Now I’m trying to turn to Dharma, particularly the 3 characteristics of all things, Anicca (impermanence), Dukkha (suffering), and Anatta (illusion of self). I’ve been trying to seek freedom like a fish stuck in a net; the more you struggle, the tighter it gets. Looking around, I see other convicts still smile, laugh and make jokes among themselves. But I feel tortured. My wife cries. I don’t know how my children are living. I cry each time I think of them. I feel sorry for my youngest child who has yet to learn about this [lese majeste conviction] because his mother has not told him, sparing him the pain that his brother and sister have felt.
- Quote from lese majeste convict Suwicha Thakor (สุวิชา ท่าค้อ), reported in “Suwicha Thakor’s life after sentencing” (also available in Thai), Prachatai, 13 May 2009.
Previous New Mandala coverage of Suwicha Thakor and his predicament is available here and here. As I wrote last month, “There are now the inevitable efforts to ensure that Suwicha is quietly forgotten. I don’t think that should be allowed to happen. His story would be of great interest to the many millions who have recently seen Thailand on their television screens and who are wondering where the deeper faultlines actually lie.”
Thanks to the always on-the-ball Political Prisoners in Thailand for bringing this outstanding Prachatai work to my attention. At least in their editorial offices Suwicha has not been forgotten.
But surely his case, and its clear public interest components, merits a detailed report in the international media? Or is Suwicha going to be put in the too hard basket? Do we only care when it is Australians and Swiss doing hard time for lese majeste?
55 responses so far ↓
1 stephan // May 15, 2009 at 8:11 am
he should have thought about wife, children ,
brothers & sisters before. now it seems pretty late.
another prove for thoughtlessness?
2 Ralph Kramden // May 15, 2009 at 11:02 am
Good on you Stephan. Speaking of thoughtless, ever looked at yourself?
3 Dickie Simpkins // May 15, 2009 at 6:09 pm
I feel sad for Suwicha….
Can anyone tell me exactly what he is accused of doing? I’ve searched, and apparently he ‘allegedly’ manipulated pictures of HMK on the net, what type of manipulations exactly?
Either way, the LM law needs to be scrapped or at least modified…
this is too bad, and allows too many elite sentiments of society to hide behind this unjust law.
4 stephan // May 15, 2009 at 7:57 pm
@Dickie Simpkins #3
he is not just ‘accused’
he has confessed, pleaded guilty and was sentenced.
in a democracy, if you don’t like a law, you’ll get a majority
of lawmakers and change it. no other way.
the convict could apply for a royal pardon,
but obviously hasn’t done so yet. why not?
@ralf kamden #2
thank you for another perfect example of thoughtlessness.
5 dantampa // May 16, 2009 at 2:19 pm
You may have seen the news that the Thai prosecutor in the Suwicha case has asked that the time for an appeal be extended, effectively preventing a quick request for a royal pardon. Just what there is for the prosecutor to appeal in a guilty plea case with a ten-year sentence is unclear.
This act of prosecutorial pique demonstrates that the use of lese majeste in Thailand has become a well-staged witch hunt, whose aim is to instill fear into a population which show signs of questioning the cult of royal divinity that has been so propagandized here for three generations.
One of the great myths perpetuated by the constant
stream of brain washing that one sees daily on government-controlled TV is the notion that there is a unique bond between the monarch and the Thai people that cannot be found in other societies. The King loves all his people and they love him.
But all one has to do is watch the stiff formal rituals of obeisance which accompany royal family members wherever they go with armed escorts and one is instantly disabused of any notion of close personal ties to the common man.
Seeing prime ministers and old men grovel before the royal personnage in the kowtow position reinstated by this King after being banned as inappropriate in the modern world, reflects abject submission, not mutual love or respect. The same goes for spending obscene fortunes on royal funeral pyres, or celebrating royal anniversaries surrounded by blue-blooded farangs, not Thais.
Indeed, if such a exceptionally close bond really exits between a righteous father and his subjects, one has to wonder what has caused this society to tolerate its systemic corruption at all levels ?
Perhaps one really does have to be Thai to understand lese majeste, having succumbed to fifty years of cult worship so carefully orchestrated in an unsmiling kingdom of perpetual adoplescents.
Still, even sixth grade Thais must wonder sometimes, when they read stories about Suwicha Thakor going to prison for ten years, how their loving father could ever allow any son to rot in jail for speaking his heart and conscience.
6 Ralph Kramden // May 16, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Dickie asks a question that can be answered. So let me have a go. If you go to the Political Prisoners in Thailand (PPT) website, and look under Convicted, you get as much information as is currently available. I am not entirely sure, but it seems to me that he posted pictures of a royal that had been touched up in some way, perhaps making them look silly. It may be that Suwicha didn’t do anything more than re-posting them. But it seems that we really don’t know the whole story.
And this is where it gets interesting and touches on Stephan’s delirious response to the use of the word “accused”. At one point, it seems that Suwicha was holding out against all the pressure to plead guilty. However, like Nicolaides, he eventually pleaded guilty in the hope that he would be treated better. Recall that Nicolaides was released soon after pleading guilty. There are differences with cases and profiles, but it seems that the strategy used in the cases of Nicolaides, Suwicha and Da Torpedo seems to be to keep them in jail until they agree to plead guilty. This avoids a trial and an airing of the details of a case. Only Da Torpedo seems to have held out, and she is due in court soon (perhaps).
I’d be interested to hear other takes on this from NM readers who actually know more about the cases involved.
7 stephan // May 16, 2009 at 8:43 pm
@Ralph Kramden #6
you’re speculating.
why do you again resort to personal attack by using words
like “Stephan’s delirious response”. WHAT is ‘delirious’?
