingdom's internet as 'not free', putting it below countries such as Zimbabwe, Turkey, Venezuela, Pakistan, Rwanda and among countries the likes of China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Cuba. More details at fellow Asian Correspondent blogger Jon Russell.

That is partly thanks to the Computer Crimes Act of 2007, hastily set up by the interim military government of Surayud Chulanont after videos mocking the King of Thailand appeared on YouTube and the service refusing to delete them despite the request of the Thai government (and subsequently blocking the whole site for a brief time). The law was drafted initially to lay down a legal groundwork against hacking and internet scams, but also sections such as these:

Section 12. The perpetration of an offense under Section 9 or Section 10 that:

(1) causes damage, whether it be immediate or subsequent and whether it be synchronous to the public shall be subject to imprisonment for no longer than ten years or a fine of not more than two hundred thousand baht.

(2) is an act that is likely to damage computer data or a computer system related to the country's security, public security and economic security or public services or is an act against computer data or a computer system available for public use shall be subject to imprisonment from three years up to fifteen years and a fine of sixty thousand baht up to three hundred thousand baht. The commission of an offense under (2) that causes death to another person shall be subject to imprisonment from ten years up to twenty years. ... Section 14. If any person commits any offence of the following acts shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine of not more than one hundred thousand baht or both: ... (2) that involves import to a computer system of false computer data in a manner that is likely to damage the country's security or cause a public panic;

(3) that involves import to a computer system of any computer data related with an offense against the Kingdom's security under the Criminal Code;

The Thai Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT) is currently drafting a new cyber law, but instead of clarifying some vague passages, it rewrites or adds new ones which are even broader in definition than the previous parts and thus creating more leeway for abusing it. The manager of the Thai internet advocacy group iLaw, Orapin Yingyongphatthana, said in an article by Prachatai the draft "contains all the same problems and is even more regressive."

In a post on their own website, iLaw has dissected and commented on some of the passages of the draft (which can be seen here in Thai, including the full draft), including*:

*Section 4 adds the definition of "administrator" which means "a person with the computer rights to provide others with services accessible on the internet or by other means through a computer system, no matter if it's in their own interest or on behalf of others."

[Comment] (...) In the new draft (...) "administrator" (...) could include webmasters, website owners, network administrators, data base administrator, forum moderator, web editors, blog owners and (...) even the internet service providers.

Under this act, the 'middle man' should be as equally punished as the violator, e.g. who writes content that does not match with the truth [and] threatens national security. (...)

With the word "administrator" pretty much left as it is in the law, it could mean that either content manager but (more importantly) content creators such as bloggers and editors can be targeted under this section. Although, as seen in the case of Prachatai webmaster Chiranuch Premchaiporn, it can also mean that content managers (such as a webmaster) can be charged for hosting data or information created by a third party.

With that in mind, the next passage requires even more observation:

*Section 24 ["If any person commits any offense of the following acts shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine of not more than one hundred thousand baht or both:] (1) that involves import to a computer system of forged computer data, either in whole or in part, or false computer data, that causes damage to the national security or causes public panic"

[Comment] The above excerpt includes passages from Section 14 (1) and (2) of the current law to underline the original intention [to act against phishing and other online scams] (...) thus leading to the phrasing that creating incorrect [or wrong] data [or information] can be a misconduct.

iLaw further commented that the very vague wording of "false computer information" is problematic (and not only problematic to translate). What exactly is "false computer information"? With the necessary legal acrobatic you could for instance interpret this making "false statements" or just flat-out simply "spreading lies". So who decides then what is true or not? In this political climate and given the numerous legal cases, it looks like this passage alone will increase the possibility to file charges against opinions differing from a main narrative that is being claimed by the government.

*"Section 26: Whoever (...) provides computer data that depicts [about] another individual (...) that in whichever way would damage, bring disrepute, defame, incite hatred or that would embarrass or lead to others believing this information to be true shall be punished with not more than three years of prison or a fine not exceeding 100,000 Baht or both."

