[FACT comments: This one picture equals the thousands of postings in Thai and English on independent news site Prachatai. The dedicated netizens at Prachatai have created the only non-partisan, fearless news voice in Thailand. Show this picture to your children, to your parents, to your colleagues. Not yellow, not red--the fascist brown shirts are winning…for now. If you don't stand up for Chiranuch, you don't deserve your own liberty, democracy or free expression.]
Prachatai.com editor Chiranuch Premchaiporn in the holding cell at the Criminal Court on Wednesday afternoon : a case closely watched. PHOTO: Nick Nostitz
Popular website director gets bail
Nirmal Ghosh on an atypical afternoon in a Thai court.
Straits Times: March 31, 2010
http://blogs.straitstimes.com/2010/3/31/popular-website-director-gets-bail
THE website prachatai.com’s popularity shot up after the September 2006 coup d’etat that removed then-premier Thaksin Shinawatra, who continues to be the most divisive figure in Thailand today. But it was on March 6 last year that website director Ms. Chiranuch Premchaiporn shot into the news herself when Crime Suppression police raided Prachatai’s office and charged her with allowing comments on the webboard with alleged lèse majesté content. Thailand has strict laws on lese majeste – insulting the monarchy.
What made the case doubly interesting was that the raid came just hours after prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva was assuring an audience comprising many media people from across the region, of his government’s respect for media freedom.
International watchdog organisations released statements condemning the raid. The Hongkong-based independent Asian Human Rights Commission called the raid “part of the systematic ultraconservative agenda since the 2006 army coup to intimidate and silence critics, human rights defenders and social activists in Thailand.”
Subsequently a total of 10 charges were filed against Ms Chiranuch. Each charge carries a potential five year jail sentence. The charges caused a stir in the online media community – a new frontline of sorts in Thailand’s now long-running political conflict. It was also widely reported in the national and international press. The case is for obvious reasons, of special interest to the media community.
Earlier this year, at the annual Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand (FCCT) dinner, with Ms Chiranuch present in the audience, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said this was one case that he viewed with “regret.”
Earlier this afternoon I got a call from a friend who told me Ms Chiranuch was at the criminal court, and had been placed in a holding cell. I was supposed to have a day off, but thought I should go down to have a look.
I found Ms Chiranuch in a large holding cell for women – with another dozen or so women. The cell is in the basement; upstairs in the courtroom her lawyers were trying to arrange bail. There was a gaggle of colleagues from Prachatai.com there to offer moral support.
I called out to her from the outer wire mesh. She seemed cheerful, but I could imagine it was not exactly a normal day for her. Her mobile phone had been taken from her of course. But she was free to speak to visitors from about 20 feet away – the distance between the outer wire mesh and the barred cell.
In the end, bail was settled at 300,000 Baht. After spending 5 hours at the court, of which 3.5 hours were in the cell, she was released, to her relief and that of her colleagues and friends.
We lined up outside to welcome her after bail had been posted and she was fingerprinted and then signed out. Later on Twitter she thanked others for their messages of support and said it had been a ‘”new and strange experience.”
Whatever the prime minister may say, the case is clearly grinding through the system, and will be a test case for Thailand’s relatively new Computer Crimes Act which arms authorities with wide powers. It will thus be very closely watched.
[FACT comments: Let’s read that again—50 years in prison for comments that Chiranuch never made; they were made by some anonymous poster to Prachatai. This is a clear case of entrapment, a vendetta against independent news. The PM said he’d make this right. So who’s really pulling the strings here?]
Prachatai Editor faces up to 50 years in jail
Bangkok Pundit: March 31, 2010
http://asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-pundit-blog/prachatai-editor-faces-up-to-50-years-in-jail
| BP has previousy blogged on the police raid of Prachatai, a popular online news website, and arrest of the editor Chiranuch Premchaiporn. Chiranuch was charged under the Computer Crimes Act as she did not delete comments posted by readers that were alleged to constitute lese majeste. Other posts on her arrest here, here, and here. In theory, Chiranuch she faces up to 50 years in prison because there are 10 counts – 5 years per count.
