“Prachatai exists to promote human rights”
The judge presiding over the trial of Chiranuch Premchaiporn, webmaster of Thailand’s independent online news portal, Prachatai, arrived late to court today. This gave regular observers, local and international activists, NGOs, media representatives and diplomatic staff great pause for concern.
The woman judge who took the bench this morning had not said a word in Chiranuch’s trial, leaving the irrepressible Judge Kampot firmly in charge. Today’s testimony was some of the trial’s most crucial, as Chiranuch Premchaiporn, facing 20 years for ‘computer crimes’, spoke in her own defence.
Chiranuch’s trial started with a panel of three judges in February, occasionally joined by three others who drifted in and out. Two more during this phase brings to eight the number of judges hearing just portions of the evidence rather than a coherent whole.
In the absence of trial transcripts of witness testimony in responce to questions from prosecution and defence, any citizen might wonder how a court would arrive at a fair and reasonable verdict. As there is a 98% conviction rate for lèse majesté crimes, perhaps they don’t expect to!
Chiranuch Premchaiporn, 44, graduated in journalism from the Faculty of Mass Communications at Thailand’s prestigious Thammasat University. After graduation, she became an advocate for people with HIV/AIDS with the Thai NGO, AIDS Access.
She joined Prachatai as its director in 2006 at the invitation of founder Jon Ungpakorn. At Prachatai, Chiranuch worked on website content development, administration, human resources and fundraising while liaising with government agencies and NGOs. She also coordinated citizen journalism workshops to provide media skills to the disenfranchised. “Prachatai exists to promote human rights,” Chiranuch said.
An editorial group was responsible for legal news content but Chiranuch monitored Prachatai’s public webboard. User posts would appear online in real time, giving immediacy to free and frank discussions.
Users made announcements, started conversation topics and exchanged ideas and opinions. There were no restrictions on differing opinions: human rights and human integrity were not undermined by censorship.
Under this open policy, those with strong opinions listened and compromised and conflicts were avoided using this approach.
Following the military coup d’etat in 2006 saw a tenfold increase in Prachatai’s webboard users. Comments began to degenerate into much conflict over Thailand’s political situation using far more aggressive language to express opinions.
Prachatai was forced to employ stricter measures to moderate the online forum. Netizen users were required to provide personal data and a valid email address was confirmed by Prachatai. Possibly illegal, inappropriate and offensive comments were deleted quickly by Prachatai staff and a host of volunteers composed of professionals from many different fields.
20 − 30 thousand comments were posted daily, generated by 300 new topics every day which, in turn, led to 2,800 − 2,900 replies.
Judge Kampot arrived in court during this comment and interrupted Chiranuch’s testimony to ask if she had acknowledged yet that the ten offending messages with which she is charged appeared on Prachatai. This fact has been dogged to death in court already and is without question but perhaps the learned judge felt he needed to hear it from the defendant.
Chiranuch replied that she was shown police documents which indicated the comments were posted to Prachatai but she personally had never even seen the comments before being charged with them.
Prachatai’s webmaster explained that each message to the webboard is numbered chronologically as it is posted. Unless the entire topic is deleted, comments remain unless deleted manually by Prachatai staff.
By this time, post-coup, Prachatai had received 1,119,000 comments to its webboard. Only 3% of this enormous total needed to be deleted for inappropriate content.
Chief censor, Aree Jivorarak, at Thailand’s ICT ministry arranged a meeting for ISPs and webmasters which was attended by Chiranuch. MICT asked their cooperation in removing content offensive to the monarchy, mailing all groups every day to ask for takedowns.
In the first three month period, MICT requested takedowns for 3,000 URLs. Only 25 were hosted by Prachatai, including the comments which are the subject of this trial. Many had already been deleted and Chiranuch immediately deleted the rest. Some were so dated even the 90-day log files had expired.
Chiranuch was summoned by the police to testify about these posts but was only shown the Prachatai URLs not the message content. On checking by IP address, she found these posts commented on the monarchy.
Chiranuch testified on a single message in the trial of webboard user ‘Bento’ which she had deleted from Prachatai. However, the chief government sensor testified the comment had been deleted by the ISP. ‘Bento’—Noppawan Tangudomsuk—was acquitted but Chiranuch was not told she was about to be arrested on the same ‘evidence’.
Meanwhile, the ISPs and webmasters asked the ministry and police to provide legal guidelines for which text constituted lèse majesté. Such guidelines have still not been provided by the Thai government.
Although Prachatai tightened procedures for monitoring and removal of offensive content, it was still possible for some to go unnoticed due to the sheer volume of postings every day. It would be interesting to know how many of these ‘dangerous’ posts were actually read by Prachatai users as none complained.
The Prachatai webboard was shut down in July 2010 due to the pressure of government censorship. Readers will remember that Prachatai was among the first websites to be blocked by the military when the rule of law was suspended using emergency powers from April 10 to December 22, 2010. Prachatai decided to fight and creating multiple roving URLs to continue to publish news no other Thai media would touch.
On cross-examination by the public prosecutor, Chiranuch stated that each of the ten messages remained on the Prachatai webboard for as little as a day or up to 20 days in one case.
Did the webmaster only remove postings at MICT’s request? She answered that, in most cases, the content had been removed well before MICT acted.
Chiranuch testified she bases her definition of lèse majesté not only on her own opinion but relies on the opinions of at least three other staff to safeguard her website.
Chiranuch’s trial is scheduled to resume Tuesday, October 11, 12, 13, and 14. These court days will include further defence witnesses including overseas experts. The trial will continue at Bangkok’s Criminal Court (San Aya) on Ratchadapisek Road near Lat Phrao MTR station, Exit 4. It is likely the courtroom venue will be changed so ask for docket number is 1167/2553 when you arrive in October.
WE URGE ALL READERS TO SPEND AT LEAST ONE MORNING OR AFTERNOON SESSION TO SUPPORT JIEW AND TO STAND UP FOR FREE SPEECH.
WE LOVE JIEW! WE LOVE PRACHATAI!
CJ Hinke
Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT)
Previous postings
“Day One: Thai webmaster facing 50 years for lèse majesté postings” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/day-one-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Two: Thailand’s chief censor continues in Prachatai trial” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/day-two-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Three: MICT’s legal advisor testifies: ‘Freedom has its limits’” https://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/day-three-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Four: MICT and police lawyers testify” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/day-four-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Five: Police scientist testifies for prosecution“ http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/day-five-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand-postponed/
“Day Six: Two police ‘IT experts’ testify as Prachatai trial resumes” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/day-six-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Seven: Police lèse majesté “experts” in Prachatai trial” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/day-seven-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Eight: “I can’t remember.” “จำไม่ได้.” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/day-eight-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Nine: Royal connection to Prachatai withhunt” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/09/10/day-nine-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Ten: “Prachatai gives voice to democracy.” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/day-ten-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Prachatai gives voice to democracy.”
Nine court days beginning on February 4th were spent hearing from minions of the forces of darkness assembled by the prosecution to testify against Prachatai webmaster Chiranuch Premchaiporn. Remarkably in the 21st century, perhaps even in Thailand, 11 bureaucrats and police spoke up against free speech.
Chiranuch faces 20 years in prison for ten charges of lèse majesté under the Computer Crimes Act for comments users posted to a public Web forum police say were not removed promptly enough to suit the law.
Defence testimony started this morning, calling two witnesses highly respected in the community, both of whom co-founded the Foundation for Community Educational Media in 2004. FCEM is the civil society umbrella organisation governing Prachatai’s independent news website.
Jon Ungpakorn served as the first chair of FCEM. Jon is also a 2005 recipient of the Ramon Magsaysay Award, considered Asia’s Nobel Prize.
Jon was also elected to the Thai Senate, serving from 2004 to 2006. He currently serves as chair of the working group on lèse majesté in the subcommittee on civil and political rights of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand.
Jon testified that he started Prachatai as an independent balance to Thai mainstream media. Prachatai’s four objectives are 1) To provide the Thai public with access to reliable news and information relevant to developing and strengthening the democratic functions of Thai civil society, 2) to focus news coverage on the problems, concerns, activities and accomplishments of local communities and civil society movements and organisations, 3) to strive for freedom and independence of Thai news media and 4) to promote active public participation in Thai news media.