@dantampa #5
most what you say sounds reasonable
but would clearly fall under ‘lese majesty’ in thailand.
we don’t like ‘grovelers’ and ‘kowtows’,
but can you not discuss these things without
insulting the vast majority of thai people
who obviously think different?
this law would have gone long ago
without clear support of a majority here.
we believe that critics could not be taken seriously
from people who worship an ‘infallible’ pope
who is responsible for millions of dead and suppressed humans
through his strange personal believes about sexuality
and who preaches until today that men are superior to women.
you should be rather busy to clean your own mess,
or do you want buddhists & muslims to do that for you?
that’s exactly what you do here in thailand, none of your business!
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye
and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”
matthew 7.3
8 Ralph Kramden // May 17, 2009 at 11:11 am
Stephan: Delirious is a state of being in frenzied excitement. Apt description, I think, for a respondent who fails to understand a reasonable question because of an overly excited attempt to pounce on one word. Of course it is a personal attack on the same respondent who allows a particular ideological view to determine a lack of sympathy for a wife and children. Such a failure of compassion is not a noble trait.
And, any fool can see by the words I used and the invitation to knowledgeable readers to respond that I was, in part, speculating. But at least I tried to respond to a reasonable question with some consideration for the correspondent. I wasn’t engaging in mechanistic ideological ranting. As your response to dantampa shows, speculation is not missing from your own responses.
9 dantampa // May 17, 2009 at 7:06 pm
“we believe that critics could not be taken seriously
from people who worship an ‘infallible’ pope
who is responsible for millions of dead and suppressed humans”
What an incredibly arrogant and religiously hateful response to make. This athiest worships no man, no matter the shape of his crown. Your attempt to defend the inviolability of the Buddhist King of Thailand by attacking the infallibility of the Christian Pope of Rome is utterly pathetic.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps both monarchs and their followers may be totally out of touch with the modern world ?
Indeed, I reckon that it’s been over 500 years since the last Pope and his church learned the futility of imprisoning people for disrespecting dogma. The Thai King and his court seem not to have learned that lesson yet, in the 77 years since 1932.
Frankly, if that’s your best defense of lese majeste, you ought not bother. Better to say nothing than something that foolish.
10 Petra // May 17, 2009 at 11:23 pm
stephan makes the assumption that I’ve found to be common amongst Thais, albeit mainly uneducated ones, that all farang are christians.
of course that is far from the truth.
some people also assume that all thais love hmk.
11 stephan // May 17, 2009 at 11:28 pm
@Ralph Kramden #8
we know what the word ‘delirious’ means.
we missed a quote which YOU thought to be ‘delirious’.
most critics of thailand & its people & laws
seem to be in a state of frenzied exitement.
just one example: we did NOT determine a lack of sympathy.
quite to the opposite, we blamed suwicha for being ‘thoughtless’,
not showing compassion for his family in braking the law.
YOU agree: “Such a failure of compassion is not a noble trait.”
THAT’s what WE call ‘delirious’.
@dantampa #9
sorry sir, but it was YOU who made
‘incredibly arrogant and religiously hateful’ remarks
about 60 million thais and their religious believes.
we just reminded you that more than a billion christians
are threatened with eternal ‘hell’
if they don’t listen to their chosen authorities.
just look at the sheer numbers!
thais are not afraid of death,
they KNOW they will be reborn to a better life.
‘religulous’ fanatics who only accept their own believes
and don’t care about others will never understand this.
and it sems to be YOU who is
‘totally out of touch with the modern world’,
YOU say: ‘the futility of imprisoning people for disrespecting dogma’
don’t YOU know, how many people in africa alone still have to DIE
for ‘respecting dogma’? they are ‘imprisoned’ in dogma.
do you deny that catholic dogma’s are KILLERS?
look up: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3748
we do NOT defend ‘lese majeste’,
but we defend the rights of thai people
we supply so many arguments supported by serious reasonable sources,
bu YOU chose to neglect them, resorting to pseudo-’arguments’ like:
“Better to say nothing than something that foolish.”
you really could/should have said something better, or not?
12 michael // May 18, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Stephan, who is this “we” whose egotistical, obsessive and usually misinformed ideas you constantly thrust on us? Have you been appointed the spokesperson of some peculiar sub-group of expat society?
13 stephan // May 18, 2009 at 4:19 pm
@petra #9
no petra, we did NOT make or even share YOUR assumptions!
we assume that ther are about 60 million buddhists in thailand
we assume that at least 90% love and/or respect their king
we assume that there are >one billion christians in the world
we assume that most of them love jesus and don’t like if he is insulted.
we assume that millions died of aids not protecting themselves
because of an old man in rome who has strange sex phantasies.
mainly uneducated people generalise & misquote others.
14 stephan // May 18, 2009 at 4:38 pm
@michael #12
who are you?
answer this ‘rhetorical question’ for yourself, don’t bother us.
‘WE’ in english can be interpreted as 1st pers plural (eg a ‘couple’)
as ‘pluralis modestiae’ or ‘pluralis auctoris’.
choose which one you prefer.
we are always happy if people are eager to learn.
can you please quote just one
“egotistical, obsessive and usually misinformed idea”
or refrain from your personal attacks, please….
“great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events,
small minds discuss people” (eleanore roosevelt)
15 Michael // May 19, 2009 at 12:25 am
Stephan #14 – in fact, the ‘authorial we’ (auctoris) is rarely used these days in English, except in expressions such as ‘we may safely assume that…,’ where the writer or speaker is including the audience in an opinion or interpretation of something. The ‘royal we’ is hardly used at all now by Q.E.II – only in the most formal of documents or speeches – & it’s generally regarded as quaint. Your own nosistic tendency is irritating, especially since it’s coupled with a whole lot of dogmatic-seeming pronouncements, apparently aimed at putting down other posters with your rather thin understanding of history & culture. (e.g., your post #4:”in a democracy, if you don’t like a law, you’ll get a majority of lawmakers and change it. no other way…”; and “the convict could apply for a royal pardon, but obviously hasn’t done so yet. why not?” Both of these statements show a lack of knowledge of the context, & are offered in a patronising & dogmatic way.)