The public prosecutor has decided to proceed with the case and Chiranuch was at court today and was detained in jail until she was bailed out. The Bangkok Post has more: Chiranuch Premchaiporn, webmaster of independent Thai online news portal Prachatai, was granted bail this afternoon after prosecutors eventually filed a lawsuit against her under the Computer Crimes Act. Ms Chiranuch had to wait nearly four hours before bail was approved with a 300,000 baht bond, calculated on her salary as a nursing sister, for not removing comments posted on a web-board deemed offensive to the monarchy fast enough to satisfy the government censors. The Criminal Court set May 31 for the first hearing to check defence and prosecution witness lists. Nirmal Ghosh of the Straits Times: Earlier this year, at the annual Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand (FCCT) dinner, with Ms Chiranuch present in the audience, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said this was one case that he viewed with “regret.” Earlier this afternoon I got a call from a friend who told me Ms Chiranuch was at the criminal court, and had been placed in a holding cell. I was supposed to have a day off, but thought I should go down to have a look. I found Ms Chiranuch in a large holding cell for women – with another dozen or so women. The cell is in the basement; upstairs in the courtroom her lawyers were trying to arrange bail. There was a gaggle of colleagues from Prachatai.com there to offer moral support. We lined up outside to welcome her after bail had been posted and she was fingerprinted and then signed out. Later on Twitter she thanked others for their messages of support and said it had been a ‘”new and strange experience.” Whatever the prime minister may say, the case is clearly grinding through the system, and will be a test case for Thailand’s relatively new Computer Crimes Act which arms authorities with wide powers. It will thus be very closely watched. BP: Prachatai have a report here. BP blogged on Abhisit’s speech at the FCCT here and noted Abhisit’s regret as well. Unfortunately, it seems that Abhisit’s panel on lese majeste has little meaning. In related lese majeste news, Matichon quotes a senior police officer as stating that the police will issue an arrest warrant for PAD leader Sondhi L if he does surrender to the police by April 2. Have previously blogged about the lese majeste charges that Sondhi L is facing here and here. BP: When will this nonsense end? |
[FACT comments: We must have missed something here. FACT signer and founding member Chiranuch was released on her own recognizance with the support of a Chulalongkorn academic after her arrest last year. So why would they now require bail?
Furthermore, the maximum bail we have seen set for lese majeste and computer crimes charges has always been THB100,000. So why is Chiranuch being so discriminated against? The truth is, very few Thais would have the means to come up with USD10,000 so would rot in gaol until trial, often years away.
FACT readers may recall the meeting between the new Prime Minister and representatives from Thai Netizen Network on concerns over lese majeste and computer law charges. The PM claimed govt would not pursue these charges or initiate charges against others, that a middle ground would be found to mitigate repression of free speech.
He lied! Surprised???]
Prachatai webmaster granted bail
- Bangkok Post: March 31, 2010
- http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/173359/prachatia-webmaster-granted-bail
Chiranuch Premchaiporn, webmaster of independent Thai online news portal Prachatai, was granted bail this afternoon after prosecutors eventually filed a lawsuit against her under the Computer Crimes Act.
Ms Chiranuch had to wait nearly four hours before bail was approved with a 300,000 baht bond, calculated on her salary as a nursing sister, for not removing comments posted on a web-board deemed offensive to the monarchy fast enough to satisfy the government censors.
The Criminal Court set May 31 for the first hearing to check defence and prosecution witness lists.
She is accused of allowing lese majeste comments on Prachatai’s online discussion board. If convicted she faces up to 50 years’ imprisonment.
She was first arrested in March last year at a time when the government was very touchy about references to the monarchy. The cyber law, which was introduced during the administration of Gen Surayud Chulanont, was first successfully prosecuted against blogger Suvicha Thakor, who received a 20-year sentence in April last year. He has applied for a royal clemency and is waiting for the result.
At least six other people have been arrested under this law, but prosecutors have yet to arraign them.
A thought for today…
31-03-10
“Information is not to be feared, and ideas are not enemies to be crushed…”
US Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, Global Internet Freedom Caucus
EDITORIAL
Google siding with censors
- Bangkok Post: March 26, 2010
- http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/35053/google-siding-with-censors
Google’s corporate motto claims that the California internet giant will “Do no evil” in the world. The company has decided that it also will stop trying to do good in China. The decision by the most dominant search engine to shut down its most important operation in China, seems to solve one simple problem.
