The Country of the Blind-H.G. Wells
23-01-12
[CJ Hinke of FACT comments: Thongbai Thongpao reports (in a September 2010 interview with Andrew Macgregor Marshall) that he defended a Thai newspaper journalist for ending his column with the famous quotation, “In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king”. The journo got a four-year sentence.
The most modern reference to this quote is used in H.G. Wells’ short story first printed in the April 1904 issue of The Strand Magazine. However, it seems Wells may have lifted the genuine quotation from the Adages of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam in 1500: “Inter caecos regnat strabus.” In more modern Latin, that might be “In terra caecorum monoculus rex.” The quotation predates Erasmus. It may have first appeared in the 15th-century Greek Paromiae of Michael Apostolius, although I cannot seem to locate it.
My point being? This example serves to show the arrogance of royalists, thinking a 600-year old quotation, in Greek and Latin, has anything whatsoever to do with our King, or Thailand!
However, “country of the blind” sort of fits. Read the story for yourself—it’s delightful.]
|
Australia: Mooning over monarchy-AFP
23-01-12
[FACT comments: Please note—this butthead was not charged with lèse majesté but bad taste. Those who love their monarch feel free to ignore him. So why can’t we feel free to ignore those who insult our King?]
Charge dropped for Aussie who ‘mooned’ queen
Agence France-Presse: January 16, 2012
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/16/charge-dropped-for-aussie-who-mooned-queen/
An old monarch with a sense of good humour
A man who allegedly flashed his buttocks at Queen Elizabeth II during her visit to Australia last year had a charge of wilful exposure against him dropped.
Sydney man Liam Warriner, 22, was arrested in October and charged with exposing himself as the British monarch, who is also head of state in Australia, passed by during her visit to Brisbane.
During a mention of the matter in the Brisbane Magistrates Court, police on Tuesday said they were dropping the wilful exposure charge but proceeding with a public nuisance charge.
Warriner’s lawyer John-Paul Mould said his client intended to plead guilty when the case is heard on February 14, Australian Associated Press reported.
Tens of thousands of people turned out to welcome the queen on a 10-day tour of Australia last October that took her to Canberra, Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth.
The queen is warmly regarded in Australia, a former British colony, though from time to time debate flares about whether ties to the monarchy should be cut and the nation become a republic.
Somyos in court in Nakhon Sawan-PPT
23-01-12
Political Prisoners in Thailand: January 18, 2012
http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/somyos-in-court-in-nakhon-sawan/
Somyos: lese majeste victim
PPT has received this report on the 16 January 2012 court appearance by lese majeste victim Somyos Prueksakasemsuk.
It would be useful if some of the international media were to focus on this case, where the defendant is shackled and shuttled around the country for no apparent legal reason. It seems that this is added punishment rather than having any legal basis. If one refuses to plead guilty on lese majeste charges, then the state engages in forms of torture.
The so-called justice system in royalist Thailand is a disgrace.
On February 16th, Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, editor of “ Voice of Taksin ” magazine, was brought to Nakornsawan Provincial Court for the third hearing of the prosecution witnesses.
More than 40 supporters and family attended, including an international observer, John Maynard, the president of the Postal Workers Union of Australia, and long time friend of Somyot’s.
The only witness on Monday was the former secretary of Sunai’s Law office, Miss Pranida Homhuan. The attorney asked Pranida Homhuan her view about the two articles written by Jit Pollachan, the basis of the case against Somyot. She confirmed that she had been asked to review the articles but that her opinion was that the content of the articles did not relate to the king. This statement was made under oath to defense lawyer, Mr. Suwit Thongnuan.
Somyot arrived in court shackled and reported to observers that the regime of Nakhonsawan prison was more strict than Petchaboon prison and that he had been staying in the infirmary due to ill health. According to Somyot he has been unable to buy food suitable for his health problems for some time. Somyot made the request for a transfer back to Bangkok prison rather than face the transfer to Songkhla prison for the next defense witness hearing, on the basis of his security and health. The judge claimed that he had no authority to grant this request.
After the hearing, Somyot’s defeence lawyer Mr. Suwit Thongnuan said that he did not understand why Pranida Homhuan had been called as a witness as there was no relevant evidence presented under questioning. He argued that the movement across Thailand for this hearing was not warranted and put an unnecessary pressure on his client. He restated his concern about Somyot’s security at the next hearing as it will be held in Songkhla Province, a region dominated by the PAD (People’s Alliance for Democracy) which represents a strong opposition to Somyot’s political position.
Sunai Jullapongsathorn , chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Thailand stated that he was concerned about Somyot’s movement around Thailand and would assist Somyot’s legal team in their appeal to the Criminal Court to relocate the next hearing to Bangkok.