[Comment] In the past, there have been lots of efforts to bring defamation lawsuits by using the Computer Crimes Act, but the current law does not have a suitable section yet except for Section 14 (1) as mentioned above and Section 16, which states ["any person, who imports to a computer system (...), computer data where a third party's picture appears either created, edited, added or adapted by electronic means or otherwise in a manner that is likely to impair that third party's reputation or cause that third party to be isolated, disgusted or embarrassed..."]. The new law creates a convenience for the authorities to charge defamation lawsuits more easily.

Again, uncertain wording makes it hard to determine what is punishable and what not.

The draft further proposes the set-up of a so called "Committee to Prevent and Suppress Computer Crimes", which has the ability to appoint officials and request copies of data. The concern shared by many is that the group could be a powerful enforcer of the even more regressive and even more ambiguous law.

But the draft has hit a bump as prime minister Abhisit surprisingly put it on hold before it could reach the cabinet:

The government's acting spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn (...) said the Information and Communications Technology Ministry still needed to seek opinions from relevant state agencies about the draft. (...)

ICT Minister Chuti Krairiksh (...) said the [newer] current draft is the version that has gone through the process of public hearings and has already been revised by the ministry's committee assigned to draft the law. He said the version being opposed by the three groups was the one that had been written before the public hearings.

"PM stalls computer crime act", The Nation, April 20, 2011

The problem here though is, that apparently there has been no public hearing on the draft whatsoever, as pointed out in a Bangkok Post column.

That leaves us with the question why the MICT is in a rush to write a new law that is even more ambiguous than the current one? Granted, this is a draft that will see numerous revisions before it will be solidified but if the disputed passages are anything to go by, it tells much about the understand (or the lack thereof) of the MICT on this delicate subject. There always has been an urge to have the capability to 'control' the flow of information, especially with the emergence of social media. Back in 2009, a Bangkok senator has openly asked how to do exactly that.

We have plenty examples of the actions of the authorities to curb online freedom, be it by recruiting 'cyber-scouts' or openly threatening users abroad, all with the aim to fight a perceived, invisible threat. What the authorities repeatedly fail to realize though is that it is an uphill battle to marginalize a diversity of opinions and views of the soon 20 million Thai online users: it doesn't really work. They even have admitted it!

*all passages have been translated from Thai by me

Thailand's armed forces: Overemphasizing the loyalty

Originally published at Siam Voices on April 21, 2011 When General Prayuth Chan-ocha took over as commander-in-chief of Thailand's armed forces last year, he made in no uncertain terms right off the bat what his top priorities are: protecting the royal institution and going after everything and everyone that is deemed a threat to it. Since then, he apparently still is not tired to emphasize this.

On Tuesday, the army staged a mock exercise with about 1,100 soldiers, various types of weapons, vehicles and helicopters amid heavy rain in Bangkok, under the theme of protecting the monarchy and apparently also to show that the armed forces are unified, despite reports of possible dissent in the ranks.

“All from the 1st Infantry Regiment are the King’s soldiers. Hence, you must be ready to act on commands of your superiors,” Maj Gen Kampanat told the gathering of infantrymen.

He told them to have faith in their commanders and to strictly obey their orders, and insisted that all soldiers should share the army chief’s stance.

"Show of strength to protect monarchy", Bangkok Post, April 20, 2011

This show of force comes after Prayuth himself has lodged a lese majeste-complaint against Jatuporn Prompan, United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) co-leader and Puea Thai Party MP, and several other red shirt supporters for allegedly making inappropriate comments against the monarchy during a rally on April 10, 2011 marking the anniversary of the bloody clashes. (Sidenote: the accused are suing back)

This was just the last one in a series of actions Prayuth has taken in recent weeks all with the emphasis to protect the monarchy and telling others not to misuse the royal institution for their own gain. Pravit Rojanaphruk has listed some of these in a recent story in The Nation:

Here are just some of the hats that Army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha has put on over the past few weeks: (...)

- That of a not-so-convincing denier of coup rumours: Prayuth can never be convincing on this subject because of the role he played in the 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin Shinawatra. How can he, who was involved in a coup then be denying the threat now?