Witness testimony disclosed that mainstream media reported on elite political leaders but Prachatai reported on issues affecting the poor, the marginalised and underprivileged. Jon became acquainted with Chiranuch during their collaboration in campaigns to support people with HIV/AIDS during 1991 and 1992. She became his natural choice for news director of Prachatai as an honest journalist with integrity.
However, the witness testified, Prachatai only became a government target after the military’s coup d’etat in 2006. Thais felt free to express themselves against the coup on Prachatai’s webboard but these views were never reported by traditional media outlets.
Prachatai’s support for freedom of expression and providing a free space for public opinion, exchange of ideas and discussion led to 10,000 new members per day at peak. News articles were scrutinised by Prachatai’s editors for content but the enormous flow of commentary on Prachatai’s webboard overwhelmed its meagre staff.
Prachatai users were validated by email address and were then permitted to initiate new topics and comment freely. Prachatai created a complaint reporting system by which a user could temporarily remove any post they found inappropriate for assessment by Prachatai monitors which could result in permanent deletion. Rude and insulting language were vigorously prohibited. Users posting such content were warned and then banned from posting if they persisted.
However, Prachatai was forced to become more stringent in its monitoring due to increased commentary about Thailand’s monarchy. Ten staff and volunteers moderated tens of thousands of postings during this period making timely takedowns impossible.
Prachatai cooperated with requests from Thailand’s ICT ministry to remove content when brought to their attention and recorded IP addresses of offensive content to identify posters.
However, Prachatai’s board and staff decided never to censor any comment in advance as this ran counter to the news portal’s support for freedom of expression. Although Jon was interviewed by the police over alleged lèse majesté comments, he was not informed that they were building evidence for prosecution of anyone at Prachatai.
Jon testified that most comments to Prachatai are social rather than political in nature, relating to the role of civil society on a broad range of grassroots issues. “Prachatai gives voice to democracy,” its founder stated.
On cross-examination by the prosecutor, Jon testified that it was certainly Prachatai’s responsibility to remove content which may be lèse majesté. However, the witness stated he wasn’t exactly sure what the prosecution meant by “risky” content.
Jon said one of the comments with which Chiranuch has been charged was overlooked for 20 days because it was posted to a forum which was largely inactive and that MICT did not bring it to the webmaster’s attention.
Jon also responded that assessing the legality of each comment is made more difficult by the fact that the monarchy may be referred to indirectly.
Although this backstory was not mentioned in court, Jon Ungpakorn knows from personal experience the true value of freedom of expression. His father, Dr. Puey Ungpakorn, was hounded into exile in 1976 and his younger brother, Ajarn Giles Ji Ungpakorn, was forced into exile in 2009, both for issues involving Thailand’s monarchy.
Ajarn Jon himself faces charges along with 50 others for challenging the military-appointed assembly in 2007 over the passage of laws supporting the military and violating human rights such as the Computer Crimes Act.
Following morning testimony by defence witness Jon Ungpakorn, Judge Kampot discussed disallowing the second defence witness. The judge finally agreed to the afternoon’s witness as long as there was no further repetition of Prachatai’s goals and objectives but was confined to its rules and enforcement.
Following midday break, Dr. Niran Pitakwatchara took the stand for the defence. Niran co-founded Prachatai and its support foundation with Jon Ungpakorn in 2004 and also served as elected fellow senator from Ubon Ratchathani province from 2004 to 2006.
He worked with Senator Jon in a Senate committee on social development, human security and media reform. Dr. Niran investigated the role of media and its Constitutional protections.
Dr. Niran is currently one of seven commissioners forming the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand until 2015. He chairs the NHRC subcommittee on civil and political rights. Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT) petitioned the National Human Rights Commission in March 2011 over Thai government’s Internet censorship.
Dr. Niran’s research disclosed that Thai media is heavily manipulated by political power which led him to create Prachatai as an independent media choice. Traditional media treats news as a one-way, top-down effort and Prachatai tried to create a public conversation on the news Thai citizens through its webboard.
Although Dr. Niran testified that freedom of expression has legal limits, he said Prachatai remained one of the only outlets for public expression following the military coup. He stated Prachatai always cooperated with MICT in removing offensive content.
Dr. Niran also testified for the defence in the trial of a Prachatai poster known as ‘Bento’, the only one to be prosecuted although police have identified the posters of the remaining nine comments with which Chiranuch is charged. Noppawan Tangudomsuk was acquitted of lèse majesté.
The witness noted that ‘Bento’’s name had simply been replaced with Chiranuch’s in prosecution charge documents. He noted drily that the message not deleted by Prachatai’s webmaster stayed up for 20 days, unnoticed not only by MICT censors but by other users of Prachatai’s forum.
Ajarn Niran noted that Prachatai exists because freedom of expression in Thailand simply does not meet modern international standards for human rights. He stated, “Prachatai plays an important role in the democratisation of Thai society.”
The witness stated that most petitioners to the National Human Rights Commission are victims of political persecution because there are no clear guidelines from government on where to draw the line on illegality in discussions of the monarchy.
The prosecution declined to cross-examine human rights commissioner Dr. Niran Pitakwatchara. Perhaps the Crown did not feel up to a challenge of this crusader. Judge Kampot, however, acknowledged that, due to the position of the witness, he should feel free to correct any misapprehension the court has drawn from the testimony, a privilege not offered so far to any other witness.
Testimony resumes tomorrow with Chiranuch Premchaiporn taking the stand in her own defence.
Chiranuch’s trial resumes Wednesday, September 21 at Bangkok’s Criminal Court (San Aya) on Ratchadapisek Road near Lat Phrao MTR station, Exit 4. The trial is being heard in courtroom 910 but the case docket number is 1167/2553 in case the courtroom venue changes.
Chirach’s trial is scheduled to resume October 11, 12, 13, and 14 with further defence witnesses including overseas experts.
WE URGE ALL READERS TO SPEND AT LEAST ONE MORNING OR AFTERNOON SESSION TO SUPPORT JIEW AND TO STAND UP FOR FREE SPEECH.
WE LOVE JIEW! WE LOVE PRACHATAI!
CJ Hinke
Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT)
Previous postings
“Day One: Thai webmaster facing 50 years for lèse majesté postings” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/day-one-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Two: Thailand’s chief censor continues in Prachatai trial” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/day-two-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Three: MICT’s legal advisor testifies: ‘Freedom has its limits’” https://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/day-three-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Four: MICT and police lawyers testify” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/day-four-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Five: Police scientist testifies for prosecution“ http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/day-five-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand-postponed/
“Day Six: Two police ‘IT experts’ testify as Prachatai trial resumes” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/day-six-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Seven: Police lèse majesté “experts” in Prachatai trial” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/day-seven-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Eight: “I can’t remember.” “จำไม่ได้.” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/day-eight-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Nine: Royal connection to Prachatai withhunt” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/09/10/day-nine-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Falling man” [Richard Drew]
First of all, let’s get something straight here: New York City’s World Trade Center’s Twin Towers™ are not Ground Zero™. The real “Ground Zero” was Hiroshima City Hall on August 6, 1945 at 8:15am when Americans dropped the first atomic bomb from the bomber “Enola Gay”. “Little Boy” vapourised 100,000 civilians in an instant. People in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still dying from the effects of radiation more than 50 years later.
3,000 people jumping out of the windows in New York is no match no matter how tragic. It’s no more important because this happened in America.
The atomic bombers were not wearing turbans nor did they pray to a different God. They were us.
Since 911™, 9/11™, 9-11™, the USA has been on a trajectory no less dramatic than “Falling man”.
It is quite simply incredible that US intelligence forces were not aware of plans for this airstrike. It is further unbelievable that these massive skyscrapers collapsed into their own footprint without assistance from precision explosives. Any thinking person knows the trade towers’ demise was a classic false flag operation.
Full disclosure. I grew up in Nutley, New Jersey with an awesome view of the City’s skyline. But I left before the WTC was built so the towers were never part of my mental NYC skyline. Quite frankly, I didn’t miss them when they were gone.
But doesn’t it strike you as strange that, in the New York City of today, one cannot buy a photo, a tee shirt, a poster, a statuette, a snowglobe or any other manner of kitsch sold to tourists which includes the WTC? Government does not want you thinking that America is vulnerable and so, like some crazy old relative (we’ve all got ‘em), they cut the towers out of the picture.