Our correspondent also point out video and photos from this court appearance here, here (a statement by Somyos’ wife in English), here (in ไทย), here (a statement by John Maynard), and several others that pop up in YouTube as related videos.
The term “tree hugger” was coined in 1730, when hundreds of Bishnois died while trying to protect the trees in their village from being turned into the raw material for a palace.
Bryan Farrell
Waging Nonviolence: January 9, 2012
Show the slightest bit of concern for the environment and you get labeled a tree hugger. That’s what poor Newt Gingrich has been dealing with recently, as the other presidential candidates attack his conservative credentials for having once appeared in an ad with Nancy Pelosi in support of renewable energy. Never mind that he has since called the ad the “biggest mistake” of his political career and talked about making Sarah Palin energy secretary. Gingrich will be haunted by the tree hugger label the rest of his life. He might as well grow his hair out, stop showering and start walking around barefoot.
But is that what a tree hugger really is? Just some dazed hippie who goes around giving hugs to trees as way to connect with nature. You might be shocked to learn the real origin of the term.
The first tree huggers were 294 men and 69 women belonging to the Bishnois branch of Hinduism, who, in 1730, died while trying to protect the trees in their village from being turned into the raw material for building a palace. They literally clung to the trees, while being slaughtered by the foresters. But their action led to a royal decree prohibiting the cutting of trees in any Bishnoi village. And now those villages are virtual wooded oases amidst an otherwise desert landscape. Not only that, the Bishnois inspired the Chipko movement (which means “to cling”) that started in the 1970s, when a group of peasant women in Northeast India threw their arms around trees designated to be cut down. Within a few years, this tactic, also known as tree satyagraha, had spread across India, ultimately forcing reforms in forestry and a moratorium on tree felling in Himalayan regions.
Despite this powerful history of nonviolent resistance, we still consider tree hugger a derogatory term. Meanwhile, a current example of forest protection in Brazil, where the country’s environmental agency has a special ops team that hunts down illegal loggers, gets all kinds of glory. Not that it shouldn’t, considering Brazil has cut deforestation by nearly 80 percent since 2004. But do environmental heroes need to, as the BBC recently described Brazil’s forest agents, “wear military fatigues, with heavy black pistols slung casually on their thighs” in order to get any respect?
In Africa, there are several conservation organizations that have a shoot-to-kill policy when they see a suspected poacher. Private security firms in Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Malawi provide military-style protection for the iconic animals that Western tourists flock to see. While some have argued in support of these desperate measures–pointing to the dramatic rise in poaching in recent years–the “shoot first and ask questions later” approach has led to the deaths of locals, who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. These incidents of course lead to resentment toward conservation, which has been shown to be most effective when local communities are involvedin the process.
Not surprisingly, people want to protect the land they live on. And like the Bisnhois and people of the Chipko movement, they are often willing to lay down their lives for it–armed only with their own two arms.
Bryan Farrell is an editor at Waging Nonviolence, where he writes about environment, climate change and people power. His work has also appeared in The Guardian, The Nation, Mother Jones, Slate, Grist and Earth Island Journal.
Next Post
23-01-12
Elephants in Havana
The loss of liberty-Rick Falkvinge
23-01-12
Orwell Was An Optimist: Happy New Year
Rick Falkvinge
Falkvinge on Infopolicy: January 4, 2012
http://falkvinge.net/2012/01/03/orwell-was-an-optimist-happy-new-year/
As we enter 2012, it becomes increasingly clear that Orwell was an optimist. As darkly as he painted the possible future, we are now much worse off.
When Orwell painted his dystopic future (which is out of copyright in Australia), perhaps this paragraph summarizes the dystopian society most of all:
The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live – did live, from habit that became instinct – in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.
This was perceived as dystopic to the brink of unbelievability at the time.
In the book 1984, the government is able to watch three things. What we say out loud, who we meet in our homes, and what we do in our own home. They are only able to observe this as it happens; if they missed it, you are safe, but there was no way to tell if they missed it.
Today, we have arrived at a point where the Western “free” governments can monitor:
- What you say at home, and more importantly, what you think of
- What news articles you read, for how long, and in what order
- Your dating preferences
- Your future travel plans
- Your political opinions
- Whom you converse with, over any channel; specifically including if you talk to a reporter or if you converse in abnormal amounts with political oddthinkers
- Everything you say to anybody electronically, out loud or in text
- How you move around in the city, and whom you are close to; specifically including if you are making detours from your home-to-work pattern
- Your entire network of people over time
- Whose thoughts you are interested in, rebroadcast, and respond to
In addition, they can record, index, and store all of this indefinitely, to come back at you decades after the fact and question your character when the political context has changed dramatically.