In another thread on LM (about Harry N), you succeeded in making the discussion all about yourself & your own beliefs (or “believes,” as you would say), including that he deserved to be manacled, imprisoned, and thoroughly punished. I think it’s pretty well established, & understood by contributors to NM, that the Thais love their king, & do take offence when he is insulted. That is not what is under discussion here. It’s the abusive use of an archaic law, by people who seem to have ‘ulterior motives.’
Other Posters – Can we please get back to Kh Suwitcha, & the peculiarities of Thai law & legal manoeuvring (e.g. the move by the Prosecutor to delay the possibility of a request for a pardon; the tactic of keeping the accused in prison until they plead guilty; the agendas of LM accusers).
16 stephan // May 19, 2009 at 8:34 pm
@michael #15
at least you do not deny us the right to speak not just for one alone.
we all know that english is not the native language of the majority.
so what is rarely used or not is difficult to judge.
what’s right or wrong, comprehensible or not seems more important.
we do not comprehend your critic of our sentence in #4:
“in a democracy, if you don’t like a law,
you’ll get a majority of lawmakers and change it. no other way…”
this was in direct response to Dickie Simpkins #3
“…the LM law needs to be scrapped or at least modified…”
we thought dickie displayed a contempt for
due legal democratic processes and responded accordingly.
what’s wrong with our sentence, its context or content?
who ’scraps or modifies’ laws in your county? the mob on the street?
we may safely assume that it is more productive in a discussion
to exchange arguments than to talk about posters and their english.
if you don’t understand a sentence, please ask and we explain.
for everything there is a reason.
everyone is free to respond to a post or not, including us.
we agree that legal laws should be used and not ‘abused’.
defendants should have lawyers,
the courts should decide according to laws
which in turn are made or modified by lawmakers
who are elected as representatives of the people.
all that is well known & guaranteed in thailand.
we only cannot prevent people from braking laws, but who can?
17 Ralph Kramden // May 19, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Stephan: “who ’scraps or modifies’ laws in your county?”
The military.
18 stephan // May 19, 2009 at 11:02 pm
@Ralph Kramden #17
hi ralf, thank you very much for this splendid example of
1. the richness & subtlety of the english language
2. the vigorous debate nm encourages
3. the ‘high quality’ comments nm publishes
4. ’short & sweet’ usually trumps ‘long & involved’. how ’sweet’!
5. “…ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained.”
YOU are entertained, so what?
but just ONE serious question:
what country do YOU come from? a dictatorship??
and why don’t YOU have much to say about our topic:
“Suwicha Thakor”
was HE put in jail by the ‘military’?
or by a law ‘’scrapped or modified’ by the ‘military’?
YOU owe us an explanation, don’t you?
19 Michael // May 19, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Stephan#16 – my criticism of your sentence beginning “in a democracy…” is that we are talking about a country which is not yet a democracy. The fact that there are sometimes elections does not per se indicate that there is a democracy, at least of the straightforward type implied in your statement.
Your statement at the end of your post #16 would have credibility in a state where lawyers and the judiciary, as well as law-makers, had independence & a high standard of ethics, and where the legal process for a trial of this kind could be conducted openly & with evidence presented fully & openly, & normal legal discussion. If you believe that all that you refer to is “well-known and guaranteed in Thailand,” you must have been reading different literature & speaking to different legal academics & political observers from me.
Re. your statement about Kh. Suwitcha not having applied for a pardon: this cannot be done until the statutory period allowed for an appeal has expired. (This has been written about in relation to this & many other cases, over & over.) At the time when Kh.Suwicha’s appeal period was about to end, the Prosecutor applied for and was granted an extension. This was a most peculiar thing to do, and one (or ‘we’) can only speculate about why, because the reason has not been announced. It’s very clear, of course, that it may have prolonged the period of his encarceration, & therefore his suffering, so some have seen it as a brutally spiteful act.
Heads of State (including monarchs) in many countries are the subject of cartoon caricatures in the media on a daily basis. There is no evidence to suggest that they lose any respect as a result. It is a fact that the cartoonists frequently receive requests for the original drawings from those who have been lampooned, & they are proudly displayed.
The LM law is a ridiculous anachronism. It’s having an effect quite the opposite of that which was (ostensibly) intended, & it is being used as an instrument of repression.
20 stephan // May 20, 2009 at 3:20 am
@michael # 19
thank you very much for this cool response with no personal attack.
this way we can talk facts:
1. democracy
a) thailand is a very young & unstable democracy. it needs help
b) show me a better one and we’ll rip it apart with naked hands.
we did not ‘imply’ nothing. especially not ’straightforward’.
we just call it a democracy, no more, no less.
2. ethics
what’s that? religion? law? conscious?
can you give an example of an ethical country for thailand?
we are living in thailand & believe it to be very ethical.
(if you forget about a few criminals)
much more ethical than the u.s.a.
often used as a model in the western world!
and yes, you very obviously observe different media than we do.
that does not mean ‘different worlds’, just ‘different perception’!
3. pardon
the thai king has openly expressed that he is human & can be critisized
he has pardoned many LM offenders already
even khun thaksin has openly applied for a pardon
(which we think should NOT be granted)
why suwicha did not apply remains a mystery, can YOU explain?
(maybe some think he is more valuable without/within?)
we think he should and will be pardoned,
if he repents and promise not to do it again.
only stubborn people do not deserve a pardon.
