New Mandala

47 responses so far ↓

• 1 John Francis Lee // Mar 29, 2007 at 5:13 pm

  I saw nothing about that sentence in the Bangkok Post or The Nation. That’s so over the top it’s hard for me to understand why they would even attempt it. Surely the Swiss will be able to bring the man home somehow. I cannot believe that the drunken fool will spend ten years in jail for ten minutes stupidity, which caused no one violent harm.

  More alarming to me, or known to me and therefore more alarming, is the Junta’s “request” to the PM to declare a state of emergency in Bangkok! It may be that Sarayud will refuse, but I cannot imagine they would call for such a thing without the assurance they’d get it before hand.

  The Post or was it the Nation even had a story quoting certain “businessmen” saying that the emergency decree would be a good thing! I thought the previous PM was the “mole” for Singapore, but here are these folks trumpeting the Singapore line : trading your freedom for our profits is “a good thing”! I guess ANU will soon be giving Sarayud an honorary law degree.

  There was also a complete capitulation to the neoliberal “free traders” with regard to “super stores” that will wipe out the small-timers, the people practicing the principles of the sufficiency economy that this regime has embraced. With friends like that they don’t need enemies.

  As well there are alarming reports of “progress” on the new constitution in the areas of coup “legalization”, crushing community rights, and muzzling the press.

  Looks like it’s “no more Mr Nice Guy”. The gloves are coming off.

• 2 Taxi Driver // Mar 29, 2007 at 5:21 pm

  Are the sentences for the five counts to be served concurrently, (i.e. meaning total time to be served = 2 years)?

  Ten years would likely prompt further international condemnation (and bad international repute to the Thai monarchy). 2 years might just be “short” enough for everyone to live with (except Jufer of course).

• 3 Jon Fernquest // Mar 29, 2007 at 6:32 pm

  Defamation suits are alive and well too….

  Media mogul Sonthi sentenced to two years imprisonment

  “Sonthi and ThaiDay.com Company, producer of the popular Muang Thai Rai Sapda cable television programme moderated by Sonthi, were also fined 200,000 baht for the offence they committed against Poomtham Vechchayachai, former minister of the Thaksin regime. The offence took place on November 25, 2005, during a television programme conducted by Sonthi who accused Poomtham of being a former communist and of not respecting the Monarchy.”

  It’s all getting so meta-meta, one might be guilty of implicit defamation by mentioning defamation or other higher order defamation crimes….

  http://bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=117747

• 4 Srithanonchai // Mar 29, 2007 at 6:47 pm

  Here is one more interesting court decision:

  Sondhi gets two years in jail on libel suit

  Sondhi Limthongkul, owner of Manager newspaper, was sentenced to two years in prison after the Criminal Court found him guilty of making libelous statements against a former Thai Rak Thai executive member.

  Sondhi, a strong critic of deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, is also ordered to pay compensation of Bt200,000 to Phumtham Vejjayachai, a former TRT deputy secretary. Court also dismissed the same charges on other defendants.

  Phumtham told court that Sondhi made the defamation during his television talk show conducted in Wat Pa Ban Tat Temple in Udon Thani province in November 25, 2005.

  After hearing the sentence, Sondhi’s lawyer submitted a bail request to the court.

  The Nation, March 29, 2007

  In this case, I am inclined to say “Serves him right.” And more is sure to come.

• 5 Srithanonchai // Mar 29, 2007 at 7:21 pm

  Sonthi is definitely not at all “meta”. In his incredibly demagogical manner, he hurled innumerable wild accusations against people during his anti-Thaksin campaign. In most European countries, he could never have dared doing so without facing serious consequences.

• 6 nganadeeleg // Mar 29, 2007 at 7:40 pm

  Taxi Driver – Do you really think 2 years might just be “short” enough for everyone to live with?

  Even that would seem outrageous to me, and I cannot believe it will be allowed to stand.
  I wonder if the King can pardon him anytime, or does he have to wait until after the appeal process?
  Even waiting until his Dec 5 birthday would be too long in my opinion.
  They should just deport him immediately for vandalism.

  I doubt if a drunken fool who killed someone in a car crash would even get 10 years jail.

• 7 bangkokpundit // Mar 29, 2007 at 8:33 pm

  Ngandeeleg:

  “I doubt if a drunken fool who killed someone in a car crash would even get 10 years jail.”