For US politicians, this critical event marked “Mission accomplished”. American politicians managed to turn the US into a police state virtually overnight by suspending the protections of a time-tested constitution and bill of rights which are the only things which define American democracy and make the USA different from anywhere else.
The brainwashing of Americans and most of the “free world” continued exploiting fear of others perceived as different, rebranding of American conceptions as trademarked above, and relying heavily on misinformation and outright lies parroted by corporate news media. News reportage by corporations is just another form of censorship, of hiding the truth from people.
Every govt relies on the concept of a “national security” it never defines to keep itself in power. “National security” can, after all, mean anything you want it to mean. The USA must be credited, however, with coming up with the notion of “Homeland Security”.
That strikes me as particularly Orwellian. Another country to use the term ‘homeland’ was apartheid South Africa, which created ten ‘homelands’ to legally segregate the enormous majority blacks from the colonial whites. These ‘homelands’ were also “Stans”—for Bantustans (yes, from the Persian)—to which blacks were forcibly resettled; blacks were not allowed to own land anywhere in South Africa.
Australia did much the same by banishing its Aboriginal citizens to such settlements. So when did that ever work out? Ronald Bailey writes, “the word ‘homeland’ conjures a kind of antediluvian primitive nationalism (tribalism) based on blood and soil, not a people united by their devotion to political ideals like liberty and free speech”.
The US government since 2001 successfully bankrupted America morally, spiritually and economically. WTC just provided the fulcrum.
Americans embraced the longest wars in history, wars which are unwinnable. How would you react if someone invaded your country? Think they’re going to give up? Ever? Why was such national aggression and arrogance perceived as overwhelmingly acceptable conduct, unlike the American war on Vietnam?
The only winners today are US corporations profiting from an endless pall of death of foreign civilians and young American soldiers. Body bags, bullets and bombs are big business.
The US has already managed to create a zombie army of returned soldiers, irretrievably traumatised by bloodshed, brainwashed by propaganda and…trained to kill. Great combo!
Govt has abandoned these soldiers, crazy, alone, jobless and homeless as the rest of Americans. One sees them begging for money, food or work with cardboard signs on every major thoroughfare in America. Begging…in America, an America which has turned its back on them. Do you want your son to be a soldier?
America is fighting for religion, of course. But not any sort of Christianity Jesus, who was also a prophet to the Muslims, ever taught. Americans are rewarded for becoming the kind of fundamentalists who want to criminalise abortion—calling themselves “pro-life” and even shooting abortion doctors—and then slaughtering “foreign” children and their heathen parents.
Keep it politically-correct (PC™), though. We just want to kill these people not make them uncomfortable.
The trillions the USA spends on wars in the Middle East has left vast numbers of Americans jobless, homeless and penniless, robbing others of a working lifetime of retirement savings. Becoming a soldier is the only job left for young Americans. Watch how fast war spending rises: http://costofwar.com/en/.
In fact, the Eishenhower Research Project at Brown University estimated the so-called War on Terror™ has cost $6,000,000,000,000 over the past decade with no sign of slowing down anytime soon, two trillion dollars more than the total cost of World War II.
If you go crazy with your credit cards at usurious, loan-shark interest, most of us would say you’re an idiot. But the USA is 14 trillion dollars in debt. That means spending money they don’t have. That’s a lot of zeroes.
There are, of course, alternatives to being jobless and homeless in America and you don’t even need to kill anybody. It’s pretty easy to join the ranks of 2,292,133 Americans currently in prison, particularly if you’re not white. You’ll feel right at home: 70% of US prisoners are non-whites. Safer than the ghetto, too: only 7.9% of Federal prisoners are in gaol for violent crimes.
That one percent of the American populace in prison rises quickly to 7,225,800 adults under “correctional supervision” meaning prison, probation or parole, more than three percent in total.
The US imprisons greater actual numbers as well as in per capita statistics than any other nation in history including Nazi Germany, Soviet gulags and South African detention centres. Add released prisoners to America’s zombie army.
Many US prisons have been privatised and contracted to corporations. If you still have any money, you can buy shares in them, a very profitable business model. Prisons tie for second place with the war on drugs as the biggest US govt expenditure after wars: $68,747,203,000 in 2009.
Prisoners and prisons are another big way to keep Americans afraid. We are taught to be afraid over and over by ubiquitous, simplistic TV cop shows. In fact, a “CSI effect” has been observed in juries inclined to believe everything the police say and convict.
Prisoners, of course, are a species without population control, particularly with drug laws. Many of these prisoners are generated by the phony, self-serving govt morality of so-called wars on drugs. The US Federal govt spent $23,44,000,000 on its drug police efforts in 2011.
The US Census Bureau reported 46.2 million Americans living in poverty calling the first years of the new century “a lost decade”. The one in six poor Americans parallels almost precisely the US prison population.
Similar figures are not generated annually for the drug wars in each US state but in 1998, the individual state govts spent collectively $30,700,000,000 which is conservatively estimated to have risen to around $45 billion this year. The aggregate total the US spends on ineffectual interdiction and unwinnable drug wars is $75.7 billion every year, $1,716.77 spent every second. Watch how much drug war spending racks up: http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock.
In contrast, American love drugs! 8.9% of Americans currently use illegal drugs. There is a drug arrest in the USA every 19 seconds, overwhelmingly for simple possession.
Then, of course, there’s the herb. Bob Marley, he not dead! Marijuana has been used for spiritual pursuit, recreation and medicine for at least 3,000 years. It is surely one of the safest substances on the planet. 17,400,000 Americans use marijuana. Studies have shown its effectiveness in treating numerous medical conditions, including cancer, yet police arrest and gaol medical marijuana patients. For a plant you can grow in your own home!
It is estimated that Americans pay about $60 billion a year on illegal drugs. However, a Harvard economist considered in 2008 that legalising recreational drugs would inject at least $76,800,000,000 of free money into the US economy.
There is simply no commonsense reason for America to keep flushing this money. Except, that is, for Daddy Warbucks. Do we want to keep padding the fatcats?
Free, universal healthcare including transportation, dental and optical care, is simply a no-brainer. So is a guaranteed annual income, even for immigrants. So are full benefits for seniors. Why, in fact, don’t we make that start at age 50 so geezers can actually enjoy the rest of their lives? Free and efficient public transportation everywhere, coast to coast and border to border.
And, of course, full, free education on demand, from childhood to old age, including all living expences, textbooks and incidentals for students. How about free computers?
Is this concept of taking care of our own people not better than killing and maiming people everywhere, letting citizens without insurance die on the hospital steps, locking up one in every seven people, allowing banks to force families into the streets? If you don’t think so, too, frankly, I think you deserve what you get, a world of endless conflict, a life of fear and servitude.
Americans hoped for change by electing Barack Obama, a Constitutional scholar. (Good point: He’s black and he’s not in gaol.) But he didn’t change anything. His most simple election promise, to close the extrajudicial prison of Guantánamo, created specifically to thwart the US Constitution, remains unrepeated. Obama’s America is in actuality even worse than Bush’s America.
It’s still about the money. America continues to trade blood for oil. The real terrorists are our governments.
American film director Steven Spielberg made a 10-part 2011 TV series called Falling Rain about an alien invasion from outer space and a brave American citizen resistance. As I watched, I realised the “hideous” aliens, so different from us, were consciously conceived by the filmmaker to represent Muslims.
The series’ principal message is shown in a cunning historical misquote. Vaguely reminiscent of James Madison’s contributions to the US Constitution, it appeared as a motto on an abandoned high school serving as barracks for the resistance fighters: “There can be no better defense for freedom than a standing army.” Even the children of the near-future used guns, one commenting a weapon was “as natural to me as a cellphone used to be”.
The (illegal) aliens’ only desire is not just to exterminate the adults (Americans) but to capture the children, to whom they show great affection. They infect the children to make them as aliens. Metaphorical enough for you?
But it took a Thai (my wife) to point out to me that perhaps Spielberg has a hidden agenda. Is he a true believer of US govt propaganda…or are they paying him? Govt control flourishes by keeping its citizens very afraid. That fear is sure to generate this series’ second season.
Falling Skies is as far a cry from the gentle E.T. of our childhoods in 1982 as ‘aliens’ are from ‘extra-terrestrials’. Spielberg has lost the plot, or worse.