4. cartoon caricatures
have you ever heard about mohammad or rushdie?
no laws were broken in their countries
still they were threatened with death
but some people care more about a naughty boy
who spent two weeks more or less in jail
giving interviews to his fan-group (for free?)
we hope we did only express opinions
and don’t attack or hurt individual posters.
if you think different tell us
and we explain or apologize
21 Michael // May 20, 2009 at 10:52 am
Stephan: #16, “why suwicha did not apply remains a mystery, can YOU explain?” I have already explained. I will try again (read my lips): In Thai law, a pardon may not be applied for until the case is closed. Suwitcha’s case is not yet closed, because the period for applying for an appeal is still open. So the reason why he hasn’t applied is obvious: he is not allowed to. (His family has stated that he will do so when it is legally possible.)
You say,”we are living in thailand & believe it to be very ethical.” I can’t possibly begin to answer the rest of your post, if that is the way you see Thailand. I don’t have time. Please don’t bother to respond.
22 Dickie Simpkins // May 20, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Stephan,
The LM law needs to be debated and amended. Your attempt to justify this medieval law is quite stunning.
However, you are correct in stating that the LM law retains place because the Thai public has not demanded it yet. I refer the to a quote, “They came from my neighbors… my friends… etc. and I did nothing, when finally then came for me… there was none left to help…”
kao chai mai?
How does society demand repeal of a law that has been propagated to them since birth? Regardless of what you read on NM and a few other blogs, HMK is an incredible man who should continue to live out his illustrious life with love and deserved reverence.
The problem with the current LM law is that it doesn’t protect the Royal family in their official role, but instead is open for such abuse as countless examples in the last 2-3 years have shown us. That people use the LM law as a shadow to hide behind to protect themselves rather than the LM law protecting the Royal family. Why is this so? Why cannot the politicians, the elite, and even the Thai populace awaken themselves given HMK’s own speech in 2005 where he said that ‘even he’ should be open for criticism (provided the criticism be fair, and not just a hurl of abuse words)?
As for Suwicha Thakor, as he did manipulate and alter images of HMK and put them on the net (there is no available evidence as ‘proof’ is hidden from the public –> another reason for LM law to be amended), then shouldn’t there be a simpler and less harsh punishment involved, like perhaps caning? And why did the prosecutor need to appeal a guilty verdict?
Finally, you are correct to use the term ‘we’ as you may be speaking for more than a singular person. Reading your text however, I keep remembering Gollum…
23 stephan // May 21, 2009 at 2:10 am
@ Michael #21
we DO bother to respond. sorry that you have no time to discuss ‘ethics’ in thailand.
thailand has more than 60 million friendly people with very few jail inmates.
at least much less than the u.s.a., a model ‘democracy’
self-styled ‘liberator’ & ‘defender of freedom’.
@ Dickie Simpkins #22
thanks for your kind post and humor (gollum…555)
every law has to be debated and amended if needed.
the LM law is NOT ‘medieval’, it’s quite modern.
we do not agree with everything he says,
but read PROF DR BORWORNSAK UWANNO from last month:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/14766/lese-majeste-abuse-and-benevolence
all three parts are here:
http://facthai.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/lese-majeste-thai-culture-and-abuse-of-law-dr-bowornsak/
another recent in-depth-article is:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/03/06/opinion/opinion_30097261.php
both ‘bangkok post’ and ‘the nation’ are thailands largest and most influential english papers.
you see LM laws are openly debated in thailand.
finally: we don’t like & we don’t need them,
like we don’t need the ‘workers unions’ and ‘churches’.
but we admit & accept that many millions think different!
24 Ralph Kramden // May 21, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Stephan piles rubbish upon rubbish. Thailand ethical. Speaks for millions, doesn’t read other posts, most notably when others take his/her ludicrous posts seriously, ignores facts and writes in unstructured verse that makes little sense. Hopefully s/he gets paid for this task of dissembling.
25 stephan // May 21, 2009 at 6:48 pm
@Ralph Kramden #24
ralf piles personal attack upon personal attack
not a single argument, source or reference.
even not a response to a specific post.
another example what HE understands is ‘high quality’ or ‘ethical’.
is it really entertaining for some, this
“Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse”?
a few unethical law-breakers do NOT make a whole country unethical,
just like a few unethical posters displaying the same ‘ethics’ like ralf
do NOT make the whole forum unethical.
26 Ralph Kramden // May 21, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Reporters Without Borders mentions Suwicha’s case in their comment on Thailand’s deteriorating media situation (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=31388).
27 Ralph Kramden // May 22, 2009 at 10:50 am
FACT has a short post by John Francis Lee on Suwicha’s case and the continuing state action on his case (http://facthai.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/thai-putsch-keeps-suwicha-thakor-on-trial-john-francis-lee/)
28 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // May 23, 2009 at 2:27 am
Perhaps this is the place to update news of the latest LM case.
Chiangmai police has just issued an arrest warrant for Kokaew Phikulthong, a prominent speaker at Red Shirt rallies and a regular co-host of the Truth Today program for violation of LM law (article 112 of the Criminal Code). The charge stems from his speech at the rally in Chiangmai on 22 March 2009.
news in Thai : http://www.innnews.co.th/local.php?nid=172374
29 Dickie Simpkins // May 23, 2009 at 4:58 pm
This new charge that Ajarn Somsak has put up in addition to the pending cases of LM on the Political Prisoners of Thailand web site, and add that to the government wanting to “approve” of the content of community radio stations and control over television channels…
The heinous acts by Abhisit I administration makes Thaksin seem a strong democrat…. perhaps Thaksin is the new definition of “Prachatipatai Baeb Thai”….
There is no need to spoil the monarchy’s name by throwing around LM charges, as HMK himself said that frivilous LM charges made on ‘his name’ harms him, and criticism harms him less. In 2005, HMK made it very clear that the LM laws hurts him much more than it protects him, and the actions this year especially has proved him correct.