  If that drunken fool is a well-known Thai singer who runs a red light while 3 times over the legal limit and kills 2 people then well you get no jail time.

  Criminal defamation is an abomination and a disgusting law even when applied to someone like Sondhi. Sondhi also apologized to another member of the Thaksin clan, Chaisit, recently to avoid another defamation suit.

  Normally, you need to wait until the appeal process is over before submitting a petition for a Royal Pardon. Normally, such petitions can take years to work their way through the system, but things might quicken up if there is “international concern”. I wonder what is happening through the diplomatic back channels.

• 8 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Mar 29, 2007 at 9:27 pm

  Re: bangkokpundit

  Wow! The going rate of weregild in Thailand is only 390,000 baht? Even if you take into account some inflation over the past seven years…that’s still a bargain!

  If you excuse me, I have to go start my car!

• 9 Jon Fernquest // Mar 29, 2007 at 10:13 pm

  “Sonthi is definitely not at all ‘meta’. In his incredibly demagogical manner, he hurled innumerable wild accusations against people during his anti-Thaksin campaign. In most European countries, he could never have dared doing so without facing serious consequences.”

  Was it the content of the accusation or the style, intensity, and language used that was the issue?

  The news release specifically mentioned: “accused Poomtham of being a former communist and of not respecting the Monarchy.”

  If lese majeste is the most culpable form of defamation, then the crime would be defaming someone by accusing them of engaging in the worst form of defamation, i.e. defamation by claiming defamation, pretty meta.

  Of course, it’s worse in Burma. When Anna Allot wrote “Inked Out, Ripped Out” ….
  http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs/inked-over-ripped%20-out.htm
  ….she claimed that people were using indirection to avoid censorship and criticise the government and got those people promptly arrested. IMHO When things started getting meta like this, it’s not a good sign for the future. P.S. His Sonthi’s criticism of Pridiyathorn was reported as a main factor behind his resignation, maybe he’s getting his come-uppance.

• 10 Srithanonchai // Mar 29, 2007 at 10:22 pm

  What precisely was the court verdict in Dome’s case, or was the case not brought to court at all?

• 11 Srithanonchai // Mar 29, 2007 at 10:35 pm

  Jon: Sorry, it would take me too much time to come up with all the details. Suffice to say that, by December 2005, so many libel suits had accrued that the King felt the need to say that hurling suits against each other was no solution. As a gesture of deference, Thaksin withdrew all his suits against Sondhi. Yet Sondhi, the PAD, and other public figures at the protests continued with their approach.

  The general problem was about the content, the intensity, the style, and the language used in these events. It even prompted the Thai Chapter of Amnesty International to warn the PAD against their verbal violence (such as saying that Thaksin’s daughters deserved being VD-infected prostitutes).

  The politically most obscene libel case was brought by Thaksin against media activist Supinya Klanarong. Moreover, that case also served as an illustration were a libal suit is brought against a person that merely used her constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.

• 12 Taxi Driver // Mar 29, 2007 at 10:38 pm

  Ngarn – two years might just be short enough to defuse the political pressure that otherwise would be brought upon the Swiss (and other Western) government(s) to protest “loudly” against the Thai decision.

  Ten years on the otherhand would definitely cause even the most right-leaning Swiss talkback radio jockeys to call on their government to do something to bring their drunken idiotic fellow citizen home.

• 13 Jon Fernquest // Mar 29, 2007 at 10:54 pm

  “What precisely was the court verdict in Dome’s case, or was the case not brought to court at all?’

  Dome? Another pending lawsuit?

  Don’t the courts have some independence in their decision? Is the Prime Minister even consulted or given the power to coordinate verdicts? The way two of them were announced at the same time is strange.

• 14 Srithanonchai // Mar 30, 2007 at 12:22 am

  “Dome” is the “well-known Thai singer” mentioned by bangkokpundit in no 7.

• 15 Bangkok Pundit // Mar 30, 2007 at 12:34 am

  “What precisely was the court verdict in Dome’s case, or was the case not brought to court at all?”

  5555. Court? No court for him. The victim’s families didn’t press charges after they received compensation, i.e blood money, and more surprisingly the police didn’t press the issue. Why this surprises me is that I was under the understanding that the case in concern was a “compoundable offence” (is that the term in Thai?) and could be pressed with the victim’s complaint.

  “The politically most obscene libel case was brought by Thaksin against media activist Supinya Klanarong.”