- That of an adviser to all Thai voters: "Vote to protect monarchy" was the instruction from Prayuth that this newspaper carried on its front page last week. He was also quoted as saying that a high turnout was the key to safeguarding the monarchy and democracy. But what if the majority of Thai voters vote for the "wrong" party? Will there be another military coup? He also believes that all Thais know who to blame for the ongoing political crisis. "Everyone knows the culprits behind the lost lives and the injuries incurred [last April and May]," he was quoted as saying. Surely, he can't be serious.

- That of chief censor and promoter of the lese majeste law: Prayuth has ordered the Information and Communication Technology Ministry to block more websites and has told his soldiers to file lese majeste charges against red-shirt leaders for what they allegedly said during the April 10 rally. This was even before the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) and police could make a move.

These are just some of the many hats that Prayuth has enjoyed wearing recently, though one can't help but wonder if they really fit an Army chief.

"An army chief who dons too many hats", by Pravit Rojanaphruk, The Nation, April 20, 2011 (hyperlinks inserted by me)

Prayuth repeatedly claims that the monarchy is above politics and thus should not be dragged into political activities. The problem is though, as Voranai Vanijaka lamented in a Bangkok Post op-ed, that the blatant overemphasizing of the loyalty to the royal institution and the act of accusing others the lack thereof is used solely for political gain and thus exactly affects the monarchy in a way that is explicitly (at least officially) not supposed to be, as Pavin Chachavalpongpun notes:

The military may be exploiting its role as protector of the monarchy to legitimize its own involvement in politics, but in the process it is also further politicizing the institution. (...)

The lese-majeste law is a devastatingly effective political weapon. But the more politicians abuse it, the more they damage the monarchy. In the worst-case scenario, it could become a self-fulfilling accusation. By backing the red shirts into a corner where their criticisms of the elites are accused of being anti-monarchy, the government could split society on the role of the monarchy.

"Thailand's Military on the Offensive", by Pavin Chachavalpongpun, Wall Street Journal, April 19, 2011

This whole trend has already backfired on the army, which also is re-politicized ever since the 2006 coup, and continues to do since Prayuth began as commander-in-chief, much to his disadvantage:

First things first. Gen Prayuth probably has come out to speak on the same issue once too often, so nobody seems to care about his message any longer. (...)

That is because the army chief has already dragged the army into politics by showing support for some political parties and thus turning himself into an enemy of the opposition. The move has made the army vulnerable to attacks from politicians annoyed with Gen Prayuth.

"Tussle of the two Tu's - one red and the other green", Bangkok Post, April 21, 2011

Now, with all political parties stopping to mention the monarchy in their activities, either voluntarily (like the UDD did, despite the fight against the indiscriminate use of the lese-majeste-law against them being one of their main points) or involuntarily (with the election commission essentially issuing a gag order to all political parties, much to the dismay of e.g. Bhum Jai Thai, who recently handed out millions of royal portraits to, again, emphasizing their loyalty), it leaves the army to follow suit and tone down, if it does not want to be at the receiving end of it's own heavy campaigning.

P.S.: This whole overemphasizing-thingy sometimes lead to unusual remarks such as by a regional commander, who referred to himself as a "slave to the King and the country" (original sentence: "ในฐานะที่เป็นผู้บังคับบัญชาทหารในพื้นที่ภาค 2  ที่เป็นกำลังสำคัญในการปกป้องประเทศชาติ  เป็นข้าทาสของในหลวง และแผนดินไทย", source: Daily News) - I guess 'servant' wasn't enough for him.

h/t to Andrew Spooner for links and tips

The tale of two trials: Da Torpedo and Chiranuch Premchaiporn

Originally published at Siam Voices on February 25, 2011 Over the last weeks both the international media and to some extent the local media as well have taken great interest in the trail of Chiranuch Premchaiporn, webmaster of the news site Prachatai, who has been charged for anti-monarchy comments on the website made by one of the readers, despite having complied with the authorities in removing them. See our previous coverage on the day when she was arrested (for the second time) back in September last year here and here.

Earlier this month the first part of the trial went ahead and lasted five days with the prosecution's testimonies marking the beginning. Guest contributor John Dent has observed the first day for Siam Voices and comments on the first testimony:

Day one of the trial started with the prosecution’s testimony of Mr. Aree Jivorarak, Thailand’s Ministry of Information and Communications Technology’s (MICT) IT Regulation Bureau chief. Among his other duties, Mr. Jivorarak is one of the key officials tasked with censoring Thailand’s Internet. (...)