Abhisit I should drop all LM cases at the moment, pending a change in the LM Law and should focus what is going to be his very short legacy simply on making forcing free education for 16 years by the government with a goal of increasing the literacy rate in the populace.
Cases against Jakrapob and Gi should be changed to ‘threats against the sovereignity of the Thai state’ as one has called for armed struggle, and the other for a major revolution. Finally, Suwicha and/or others with LM cases should have their charges dropped to minor acts of vandalism and should be punished either Singapore style by caning at worst, or forced community service at best (normal sentencing for vandalism cases around the world).
Anyways, it is all just wishful thinking.
30 Ralph Kramden // May 23, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Dickie, while I generally agree with you on LM, the idea of charging people with “threats against the sovereignity of the Thai state” seems not much less political than the LM charges and no less 19th century. As for Singapore-style caning, surely Thailand is better than that.
If generals can change laws for themselves to make illegal acts legal, surely a government led by a party of so-called Democrats can come up with a way out of the LM mess.
By the way, why shouldn’t people be allowed to call for revolutionary change?
And, I do not think Jakrapob has actually called for an armed revolution. The reports I have seen fall short of that (although I may have missed something more definitive).
31 stephan // May 23, 2009 at 8:39 pm
@Dickie Simpkins #30
a few really good suggestions we easily can agree with.
but WHY do you have to spick them with wild allegations against abhisit?
“heinous” = ‘utterly odious or wicked’
is something you don’t want YOUR acts to be called.
in the thai democracy neither the king nor the government
make , change or ’scrap’ laws.
that is done by the majority of elected lawmakers/representatives.
the prime minister cannot just ‘drop’ any cases, this is up to the courts.
the king has he priviledge of the royal pardon.
but one is usually NOT pardonned when he and all his friends
insist that there was no wrongdoing and hence show no remorse.
your comment: “…makes Thaksin seem a strong democrat…”
brings to light your understanding of ‘democracy’.
this criminal gave orders which led to 2,500 extrajudical killings.
in his alleged ‘war on drugs’. “mission accomplished”?
this should be a more worthwhile objective for your indignation
than the admitted ‘vandalism’ of a few hooligans…
32 Ralph Kramden // May 24, 2009 at 12:39 am
Stephan says that “in the thai democracy neither the king nor the government make , change or ’scrap’ laws.
that is done by the majority of elected lawmakers/representatives.”
Well, not quite. The military often intervenes and scraps laws and directs the making of new ones in Thailand, as they did in 2006. I guess that once they intervene it is no longer a democracy….
And, laws can be changed without the majority of elected lawmakers/representatives. You need to leave out “elected” to account for the half-appointed senate.
Thanks for the insight into the way the king grants pardons.
Suwicha pleaded guilty, so he has admitted wrongdoing. The original article states: “Suwicha was convicted on Apr 3, 2009. The period for filing an appeal has already passed. His family and lawyers decided not to appeal, but were thinking of seeking a royal pardon…”. Of course, his pleading guilty may have been somehow driven by legal circumstances.
He seems in a similar situation to Harry Nicolaides (who did get a pardon) when others claimed he was innocent of serious intent or wrongdoing and claimed the LM law was flawed.
As far as I know, Suwicha’s case is being considered for appeal by the prosecuters so he can’t seek a pardon.
33 nganadeeleg // May 24, 2009 at 11:30 am
Ralph Kramden: Do you have any comment on Stephan’s:
‘the prime minister cannot just ‘drop’ any cases, this is up to the courts’ ?
or would you like to see the PM interferring in court cases?
You said: ‘And, laws can be changed without the majority of elected lawmakers/representatives. You need to leave out “elected” to account for the half-appointed senate’.
Can I restate that as: ‘apart from coup situations, laws can only be changed by the majority of lawmakers/representatives‘
If that is the case, then wouldn’t the appropriate course of action be for some of those ‘lawmakers/representatives’ to propose appropriate amendments, and then the parliaments vote on them?
It is my understanding that making such proposals is not the sole perogative of the PM or government, so perhaps you should be directing your criticism (in post #30) above to not only the government led by ’so called Democrats’.
34 Ralph Kramden // May 25, 2009 at 9:47 pm
nganadeeleg: Yes.
I said: “surely a government led by a party of so-called Democrats can come up with a way out of the LM mess.” That doesn’t need to be a way out the mess by changing laws.
And as to cases, there are those in courts and those not yet in courts. Plenty of governments have changed the ways that the police operate, not just in Thailand. And isn’t this what the PM himself has said is the problem? I don’t agree with him but he has said this on more than once.
Your restatement is good enough for the present time I guess. Recall that there were all kinds of decrees, administrative orders etc. etc. But, again, as the PM points out, there are laws and there is implementation.
35 nganadeeleg // May 25, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Ralph Kramden: I agree, this PM is as disappointing as his predecessors on the LM matter.
36 Michael // May 26, 2009 at 1:13 am
From Prachathai (not the complete article):
“On May 17, Justice Minister Pirapan Salirathavibhaga launched his ‘Volunteers to Protect Justice’ initiative to organize and train people to inform the authorities on corruption and lèse majesté cases. Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva presided over the event and was registered as the first volunteer.
Abhisit told an audience of about 2,000 at the Thai Army Club on Vibhavadi Rangsit Road that it was government policy to protect and worship the monarchy, prevent and suppress corruption, and encourage the people to check state authority. And he had always championed the rule of law to reign in this country.
He said the initiative provided a good opportunity for people to be active in upholding justice and the nation’s essential institution, and it should expand to the provinces as well.
After the PM led volunteers in taking a vow of loyalty to the monarchy, the Justice Minister gave him a membership card, as member number 1.”