But while Google will no longer help support the Great Chinese Firewall, it is even more likely to face charges of holding to double standards, not least of all in Thailand. Since 2006 Google’s subsidiary company, YouTube, has helped the Thai government censor certain videos. The original case which brought about the censorship joint venture involved a scurrilous attack on the high institution by a YouTube user. When the firm refused to take down the offensive video, the government blocked all access to YouTube by all users in Thailand. YouTube blinked, took down the video and several other copycats, and joined hands to censor material for all those whose internet computer’s address is in Thailand.
The public cannot currently know what material is scrubbed from the Google search engine or the YouTube video archives. But the principle is clear to everyone: YouTube and Google have agreed to censor material on instruction of Thai authorities. Last month, the Australian government turned this alliance against Google. Given that Google was censoring the internet on behalf of China and Thailand, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy wrote to Google headquarters, would it also consider censoring a raft of YouTube videos at the request of the Australian government?
Google reportedly turned down the minister’s request to block access to a long list of “refused classification” (RC) videos, most of them controversial and political. Google claimed that videos Mr Conroy wanted to block were about euthanasia, safer use of illicit drugs, and instructions on “minor crimes” such as painting graffiti. It is a good thing, said Google, to expose the world to such videos, and encourage public debate.
Google may now have to explain to both stockholders and to internet users worldwide where it draws the line. According to Thai free-speech activists, Thai authorities, chiefly police and the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology (ICT), currently block access to more than 50,000 web pages, including text and multimedia. The first line of censorship is maintained by Thai internet service providers (ISPs) who are able to stop many web surfers from seeing such pages. How many have been scrubbed from existence by Google and YouTube is unknown.
But Google censorship has become quite pervasive. In the Middle East and Africa, forbidden subjects and web pages are inaccessible because of local Google censorship. Elsewhere, the company appears to tweak its search algorithms in ways that favour laws or government whims in many countries. Google had a valid defence for all of this – that “everyone does it”. No internet firm does business in China without obeying the strict Chinese censorship laws. US, Canadian and European companies make profits selling both censorship and monitoring hardware and software to repressive regimes, and helping dictatorships tweak the firewalls to their advantage.
Google’s problem now is that it has taken a principled stand against censorship – but only in one of many cases. Abandoning China was a difficult business decision for Google. But by doing so, the company may have an even more difficult decision: How to justify other censorship, including the cooperation with Thai officials?
Grenade attacks and online censorship amid mounting political tension
Reporters Without Borders: March 30, 2010
http://www.rsf.org/Grenade-attacks-and-online.html
Reporters Without Borders joins the Thai Journalists Association and the Thai Broadcast Journalists Association in condemning grenade attacks on two Bangkok TV stations on the night of 27 March. It is vital that the different political groups abstain from taking revenge on media that do not support their cause, as happened during the violence at the end of 2008.
“This new political crisis is making it harder for certain news media to function properly,” Reporters Without Borders said. “Even if state-owned media opt for pro-governmental editorial polices, that does not in any way justify this kind of violence. The political tension must not be allowed to affect media freedom. If the authorities and opposition get into this appalling habit, the press freedom situation in Thailand will get steadily worse.”
The press freedom organisation added: “We urge the government to guarantee the security of media premises and to quickly investigate these attacks.”
The two targeted stations were Channel 5 (which is owned by the army) and NBT TV (Channel 11), a public television service. M65 grenades were thrown at the Channel 5 building, injuring several soldiers posted outside. A few hours later, an M79 grenade-launcher was used to fire grenades at Channel 11’s headquarters. In all, around 10 people, including the sentries, were injured in the two attacks.
It is not yet known whether the attacks were linked to the ongoing “Red Shirt” demonstrations in support of ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The Bangkok police suspects a “political provocation.”
Reporters Without Borders also condemns the government’s censorship of the Internet. More than 50,000 websites and web pages are currently blocked in Thailand. The latest to join the list is Asia Sentinel (http://www.asiasentinel.com/), an independent news website that is apparently being punished for posting a long and detailed series of analyses of the political situation since the 2006 military coup.
It is believed to have been the first website to mention the possibility of an agreement between Thaksin and the courts that would allow him to keep his fortune. It is not the first time that the site’s editors have encountered this kind of obstruction. Its editor in chief, John Berthelsen, was denied entry to Singapore in April 2009 because of Asia Sentinel’s generally outspoken tone.
