[Apologies that there have been so few posts over the past week. Both Nicholas and I have been travelling. The following message from the Thai Netizen Network was one of many that I found in my inbox.]
The case of Internet user, Mr.Suwicha Thakhor, who was arrested on January 14, 2009, has been detained in KlongPrem prison, and denied bail twice. Eventually, he was prosecuted to the court by public prosecutor on March 26, 2009. Since the accused has pleaded guilty therefore no trial will be taken. The verdict is scheduled on April 3, 2009 at 9 am. onwards at the Criminal Court, Ratchadapisek Road. This will be the first verdict against Internet user under Computer Crime Act 2007 which related to act against national security. The accusation based on serious charges related to three major laws.
2007 Constitution Article 8, 9
Section 8. The King shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated. No person shall expose the King to any sort of accusation or action.
Section 9. The King is a Buddhist and Upholder of religions.
Penal Code Article 33, 83, 91, 112
Section 112. Whoever defames, insult or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years.
Section 33. For the forfeiture of a property, the Court shall besides having the power to forfeit under the law as specially provided for that purpose, have the power to forfeit the following properties also, namely: (1) a property used or possessed for use in the commission of an offence by a person; or (2) a property acquired by a person through the commission of an offence. Unless such property belongs to the other person who does not convince at the commission of the offence.
Section 83. In case of any offence is accrued by commission of the person as from two persons upwards, such accomplishes deemed to be principals shall be punished as provided by the law for such offence.
Section 91. If it appears that any offender has committed the several distinct and different offences, the Court may inflict upon such offender the punishment prescribed for each offence. But, whether there shall be increase of the punishment, reduction of the punishment or reduction in the scale of the punishment, or not, the total punishment of every offence must not exceed the following determination:
(1) ten years in case of the severest offence to have the rate of the maximum punishment of imprisonment not exceeding three years;
(2) twenty years in case of the severest offence to have the rate of the maximum punishment of imprisonment exceeding three years upwards, but not more than ten years;
(3) fifty years in case of the severest offence to have the rate of the maximum punishment of imprisonment exceeding three years upwards, unless in the case where the Court inflicts upon the offender the punishment of imprisonment for life.
Computer Crime Act 2007 Article 3, 14, 16
Sections 14(1), 14(3), 14(5) of the 2007 Computer Crime Act, which pertain to crimes which “involve import to a computer system of forged computer data, either in whole or in part, or false computer data, in a manner that is likely to cause damage to that third party or the public; that involves import to a computer system of any computer data related with an offence against the Kingdom’s security under the Criminal Code; that involves the dissemination or forwarding of computer data already known to be computer data [which are illegal].
24 responses so far ↓
1 Nudi Samsao // Mar 31, 2009 at 12:17 pm
This simply shows that Thailand still belongs to the Dark Ages, from which Europe was freed about 500 years ago. It seems that Thailand is also unique in ASEAN.
2 Susie Wong // Mar 31, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Could the United Nations Human Rights Council get involve in solving the tension between the two opposing forces, those who want the lese majeste law to be abolished and those who prefer to keep them? It is clear that no solution could be found without outside intervention.
Ban-Ki moon, the UN Secretary General points out that it is the responsibility of the United Nations Human Rights Council to remind States of their responsibility to fully respect and implement all human rights and fundamental freedoms.
How can the UN Human Rights Council play a role to promote and protect human rights in the darkest corners of the world like the case of less majeste law in Thailand?
3 Colum Graham // Apr 1, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Susie, I think that the Human Rights Council could only advocate for the welfare of individuals implicated in Lese Majeste, rather than act as a mediatory body. This is because the UNHRC is a liberal political organisation. Consequently, if they were to be in a position of arbitration, a ‘mediation’ process would more likely be persuasion process.
What I feel you are really asking is, ‘how can Thais be more liberal?’, and that question can only be answered by Thais. It must be for individual Thais to determine that they have rights. Liberals cannot thrust rights upon others. If we demand people observe rights, we are not just demanding that people adhere to a pseudo legal code, we are imposing a culture and a history on people who may find it antagonistic and incompatible with their own.
4 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Apr 2, 2009 at 8:08 am
re: Susie Wong
The very same UNHRC that now seeks to impose sharia-inspired blasphemy laws, of which lèse majesté is kith and kin, upon every member of the U.N.? Susie, surely you jest!