I noticed Spielberg is also directing a documentary on the building of the new WTC so perhaps he just drinks the Kool-Aid.
There’s a reason soldiers are referred to as “grunts” or “jarheads”. It’s because they have been lobotomised by nationalism. The world is a small and fragile place. And it’s all of us. There is no room for flags or teams or countries now. Patriotism is cancer.
I visited the US last summer. Flat-screen TVs have made it possible for every single public and private space to be filled with propaganda, from cafes to dentists’ offices to hotel bathrooms. You might consider re-reading Nineteen Eighty-four or Fahrenheit 451, watching Soylent Green or They Live!.
Our every movement is watched by surveillance cameras. We are tracked by our cellphones.
Those end-days are here for the USA and perhaps this Titanic will suck the rest of us down with it. We aimed for the iceberg. It seems impossible to conceive we have not reached a point far beyond no return.
We’ve traded our reality for ‘reality TV’ and bought into 24-hour sports as metaphor for war without end.
It would be very difficult to imagine the real America, strong and free, ever arising from the ashes Americans bought into wholesale. They did it to themselves willingly like lemmings.
But all subsequent “terrorist” threats have proven to be stings set up by US police and security agencies. Show trials like Viktor Bout’s comfort the citizenry while the world’s biggest arms dealers, the US, the UK and other free, Western democracies are the real lords of war.
Like the death of John F. Kennedy and, for those old enough, the death of King Ananda, we all remember where we were when we heard about the towers going down. I was listening to CBC radio on a pristine island off the west coast of British Columbia. I thought it was a radio play and, to this day, have never been so interested in seeing the TV coverage.
It’s not that I don’t have sympathy for those who died on September 11—which was just another day. At the time, I read their lives with great emotion in each day’s New York Times. Today’s New York Times, by contrast, is filled with the names of the war dead just as in Vietnam days. I think there are a lot of Iraqis and Afghanis defending their ‘homelands’ who equally deserve to be memorialised.
This is what happens when citizens don’t question the actions and intentions of their governments.
Readers should not think these observations are simple US-bashing. They’re a roadmap for what we must not allow our own govt to become.
We used to believe the words to John Lennon’s “Imagine”. We can still imagine justice for everyone. We have to.
We all have the chance to make sure Thailand does not continue to follow the US path to disaster and ruin. We should start with Patani.
CJ Hinke
Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT)
Royal connection to Prachatai witchhunt
The final prosecution witness, senior police lèse majesté investigator, Lt.-General Boonlert Kalayanimitr of the Royal Thai Police Crime Suppression Division, proceeded to elaborate the police chain of evidence against Chiranuch Premchaiporn, webmaster of independent online news source, Prachatai. The last witness made some remarkable disclosures in his testimony.
The court learned from the police general that the investigation for lèse majesté against Prachatai was initiated by a singular Royal personage. On October 24, 2008, M.L. Panadda Disakul visited the Royal Thai Police to make a complaint against Prachatai for comments which insulted Thailand’s monarchy.
[Citylife]
Pol. Lt.-Gen. Boonlert claimed to be unaware of which comment to Prachatai was the subject of Mom Panadda’s accusation.
For those readers unfamiliar with Thai royalty, the Royal title Mom Luang, abbreviated M.L., is given to the grandchildren of Thai kings.
Mom Panadda is the great-grandson of Prince Damrong Rachanupab (1962-1943), son of King Mongkut (Rama IV) and younger half-brother to King Chulalongkorn (Rama V). The prince is known as “The Father of Thai History”.
Prince Damrong modernised the Thai civil service, created the education system still in use today, founded the National Library, the National Museum, and the Royal Institute.
Prince Damrong went into self-exile in Penang, Malaya following the failure of the Royal rebellion after the 1932 coup d’etat which ended absolute monarchy. He was not permitted to return to Thailand until 1942 during World War II’s Japanese occupation.
Varadis Palace [dangroj]
M.L. Panadda is present governor of Chiang Mai province and curator of Varadis Palace, his great-grandfather’s Royal residence, and the Damrong Library.
This disclosure from a prosecution witness is perhaps the most important feature of Chiranuch’s trial so far. Without the interference of a Royal Mom, Prachatai would have continued to be an open forum for public, anonymous discussion to issues vital to the future of our society.
Mom Panadda’s accusations against Prachatai which resulted in Chiranuch’s arrest and prosecution conclusively demonstrate that Royals may not be above all politics after all.
Further examination by the public prosecutor led to yet another fascinating disclosure. At least one of the comments from the Prachatai webboard posted by the pseudonymous ‘Bento’ alleged by the Crown to be lèse majesté was in fact copied verbatim from the popular Thai web forum Hi5 and attributed to the pseudonym ‘buffaloboy’.
Unlike Prachatai, the Hi5 forum was never targeted nor its website blocked by Thai government. Although “Buffaloboy”’s IP address was identified to police by the ISP Jasmine Internet, this “Buffaloboy” was never prosecuted. “Bento” was the only poster to Prachatai to be charged with lèse majesté and she was acquitted at trial.
We have heard earlier in this trial that ‘Bento’ posted at least one of the ten comments with which Chiranuch is charged but she failed to be convicted of lèse majesté for it.
Pol. Lt.-Gen. Boonlert told the court that Aree Jivorarak, chief censor at Thailand’s ICT ministry, formally requested police investigate “hundreds of URLs” for lèse majesté. Aree provided police the remaining nine comments which the police working group on this issue reached consensus were criminally liable under Article 112 of the Thai Criminal Code and Articles 14 and 15 of the Computer Crimes Act.
There was a singular heated exchange between prosecution and defence lawyers. The defence accused the public prosecutor of asking leading questions of the witness. Judge Kampol dismissed this accusation as questioning resumed.
On defence cross-examination, the senior police general admitted that of the hundreds of URLs MICT wanted police to investigate, only Prachatai was located in Thailand; all others were hosted overseas.
General Boonlert stated police relied on printed transcriptions of the Web postings rather than using the original digital files. Police never compared these transcriptions with the digital originals for accuracy.
The witness disclosed that Chiranuch had fully cooperated with the police investigation by making a statement regarding the allegedly illegal comments but she was never informed such statement could also be used to prosecute her.
All offending postings were deleted by the webmaster immediately following police request. However, General Boonlert commenting that the police working group concluded that their appearance on Prachatai at all, no matter how briefly, was lèse majesté.
The final word from this witness occurs in an interview after the court had recessed. Police General Boonlert stated that, if Prachatai is to be charged again in future, cooperation from abroad would be required, as Prachatai’s server has relocated overseas.
To elaborate this point: anyone with a grudge for either a perfectly innocent blogger, or webmaster of a forum or webboard could get that person into trouble by maliciously posting ‘inappropriate’ content. The only way a blogger or webboard-master could get round this would be by disabling all comments, and were does that leave free speech? Web discussion fora are different because they consist solely of comments.
It means in effect, for example, that the owner of a forum about gardening tips could end up on a LM charge because someone posted an offensive comment, either deliberately or accidentally.
We know that the Prachatai forum had a complaint button for offensive content. Did Mom Pannada use this facility when offended or did he run straight to the police? The only cause for complaint against the webmaster would be if the comment had been flagged as offensive and there was an unreasonable delay in removing it.
If a comment is not so flagged, how is it supposed to reach a webmaster’s attention? Even webmasters have to sleep and sometimes take vacations!
If Police General BoonIert’s attitude can be used as a barometer of the prevailing sentiment in Thai government, I guess this will be a long war before the forces of reason and free speech prevail.
Thus far, Chiranuch’s trial observers and supporters have included representatives from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the European Union delegation, the German embassy, the US embassy’s State Dept and Human Rights divisions, the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, the International Commission of Jurists, the International Federation for Human Rights, as well as numerous local and int’l human rights and freedom of expression groups.
The world is watching. Will Thailand’s courts set legal precedent and do the right thing—freedom for Jiew?
Chiranuch’s trial resumes Tuesday, September 20 at Bangkok’s Criminal Court (San Aya) on Ratchadapisek Road near Lat Phrao MTR station, Exit 4. The trial is being heard in courtroom 910 but the case docket number is 1167/2553 in case the courtroom venue changes.