The ministry of information and information technology has requested an allocation of 50 million baht (more than 1 million euros) for 2011 to fund its Internet censorship and surveillance activities. An official recently claimed that the authorities were blocking more than 150 websites a day for alleged hostility towards the monarchy.
Thailand was ranked 130th out of 175 countries in the latest Reporters Without Borders press freedom index. It is also listed as one of the “Countries under surveillance” in the survey of Internet censorship that Reporters Without Borders issued earlier this month.
Grenade blasts in two Thai TV stations injure 11 people
Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA): March 28, 2010
http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/1693
Two grenade blasts rocked two broadcast stations in Bangkok on the night of 27 March, injuring 11 people, news reports said.
“The Nation” said a grenade was thrown shortly before 7 pm at the Army-run Channel 5 studio, injuring seven people, four of them seriously. It was reported that two of the casualties were soldiers guarding the compound.
At 9:30 pm, an M79 grenade launcher was fired at the state-run NBT (Channel 11) studio located on Vibhavadi-Rangsit Road, wounding four soldiers who were inside a tent in the compound at the time. Investigators said the grenade might have been fired from the elevated tollway across the TV station.
Four of the injured soldiers are in serious condition, said deputy Metropolitan Police chief Maj. Gen. Euapong Komarakul Na Nakorn. He added that the grenade lobbed in Channel 5 was identified as an M67, the same type used in previous recent bombing incidents. Authorities said the two bombings were politically related and were the worst since the Red Shirts started their protest rallies two weeks ago to force the government to dissolve Parliament.
[CJ Hinke of FACT comments: The gunshot death of King Ananda, elder brother to King Bhumibol, in 1946 is a banned issue in Thailand. It’s not discussed nor taught in history classes. Several books have been banned for lèse majesté for mentioning the death case. Nevertheless, three Palace servants were executed for regicide without benefit of Royal pardon. It appears this was a grave miscarriage of justice. FACT signer Mark Teufel, translator of The Devil’s Discus into German, contributes greatly to this discussion. Konig Ananda Des Tuefels Diskus is available here: http://www.epubli.de/shop/showshopelement?pubId=2141]
King Ananda’s death found consistent with suicide
Mark Teufel, FreeThai
During the recent weeks several statements about the death of King Ananda, Rama VIII reminded the people of an unsolved chapter in Thai history and politics. Especially in times when the protagonists of the monarchy come under pressure and their critics spotlight their finger sticking in the honey pot which makes them start to loose their legitimacy to claim being “the good guardian”, people might wish back moral and ethics of Prince Mahidol and sensibility of King Ananda.
This may be one of the reasons why rumours are constantly rising that the current King knows more about this tragedy than what had been unveiled to the public. Some even not exclude that he might have pulled the trigger.
What makes me wonder is that most of the pundits base exclusively on facts and information which had been available during the period of King Ananda’s death. I have not seen deeper analysis of the facts scrutinized using up to date knowledge of forensic science.
When I was translating “The Devils Discus” into German language, I updated the information of the book with footnotes and extra chapters, adding for example interviews with leading German forensic scientists (http://www.epubli.de/shop/showshopelement?pubId=2141).
During my research I found the blog of Somsak Jeamteerasakul, an Ajarn from Thammasat University. On his Thai language blog, titled “what had happened on 9th of June” he is on one hand doing a quite in depth analysis of the Agatha Christie model.
He shows that the witness statements of the people who were on the scene did not fit together and claimed rightly, that no proper cross examination was taking place, which might have cleared some important points, especially where the current king had been when the shot was heard.
But then he makes a big mistake, denying that a suicide was possible because of the evidence presented to the court. He comes to the conclusion that suicide was not possible for the following reasons:
ก. ตำแหน่งของบาดแผลกระสุนเข้า อยู่ที่บริเวณหน้าผากเหนือคิ้วซ้ายเล็กน้อย
a. The wound, where the bullet went through his forehead was above the left eyebrow
ข. ลักษณะบาดแผลแสดงว่าปืนต้องกดติดหรือเกือบติดกับหน้าผากขณะกระสุนลั่น ถ้าไม่ กดติดก็ห่างไม่เกิน 2 นิ้ว
b. If one looks at the wound it seems as if someone had put the gun barrel on the forehead or at a maximum distance of two inches when firing the weapon
ค. วิถีของกระสุน เฉียงลงล่าง และเอียงจากซ้ายไปขวาเล็กน้อย ทะลุออกด้านหลังที่ ท้ายทอย
c. The bullet channel pierced through the head sloping down and ending on the right side of the back part of the head.