Orwell was an optimist.
This is why we must keep fighting for civil liberties.
Ostriches and hate speech-Prachatai
23-01-12
[FACT comments: The ostriches claim we need lèse majesté prosecutions to defend the Royals from defamation, insult, threat as defined precisely by law. However, they love to use those same tactics against those of us who oppose such repression. That’s called hate speech and has no place in a civilised society.]
Worse Than Article 112
Fringe Philosopher
Prachatai: January 19, 2012
http://www.prachatai3.info/english/node/3004
Today I was tremendously affected by things that I saw, so much so that I was at a loss for words. First, in the morning, I saw the Facebook status of a former student of mine. My former student harshly condemned Professor Piyabutr Saengkanokkul and linked to a photo of him from Thai Post newspaper. When I scrolled down, the comments included only further condemnation, including calls to actually harm Professor Piyabutr.
The second thing that affected me today was the news that the first-year student at Thammasat University whose pseudonym is “Kan Thoop” (“Joss Stick”) was summoned by the police in relation to violation of Article 112. The summons is based on a complaint that was made in 2010. Kan Thoop herself has already been severely affected by the complaint, with two universities refusing to allow her to matriculate as a student. Most recently, at the end of last year, ASTV and Manager viciously publicized her real name, personal information and stories about her.
I am speaking about a “danger” or “a scary thing” worse than Article 112.
On it’s own, Article 112 is not too terrifying, if the person who files the complaint and the justice system proceed forthrightly in line with the true “meaning” of the words “defame, insult, threaten.” But what arises in the current witch hunt atmosphere and in the justice system is that we are unable to clearly “differentiate” between what is defaming, insulting and threatening, what is the expression of feelings or child-like “trolling,” and what is sincere criticism for the public good.
When someone files a complaint, the police do not dare to refuse to proceed. When the police send the file to the prosecutor, he has to send it to the court, because the prosecutor himself does not want to take responsibility in a “delicate” matter like this. Once the case makes it to the court, it is difficult for the “victims” to survive (In the case of “Ah Kong,” given that the proof was “not beyond doubt,” many people thought be would be spared, but he was not. Instead, he was punished even more severely than seemed conceivable.)
It seems as though “anyone at all” is permitted to go file a complaint. Those who do not like different political opinions or stances, those who do not like different colors, or those who are “ultra-royalists” — whatever the reason, they can go file a complaint.
Article 112 has become the instrument of “anyone at all,” and anyone like that possesses a very frightening method of thinking.
For example, the majority of those who posted attacks on Facebook about Professor Piyabutr are youth of the new generation. They live a life that is fully free with respect to eating, drinking, going out, shopping, etc. You could say that in sum, their way of life holds freedom from old-style conventions.
But freedom like that tends to come automatically or naturally arises from the permeation of the values of living modern life in society from films, dance, fashion, internet media, etc. It does not come from challenging established thinking, or result from a culture of asking questions, analyzing and criticizing until thought crystallizes. Living a life of freedom that comes automatically and naturally like that is far preferable to a life of old, Thai-style conventions. Even if there were numerous “Rabiabrats”(1), how could they regulate the lives of the new generation? There is no way that they could succeed.
I cannot blame new generation for living a life of freedom. Still, this enhanced life should make people learn to be more responsible for their own lives. Yet I want to offer the observation that a life of freedom in which the freedom has not come from challenging established thinking, or resulted from a culture of asking questions, analyzing and criticizing until thought crystallizes, makes it seem like the lives of the new generation are very, very free. So when they are faced with the problem of “political freedom,” which is freedom that has to be understood in relation to challenging established thinking and a culture of asking questions, analyzing and criticizing until thought crystallizes, it becomes apparent that the new generation does not get it. They do not get the meaning and “value” of political freedom at all. They do not get what is the “problem” or the “obstacle” in the way of democratization.
Consequently, they then attack people like Professor Piyabutr, people who come out to fiercely assert political freedom on behalf of all people, including them. They then pursue a witch hunt, claiming “warped thinking.” The claim comes out by rote, as if they are mynah birds.
Does the new generation love the life of freedom? Certainly they do. Without doubt, they do not want anyone to force to them to live their life in a particular way. But what if you ask if they love “political freedom”? This is where there is a problem. The phenomenon of the Cyber Scouts, the witch hunt atmosphere, and the tendency to repetitively cite the existence of “warped thinking” like mynah birds have been readily absorbed and accepted by the new generation. All this indicates support for an assault on “political freedom” that is concerning.