The first defence witnesses will be examined on that date (Jon Ungpakorn, Prachatai’s founder, in the morning and Dr. Niran Pithakwatchara, Prachatai board member and a human rights commissioner for Thailand, in the afternoon at least as presently scheduled). Chiranuch’s self-defence testimony may conclude her trial on Wednesday, September 21.
It is now unclear whether the original trial schedule of October 11, 12, 13, and 14 will be used.
WE URGE ALL READERS TO SPEND AT LEAST ONE MORNING OR AFTERNOON SESSION TO SUPPORT JIEW AND TO STAND UP FOR FREE SPEECH.
WE LOVE JIEW! WE LOVE PRACHATAI!
CJ Hinke
Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT)
Previous postings
“Day One: Thai webmaster facing 50 years for lèse majesté postings” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/day-one-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Two: Thailand’s chief censor continues in Prachatai trial” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/day-two-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Three: MICT’s legal advisor testifies: ‘Freedom has its limits’” https://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/day-three-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Four: MICT and police lawyers testify” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/day-four-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Five: Police scientist testifies for prosecution“ http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/day-five-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand-postponed/
“Day Six: Two police ‘IT experts’ testify as Prachatai trial resumes” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/day-six-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Seven: Police lèse majesté “experts” in Prachatai trial” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/day-seven-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Eight: “I can’t remember.” “จำไม่ได้.” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/day-eight-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“I can’t remember.” “จำไม่ได้.”
URGENT UPDATE—Chiranuch’s trial will NOT be heard on Wednesday, September 7 as expected. Trial will resume on Friday, September 9 for the last prosecution witness. It is likely the presiding judge will continue with hearings on mornings only, starting at 9:30am. Please come!
Today’s only witness was nine-year police veteran Nittipat Wuttiboonyasit from the Investigation Dept of the National Police Bureau.
Nittipat testified that he received a complaint forwarded from Aree Jivorarak at MICT regarding offensive texts posted on the Prachatai web forum but at that stage the names of the perpetrators of the alleged offences were unknown.
FACT readers and others following Chiranuch’s trial will be aware that Aree is the ICT ministry’s chief censor and the prosecution’s first witness.
Presiding judge the Honourable Kampot Rungrat was again today accompanied by a female judge who sat on his right. Evidently fatigued by previous exertions, she took no part in the proceedings, leaving the courtroom on more than one occasion as on Day Seven and giving observers the distinct impression she was there merely as a makeweight.
The Hon. Judge Kampot was as lively as ever, though, and asked what the nature of the complaint was, to which the answer was “text regarded as defaming of the King, Queen and Heir Apparent.”
The complaint was reported to the Director of the National Police Bureau and an Investigation Committee was set up, which included both Nittipat and Aree, to look at the posts individually.
When asked which of the texts violated the law, Nittipat replied that he couldn’t remember. However, when a later check was run to see if the offending texts were still on the website he replied they were.
The Investigating Committee eventually found that the webmaster of the Web forum containing the offensive posts was Chiranuch Premchaiporn.
The Criminal Court then ordered an arrest warrant to charge the webmaster with intent to support “inappropriate” text on her website, irrespective of whether it was true or false, such action being deemed a threat to national security.
Search and arrest warrants were duly served at 1:30 pm on March 6, 2009 at the Prachatai offices, which were then searched by police and Chiranuch arrested.
The judge asked of what charge the police informed Chiranuch. The witness stated the charge against the authors of the offensive posts was in violation of Article 112 but the charge against Chiranuch was in violation of sections of the Computer Crime Act.
Chiranuch’s laptop was removed and she was sent to police Lt.-Col. Boonlert Kanlayanamitra examination as officer-in-charge of the investigation who forwarded the lèse majesté case against Chiranuch to the public prosecutor.
The witness stated there were a total of nine allegedly offensive texts. When Nittipat was asked which texts showed their authors and which didn’t, he replied that the authors could not be identified because the ISP log had lapsed owing to the fact that more than 90 days had passed since the original postings.
The Hon. Judge then observed that as a result only Prachatai was being sued for malfeasance.
The prosecution made great play of the fact that one of the postings contained a link to Da Torpedo’s speech which has landed her in jail for lèse majesté under Article 112 of Thailand’s Criminal Code. This may have been an attempt at guilt by association.
However, the Hon. Judge returned the text of the speech to the prosecutor indicating it was unclear whether the document was Darunee’s speech transcribed verbatim.
The original complaint to censor Aree was filed by a Khun Tanit, and the witness stated that he had interviewed him.
In defence cross examination, the witness was asked whether he recalled a meeting between ISPs and the police in November 2008 to explore guidelines in cooperating with the censorship of offensive text.
Did Nittipat recall that the chair of this meeting was a Khun Tiradet and that the purpose of the meeting was to restrict anti-monarchist text by means of the authorities asking webmasters to block it?
Did he recall that Chiranuch was there?
To all these questions the response was very vague with an emphasis on “I can’t remember” จำไม่ได้.
Did the police veteran recall that in the press conference after the meeting Tiradet praised Prachatai as a forum following good practice in that it had a feature for readers to report inappropriate comment, a feature by no means universal on webboards at the time.
“จำไม่ได้.”
When Aree filed the complaint did he say that Chiranuch and Prachatai were liable?
“No.”
We learned that as the court had ordered the closure of the Prachatai web forum, subsequent investigation was carried out on printed copies of the allegedly offensive texts provided by MICT.
“Do you recall that Aree Jivorarak had said he asked the court to tell Prachatai to remove the posts?”
“Is Ari’s testimony part of the Investigative Committee report?”
“จำไม่ได้.”
Any non-Thai speaker would certainly have learned the meaning of this phrase, pronounced “jum mai dai,” by the time the morning was out, and the Hon. Judge had cause to remark on its frequent use.
Followers of Chiranuch’s trial may recall that MICT’s chief censor Aree was strangely similarly vague in his replies.
This repeated response by the witness begs a couple of questions:
1) Did Nittipat genuinely not remember all these things or was it a prosecution tactic to muddy the waters of the defence case? and
2) It was not clear that the defence had irrefutable evidence to verify its statements irrespective of whether the witness corroborated them or not.
The final Investigation Committee Report was read and signed by all members of the committee, including those not directly involved in the case.
As a simple, commonsense observation, it seems to us that it is the veritable job description and duty of care of a police officer of any rank to remember with great legal precision the details of every investigation, at least by referring to detailed contemporaneous notes made part of the police file whether or not the investigation resulted in charges being laid.
One Prachatai observer noted today, “It’s like swimming in a pond, round and around”. And it is a concern that the honourable judge did not attempt to pin down this police witness’s vagaries, reject his testimony altogether or even charge the witness with contempt for wasting the court’s valuable time.
Things may change when the defence witnesses are called in the latter part of the trial. But how much defence will the judge permit?
Chiranuch’s trial resumes September 9 at Bangkok’s Criminal Court (San Aya) on Ratchadapisek Road near Lat Phrao MTR station, Exit 4. The trial is being heard in courtroom 910 but the case docket number is 1167/2553 in case the courtroom venue changes.
The final prosecution witness will be heard Friday, September 9. Defence winesses will be examined on Tuesday, September 20 (Jon Ungpakorn, Prachatai’s founder, in the morning and Dr. Niran Pithakwatchara, Prachatai board member and a human rights commissioner for Thailand, in the afternoon at least as presently scheduled) and Wednesday, September 21.
It is now unclear whether the original trial schedule of October 11, 12, 13, and 14 will be used.
WE URGE ALL READERS TO SPEND AT LEAST ONE MORNING OR AFTERNOON SESSION TO SUPPORT JIEW AND TO STAND UP FOR FREE SPEECH.
WE LOVE JIEW! WE LOVE PRACHATAI!
Previous postings
“Day One: Thai webmaster facing 50 years for lèse majesté postings” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/day-one-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Two: Thailand’s chief censor continues in Prachatai trial” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/day-two-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Three: MICT’s legal advisor testifies: ‘Freedom has its limits’” https://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/day-three-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Four: MICT and police lawyers testify” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/day-four-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Five: Police scientist testifies for prosecution” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/day-five-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand-postponed/
“Day Six: Two police ‘IT experts’ testify as Prachatai trial resumes” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/day-six-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
“Day Seven: Police lèse majesté “experts” in Prachatai trial” http://facthai.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/day-seven-free-speech-on-trial-in-thailand/
[FACT comments: New govt, same old shit…]
September 4, 2011
We have received reports, still to be confirmed, that a Thai Facebook user has been arrested for lèse majesté, the first under Thailand’s new govt.