ง. ลักษณะพระบรมศพ ที่พระกรอยู่ข้างพระวรกายเรียบร้อย (ปัญหาความเป็นไปได้ของ อาการเกร็งค้างของแขนและมืออันเกิดจากสมองตายเฉียบพลันที่เรียกว่า “คาดาเวอริค สปัสซั่ม” (Cadaveric Spasm)
d. The arms were lying beside his body (no trace of cadaveric spasm) due to the sudden death.
(I am trying direct translation, without using the words of Rayne Kruger.)
For a), b) and c) there would be an explanation if the king was using his hands in the way as described by Rayne Kruger and his thumb to pull the trigger, while sitting in the bed.
Somsak says that Kruger was claiming that the bullet did not hit the pillow but if it did so, it would invalidate Kruger’s theory. But if it did not, as Kruger claimed, it would be a crucial one in favour of his theory.
And several forensic experts in Germany told me, that many more suicides take place under very strange conditions (some described in my book) so they would not call Kruger’s theory impossible, even not unusual.
The most crucial part of Somsak’s theory, in which he insists that the king did not commit suicide, is missing traces of cadaveric spasm and the position of the body.
But this is exactly where my critical remark starts: “Cadaveric Spasm” is a myth; it simply is not proven to take place when
someone receives a bullet into the head. Never anybody has witnessed a case a “Cadaveric Spasm” related to a suicide or a deadly shot into one’s head. In the meantime the US and EU police have dozens of videos of suicides or killed people with a shot into their heads. In not one single case a “Cadaveric Spasm” can be observed.
Once forensic specialist I interviewed in my German language book “King Ananda” told me privately: “Do you think the police would risk a fatal shot into the head of a hijacker who threatens a hostage, if there would be a danger of “Cadaveric Spasm”?
During my research I also saw a video of a suicide. And looking at it I thought: “This is similar how the King fell into his position!”. The suicide was sitting on a chair, took a pistol out of his trouser and shot himself into the head. His arm sank down. At first he still holds the gun which then slipped out of his hand. His body relaxed relatively slowly and seconds later the body was gliding into a
nearly lying position, but still sitting on the chair. Even 10 or 20
seconds after the fatal shot the body still showed signs of relaxing
further.
As I described in my book we know today that the deadly bullet channel is much bigger than the bullet itself because of the shock onto brain tissue. The deadly wound is much bigger than it looks when examining the dead body.
Therefore the question if certain parts of the head had been damaged or not as discussed in the court were meaningless, because the deadly wound was much bigger than the bullet itself.
So this, as other suicide cases, should have shown traces of “Cadaveric Spasm” but did not. It means that this argument may not be used to reason that only a third person’s activity could have led to the fatal shot.
According to my research suicide is the most probable reason for the death of King Ananda, but one never can exclude a third person to being involved. However, there is no reason to believe that the action of any third person is more probable than suicide in this case. Any other assumption is pure gossip, in my opinion.
What seems absolutely clear to me is the innocence of the poor scapegoats who were executed. Any murder plot involving any other person than those on the scene is pure fantasy and not based on any rational facts.
Government responses to LM campaign
Andrew Walker
New Mandala: March 16, 2009
http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2009/03/16/government-responses-to-lm-campaign/#more-4564
I have seen two responses prepared by Thai diplomats to the international campaign for reform of the lese majeste law. Neither was addressed to me, so I am not in a position to provide them here on New Mandala.
The basic argument in both responses is similar, and some of the phrasing used is identical, suggesting that an official position has been developed. The arguments are much the same as those put by Prime Minister Abhisit. The main points made in the letters are:
- The monarchy is a highly revered institution in Thai society and stands above politics and must be defended against “violation”.
- Protecting the monarchy is a matter of national security. The monarchy is not in a position to defend itself.
- Other countries have strict laws to protect their national security.
- There have been problems with enforcement of the law, especially the fact that anyone can file a complaint under the law. The Prime Minister has asked the police to enforce the law cautiously to avoid abuse. There will be clarification about enforcement of the law.
- Freedom of expression does not justify deliberate attacks on the monarchy.
- Improvements to the law will not be implemented because of pressure from foreigners.