If anything, with the global zeitgeist being what it is, except more support for lèse majesté amongst the cacophonous braying that emanates from the collected Yahoos who fill the halls of that overgrown debating-society which calls itself the “United” Nations.
5 R. N. England // Apr 2, 2009 at 3:44 pm
For all its faults, the United Nations is concerned mainly with the promotion of the rule of laws that apply equally to all citizens, rather than the rule of patrons and of laws corrupted by patronage. People who only scoff at the UN, or misrepresent it, are usually the tools of some corrupt patron or other.
6 Ralph Kramden // Apr 2, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Maybe Amnesty International will take up the case. Oh, I forgot, they don’t do lese majeste things in Thailand except by dealing with the governing elite behind closed doors.
7 stephan // Apr 3, 2009 at 4:50 pm
@ralf #5
so here we are again.
maybe ‘amnesia international’ should take up your case?
you tend to forget that it shows poor education
to make insulting accusations without proof or reason.
we have read (and you may not?)
“…since the accused has pleaded guilty…”
there is no need for any dealing behind closed doors.
you owe the readers one single country,
where the laws allow to ‘defame, insult or threaten’
the head of state & religion unhindered.
in the iraqi puppet state recently
a man was tortured & sentenced to three years in prison
just for throwing his two shoes in the puppetmasters direction.
8 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Apr 4, 2009 at 4:43 am
I must say that I am absolutely mystified as to why my original comment on this post seems to have not past muster, whereas comments from R. N. England and Ralph Kramden did.
Without comment from the moderators, it seems that one of the guidelines for posting on NM is “Criticism of Amnesty International: OK, Criticism of the UN: verboten.”
Considering that I, in good faith, believed that I was furthering the conversation by connecting the rationale given for LM laws to the larger debate concerning the globalization of media and free speech, perhaps a moderator would be so kind enough as to explain why my original comment was neither “high-quality” nor “original”.
Thank you.
9 Andrew Walker // Apr 4, 2009 at 11:09 am
LSS – no deliberate action to block your comment. Just a combination of poor internet connections and jetlag. AW
10 Frank G Anderson // Apr 4, 2009 at 12:08 pm
A sentence that shames humanity, and by a nation that imported a religion based on tolerance and understanding…
11 Colum Graham // Apr 4, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Stephan, perhaps this http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/2009/02/amnesty-international-and-lese-majeste.html is where Frank’s coming from?
I didn’t think Amnesty International would privately be allowed to be publicly callous in regards to LM outside of Thailand.
Understandably there is some level of silence in Thailand – can you imagine the whole organisation there being charged with Lese Majeste? Is it worth the risk for them? Especially as it would see those in need for other reasons suddenly be that much more helpless…
But that there is nothing from Amnesty International outside of Thailand on Lese Majeste does strike me as a bit toothless, or bleak or without a match for the candle, or some other appropriate metaphor. I suppose their header is a stark yellow, so how much can we really expect?
12 Colum Graham // Apr 4, 2009 at 10:20 pm
and by Frank, I mean Ralph.
13 Colum Graham // Apr 4, 2009 at 10:25 pm
and Stephan — here is one country: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSJ6OR9tx8&feature=related
14 Colum Graham // Apr 4, 2009 at 10:34 pm
…. and (finally) yes, the PM is not our head of state, but surely the Queen has been given worse abuse over the years. Far worse! And she’s a little old lady!
15 Colum Graham // Apr 4, 2009 at 10:46 pm
….. (Finally 2 with a lethal kick so there cannot be an unholy third movie) Contempt of the Sovereign is an offence under the common law of England and Wales, but today has fallen into disuse, and most give respect to the Sovereign out of common courtesy. – the wikipedia oracle
My comments are irrepressible tonight!!!!
16 another thai // Apr 5, 2009 at 8:46 am
seems it is ok for the father of tree to go to prison and the monarchy left untouched , do you think this is fair for him and his family ,his kids are the future of Thailand ,has he committed crime ? or kill someone ? but, no he has not !!! this stupid law should be abolish and if they don’t !! i am sure they are more to come and i don’t think this will do Thailand any good , look at youtube website , plenty of angry people who posted the clips that insulted the monarchy and family , months ago i didn’t believe them at all but now i do know now why they hate xxxxxxxx so much, don’t blame them at all
17 another thai // Apr 5, 2009 at 8:51 am
seems it is ok for the father of tree >>>>> sorry meant to write father of three , apologise for my misspelling.