We are still waiting on reports that Facebook was actually involved or cooperated in providing information to Thai police.
This news report in Thai:
http://thaienews.blogspot.com/2011/09/facebookfb.html
A user named “mmmp” has posted a topic in the “Serithai” discussion forum (a forum leaning toward right-wing, pro-monarchy), on September 2, 2011, 19:58.
The title of the post is “Good news on LM website arrest”. It said:
–
“Good news. Today a [fraternal] group that searches and arrests those LM websites has been in contact with Facebook USA and Facebook gave [them] good cooperation.
They passed IP address[es] and geo-location[s] of a person or people who created a Facebook page that take offence to our King.
Today the [fraternal] group has led the police force to arrest one man in his place around Ladprao [north of Bangkok]. He is about 40 years of age and uses a profile named “เราจะครองแผ่นดินโดย…….” [We will reign with...]. They will follow the other cases further.
From Thai people group against LM pages on Facebook.”–
This profile appears to be the subject:
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1309038595
The last account activity was on Thursday, September 1, 2011 17:28 (local time).
The account profile “เราจะครอง แผ่นดินโดยทำรัฐประหาร” (“We will reign with coup making”) is a play on the “We will reign with righteousness” statement by the Thailand’s current King.
Although this arrest is as yet unconfirmed, social activists in Thailand using Facebook as their principal platform must be extremely careful using this network.
It’s difficult to imagine that Facebook as a corporation would take such cooperative action without official Interpol request. However, such action could have been taken by an employee of Facebook.
Using Facebook is a danger to your privacy and your freedom.
[CJ Hinke of FACT comments: Even just a year ago, most of us in Thailand would have been afraid to sign such a letter. In some Royalist circles, such an effort might still be seen as disloyalty. I am proud to be a signer against lèse majesté censorship and political prisoners. And I now have even Noam Chomsky for company.]
H.E. Yingluck Shinawatra
Prime Minister
Government House
Pitsanulok Road, Dusit
Bangkok 10300 Thailand
August 31, 2011
Dear Prime Minister
112 Scholars call for action on Article 112 and 2007 Computer Crimes Act
Following the 19 September 2006 coup, we the undersigned 112 international scholars have been concerned by the diminution of the space for the free exchange of ideas in Thailand. We note with concern several pressing human rights issues, including political prisoners and unresolved questions of accountability for violence.
Since April-May 2010, we watched essential freedoms constricted, with a number of new arrests and charges brought under Article 112 of the Criminal Code and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act.
We welcome your acknowledgment of the seriousness of abuses connected to Article 112. However, we note with concern that while cases of prominent figures may be covered by the media, there are many cases where government and media have been silent. Many individuals appear to be in pre-charge detention and others have been charged and refused bail while awaiting trial. In addition, we are concerned to note that charges under these laws have continued to be filed in the past few weeks.
Statistics from the Office of the Attorney General last year show the number of new lese majeste cases received by prosecutors have doubled since 2005; statistics from the Office of the Judiciary
show a much more dramatic increase.
We are very concerned that explicitly political cases are continuing to be processed. For example, Mr. Somyos Preuksakasemsuk was detained for 84 days before formal charges were recently filed. In this case, much like in the case against Prachatai webmaster Ms. Chiranuch Premchaiporn, Mr. Somyos is being prosecuted not for anything he said or did himself, but on the basis of someone else’s writing in a publication he edited. In the case of U.S. citizen Joe
Gordon, he too was held for 84 days before the recent filing of formal charges. The Criminal Court has repeatedly denied bail requests for Mr. Somyos and Mr. Gordon.
Recent statements and petitions by academics and writers in Thailand and the U.S. Embassy statement on Mr. Gordon’s case reflect mounting domestic and international concern regarding
these kinds of cases.
Detention and intimidation of other citizens, is symptomatic of a broader set of practices which threaten human rights and the future of democracy in Thailand. We take this opportunity to respectfully request that you:
1) undertake a thorough review of all arrests and prosecutions of Article 112 and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act, and related provisions;
2) initiate procedures that would grant bail to those currently incarcerated under Article 112 and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act so that they are able to adequately prepare legal defenses; and
3) review Article 112 and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act, and related provisions, and establish mechanisms that eliminate the political abuse of these laws.
Respectfully yours,
Adadol Ingawanij, Senior Research Fellow, University of Westminster, United Kingdom
Dennis Altman, Professor, LaTrobe University, Australia
Dennis Arnold, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, U.S.A.
Aileen S.P. Baviera, Professor, University of the Philippines Diliman, Philippines
Peter F. Bell, Emeritus Professor, State University of New York, U.S.A.
Katherine Bowie, Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison, U.S.A.
Shaun Breslin, Professor, University of Warwick, United Kingdom
Andrew Brown, Lecturer, University of New England, Australia
Joseph A. Camilleri, Professor, La Trobe University, Australia
Toby Carroll, Senior Research Fellow, National University of Singapore, Singapore
William Case, Professor, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Dae-oup Chang, Senior Lecturer, School of Oriental and African Studies, United Kingdom
Noam Chomsky, Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S.A.
John Clark, Professor, University of Sydney, Australia
Peter A. Coclanis, Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, U.S.A.
Michael Connors, Associate Professor, LaTrobe University, Australia
Vicki Crinis, Research Fellow, University of Wollongong, Australia
Thomas Davis, Lecturer, University of Melbourne, Australia
Heather D’Cruz, Adjunct Research Associate, Curtin University, Australia
Richard F. Doner, Professor, Emory University, U.S.A.
Jamie Doucette, Lecturer, University of British Columbia, Canada
Bjoern Dressel, Research Fellow, Griffith University, Australia
Mark Driscoll, Associate Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, U.S.A.
John S. Dryzek, Professor, Australian National University, Australia
Nancy Eberhardt, Professor, Knox College, U.S.A.
Grant Evans, Fellow, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Nicholas Farrelly, Research Fellow, Australian National University, Australia
Federico Ferrara, Assistant Professor, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Robert Fisher, Senior Lecturer, University of Sydney, Australia
David Fullbrook, Graduate student, National University of Singapore, Singapore
Arnika Fuhrmann, Research Scholar, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Paul Gellert, Associate Professor, University of Tennessee at Knoxville, U.S.A.
Kristi Giselsson, Research Associate, University of Tasmania, Australia
Jim Glassman, Associate Professor, University of British Columbia, Canada
Mikael Gravers, Associate Professor, Aarhus University, Denmark
Geoffrey C. Gunn, Professor, Nagasaki University, Japan
Tyrell Haberkorn, Research Fellow, Australian National University, Australia
Vedi Hadiz, Professor, Murdoch University, Australia
Shahar Hameiri, Postdoctoral Fellow, Murdoch University, Australia
Annette Hamilton, Professor, University of New South Wales, Australia
Adam Hanieh, Lecturer, School of Oriental and African Studies, United Kingdom
Eva Hansson, Senior Lecturer, Stockholm University, Sweden
Rachel Harrison, Reader, School of Oriental and African Studies, United Kingdom
Paul Healy, Senior Lecturer, University of New England, Australia
Steve Heder, Lecturer, School of Oriental and African Studies, United Kingdom
Michael Herzfeld, Professor, Harvard University, U.S.A.
Kevin Hewison, Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, U.S.A.
Allen Hicken, Associate Professor, University of Michigan, U.S.A.
C.J. Hinke, Independent scholar, Freedom Against Censorship Thailand, Thailand
Philip Hirsch, Professor, University of Sydney, Australia
Thomas Hoy, Lecturer, Thammasat University, Thailand
Caroline Hughes, Associate Professor, Murdoch University, Australia
Paul D. Hutchcroft, Professor, Australian National University, Australia
Feyzi Ismail, Doctoral candidate, School of Oriental and African Studies, United Kingdom
Søren Ivarsson, Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Kanishka Jayasuriya, Professor, University of Adelaide, Australia
Lee Jones, Lecturer, Queen Mary College, United Kingdom
Patrick Jory, Senior Lecturer, University of Queensland, Australia
Arne L. Kalleberg, Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, U.S.A.
Charles Keyes, Professor Emeritus, University of Washington, U.S.A.