What this reflects is the culture of learning and way of life inside the fenced-in university and/or the official education system. The system does not foster “citizens” who love political freedom. Yet instead inculcates citizens to love and appreciate other things. They then allow these other things to become more important than the political freedom of the people. Until those things come to be cited, again and again, as the reason to kill the people who come out to demand political freedom.
The danger, or that which is scarier than Article 112, is therefore the inability to appreciate the meaning and value of political freedom combined with the ever-present readiness to use all means to attack those who come out to demand or assert political freedom.
Today, I had a conversation with an American professor who is a work colleague of mine (he speaks Thai well). He said something worth thinking about — “Every society has issues that are, more or less, fraught with peril. When people come out to raise questions or offer analysis on these issues, they should be supported rather than condemned.”
I have watched the media, intellectuals, and other prominent individuals offer analysis that the call to reform Article 112 and amend the Constitution is a “time bomb,” so to speak, that may create political conflict and violence in 2012. My sense is that if we are more “responsible” than those who offer this kind of analysis, and bring a reasoned, thoughtful, carefully detailed proposal comprising various views, there will not be further conflict and violence.
Do we have the courage to raise questions about or offer analysis about an issue that poses all-around risks of political conflict and violence today?
Why does the mainstream media fail to report the voices of those who are courageous enough to do so, such as Professor Somsak Jeamteerasakul, who insists on the “principles” of democracy and explains the fundamental “problem points” of democratization in a direct and logical fashion? When the other side claims that this is “warped thinking,” the mainstream media is ready to be their “mouthpiece.”
This is another kind of terror. It is terror that results from the voice of principle and reason lacking a “mouthpiece,” while the mainstream press is ready to give voice to the claim that this is “warped thinking.” Members of the new generation who love their lives of freedom but do not recognize the value of political freedom are led along easily, like a flock.
Issues that were similarly perilous in the 19th century make the “mouthpieces” of the second decade of the 21st century “afraid” to reflect the voices of principle and reason that assert political freedom and democratization.
This is the “fear that is frightening” beyond belief in our times!
Note:
(1) “Rabiabrat” refers to Rabiabrat Pongpanich, a former senator from Khon Kaen province known for her harsh, public criticisms of behavior and clothing that she sees as transgressions of what she (narrowly) identifies as Thai values and culture.
Translated by Tyrell Haberkorn.
Source:
[FACT comments: These are pretty basic reforms posing no danger to so-called ‘national security’ but raising Thailand’s credibility for democracy. Does Thailand want the rule of law or not? So far, both politicians and the military have said they don’t by their actions. It’s time for more than cosmetic change.]
Clean Up the Act Now
Frank G Anderson
Prachatai: January 19, 2012
http://www.prachatai3.info/english/node/3001
Given the tremendous negative image and loss of reputation Thailand has engendered over the last five or six years arising from vigorous prosecution of lese majesté cases and cases under the Computer Crime Act, it seems behooving to the state and government to at least clean up the lese majesté act so as to resemble, in international public opinion and in conformance with international agreements Thailand has already signed, a more civilized process. Right now minimal “adjustments” can easily be made that would at least offer a semblance of demonstrated respect for human decency and human rights, and illustrate Buddhist dharma. The following steps could be taken now.
1. Discard the use of shackles on lese majesté accused and convicted. Shackle and chain use visibly emphasizes what is seen as inhuman treatment and unnecessary restriction of physical movement.
2. Across the board always permit bail, other than when it is clearly demonstrated post-facto that the accused will flee. Restraining accused in remand for weeks while his or her rights would be duly protected through defense preparations on bail is hardly reasonable.
3. Formerly instruct all state officials to cease and desist form interfering in the criminal prosecution process by never counseling the accused to plead guilty or otherwise encourage them to admit guilt.
4. Provide the accused with proper and adequate legal counsel by attorneys, or at least the immediate opportunity to solicit their own, lawyers are not afraid to challenge the lese majesté accusations and the process then currently used to investigate them.
5. Fairly assess the claimed linkage between lese majesté and national security with the objective of reaching a non-military view as to just how the two qualities are related and whether, in fact, deemed defamation or insult really presents any kind of threat to national security. To date the claimed links have been spurious and unsubstantiated other than in vague references to links between the institution and national security.
6. A ruling by relevant state authorities should also be conducted regarding accountability of all state officials involved in lese majesté cases to determine just to what extent, if any, rights have been violated or protected, and whether there is indeed, as claimed, genuine potential of terrorism caused by the intimidating nature of the case and those involved in prosecuting it.
7. Current convictions should be reviewed both in Thailand and by an international agency properly empowered to determine compliance or lack thereof with international standards of justice committed to by the Thai state.