“…..Volunteers are supposed to inform the authorities on the issues of lèse majesté, drugs, money laundering, chit funds, financial scams, national security, environmental and natural resource destruction, tax evasion, corruption, violations of the rights and freedoms of the people, and other illegal acts.
Volunteers must be 15 years old or older, have a clean record, and importantly have a volunteer spirit to participate in activities to be held by the ministry, including training on the law and rights in the judicial process as well as meetings to share information and experience among volunteers.”…..
“….‘Volunteers work as spies [or agents] for the Justice Ministry. But the task must not be burdensome to their own work. Just live an ordinary life, and know that they can turn to the Justice Ministry when they come upon illegal acts,’ said Pirapan.
He believed that people were motivated to become ‘spies’ for the ministry because of their own grievances. The scheme starts in Bangkok, with the expectation of about 50,000 applicants, and will expand to the whole country.”
Get the whole article in English at:
http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/1233
Or in Thai:
http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/page2.php?mod=mod_ptcms&ID=16882&...
37 stephan // May 26, 2009 at 6:48 am
on the LM matter:
we can see only a few posters here vigorously objecting to this law.
does it really never cross your mind,
that you are a tiny alienated minority, mostly even farangs.
the overwhelming majority of thai people seems to have no problem with it.
a change would be rather unpopular here.
as we often said: LM does NOT protect a person,
it protects sacred persuasions of the vast majority of royalist buddhists.
the opposition in thailand for LM are either
communists or republicians, neither of them represented here.
38 nganadeeleg // May 26, 2009 at 9:23 am
“…..Volunteers are supposed to inform the authorities on the issues of lèse majesté, drugs, money laundering, chit funds, financial scams, national security, environmental and natural resource destruction, tax evasion, corruption, violations of the rights and freedoms of the people, and other illegal acts.”
Sounds good in theory, but could be quite dangerous in practice in Thailand. I think I would prefer an anonymous phone in line for personal safety reasons, because you never know if the perpetrators of the scam have contacts in the Justice ministry and pay back may ensue.
In Australia, we have ‘Dob-in-Lines’
Dob in a tax cheat, Dob in an illegal immigrant, Dob in welfare fraud etc
For some reason I dont think the membership card/badge system would work here:)
I always wondered what percentage of the dob ins are genuine, and what percentage are just trouble making complaints by disgruntled employee, ex lover etc, but obviouisly the authorities regard it all as ‘intelligence’ and have developed techniques to sift through the bullshit.
Stephan: I very much doubt that the only opposition to LM laws stems from ‘republicans or communists’, and it is wishful thinking on your part when you say ‘ neither of them represented here’
How do you reconcile HMK’s 2005 speech with the LM law and how it is implemented?
39 tum|bler // May 26, 2009 at 9:48 am
“…the opposition in thailand for LM are either
communists or republicians, neither of them represented here.”
I’d suggest you go and ask Sor Sivarak what he thinks of the LM law, and then ask him what he thinks of the monarchy.
40 michael // May 26, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Nga #38, this is a trained ’spy-force’ of vigilantes, citizens spying on their fellow citizens, it’s nothing like the ‘Dob-in lines’ you mention. With Thailand’s history of the brutal Village Scouts and Red Gaurs, who were at least visible, how will it be, having up to 50,000 (the Minister’s estimate) self-important, self-righteous clandestine operatives, brain-washed by the Ministry’s training programmes, conspiring against their neighbours, workmates & family members?
Still, I suppose the government know what they’re doing…(i.e. setting up a situation that could well end up in civil war, the Mother of All Coups, and an authoritarian regime to rival Burma. That IS what this is all about, isn’t it?)
41 nganadeeleg // May 26, 2009 at 2:17 pm
“I suppose the government know what they’re doing…(i.e. setting up a situation that could well end up in civil war, the Mother of All Coups, and an authoritarian regime to rival Burma. That IS what this is all about, isn’t it?”
That may well be the result, but I am not convinced it is the intention. Certainly not of the government, anyway.
I personally think both sides are in seige mentality, and are unable to think clearly because each sides actions are dominated by the thoughts that the other side is out to get them – sort of an internal xenophobia within different groups of the same nationality.
42 Dickie Simpkins // May 26, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Re: Stephan #31, #37, Ralph #32 and Ngadeleeng,
First, yes, the acts of Abhisit I is heinous. While the drug war too was a heinous crime no doubt, a democratic government has a PREROGATIVE to protect a citizens right to free speech. It is one thing to not be in full control of the government and the police force (read about the BBC raid as a good example and the charges against Prachatai which Abhisit had obviously no idea what is going on), and another all together to ‘approve’ media contents prior to being aired. Also, when forming a ‘citizen network’ to protect national institutions by telling on other citizens, you create a facist state. While the ‘intention’ may be good, the “act” in itself is heinous as we can pretty much guess what the results would be.
While Thaksin did a lot of unquestionable undemocratic acts, we must then ask the question why the military government before, and the Abhisit government now cannot charge him for the bulk of his former crimes. Is it because they too do the same practices? Instead of the wealth being accumulated at the behest of 1 family and his party, instead it is ’spread’ across the entire coalition, and then to other military figures. To not create a ‘precedent’ in court, it seems better to criminalize Thaksin through smaller charges.
Third, your continued defence of the LM law by stating “LM does NOT protect a person, it protects sacred persuasions of the vast majority of royalist buddhists.” is highly misguided.
The current LM law does not protect any institutions or royalist-buddhists. In essence, it protects a very elite group of people, mostly with access to guns and power, using the Royal image to their own ends.
so I re-ask what Nga asked, “How do you reconcile HMK’s 2005 speech with the LM law and how it is implemented?” considering HMK has made his opinion known that he is troubled by such laws.