- Existing cases will proceed. Charges will not be dropped in all cases (implying that they may be dropped in some cases).
- The lese majeste law is consistent with democracy, freedom of speech and academic freedom.
Nothing surprising here. The open acknowledgement that there have been problems in relation to the implementation of the law may represent a small step in the right direction.
But, as Thongchai Winichakul observed (in an email exchange with me), the official position that the problem lies in the “enforcement” of the law is vague and open to all sorts of interpretations. Focussing on enforcement alone may be just a strategy for rejecting calls for reform and effectively doing nothing. As David Streckfuss argues “the law is the problem“, not just its enforcement.
Thongchai also notes that these official responses leave out the allusions made by Abhisit, Kasit and a few other ministers, to the “hidden agenda” behind the international campaign. Paralleling the official government responses, there are less official suggestions (both within and outside the government) that the calls for reform of lese majeste are part of a republican movement to abolish the monarchy.
International scholars call for reform of Thailand’s lese majeste law
Andrew Walker and Nicholas Farrelly
New Mandala: March 4, 2009
[UPDATE 14 March 2009: here is the list of additional scholars and public intellectuals who have signed onto the letter to Prime Minister Abhisit.]
The following statement was presented at a press conference held at the Foreign Correspondent’s Club of Thailand in Bangkok at 10 AM today. The press conference was attended by local and international media and interested members of the public. The press conference was addressed by Thongchai Winichakul and Andrew Walker, both via internet links.
Over fifty international scholars and dignitaries have signed a letter to the Thai Prime Minister calling for reform of the lese majeste law. The letter comes after a spate of lese majeste cases in Thailand and moves by the Thai government to restrict internet discussion of the royal family. The letter urges the Thai government to consider the following:
- Please stop seeking more suppressive measures against individuals, web sites, and the peaceful expressions of ideas.
- Please consider suggestions to reform the lese majeste law to prevent further abuses and to prevent the possibility of further damage to the international reputation of Thailand and the monarch.
- Please consider taking action to withdraw the current lese majeste charges, and working to secure the release of those already convicted under the lese majeste law. They are charged for expressing their ideas. This should not be a crime.
The letter argues that “frequent abuse of the lese majeste law against political opponents undermines democratic processes” and generates “heightened criticism of the monarchy and Thailand itself, both inside and outside the country.”
Signatories to the letter include:
- World leaders in human rights and civil liberties, such as Lord Eric Avebury, Dr. Caroline Lucas, Senator Martone, Smitu Kothari, Walden Bello;
- Prominent scholars who are famous throughout the academic world across fields and disciplines like Noam Chomsky, Stuart Hall, Arjun Appadurai, Jim Scott, Arif Dirlik, Stanley Tambiah, Immanuel Wallerstein, and many more;
- Several Fellows of the British Academy, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences;
- Presidents, former presidents and leaders of several internationally prestigious academic associations, namely the Associations for Asian Studies , the American Political Science Association, the American Sociological Association, the Asian Studies Association of Australia, and more;
- Leading legal scholars such as a former judge in the International Court of Justice, a former President of the Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law, and leading scholars on human rights law.
- Leading international scholars of Southeast Asia and Thailand in many fields including political science, history, anthropology, literature, geography, economics, environmental studies, most of whom have long term experience in Thailand and the region.
Additional signatories are currently being collected. The letter will be delivered to the Honorable Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva in late March or early April. Those who want to include their name on the letter are invited to send their name, title/ rank/position and affiliation to one of the following “Coordinators” of this campaign. (Please don’t provide your details as a comment to this post.)
- Thongchai Winichakul, Professor, Department of History, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA. twinicha@wisc.edu
- Andrew Walker, Senior Fellow, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. andrew.walker@anu.edu.au
- Jim Glassman, Associate Professor, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, 217 – 1984 West Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2 Canada. nmsslg@yahoo.ca
- Larry Lohmann, The Corner House, Station Road, Sturminster Newton, Dorset DT10 1YJ, United Kingdom. larrylohmann@gn.apc.org
- Adadol Ingawanij, Post-doctoral Researcher, Centre for Research and Education in Arts and Media, University of Westminster, Harrow Campus, UK. M.Ingawanij@westminster.ac.uk
New Mandala will provide a “window” for this campaign. We will provide updated news and information on the progress of the campaign.