8. Academic and medical professional assessments should be considered to determine to what extent lese majesté cases cause terror individually and socially. While libel terrorism has been recognized abroad, it has only been recognized in principle in Thailand as contained in such wording as, “used by people for political purposes.” In fact, the charge can also be used by the state for the same purpose, and indeed, many social critics have observed the same.
9. Rather than proceeding with more and more secrecy in lese majesté cases, the state should instead increase transparency and openness and be held accountable for lack of compliance during the entire process with domestic and international obligations.
10. Police and other agencies owe the accused minimal protection from intimidation and harassment, in and out of state authority presence. Fundamentalist news media should be cautioned not to disperse hate speech.
[FACT comments: Prison hunger strikes have been used with great effectiveness from Gandhi in India, the Irish Republican Army and, most recently, California prisoners. Fasting takes the moral high ground from the oppressors. They are left holding the body and, in general, it’s bad PR to let a prisoner die. The Brits did, of course, with ten IRA prisoners in 1981 including, Bobby Sands who was elected MP during the strike. Sands’ funeral was attended by 100,000 people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Irish_hunger_strike. All they wanted was recognition as political prisoners.
Lese majeste victims threaten hunger strike
Political Prisoners in Thailand: January 20, 2012
http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2012/01/20/surachai-threatens-hunger-strike/
H Block monument to IRA strikers
The first report of a hunger strike by lese majeste victims incarcerated for their political views was in The Nation. It reported that lese majeste victim Surachai Danwattananusorn has “vowed to begin a hunger strike next Wednesday” if he is “moved to the new detention centre for political prisoners in Bangkok’s Lak Si district…”.
Now that Surachai is known to be part of a group of lese majeste victims threatening a hunger strike (see below), we feel that a new stage in the struggle against lese majeste repression may be upon us.
Surachai has been detained since 22 February 2011 on charges that relate to a speech made on 15 December 2008. Hence, it is now more than 3 years since his alleged offense and he has been in jail for 11 months, without bail, while his trial drags on [FACT: Actually, Surachai’s trial has not even had a date set so far.]. This despite the fact that Surachai has stated that he is prepared to plead guilty in order to end the torment. [FACT: A guilty plea normally results in a date for sentencing.]
Red Siam leader Surachai, who is 69 and in poor health, was said to be “disheartened by the fact that he and another red shirt lese majeste detainee, Somyos Prueksakasem-suk, were not regarded as political prisoners.”
Surachai reportedly stated: “If political cases do not include that of Surachai and Somyos, then what else is there to be said?”
In a later report in the Bangkok Post it is reported that several lese majeste detainees have made the same demand and threatened a hunger strike. In the words of the Post, the hunger strike “threat was conveyed to the Corrections Department by Surachai Daneattananusorn, Daranee “Da Torpedo” Chanrncherngsilapakul, Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, and Ampon Tangnoppakul, among others…”.
The authorities are now seeking advice from the Truth for Reconciliation Commission chair Kanit na Nakhon. However Kanit says he won’t reply “since the department had full authority to make a decision.” That seems a bit weak-kneed.
While the idea of a special jail for political prisoners is difficult for many to comprehend, it is clear that red shirts and lese majeste victims like Surachai demand to be viewed as being imprisoned for their political beliefs.
The state recently moved 47 red shirts to the new detention center but no lese majeste victims.
As a footnote, we should note that both reports refer to 10 lese majeste prisoners. That seems low to us, but the Post report adds that this is at the remand prison alone. That would seem more likely to us.
[CJ Hinke of FACT comments: We are proud of our rector for taking such a strong stand for Thammasat’s independence and commitment to justice. Innocent until proven guilty!]
Matichon Interview with Thammasat University Rector on Kanthoop and Article 112
Kaewmala
Prachatai: January 15, 2012
http://www.prachatai3.info/english/node/2998
Matichon published its interview of Dr. Somkit Lertpaithoon on 4 January 2012. Dr. Somkit Lertpaithoon is the rector of Thammasat University who also teaches public law. The entire interview covered several issues, mainly Kanthoop, lèse majesté law (Article 112), and the proposed constitution amendment. This translation of includes only the part of the interview which focuses on the rector’s views on Kanthoop’s admission to Thammasat despite the lèse majesté accusations against her and on Article 112.
The Thammasat rector has faced strong criticisms from many royalists for the admission of Kanthoop to the university. Many have posted angry comments on his Facebook wall (to which he has not responded). I translated the Matichon interview of Kanthoop earlier here.
Dr. Somkit’s interview was conducted by Panthawit Thepchan.
…………………..
TRANSLATION:
(Note: Any inconsistencies that might appear in the interview exist in the original Thai-language interview transcript as published by Matichon. Additional texts in [brackets] are provided for clarity.)