Damien Kingsbury, Professor, Deakin University, Australia
H. Ruediger Korff, Professor, University of Passau, Germany
John Langer, Honorary Fellow, Victoria University, Australia
Tomas Larsson, Lecturer, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
Laurids Sandager Lauridsen, Professor, Roskilde University, Denmark
Peter Leyland, Professor, London Metropolitan University, United Kingdom
Samson Lim, Doctoral candidate, Cornell University, U.S.A.
Peter Limqueco, Co-editor, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Philippines
Robert Manne, Professor, La Trobe University, Australia
Thomas Marois, Lecturer, School of Oriental and African Studies, United Kingdom
Mary Beth Mills, Professor, Colby College, U.S.A.
Daniel Bertrand Monk, Professor, Colgate University, U.S.A.
Michael Montesano, Visiting Research Fellow, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore
Paolo Novak, Lecturer, School of Oriental and African Studies, United Kingdom
Chris Nyland, Professor, Monash University, Australia
Rene Ofreneo, Professor, University of the Philippines Diliman, Philippines
Pavin Chachavalpongpun, Fellow, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore
John Pickles, Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, U.S.A.
Piya Pangsapa, Senior Lecturer, The University of the West Indies, Trinidad & Tobago
Pongphisoot Busbarat, Research Associate, Australian National University, Australia
Poowin Bunyavejchewin, Graduate student, University of Hull, United Kingdom
Prajak Kongkirati, Doctoral candidate, Australian National University, Australia
Preedee Hongsaton, Doctoral candidate, Australian National University, Australia
Rajah Rasiah, Professor, University of Malaya, Malaysia
Craig J. Reynolds, Professor, Australian National University, Australia
David Rezvani, Visiting Assistant Professor, Trinity College, U.S.A.
Garry Rodan, Professor, Murdoch University, Australia
Eric Sheppard, Professor, University of Minnesota, U.S.A.
elin o’Hara slavick, Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, U.S.A.
Johannes Dragsbaek Schmidt, Associate Professor, Aalborg University, Denmark
Gavin Shatkin, Associate Professor, University of Michigan, U.S.A.
Mark Smith, Senior Lecturer, The Open University, United Kingdom
Claudio Sopranzetti, Doctoral candidate, Harvard University, U.S.A.
Andrew Spooner, Doctoral candidate, Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom
Irene Stengs, Senior Researcher, Meertens Institute, The Netherlands
Geoffrey Stokes, Professor, Deakin University, Australia
David Streckfuss, Independent scholar, Thailand
Janet Sturgeon, Associate Professor, Simon Fraser University, Canada
Donald K. Swearer, Emeritus Professor, Swarthmore College, U.S.A.
Eduardo Climaco Tadem, Professor, University of the Philippines Diliman, Philippines
Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem, Professor, University of the Philippines Diliman, Philippines
Michelle Tan, Independent Scholar, U.S.A.
Nicholas Tapp, Professor Emeritus, Australian National University, Australia
Thongchai Winichakul, Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison, U.S.A.
Robert Tierney, Lecturer, Charles Sturt University, Australia
Serhat Uenaldi, Doctoral candidate, Humboldt-University of Berlin, Germany
Andrew Vandenberg, Senior Lecturer, Deakin University, Australia
Joel Wainwright, Assistant Professor, Ohio State University, U.S.A.
Andrew Walker, Senior Fellow, Australian National University, Australia
Meredith Weiss, Associate Professor, University at Albany, SUNY, U.S.A.
Marion Werner, Assistant Professor, University at Buffalo, U.S.A.
Ingrid Wijeyewardene, Lecturer, University of New England, Australia
ทำเนียบรัฐบาล
ถนนพิษณุโลก เขตดุสิต
กรุงเทพฯ 10300
ประเทศไทย
วันที่ 23 สิงหาคม 2554
กราบเรียน นายกรัฐมนตรี
ด้วยนักวิชาการนานาชาติในวงการไทยศึกษา มีความกังวลต่อการจำกัดพื้นที่อิสระสำหรับการแลกเปลี่ยนความคิดเห็น
ในประเทศไทยนับตั้งแต่การรัฐประหารเมื่อวันที่ 19 กันยายน 2549 เป็นต้นมา รวมถึงประเด็นปัญหาด้านสิทธิมนุษยชน
ที่มีความรุนแรงมากยิ่งขึ้น
ทั้งในกรณีนักโทษการเมืองและเรื่องที่รัฐบาลยังไม่แสดงความรับผิดชอบต่อความรุนแรงที่เกิดจากการกระทำของเจ้าหน้าที่รัฐ
ทั้งนี้ นับตั้งแต่ช่วงเมษายน-พฤษภาคม 2553 พวกเราได้เห็นสิทธิเสรีภาพสาคัญหลายประการได้ถูกลิดรอน โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่ง การจับกุมและการดำเนินคดีต่างๆ หลายคดีภายใต้การบังคับใช้ประมวลกฎหมายอาญามาตรา 112 และพระราชบัญญัตว่าด้วยการกระทำความผิดเกี่ยวกับคอมพิวเตอร์ พ.ศ.2550
พวกเรายินดีที่ทราบว่า นายกรัฐมนตรี ได้ยอมรับว่า มีการละเมิดอย่างรุนแรงหลายประการที่เกี่ยวข้องกับมาตรา112 ดังกล่าว อย่างไรก็ตาม พวกเราขอกราบเรียนให้ทราบว่าแม้ว่าคดีสาคัญหลายๆ คดีจะเป็นที่เปิดเผยโดยทั่วไปผ่านการรายงานของสื่อมวลชนแต่ยังมีอีกหลายคดีที่เสมือนว่ารัฐบาลและสื่อมวลชนยังคงปล่อยให้เงียบหายไปในคดีเหล่านี้ มีหลายคนที่ถูกคุมขังก่อนจะมีการแจ้งข้อกล่าวหา และมีอีกหลายรายที่ถูกกล่าวหาแล้ว แต่ถูกศาลปฏิเสธให้ได้รับการประกันตัวในระหว่างที่รอดำเนินการในชั้นศาล
ทั้งนี้ ข้อมูลสถิติจากสานักงานอัยการสูงสุดของปีที่แล้วแสดงให้เห็นว่า ตั้งแต่ปี พ.ศ. 2548 มีการฟ้องร้องคดีหมิ่นพระบรมเดชา
นุภาพเพิ่มขึ้นเป็นสองเท่า ในขณะที่ตัวเลขจากสำนักงานศาลยุติธรรมชี้ให้เห็นถึงการเพิ่มขึ้นที่สูงกว่านั้นหลายเท่าตัว
ดังนั้น พวกเราจึงกังวลอย่างยิ่งที่ยังคงเห็นการดำเนินการในคดีการเมืองอย่างต่อเนื่อง
ตัวอย่างเช่น กรณีที่นายสมยศ พฤกษาเกษมสุข ถูกคุมขัง 84 วันก่อนที่อัยการจะตัดสินใจสั่งฟ้อง
ทั้งนี้ นายสมยศฯ ไม่ได้ถูกดำเนินคดีอันเนื่องมาจากสิ่งที่เขาพูดหรือกระทำด้วยตนเองแต่มาจากข้อเขียนของผู้อื่นที่อยู่ในวารสารที่เขาเป็นบรรณาธิการ ซึ่งไม่ตางไปจากคดีของนางสาวจีรนุช เปรมชัยพร ผู้อำนวยการหนังสือพิมพ์ประชาไทออนไลน์
ในกรณีของ นาย Joe Gordon ที่เป็นพลเมืองของสหรัฐอเมริกา เขาก็ถูกคุมขัง 84 วัน ก่อนที่อัยการจะตัดสินส่งฟ้องเช่นเดียวกัน อีกทั้งศาลอาญายังปฏิเสธให้ประกันตัวนายสมยศฯ และนาย Joe Gordon ซำ้แล้วซำ้เล่า
ในการนี้แถลงการณ์ของสถานเอกอัครราชทูตสหรัฐฯ เมื่อไม่นานมานี้ สะท้อนให้เห็นถึงความสนใจและความเป็นห่วงต่อคดีในลักษณะดังกล่าวจากนานาประเทศได้เป็นอย่างดี
พวกเราพิจารณาเห็นว่า การคุมขังและข่มขู่ประชาชนถือเป็นสัญญาณอันเลวร้ายที่ก่อให้ เกิดการกระทำการต่างๆ มากมายที่คุกคามสิทธิมนุษยชนและกระทบต่ออนาคตของประชาธิปไตยในประเทศไทย
จึงขอกราบเรียนให้ นายกรัฐมนตรี พิจารณาดำเนินการในประเด็นที่สาคัญ 3 ประการ ได้ แก่
(1) ดำเนินการตรวจสอบอย่างละเอียดในกรณีการจับกุมและการดำเนินคดีภายใต้ มาตรา 112
ของประมวลกฎหมายอาญา และพระราชบัญญัตว่าด้วยการกระทำความผิดเกี่ยวกับคอมพิวเตอร์ พ.ศ.2550
รวมทั้งบทบัญญัติอื่น ๆ ที่เกี่ยวข้อง
(2) ริเริ่มขั้นตอนที่จะนำไปสู่การอนุญาตให้ประกันตัวผู้ที่ถูกคุมขังภายใต้ มาตรา 112
ของประมวลกฎหมายอาญา และพระราชบัญญัตว่าด้วยการกระทำความผิดเกี่ยวกับคอมพิวเตอร์ พ.ศ.2550
เพื่อให้เขาเหล่านั้นสามารถเตรียมตัวสู้คดีได้อย่างเป็นธรรมในชั้นศาล
(3) พิจารณาทบทวนประมวลกฎหมายอาญา มาตรา 112
และพระราชบัญญัติว่าด้วยการกระทำความผิดเกี่ยวกับคอมพิวเตอร์ พ.ศ.2550 รวมทั้งบทบัญญัตที่เกี่ยวข้อง
และวางกลไกเพื่อป้องกันการนำบทบัญญัติทางกฎหมายต่าง ๆ เหล่านี้ ไปใช้เพื่อละเมิดสิทธิเสรีภาพทางการเมือง
จึงเรียนมาเพื่อโปรดพิจารณา
ขอแสดงความนับถืออย่างยิ่ง
A letter from Somyos’ prison cell
Political Prisoners in Thailand: August 28, 2011
http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/a-letter-from-somyos-prison-cell/
PPT has received this letter from lese majeste detainee Somyos Prueksakasemsuk at the Bangkok Remand Prison. The letter is dated 20 August 2011:
I have been detained at the Bangkok Remand Prison since April 30, 2011 for violating Section 112 of the Penal Code.