  Actually, what was obscene was that it was a corporation which filed the libel suit and not an individual. I am not sure of the need for corporations to protect their reputation.

  The irony of the Sondhi case is that he campaigned to get rid of Thaksin and it is doubtful whether the coup could have been staged without him. The coup got rid of the Constitution and the freedom of expression. I don’t see how the previous court ruling in the Supinya case is still binding given there is no longer provision in the interim constitution for freedom of expression. If Thaksin was still in power there might have been a different decision. Karma?

• 16 Srithanonchai // Mar 30, 2007 at 12:49 am

  Bangkok Pundit: I am not sure about your legal argument re Supinya. A decision is a decision, no? As for the interim constitution, see section 3.

• 17 Srithanonchai // Mar 30, 2007 at 12:57 am

  Election date set–end of repression?

  Surayud: Election to be held on either Dec16 or Dec 23

  Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said Thursday that national elections would be held on either December 16 or 23.

  “It will be either December 16 or 23, and the mechanism will be ready, including the constitution,” he said.

  “The referendum on a new constitution will be held no later than September,” he added.

  Agence France Presse
  TN,. March 29, 2007

• 18 Sawarin // Mar 30, 2007 at 2:06 am

  Bangkok Pundit:

  ‘Normally, such petitions can take years to work their way through the system, but things might quicken up if there is “international concern”. I wonder what is happening through the diplomatic back channels.’

  The international concern might not be a Swiss concern. A spokesman for the Swiss foreign ministry has indicated there won’t be a diplomatic intervention on the case. See a report in ‘Manager’.

• 19 Bangkok Pundit // Mar 30, 2007 at 3:07 am

  “I am not sure about your legal argument re Supinya. A decision is a decision, no? As for the interim constitution, see section 3.”

  Yes, but there is no express freedom of expression in the Constitution. Yes, a decision is a decision, but if the constitutional provision is no longer there then the case is no longer binding – actually this shouldn’t matter as the offence happened when the 1997 Constitution was still in existence, but well Thai judges don’t care about such things.

  “A spokesman for the Swiss foreign ministry has indicated there won’t be a diplomatic intervention on the case.”

  I doubt there will be public call by the Swiss, or at least at the moment. The Swiss don’t want to hurt their interests in Thailand. They won’t call it an intervention, just assisting a Swiss National to apply for a pardon.

• 20 Sawarin // Mar 30, 2007 at 4:24 am

  I doubt there will be public call by the Swiss, or at least at the moment. The Swiss don’t want to hurt their interests in Thailand. They won’t call it an intervention, just assisting a Swiss National to apply for a pardon.

  I already said there might not be a Swiss concern. So what’s new BP?

• 21 Bystander // Mar 30, 2007 at 4:24 am

  It might be possible that Jufer can get out if there’s a pardon from the king. That might be the strategy the swiss authority is pursuing. The way it looks, the case was set in motion by the local authority, so from the palace’s point of view, it may be best to make an example of this guy, and then pardon him later. The king and the older royal family surely must have fond memory of their time in switzerland, so maybe the swiss govt. can help with the appeal on that basis?

  If they’re really serious about the jail term, well, they risk creating a poster child of oppression. It will just be a liability for them.. But I don’t know if we can’t really count on them to be a rational actor these days.

• 22 Bystander // Mar 30, 2007 at 4:28 am

  if they didn’t get him out.. it will be quite sad. At this age, and given the condition in Thai prison, he likely will die in jail.

• 23 patiwat // Mar 30, 2007 at 4:29 am

  What would have been Sondhi’s reaction to the court ruling if Thaksin was still in power?

• 24 fall // Mar 30, 2007 at 1:05 pm

  I doubt the palace would pardon the man(Jufer case).
  To my understanding, to pardon him would prove the palace discrimination in carrying out the sentence. Would a drunken Thai man in the same case been pardon otherwise? Second, it would set a standard that person can claim *unable to think rationalely* or *unknown of local law* from complying with any Thai law. But I do not know the detail of the case, he might have confessed that he was not that drunk and know of lese majest law in Thailand.

  The case should not have been push to court in the first place. Now, only option seem to extradite him to Swiss jail and get an appeal. Or speed up the appeal in Thailand now to reverse the sentence. Either way, his defence lawyer seem to suck at his job.