Panthawit: Why has Thammasat University admitted Kanthoop, while Silapakorn and Kasetsart Universities have both rejected her?
Somkit: I see no university rule that says Thammasat students must respect the [three Thai pillars] Nation, Religion and King. If there were such a rule, it would mean that Thammasat is obliged to check if this particular student loves the Nation and the Religion, or if she has a religious faith. This sort of questions would arise. It would not be just about Kanthoop. So I wonder why those who have posted on my Facebook are questioning only about Kanthoop and not about other students. Many Thammasat students go on many political stages, both Yellow and Red. Why only Kanthoop? This is my question.
Next, I don’t know if Kanthoop really has done what [she has been accused of]. Why demand the rector to investigate? A university rector has a lot of work to do. One student among 35,000 in the entire student body is a very small matter. The crux of the matter is, the alleged lèse majesté comments were made before Kanthoop was admitted to this university. Lastly, we should not have this witch hunt because we don’t know if she really is a witch. And even if she really is a witch, a witch can also live in society. Even those vampires in Twilight can exist alongside humans.
Panthawit: So your view is that [Kanthoop] should have an opportunity to study at this university?
Somkit: Let me give an example. If you understand Thai society, [you know that] in the 6 October 1967 [student protests] there were a group of students who loved the nation and the people, who joined the Communist Party, such as Seksan Prasertkul, Theerayuth Boonmee and many others. Today these people are among the crème de la crème of the country. They may have lost their way for a while but they returned when society welcomed them back.
Compare Kanthoop with those students who joined the Communist Party years ago. As a pooyai [elder], as the rector, and as a Thammasat person, [I believe] if the kid has the knowledge and the ability to have passed the entrance exam to this university then she is entitled to study at this university. She has not yet been charged or arrested for whatever she has done before she came here. There has been only an allegation of an illegal act. Thammasat’s rules and regulations clearly state that if any student has been legally charged and given a jail sentence in the final verdict in a court of law, the student will be expelled, except in cases of misdemeanor and wrongdoings by negligence. Therefore, I can only expel Kanthoop if the court gives her a jail sentence. Even if she is charged today, I still can’t expel her. Please, let’s not push anyone’s back against the wall. I think each individual has his or her own political opinion. What I think is that Kanthoop has radical ideas.
Panthawit: If you think Kanthoop has a radical view, how will the Social Welfare Faculty or the university deal with what has happened [in her case]?
Somkit: On the day Kanthoop was admitted to Thammasat, the Social Welfare Faculty was well aware of [Kanthoop’s history]. The faculty interviewed her twice. In addition, the dean of the faculty also raised Kanthoop’s matter at a deans’ meeting. At the meeting, none of the deans knew that Kanthoop was accused by [a segment of] the [Thai] online community that she posted comments deemed to be lèse majesté. [Some of us] only knew that she went on a redshirt stage. I’d like to say that if anyone wants me to punish her according to the accusations, then give me [information]. I will set up a disciplinary committee, and those who demand a disciplinary investigation must also be responsible if she is proved to be not guilty according to the accusations. There are only people who put pressure on the Thammasat rector, but those people who are putting pressure are not taking any responsibility. But the rector must take responsibility.
Having said that, the issue is not me being fearful of any lawsuit or not having courage to do what I am supposed to do. I look at this matter in terms of giving a chance to 18-19 year olds. In the case of Kanthoop, she may have obtained a certain set of information, so she thinks according to the information she has received. If, by this rationale, in which she must be expelled from Thammasat because of her political opinion, you’d have to expel certain MPs from the parliament for having spoken on a redshirt stage. I’ll tell you that most Thammasat students are not redshirt. Kanthoop has come to study here; she is bound to meet a lot of friends and many types of peer pressure. Somebody told me that at the freshmen welcome ceremony she didn’t stand to the royal anthem, but in the end she had to stand. I don’t know if that really happened the way some students told me. But if that was true, why did Kanthoop have to stand up? Had she wanted to sit, she could have done that.
Panthawit: Let’s return to this point. Why was there a need to have a meeting with all the deans in the university? Was expression of a different political opinion [by Kanthoop] such a big issue that it warranted such a major meeting?
Somkit: Because there were complaints from people within the university as well as from outside. We had to clarify the matter.
Panthawit: Weren’t you afraid of being accused yourself by admitting Kanthoop to Thammasat?
Somkit: No. What would I be afraid of? If I had to take care of [Kanthoop], I would have to take care of Somsak Jeamteerasakul, Worachet Pakeerat or Piyabutr Saengkanokkul [Thammasat lecturers who are vocal critics of Article 112]. How many people would I have to take care of for exercising freedom to express their different political opinions? It’s not just about Kanthoop or others who have different political opinions. Say, for instance, Thammasat Student A has [allegedly] killed Thammasat Student B, but as long as the trial is still ongoing, Student A is still entitled to study at Thammasat until there is a final verdict which results in unsuspended jail sentence.