Also, I do mind that you think HMK doesn’t know of cases in the LM law. Currently, even if HMK wanted to help someone, he cannot as the law is arcane and he cannot protect those that are being harmed. Specifically in the case of Suwicha, as the prosecutor made an appeal to the guilty verdict, Suwicha cannot begin to make a pardon request. Something else that you haven’t been able to explain.
Ralph, asking the populace to make an insurrection not just against a sitting government, but to call for a violent overhaul of the entire socio-political-economic stratosphere is a treasounous act akin to terrorists going “Death to America/Death to Israel”. There is an article wherein Jakrapob directly states that the movement will turn into an armed struggle.
43 Ralph Kramden // May 26, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Dickie, at 29 you said: “Cases against Jakrapob and Gi should be changed to ‘threats against the sovereignity of the Thai state’ as one has called for armed struggle, and the other for a major revolution.”
To be precise, can you tell me if “threats against sovereignty of the Thai state” is a crime and if so under what laws? Genuine question here. Under the constitution there is something about not advocating a govt that is not a democracy (presumably with the king as head of state etc.), but what laws govern this? I don’t know.
I would like to see a quote where Jakkrapob calls for armed struggle. If you have it, can you provide a link or reference? I have only seen him saying that there may eventually be an armed struggle.
44 stephan // May 26, 2009 at 8:07 pm
An interesting article in BKKpost written by Tjaco Van Den Hout, the Dutch Ambassador,
‘Europe’s lese majeste laws and the freedom of expression’. Here’s the link:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/17035/europe-lese-majeste-laws-and-the-freedom-of-expression
I note the author’s omission of two important facts in describing the situation in Europe.
1. the vast majority of european citizens simply don’t care
about their ‘royal families’ or ‘head of state’.
but STILL have these LM laws.
this is totally different in thailand,
where the vast majority of citizens deeply respect & love their king.
that cannot be compared in any way!
2. these people in europe have invented new ‘majesties’.
take ‘holocaust’ as an example.
it is a heinous fact that in germany anyone who denies
the official history version is put into jail mercylessly.
no pardons granted!
you see that the ‘majesties’ may be different,
but the ‘principles’ are the same.
a diplomat who shows such little understanding
for the cultural differences disqualifies himself.
45 tum|bler // May 27, 2009 at 9:04 am
“1. the vast majority of european citizens simply don’t care
about their ‘royal families’ or ‘head of state’.
but STILL have these LM laws.
this is totally different in thailand,
where the vast majority of citizens deeply respect & love their king.
that cannot be compared in any way!”
You need to keep in mind that Mr Van Den Hout was writing in response to an earlier article by Prof Bowornsak Uwanno which tried to justfy Thailand’s LM law.
The point is, Prof Bowornsak was defending the Thai LM law by citing the existence of LM laws in European constitutional monarchies, basically implying that Thailand’s use of LM was justified because it was doing what the so-called civilised Europeans were also doing.
If you then think Thailand and Europe “cannot be compared in any way”, you’ll need to direct your concerns to Prof Bowornsak, the one who tried to make such a comparison in the first place.
46 stephan // May 27, 2009 at 4:23 pm
@tumbler #45
you are right and we admitted it in our post #23 already.
prof. Bowornsak compared the wrong ‘majesties’,
as the ambassador later followed suit.
as we said many times a ‘majesty’ is NOT a person alone,
it is a believe, a dogma, a cult.
if YOUR dogma is: ‘democracy & freedom of speech’,
you defend it & fight for it ‘tooth & nail’.
“the romans must do whatever makes the romans happy.”
even if somebody does NOT share YOUR opinion or dogma,
you want him to respect you. especially in YOUR home!
so let us forget their lame comparison.
let’s compare it with ‘holocaust denial’!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
one goes to jail for no more than saying: “we don’t believe it”
what do you think about this ‘dogma’ & its ‘lese majesty’ laws?
47 tom hoy // May 27, 2009 at 8:43 pm
It has been asserted constantly to the point of being considered an unarguable fact that Jakraphob Penkair called for violent revolution. I looked into this question and wrote a letter to The Nation to question their interpretation of his statements. It wasn’t printed so I’d like to reprint it here. Apologies for the length of it but there’s a lot of ground to cover as misinformation becomes the official truth.
Today I read in The Nation (“Jakrapob to face action for armed-struggle call : PM”, April 28, 2009) that Prime Minister Abhisit has announced that Jakrapob Penkair will be charged for calling for armed struggle against the government. For all I know, the charges may be well-founded. But I could not establish the truth of the accusation from reading The Nation on this subject. A repeated theme in The Nation since the Songkran riots has been that Jakrapob Penkair is advocating violence. This did not seem to fit what I remembered him saying. I typed the name Jakrapob Penkair into The Nation’s search function. In the first nine articles cited, all of which say that Jakrapob has incited violence, there is no direct quote from the villain himself. It is not until we get to the tenth article, “Red shirts to use new tactics including possible armed attacks : Jakrapob” (April 22, 2009) that we see a single actual direct quotation as recorded by the BBC: “I believe the room for unarmed and non-violent means to resolve Thailand’s problem is getting smaller every day”.
In the next article cited, “Jakrapob busy setting up a base”, (April 21, 2009) there is a longer quotation: “I believe people are now deciding whether peaceful means serve them best. We are not encouraging violence, but we have to admit that people have been repeatedly disappointed,” he said.
“Legal standards have been clearly unfair and unjust. I am not saying there will be violence in the days ahead. But the remaining opportunities for a peaceful solution are decreasing every day.
“We still talk about a peaceful way in which people can get their rights back. But people have the right to defend themselves against aggression,” he explained.