• 25 Taxi Driver // Mar 31, 2007 at 2:10 am

  That is why I say two years may just be “long enough” for all parties concerned. A back-room deal has probably been reached whereby Jufer will receive a “standard” royal pardon on Dec 5th alongside lots of other prisoners. This way his pardon can be not be accused as “special treatment” for a farang.

• 26 Asia watcher // Mar 31, 2007 at 3:57 pm

  I think most of us accept the idea that one must obey the laws of a country when visiting (or in this case been living in for some time). The biggest issue here really is what these laws say about Thailand and its chances of every really becoming a modern society when it is so constrained by feudal thinking. Most foreigners seem to have the impression (and I have heard academics express this view in lectures) that all Thais love the king when if fact there is really not that much quantifiable evidence that one can point to in support of this. I don’t count pictures of the king and queen hanging everywhere with loving them.

  We need to ask do Thais have a choice? The ridiculous lèse majesté law means that you cannot say anything about the king or royal family without facing stiff penalties. Remove this law and then perhaps we will be able to see how much the feudal king is loved by his subjects.

• 27 nganadeeleg // Mar 31, 2007 at 4:55 pm

  Asia Watcher: Whilst I agree the lese majeste law should be removed, I think you are way off in your thinking regarding the feeling most Thai’s have for the king.
  Even Handley documents the admiration Thai’s have for the king – Handley also shows that this popularity for the royals goes back to before his coronation, as witnessed by the large crowds when the young Ananda & Bhumiphol visited Thailand for the first time.

  You don’t count pictures of the king and queen everywhere with loving him – are you implying they are somehow forced to show the pictures?
  How do you account for the large percentage of Thai’s outside the country also having a picture of HMK on prominent display in their homes?

  I am not brainwashed into loving the king – he is not perfect (no one is), but it is clear that he wants the best for his country and it is a shame the politicians continue to be such disappointments.

• 28 Srithanonchai // Mar 31, 2007 at 6:45 pm

  But before Sarit entered the scene, the monarchy certainly had lost a great deal of its “popularity”, no? Whose government actually introduced the policy of hanging the pictures of king and queen in shops, and what would happen to shopowners who did not do it, and who do not follow this practice today? It is not easy to tell honest admiration from tactical opportunism. The picture clearly is very mixed, and the imagined homogeneity of admiration rather seems to be an ideological product. As Asia watcher said, as long as only positive views are permitted, and criticism is suppressed, how can we know the “true” situation concerning what people really think and feel?

• 29 Asia watcher // Mar 31, 2007 at 11:57 pm

  Nnganadeeleg it was not my intention to suggest that no one in Thailand really likes the king only that it is extremely difficult to deduce this from the mere presence of pictures and so on. Similarly, if one were allowed to openly discuss the role of monarchy in Thailand today it is likely that many would not be so pleased about what they might find out. The king for example encourages self sufficiency whilst having a fortune amassed from businesses and so on that are anything but about self sufficiency.

  There will never be any serious political reform in Thailand while royal absolutism is part of the process. In my opinion you simply cannot assume that the king even wants what’s best for the country – kings want what is best for kings! Lèse majesté stays because without it the monarchy itself would have to go through a massive transformation or face the dustbin of history.

• 30 Srithanonchai // Apr 1, 2007 at 1:26 am

  Sawarin:

  Perhaps, the “nation” also needs to be put into the context of the ideological trinity of “nation, religion, monarchy.” Just as an illustration from the Sondhi protests that figured the nation as the highest good—thus the battle cry of the protests: ku chat (save the nation). At one of his addresses to his followers (here reported according to a DVD), Sondhi, an accomplished demagogue, aroused the audience by stating, “The people must be strong so that they can protect the King (phrachaoyuhua)! Chai rue mai chai? (Yes or no?) Audience: Chai! The people must be strong in order to prevent another person such as mister Thaksin from occurring again! Chai rue mai chai? (Yes or no?) Audience: Chai! When the people are strong, the Monarchy (phramahakasat) is strong. When the Monarchy is strong, then the religion (satsana) will be strong as well! Chai mai phi nong? (right?) Audience: Right! And when the religion is strong, then the nation (chat) will also be strong!” At this point, Sondhi’s voice almost cracked, and he banged his flat hand on the lectern. His rhetorical question of “chai rue mai chai phi nong” (yes or no) was met with a thunderous “Yes!” by the audience.