For sake of argument, let us accept Mr. Jivorarak’s premise, that webmasters should (or even can) filter user comments. (...) While the specific guidelines are still being drafted, in practice it is up to the “authorized officer” at the MICT to decide retroactively what stays and what goes. Such decisions are often inconsistent and subject to the personal interpretation of Thai government officials.

So what is a webmaster to do? According to Mr. Jivorarak’s testimony, it would seem that they are expected to know what a censor may find inappropriate at a future date, before the content itself has been posted. Simply put, they are expected to peer into the hearts and minds of censors through space and time to decide what goes online. Not a minor achievement of precognition and quite a burdensome requirement for anyone operating a web site.

"Observations from the trial of Chiranuch Premchaiporn", John Dent, Siam Voices, February 6, 2011

In the following days, more witnesses for the prosecutionmade their testimonies. The website Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT) have posted daily summaries from the hearings and here are some interesting tidbits:

[Day 2] A posting to Prachatai’s web forum included a hotlink to a Mediafile audio file of of a speech made from a Redshirt stage by Darunee Charnchoensilpakul, nicknamed Da Torpedo. Darunee was torpedoed with an 18-year sentence for this instance of lèse majesté in which she called for abolition of the Royals.

The audio file was not enough for our MICT. The file was transcribed and added to the police charges against Chiranuch. However, Mediafile was not blocked and no prosecution was initiated against the file’s uploader.

This raises a crucial legal question as yet untested. Does the Computer Crimes Act criminalise hotlinks?

[Day 3] The second witness for the prosecution, Thanit Prapathanan, a legal advisor to Thailand’s ICT ministry since 2005, (...) stated that any intermediary shares the same criminal liability as the poster. Creating a hub for people to communicate and share information made Prachatai liable for all its webboard’s users. (...)

Defence lawyers pointed out that the ICT ministry’s website itself linked to media hosting lèse majesté content. The witness stated that MICT could not delete content from third parties so was, therefore not liable for their content. This appears to contradict his statements of Prachatai’s liability for postings, comments and hyperlinks not their own.

[Day 5] Colonel Dr. Wiwat Sidhisoradej is a police scientist and has a doctoral degree in physics from Chulalongkorn University appearing for the prosecution. He copied Chiranuch’s laptop hard disk seized by the police on March 6, 2009 for forensic analysis. (...)

The most interesting part of the police scientist’s testimony was regarding the way email works. Thunderbird, an offline email client similiar to Microsoft’s Outlook application was found on Jiew’s laptop. (...) Dr. Wiwat readily conceded the probability that the images and postings were received by Chiranuch in email and were not redistributed by her. (...)

Col. Wiwat said that a computer user could not be in violation for simply receiving these emails.

After the last hearing on February 12 and with just five witnesses out 14 having given their testimonies, the trail will resume in September later this year, due to scheduling conflicts of the judges.

In a similar, but less prominent case, the aforementioned Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul alias "Da Torpedo" has won an appeal against the criminal court and her case has been declared a mistrial. She was imprisoned and convicted one and a half year ago for making anti-monarchy comments during a red shirt rally in 2008.

The reason for most recent turn of events was a petition filed by Daranee which argued that the absence of the public and cameras, as cited by the prosecutors on the basis of national security considering the contents that are being discussed, it would contravene with sections of the constitution that it should be an open trial. Since this petition has not been been forwarded by the criminal court to the constitutional court as requested and the prosecution went ahead and convicted her anyways, the appeal court pointed out this flaw and the trial has to start anew. Nevertheless and despite the conviction being annulled, Daranee has not been released and bail has been denied.

While both cases seem to be different, they both share the same problem with the draconian legal ramifications these two and many other people have been accused of. The fact that we cannot discuss what has actually been said and thus the extreme vagueness of the application of the law restricts an open discussion. This vagueness does not help to refute the impression that the lese majeste charges are being indiscriminately used to silence either inconvenient truths or political foes.