I wish to express my gratitude to those concerned both internationally as well as domestically regarding their demand upon the Thai government to release political prisoners.
For more than twenty years, I have been involved in the struggle of Thai workers to ensure that they live with dignity and are free from poverty.
Some aspects that I have helped to bring to them have been the right to 90 days maternity leave, the right to work in a safe working environment (1996), social security act (1990). I have also helped with labour issues including employment compensation as well as unemployment benefit (2003).
The above mentioned achievements have been a result of the Thai labour movement. It is in my experience that these rights emerge only from a democratic process forth by elections. Military government in the past have always violated workers rights and freedoms.
One instance of this is that during the coup of 23 February 1991, the labour leader, Thanong Pho-aan was abducted and made disappeared. State enterprise trade unions were abolished and banned, as well as the collective bargaining agreement of the private sector deteriorated.
During the coup of 19 September 2006, the military government amended the labour protection law to legitimize contract labour employment and freeze minimum wages.
After the 2006 coup, I began to participate in the pro-democracy movement against movement behind the coup d’état and military junta. I wanted to publish a magazine that strongly criticized the coup. People rallied to form the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), or red shirt movement, which organized demonstrations and rallies, until the Aphisit government used military force to suppress them in May 2010, 91 individuals lost their lives. During this period my magazine was also shut down, and I was arrested and detained at military camp though I have not committed an offence for 21 days.
Upon my release, I founded the ‘Red Power’ magazine that strongly criticized the government and its policies. One of the key issues was the government promising to increase minimum wage to 250 Baht but not being able deliver the promise.
Red Power also seeks to investigate incidents behind and the causes of the death of the 91 deaths and other causalities. Nevertheless, its printing house was shut down in October 2010. To continue the printing of Red Power, we had to move our base to Cambodia.
After the 19 September 2006 coup, a number of activists, journalists and red shirt sympathizers were rounded up and put in jail invoking the lèse majesté law.
Foreign journalists were not allowed to exercise their right to freedom of expression and investigative journalism. Individuals detained pending the trials were subject to torture and denied bails depriving their right to self-defence.
Three labour activists were accused on violating lèse majesté law. Mr. Giles Ungpakorn and his wife were forced to live in exile in the UK; Junya Yimprasert, director of Thai Labour Campaign is unable to return to Thailand; Somyot Pruksakasemsuk, former director of Centre for Labour Information Service and Training, is currently being detained without bail under lèse majesté.
The majority of the Thai population are indoctrinated to believe in “democracy with the King as Head of State” and any individual expressing different views or deemed a threat to the institution are treated as enemies of the state.
Red Power is the only platform to enable individuals to express their thoughts and belief among like minded individuals. It was because of this that I was arrested and remanded under lèse majesté.
The law has been used as a repressive tool to deprive the right to freedom of expression. In addition, those charged with violating the law are mostly denied bails, an act of which is in breach of international human rights standards.
As a political prisoner, the incarceration deprives me of all my rights and liberties. I find my life being wretched to merely “a domesticated animal in a cage”. The physical and mental traumas hurt me gravely. Many fellow political prisoners like me have unnecessarily lost their family life and career.
I have been informed by visitors that human rights activists and unionists worldwide have demanded the Royal Thai Government release all political prisoners. Your movement means much to Thai people. It reflects how international community strives to achieve the common goal of forging a peaceful society in which everyone is genuinely entitled to the right to equality, freedom and democracy.
I fervently believe in the collective power and solidarity of all labour unions and justice concerned people. Your struggle to demand the release of all political prisoners in Thailand is an initial step toward democratization.
In solidarity,
Somyot Pruksakasemsuk
Chiranuch’s motives to be weighed
Pravit Rojanphruk
The Nation: September 2, 201
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/09/02/national/Chiranuchs-motives-to-be-weighed-30164319.html
A new judge presiding over the hearing of Chiranuch Premchaiporn, director of prachatai.com, who faces criminal charges for not removing messages deemed offensive to the monarchy “quickly enough”, said the ruling would be based on the technicality of whether the suspect collaborated with the posters or if she just failed to remove the posts in time.
“It’s a legal technicality. Did she know that [defamatory remarks existed] and did not remove them [quickly enough] out of negligence?” new judge Kampol Rungrat asked lawyers on both sides yesterday morning.
The prosecution side responded by asking: “So the case is becoming one of interpreting the intention [of Chiranuch]?”
The judge ignored the question, and went on to say: “It’s clear that the defendant did not post the messages [herself] but the question is, did she or didn’t she support [such postings]?”
Kampol, one of the two new judges assigned to the case, said that he would also decide on whether the 10 postings, each of which warrants a five-year jail term under Computer Crimes Act Section 15 or a combined sentence of no more than 20 years, can be considered as acts of lese majeste.
“The case really isn’t complicated. The information is clear. It’s not like someone stabbed a person and disappeared for five days. Whether she is guilty or not will be up to the court to decide,” the judge added.
Two prosecution witnesses also testified at yesterday’s hearing.
Pol Captain Kirirat Marak, a computer crime investigator, said that though he kept a close eye on the content of prachatai.com, he is not aware if there was any legal cases related to postings. “I did see some inappropriate content before [Chiranuch was charged] though,” Kirirat told the court.
The second witness, Pol Major Suraphong Thampitak, is part of the panel considering whether the anonymous postings could be considered an act of lese majeste.
After he was pressed by defence lawyer Saengchai Rattanaseriwong to explain how the police dealt with the lack of clear procedures on how to conduct the examination, and what constitutes a lese majeste remark, the prosecution side asked Suraphong who was responsible for removing offensive postings from a website.
“The [prachatai.com] webmaster,” Suraphong answered.
A composed Chiranuch later told The Nation that no matter how the trial ends, the case was already having a chilling effect on online discussions about the monarchy.
A number of foreign observers were present at the hearing, including two staff members from the US Embassy. The trial continues today.