  As I see, your dissatisfaction with some sectors of Thai society doesn’t include the pub scene!

• 31 Srithanonchai // Apr 1, 2007 at 1:39 am

  Asia watcher’s “In my opinion you simply cannot assume that the king even wants what’s best for the country – kings want what is best for kings!” combined with Sawarin’s puzzlement with the concept of nation. > One might remember that Ben Anderson called into question the standard version of King Chulalongkorn’s actions as being motivated by his desire to save the nation from being overtaken by colonial powers. Wrong, said Anderson. Chulalongkorn rather was motivated by securing the existence and future of the Chakry dynasty.

  See Anderson, Benedict R. O’G. 1978. “Studies of the Thai State: The State of Thai Studies.” In The Study of Thailand, ed. by Eliezer B. Ayal, pp. 193-247. Athens, Ohio: Ohio Center for International Studies, Southeast Asia Program. (Comments by Sulak Sivaraksa, pp. 248-252, and Clark Neher, pp. 253-257)

  This piece is still very much worth reading. In any case, it’s a classic. The latest translation was prepared by ดาริน อินทร์เหมืน with some assistance from Benedict Anderson. เบนเนดิคท์ อาร์. โอ. จี. แอนเดอร์สัน. “ศึกษารัฐไทย: วิพากษ์ไทยศึกษา.” ฟ้าเดียวกัน 1 (3):98-147, 2003.

• 32 anon // Apr 1, 2007 at 4:37 am

  Fall and Sawarin, surely your arguments fall apart in the face of last year’s pardoning of Bradley Pendragon, the Australian who raped three little girls (the youngest of whom was 8, and one of whom was a cripple) and producing child rape pornography. The animal never expressed remorse for his crimes, and he certainly wasn’t helped by the Australian embassy.

  It certainly set a standard for what the King was willing to pardon and what crimes he was not willing to pardon.

• 33 Sawarin // Apr 1, 2007 at 7:48 am

  Oh I wish there are mathematicians out there to decipher my meaning to the others (why is it that mathematicians always get what I said

  I’m no good at turning thoughts into words, but let me try:

  anon: What is my argument on the king’s pardons? I don’t think I’ve made any! All I expressed is other pardons are easier to be granted, but not the one for the sentence passed by the lese-majeste law. Do I need to elaborate what lese-majeste law is for. C’mon this is boring. Please read my comments again. I’ve no objection to your observation regarding Pendragon’s case btw.

  Srithanonchai: Anderson-Thongchai– etc etc. have provided excellent studies on the ‘nation’ but their work dealt with the ‘how’ and the ‘what’ question (what is nation? how do the powerful invented it?, eg.) I don’t think they’ve asked the question of ‘when’. I think this is an important question as you can see that the monarchy, or the king to be precise, is popularly understood and treated as same as the ‘nation’ by many many Thais (on this note we have the same understanding ok?). This belief can’t be rootless. It must begin somewhere. In fact, we can put this question in the times of Chulalongkorn too. Understanding the nation as a modern construct that sprang out of the 19th century is good (in fact I kinda like it) but how the hell some traditional/ antique dimensions of it are here with us in the 21st century society? The monarchy of Thailand has the durable pre-modern characterisitc that trancends modernity (and possibly globalisation?). Think about it. I’m not speaking of the classic nation-building study or the rhetoric of kings saving the independence of Thailand — that’s another bore. Besides, Anderson/Thongchai and the crypto-colonial school have walked away from it for quite a while now. I hope people don’t get me as a royalist (again) on this ‘argument’ (for this I admit to be an argument).

  I’m dissatisfied with all institutions of the Thai state, the British state, and the French state. But I’m relatively satisfied with their people. My mind has been on the political exile for quite some time, and a few years ago I’ve decided to join a class of Cicero.

  Thanks for your exchange everyone.

• 34 nganadeeleg // Apr 1, 2007 at 10:23 am

  I base my opinion that the king DOES want the best for the country on what I have seen & read (including Handley).
  If he doesn’t want the best for the country, he sure spends a lot of time making speeches about it & trying to offer advice!

  Back to lese majeste – I would like to see the king personally intervene and also reiterate his 2005 speech that the law should not be taken seriously. The best solution would be to keep the law on the books, but make it that only the palace can press the charges – That should keep the royalists happy and also remove all the frivolous claims.
  The authorities should just charge Oliver on vandalism charges instead.