Panthawit: In the case of Kanthoop, who is now a student at Thammasat, an online community has publicly revealed her personal data. A media outlet [ASTV-Manager Online] has published an article about her, questioning Thammasat for having admitted her. As the Thammasat rector, will you be making any official response to that? And if so, how?
Somkit: No. The rector isn’t that available. The floods have caused 2.8 billion baht damages. [Thammasat University was flooded.] I have many major issues to deal with, like how to improve research capacity of Thammasat lecturers, to become a world-class university. The dean of the Social Welfare Faculty has taken care of Kanthoop as well as served as her advisor. Ordinarily deans don’t serve as advisors to students. There are a lot of people handling this case. Don’t worry. Many people are watching Kanthoop. Let me stress that if Kanthoop commits any wrongdoing within Thammasat, I will take care of her. I personally don’t agree with Kanthoop’s behavior according to the accusations, so don’t say that I’m helping Kanthoop because I’m on her side. Kanthoop’s case had my attention, that’s why I took the matter to the deans’ meeting to discuss her admission, and the majority of the deans agreed we should admit her.
Panthawit: Was the admission of Kanthoop a way to mitigate the opposition to you from those with different political opinions from yours?
[Note: Dr. Somkit is perceived as a royalist and supporter of the 2006 coup. He was one of the drafters of the 2007 Constitution. He has challenged the merit of a proposal by a group of young progressive Thammasat law lecturers known as Nitirat to nullify all legal effects of the 2006 coup and to amend the lèse majesté provision in the Criminal Code.]
Somkit: That never occurred to me. We admitted Kanthoop because she passed the entrance exam; she was entitled to study [here]. If I had done that [admitting Kanthoop] to appease the redshirt government, I would have had to admit a hundred more redshirt students, which I wouldn’t have done. On the flip side, Thammasat does not distinguish students by their shirt color, but by their individual knowledge and ability. Whatever shirt-color you are, once you have entered Thammasat, you are Thammasat. If you are a redshirt, you must respect others of different colors in Thai society and at Thammasat. If you are Yellow, you must also respect that there are those who are Red. One must adjust oneself in Thai society. Thammasat endeavors to show society at large that [in] a good society, [we] can exist alongside one another, regardless of our colors. We shouldn’t be witch-hunting one another.
Panthawit: A dean has been appointed [Kanthoop’s] advisor and her case was discussed at a deans’ meeting. Doesn’t this reflect that political disagreement is a problem at Thammasat?
Somkit: Let me tell you that a number of people have complimented me on Facebook, saying that there is only one commendable thing ever done by the Thammasat University rector which is having admitted Kanthoop. As Thammasat rector, I don’t pay attention to the berating [of me] because I present myself as Yellow or Red. I adhere to the Thammasat principle that there is freedom in every inch of Thammsat. Thammasat teaches one to love the people. At Thammasat one can say anything as long as one does not violate another’s rights and freedom. Not only Kanthoop. Even Nitirat, I gave them warnings when they had their many press conferences. They can have their seminars about fixing the Article 112 problem, but if they violate others’ rights and freedom then I’ll have to take care of them. I must have measures [to deal with freedom and rights violations]. I won’t allow people to use Thammasat [as a political] stage to berate others or violate others’ rights. That’s a key Thammasat principle.
[Note: See some background of Nitirat’s proposal to amend Article 112 here, Worachet’s detailed presentation of Nitirat’s proposed amendment of Article 112 at Thammasat on 15 January 2012 here (YouTube VDO), and Prachatai news archive related to Nitirat here.]
Panthawit: What do you think of Article 112 in the Criminal Code? Do you have any problem with how this law has been applied like a group of people in this society has been shouting?
Somkit: Article 112 is about defaming or insulting the king and the heir apparent. This law has existed for a long time in Thai society, evidently at least during the Rattanakosin period. And [such a law] exists not only in Thai society but also in foreign countries. This is a legal provision to protect the head of state, be they kings, presidents, or any other types of head of state. Every country has this type of legal provision because defaming and insulting the head of state is like defaming and insulting any other person in general.
Article 112 has always been problematic in the eyes of scholars. The problem is not the legal provision itself, but the interpretation thereof. Enforcement—the enforcers are the police and the courts—in the principle of the criminal law looks at intent. If there is no intent, then there is no accountability. Principally, there are three categories of Thai laws concerning defamation and libel.