Then there are five articles dealing with the mistakes of the redshirt leaders and the arrest warrants that await them. The last of these articles is dated April 15 after the riots. The next article that mentions Jakraphob is dated April 11 before the riots in Bangkok. In this article, Jakraphob and other redshirt leaders are accused of being “authoritarian’ by a fellow redshirt protester.
This may well be true. He may be an authoritarian. But I have seen nothing in The Nation’s coverage of Jakraphob that can lead to the certain conclusion that he has incited violence. He may well have done so but there is no evidence of it in these reports. What he has said is that the space for non-violent protest is getting smaller. Double standards for different coloured shirts. Radio stations and websites being closed down. A coup short-circuiting the democratic process. People being disappointed about these things. The only unambiguous thing that he has said that might legitimately be taken as an encouragement to violence is this: “people have the right to defend themselves against aggression”.
Well, do they or don’t they?
I hold no brief for Jakraphob Penkair. He was a spokesman for a government that sanctioned illegal acts of violence against Thai people – the 2500 “extra-judicial killings” of the war on dugs, Tak Bai, Kru Sae, the disappearance of Somchai. I am disappointed but no longer surprised that The Nation does not pursue these cases except with any rigour or consistency. I am sickened to hear them being added to the list of Thaksin’s crimes as a cheap talking point without any serious intent to investigate them.
But The Nation’s flimsy reporting gives it no right to draw the conclusions they have that Jakrapob is advocating violence. He may just as well be interpreted as advocating an expansion of the space for “unarmed and non-violent means”. That is to say, free and fair elections which are respected by all parties, even the losers.
48 Ralph Kramden // May 27, 2009 at 9:21 pm
I think Tom Hoy is corrrect. This is all I have found as well. No call to violent insurrection that I have been able to locate and confirm.
49 Michael // May 28, 2009 at 2:35 am
Good points, well argued with good factual back-up, Tom Hoy #47. Do you really think it’s just “The Nation’s flimsy reporting,” or is it a bit more shonky & sinister than that – an attempt to join in the process of deluding the public? It seems to me that this whole LM issue is being played along very similar lines, to persuade the public that there is an organised, and growing, conspiracy to overthrow ‘all that Thais hold dear ‘ – a bit like the ‘communists-under-the-bed’ stuff in Oz during the 50s, & McCarthyism in U.S.
BTW, Thai Netizen Network has a statement re. the cases of Suwitcha & Chiranuch (Prachatai moderator/Director), which includes the following: “As the cases are related to the right to hold opinion, political expression and press freedom, which are guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, these cases are distinctive from other ordinary criminal offences and that deserve careful treatment with the consideration of human rights.”
- 26th May 2009 @ http://thainetizen.org/node/570
(Although the UDHR is not legally binding, Thailand was one of the 48 states to vote in the UN General Assembly for its adoption in 1948.)
50 Michael // Jun 6, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Update on Suwicha and Chiranuch cases
Tue, 02/06/2009 – 11:59
Netizen
After asking the court to extend the deadline for appealing for one month, the public prosecutor decided not to appeal on Suwicha’s case. Chiranuch is to hear whether she will be prosecuted on June 26.
1.The case of Ms.Chiranuch Premchaiporn:
June 1, 2009, Crime Suppression Division submitted the charges against Ms.Chiranuch Premchaiporn, director of Prachatai online-newspaper to the state attorney at the Office of attorney-general. She had to get bailed which she is guaranteed by the status of Dr.Chantana Banpasirichote-Wankaew, an academic from the Faculty of Political Sciences, Chulalongkorn University
Ms.Chiranuch is scheduled to hear the decision if she will be prosecuted by the state attorney on Friday 26, June 2009
2. The case of Mr.Suwicha Thakor:
June 1, 2009 his lawyer was informed that the case is officially closed since the state attorney decided not to appeal this case.
Mr.Suwicha can now begin the process to request for royal pardon as he intended earlier.
More information and update please check http://www.thainetizen.org
51 stephan // Jun 9, 2009 at 3:58 am
@michael #50
about Suwicha. that is good news.
we all hope, that he will be pardoned asap
without further delay.
we hope he can soon return to his
wife, children, brothers & sisters
which have so dearly missed him….
52 Michael // Jun 11, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Stephan – Carthago delenda est!
53 stephan // Jun 12, 2009 at 6:31 pm
@michael #52
a very militant approach & clarion call indeed!
although i’ve learned it as ONE man’s (cato) opinion:
“Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam”
“Furthermore, I think Carthage must be destroyed”
in the modern sense, we do object firmly, we do not destroy cities.
only if you are an american hardliner
who wants to treat bangkok like the u.s. treated baghdad
perhaps for alleged ‘weapons of blasphemy destruction’.
but first look into the bible & the qur’an:
“Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain;
for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”
“Blasphemy in Islam constitutes speaking ill of Muhammad
or of any other prophet mentioned in the Qur’an, or to claim that there is more than one god or that Jesus Christ (the son of Mary) is the son of God, or to speak ill of God.”
only when those bibles and qur’ans are ‘destroyed’,
we can come back to what YOU may have meant with ‘carthago’, ok?
54 Michael // Jun 13, 2009 at 4:56 pm
re. #53: “…what YOU may have meant with ‘carthago’…” No K. I meant ‘the enemy,’ which in the context of this discussion is ***the current use*** of an unnecessary law. I’m not American, I don’t believe destroying cities contributes to the solution of problems, and I’m all in favour of blasphemy, although I can’t see it has anything to do with this discussion.
55 Stephan // Jun 18, 2009 at 6:42 pm
@michael #54
thais are buddhists. they worship no god, no christ, no prophet.
but they have their most reverred king instead.
THEY believe this law to be very neccessary.
buddha had no ‘enemy’ which he wanted to ‘destroy’…..
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.