• 35 Srithanonchai // Apr 2, 2007 at 1:28 am

  Sawarin: I am not a mathematician, unfortunately… If you want to experience an institutional success story, why not move to the European Union (she just celebrated the anniversary of the Rome treaties)? Yes!

• 36 Jon Fernquest // Apr 2, 2007 at 2:45 am

  Srithanonchai: “The general problem was about the content, the intensity, the style, and the language used in these events. It even prompted the Thai Chapter of Amnesty International to warn the PAD against their verbal violence (such as saying that Thaksin’s daughters deserved being VD-infected prostitutes).”

  “The politically most obscene libel case was brought by Thaksin against media activist Supinya Klanarong. Moreover, that case also served as an illustration were a libal suit is brought against a person that merely used her constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.”

  Thanks, Srithanonchai. IMHO it’s the Supinya-type cases that make the news because they are so clear-cut and people can wrap the cockles of their hearts so easily wround them.

  The Swiss guy too. He really just needs to be swiftly deported with a whole of other chronic drunks in Chiang Mai, one of whom was put in jail because he was harassing people as they gave their morning rice to the monks. (equally heinous)

  But the Thai government puts first priority on attracting money to Thailand and the Swiss (as opposed to hard working Phillipinos in Catholic church schools, lets say) would be on top, although the Swiss guy who hung himself mysteriously in Chiang Rai prison a couple of years ago, the day after being hit up by the police for 1.5 million baht, didn’t even make the Thai English language press much less the BBC! Which supports my basic contention, that the media is not really seeing what is going on, especially in the provinces.

  Sometimes us foreigners who don’t listen closely to what is being said (in Thai) and not having the opportunity to read translations, obviously don’t know the full story of how bad the things that people like Sondhi say.

  When the big protests were in full swing, they were playng the Sondhi speeches live, where I work, and he sounded like Adolf Hitler. A lot of very knowledgable people I know, don’t think very highly of him. And this description by Chang Noi sounds like he was suffering from megalomaniac delusions of grandeur:

  “Sondhi Limthongkul had begun his crusade several months before – wrapping himself in yellow, splashing “we will fight for the king” across his chest, and claiming to light a “dhamma candle” to spotlight Thaksin’s evil. Sondhi created the idea that politics had become a contest between the prime minister and the King. But his movement was stumbling. The rallies were dwindling and Sondhi’s allegations of corruption were embarrassingly thin. The Shin Corp sale gave him a second chance.”

  “A week later one of his future PAD allies, Somkiat Phongpaiboon wrote, “Please watch the royalist group and the Privy Councillors, which Sondhi has called ‘the return of the royal power’.”

  “On 4 February 2006, Thaksin said he would resign if the King whispered in his ear. That evening, Sondhi thundered from his rally stage “Where is the army? This talk is enough to bring [Thaksin] to the execution post.” That night he took a petition to General Prem. As he told the world on the following day, the Bureau of the Royal Household was surprisingly open at 9 p.m. as if ready to receive him. Sondhi also went to meet General Sonthi, and related later, “I asked [Sonthi], ‘Are you going to stand by the people?’ He nodded, ‘I will stand by the people because I am a soldier of the King’.”
  http://www.geocities.com/changnoi2/samesky.htm

• 37 Bangkok Pundit // Apr 2, 2007 at 2:53 am

  Anon: #35 “The animal never expressed remorse for his crimes, and he certainly wasn’t helped by the Australian embassy.

  It certainly set a standard for what the King was willing to pardon and what crimes he was not willing to pardon.”

  You clearly have no idea about the pardon process. He would never have been granted a pardon with Australian government support. If you look at the DFAT website you will find the following:

  “The Australian Government may, however, initiate or support an application for a pardon lodged on behalf of Australian prisoners in overseas jails. This is only where local law and practice allow and where the prisoner has served a sentence approximately equivalent to the sentence that would have been served had the offence been committed in Australia, less one year. The purpose behind the one year reduction is to provide a reasonable amount of time for local authorities to process the pardon application.”

  I know for drug sentences it was around 6 years (7 years – 1 year).

  Thai law allows and Thai government officials require foreign government support for a pardon. Normally, in Thailand, the foreign prisoner will receive a pardon after a third of their sentence. For example, if they are sentenced to 36 years in jail the pardon will finally be processed after 12 years. I am not so sure how this works for shorter sentences, but a petition for a royal pardon can’t be submitted until the entire appeal process is finalised. It can take up to three years to work its way through the system, but this can depend on the level of government interaction from the foreign embassy.