1. Direct/face-to-face insult (ดูหมิ่นซึ่งหน้า), punishable by up to 6 months imprisonment
2. Defamation/libel (หมิ่นประมาท), punishable by up to one year imprisonment, for which the court looks at intent
[3.] In the case of [defamation] of the king, [the punishment] is 3-15 years according Article 112; as it happens the practices of legal enforcement and court trials [of cases under Article 112] thus far have not taken the intent into account.
This is a big problem concerning Article 112, which is an enforcement problem. From a legal perspective, [some] lawyers have said that those who have been charged with Article 112 in many cases should not be punished because the court did not use intent for arrests in other cases. For instance, Sondhi Limthongkul has repeated the words of Da Torpedo [who has just been found guilty and handed 15 years jail sentence] on a [rally] stage aiming to protect the king, therefore he did not have an intent [to defame the monarchy] and should not be punished. If someone were to file a complaint against Sondhi and the police interpreted the case as I said, then they would not accept the complaint, the state prosecutors wouldn’t file a charge in court, and the court wouldn’t have to judge Sondhi guilty because it was an act that lacked intent. And all others who have made comments aiming to protect the monarchy wouldn’t have to be punished according to Article 112. But if you say, you can’t say that, if a defamation is a defamation, then it means the court does not take into account intent in enforcing the law because the fundamental principle of criminal law is always intent.
Another problem with this article in the Criminal Code is the punishment. The punishment for ordinary defamation/libel is up to 6 months imprisonment for a face-to-face insult and up to one year imprisonment in the case of Mr. A defaming Mr. B or an officer. If compared with Article 112, I personally think the punishment in [Article 112] is too harsh.
Panthawit: Nidhi Eiwsriwong [respected historian and public intellectual attached to Chiang Mai University] wrote in an article that Article 112 is aimed to benefit [protect] the head of state. From national security perspective, [lèse majesté] could cause a rebellion in the kingdom. However, most defendants under this article do not have sufficient power to impact the head of state with their speech or writings or cause a rebellion to be brought about in the kingdom. How do you perceive Nidhi Eiwsriwong’s view?
Somkit: No. Nidhi made a broad interpretation. When we look at the purpose of a law, we look toward the future. But Article 112—the way it has been written from the past to the present—refers to individuals, not just the king as the head of state but also the individual who is the king. The law is just like any other defamation/libel law. For instance, if someone berates me, s/he berates Mr. Somkit as well as the rector of Thammasat University. Therefore, the key aspect in the problem concerning this article is not [the content of] the article itself but the interpretation in the enforcement of this article because it does not focus on intent.
Panthawit: A group of lecturers-academics [led by senior academic] Charnvit Kasetsiri has called for a panel to be set up to screen Article 112 complaints. The proposed panel may be represented by members of civil society and members of the parliament or the senate. What you think about this?
Somkit: It can’t be done. The law does not allow an establishment of any screening panel before a legal complaint can be made. Only the police, the state prosecutors and the courts have such an authority.
Panthawit: What about the proposal by the independent Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) which suggests that the government fix the Article 112 problem by allowing only the Office of the Principal Private Secretary of His Majesty the King to file [lèse majesté] complaints? What’s your view?
Somkit: Even more implausible because the palace should not be involved in the judicial process. To make the Principal Secretary Office or the palace the complainant would further involve the monarchy in politics. This is the matter of the state [because it’s about] the head of state. If the palace becomes the complainant, questions will arise in society: why does the palace file a complaint against this person and not that person, why does it make complaints against citizens? I don’t see that the Principal Secretary Office should handle the complaint process.
Personally, I am not concerned about how to amend this article because I am not an expert on criminal law. Fixing [Article 112] will be done by other experts, including even what Nitirat is doing. Importantly, those demanding or proposing amending [Article 112] must provide answers to society: why should there be any amendment and what will the amendment offer to society? They must answer this question: why would the punishment for the defamation/insult of the queen and the heir apparent have to be the same as the punishment for the defamation/insult of ordinary people, which is up to one year imprisonment?
Article 112 is like any other law that can be amended or debated within academic circles. Those proposing amending Article 112 aren’t committing lèse majesté. I don’t think [Thai] society will say that former Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun [who has publically said that certain amendment of Article 112 is advisable] has defamed the king. There are a number of people who want to have the article amended who have good intention for the king. The matter with Article 112 is, different people are talking about the same thing but have different ideas. Those who want to amend it must give clear explanations to society why it needs to be amended. Personally I don’t think I will lead in amending this law because I am a public lawyer, not a criminal lawyer. Plus, I am a university rector. I have many problems to think about.
Kaewmala (@Thai_Talk) is a writer and researcher. Website: thaiwomantalks.com