18 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Apr 6, 2009 at 4:23 am
re: Andrew
Thank you for the clarification. I hope you had a good trip and are well rested.
Now to turn from my previous snarky Yahoo-side to my more rational, detached Houyhnhnm-side, I would like to ask you and the other commentors on this post as to how Thailand’s LM laws are related to global reactions to what I perceive to be the globalization of “Western” concepts of free speech via media such as the Internet and satellite tv. Indeed, currently the Organization of the Islamic Conference, of which Thailand is an observer, is spearheading a campaign to legislate “defamation of religion” as a crime in international law.
The impetus of this campaign, of course, was the recent Mohammed cartoon controversy, among other events. In the past, said cartoons would not have even been known outside of the Dutch-speaking world; now, the images can be broadcast to Pakistan at the speed of light. (Hell, it took 700 years for the Muslim world to learn the “offensive” frescos of the San Petronio Basilica.) Likewise, the LM/Youtube controversy stems from the same clash of civilizations. Can a society use technologies like the Internet without being dragged, kicking and screaming, into Western-style concepts of free speech and expression? If not, do countries like Thailand have the right to impose their speech taboos upon the greater world? (Remember, Thailand has had the hubris to assume world-wide jurisdiction for their LM laws.) Will cultures like the greater Islamic world, cooperate with countries like Thailand, China, or Cuba to fight the “Axis of Blasphemy” (i.e. The Anglosphere and Western Europe?)
19 Sidh S // Apr 6, 2009 at 11:46 pm
That is a sharp observation LSS#18!
However, I don’t think we’ll see cooperation to fight the “Axis of Blasphemy” and free speech and expression will come down to power relations between nation-states. As I have mentioned before in another comment, it is much easier for Western academics to publicly pick on Thailand’s LM Laws than China’s human rights record (especially when many institutions rely on Chinese international students to operate – or in the midst of the GFC the West may be in need of China’s stash of dollars to lubricate the world economy)…
And we haven’t begin to address how the increasingly rigid, and possibly conflicting, notion of “political correctness” (PC) in the “Axis of Blasphemy”, may give the Thais with much greater “freedom of speech and expression” on this count, a shock of their lives (e.g. it’s a BIG no no to call the German national football team “Nazis” or to nickname your friends “Fatty”, “Tootsie” or “Darkie”!!!)…
20 Thomas Bleming // Apr 7, 2009 at 7:41 am
There’s an old saying that goes like this “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” In other words respect the customs and laws of the country you are visiting/living in.
Regardless of what is ‘accepted’ as the norms, outside of Thailand, when it comes to freedom of expression, within the Royal Kingdom of Thailand it is an offence to show disrespect to the royal family.
The same could be said of North Korea, Myanmar, Cuba, Libya,
Egypt, to name only a few countries.
Let this be a warning to whomever, that before you decide to travel abroad, you had better do your homework and know the laws of the nation(s), that you intend to travel to.
There are NO EXCUSES accepted in such violations .
21 michael // Apr 7, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Thomas Bleming #20: That rather flimsy point has already been made & discussed at length several times on various threads is in this debate. Please do some research before jumping in with such shallow, obvious & pushy comments.
22 Ralph Kramden // Apr 7, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Thomas Bleming comes up with the usual guff on “When in Rome…”. Been said a million times. But it is interesting the company he sees Thailand keeping as a result of this law!
23 Nick Nostitz // Apr 8, 2009 at 4:59 am
“Thomas Bleming”:
The ‘when in Rome…’ argument can also be applied to Thailand in relation to the wider world. If Thailand wants to continue to be accepted as part of the civilized world, it has to find a solution in which its monarchy can be protected and at the same time its laws of protection will not result in such draconian punishments.
Such punishments, and the continued dragging of the monarchy into the political arena by especially the quarters that claim to protect the monarchy, is exactly the reason that such cases have increased – there is a clear correlation.
How many people can be, and will be incarcerated, before a more humane solution for this problem can be found?
24 Portman // Apr 8, 2009 at 5:41 am
Thomas Bleming #20. Your travel advisory is well taken. Travellers to Thailand should certainly be warned of the LM laws along with the tough drug law but the thread seems in fact to be about a Thai citizen convicted of LM. Perhaps you thought it was about Harry Nicolaides or the Swiss man who who was also convicted of LM in Chiang Mai.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.