  The type of the crime is not relevant for Australian government support.

• 38 Historicus // Apr 2, 2007 at 6:25 am

  nganadeeleg says “I base my opinion that the king DOES want the best for the country on what I have seen & read (including Handley). If he doesn’t want the best for the country, he sure spends a lot of time making speeches about it & trying to offer advice!”

  That’s the point of the first post. As far as discussion of the Thai monarchy is concerned, there is a climate of repression that developed especially vigorously after 1976.

  If you read all of the hagiography that comes out in Thailand regarding the current King and his family, you’d have to think like that this monarchy thinks about the country, works for its interests, protects it, loves it, etc. If you listen to all the speeches – at least those in recent years – you’d think that too. But of course! What do you expect? Anyway, where could there be an opposed voice? No critical accounts can really be allowed out into the open.

  (By the way, if you look at earlier speeches, most were really very short and short of substance. Now they are long and light on substance.)

  That Handley says that the king thinks he is doing good for the country is because the king equates the country with himself. Thaksin took a similar line. Monarchs have to justify their existence in some way (even to themselves).

  If one looks at the historical record – and here Handley is pretty good – you can see that the palace has defined the best interests of the country in terms of what works for them. That’s no surprise. Most monarchs do this as do most dictators.

• 39 anon // Apr 2, 2007 at 7:03 am

  The Thai king is willing to pardon paedophiles and child pornographers.

  But he isn’t willing to pardon people who spray paint on his posters.

  This make perfect sense, and is a perfect reflection of modern Thai values.

• 40 Thailand » Blog Archive » Thailand Tour Destination // Apr 3, 2007 at 10:21 pm

  [...] Bangkok Pundit:. Normally, such petitions can take years to work their way through the system, but things might quicken up if there is international concern . I wonder what is happening through the diplomatic back channels. … – more – [...]

• 41 Thailand » Blog Archive » Thailand PM denies military request to declare state of emergency // Apr 3, 2007 at 10:23 pm

  [...] Fall and Sawarin, surely your arguments fall apart in the face of last year s pardoning of Bradley Pendragon, the Australian who raped three little girls (the youngest of whom was 8, and one of whom was a cripple) and producing child … – more – [...]

• 42 Thailand » Blog Archive » Comment on Thailand s climate of repression by anon // Apr 3, 2007 at 10:24 pm

  [...] – more – [...]

• 43 Thailand » Blog Archive » Drought affects millions in Thailand // Apr 3, 2007 at 10:25 pm

  [...] Bangkok Pundit:. Normally, such petitions can take years to work their way through the system, but things might quicken up if there is international concern . I wonder what is happening through the diplomatic back channels. … – more – [...]

• 44 Thailand » Blog Archive » Transport Minister need more info on King Power Duty Free s … // Apr 4, 2007 at 10:41 pm

  [...] 4, 2007 at 6:20 am · Filed under Thailand Comment on Thailand’s climate of repression by Bangkok Pundit Normally, in Thailand, the foreign prisoner will receive a pardon after a third of their sentence. [...]

• 45 Thailand » Blog Archive » Phuket, Thailand: Destination of choice for family vacations // Apr 7, 2007 at 10:14 pm

  [...] 4, 2007 at 6:20 am Filed under Thailand Comment on Thailand s climate of repression by Bangkok Pundit Normally, in Thailand, the foreign prisoner will receive a pardon after a third of their sentence. [ ] – more – [...]

• 46 singers larger in bottle // Apr 20, 2007 at 7:53 am

  please could you tell me if you have any reports of side effects after drinking this bottle larger that my father has had for two weeks in thailand. would be very greatfull if you have any information on this. he,s became very depressed and low and l really don,t understand as he never had this before, thank you

• 47 Pig Latin // Apr 20, 2007 at 10:37 am

  dear singers larger in bottle,
  side effects could include irrational, emotional outbursts. bringing up memories long repressed or even buying a red tuk-tuk.

  however, there can be positive side effects where he becomes very sociable, jolly and happy that you are around him. yes, he might possibly sing.

  be aware that larger bottles usually do larger damage to the liver and take note that he should soon get over this phase.

  sincerely,
  Mr P. Latin

Leave a Comment