In the post “On the judgment of Da Torpedo,” New Mandala posted an English-language summary of the segments of the court decision against Darunee Charnchoengsilpakul that referred to the statements she made which contained alleged lesè majesté content. The court decision was published in full in the most recent edition of ฟ้าเดียวกัน (Same Sky) journal. The summary covers the first 15 pages of the decision (pages 1-15 of the decision, pages 200-214 of the journal). As the author of the summary noted, the transmission of these statements only constituted part of the full judgment, which has a total length of 32 pages.
In the second half of the court decision, the ‘evidence’ presented in the first half is repeated and extended in order to support the judgment against Darunee. The method by which this is done offers a lens on the practices of interpretation exercised under the regime of the laws pertaining to lesè majesté and the constriction of speech. During the first half, as Darunee’s statements are recounted (based, significantly, on mp3 and video recordings made by two police officers named in the text of the court decision), who or what specifically she refers to by various phrases is interpreted by the court through the use of a series of phrases such as “meaning” (หมายถึง) and “insinuate” (เปรียบเปรย), among others. Darunee does not mention King Bhumipol, Queen Sirikit, or Prem Tinsulanonda. So the first half of the text of the court decision follows a pattern in which Darunee’s statements are quoted, and then assigned meaning by the court. The court, in other words, alleges that she is referring to specific individuals. At this point, the text of the decision is primarily about the sheer content of Darunee’s speech.
On page 20 of the court decision (page 219 of the journal), there is a shift in the court decision from summary and basic assigning of meaning to the content of Darunee’s words to assigning intention to them. The reason for this, the authors note, is that there are two primary issues which must be examined by the court in the context of Thailand being a democracy with the king as head of state. The first issue to consider is whether or not the defendant, Darunee Charnchoengsilpakul, is the person who made the statements under discussion. The second is whether or not she committed lesè majesté.
With respect to the first issue, the court decision explains how the evidence was gathered and evaluated. The witnesses listened to her speeches at Sanam Luang, made audio and video recordings, and presented them as evidence. In the opinion of the court, the police officers who made the recordings did not do so out of personal anger or disagreement with Darunee. In the opinion of the court, the person who is in the various recordings is the same person, and they believe there is sufficient evidence to indicate that it is Darunee.
It is the second issue which is both thornier, and where the actions of the court, at least as represented in the text of the statement, become murkier. What the court is assessing at this point is intention, or เจตนา, and what Darunee intended during her speeches. The way in which her intention to slander the monarchy is demonstrated by the court follows a pattern through which her statements, already discussed in the first half of the court decision, are revisited and interpreted further. In order to do this, the court must acknowledge that Darunee does not name the King, Queen, or Prem by name. One example of this is on page 24 of the court decision (page 223 of the journal): “Even though the defendant does not clearly mention any individual by name, the fact is that the prosecutor has brought evidence that makes it possible to interpret that the defendant meant the King and Queen Sirikit” (“แม้้จำเลยจะมิได้ระบุชื่อบุคคลหนึ่งบุคคลใดโดยชัดแจ้ง แต่ข้อเทจจริงที่โจทก์นำสืบก็แปลเจตนาของจำเลยได้ว่า จำเลยกล่าวโดยมุ่งหมายถึงองค์พระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัว”). Then again, on page 31 of the court decision (page 230 of the journal), “The defendant does not clearly state who she means by the term ruling class, but after examining all of her spoken statements, (we) are confident that this saying of the defendant refers to the monarchy” (“คำว่าชนชั้นปกครองที่จำเลยกล่าวแม้จำเลยจะไม่ได้ระบุชัดเจน แต่เมื่อพิจารณาข้อความที่จำเลยกล่าวทั้งหมดแล้ว เชื่อว่าคำกล่าวของจำเลยหมายถึงสถาบันพระมหากษัตริย์”).
In the next to last paragraph, the court decision notes that Darunee herself said that she did not have the intention to slander or insult the monarchy, but that the court’s review of evidence did not match up with this claim. On the basis of the court’s interpretation of the meaning of Darunee Charnchoengsilpakul’s statements, she was sentenced to eighteen years in prison. Reports so far indicate that she is suffering greatly in prison.
Writing in a much different context – that of state terror and repression in Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s – Michael Taussig wrote in The Nervous System that, “… I came to feel that terror dissolved certainty every bit as much as it preyed on one’s heartfelt desire to find its secret order. Yet the more one looked for order, the more one was caught in its sticky web of evasions, bluffs, and halls of mirrors. And the more one tried to bluff back, fighting indeterminacy with indeterminacy, there waiting in the wings was Order with a giant rabbit-killer. Here, interpretation was no esoteric practice of the literary critic but a matter of survival.” When the evidence used to justify an eighteen-year prison sentence rests on the interpretation of someone’s speech, interpretation has also become a matter of survival. If Darunee Charnchoengsilpakul can be imprisoned under these terms, so can others. One extension of the kind of logic employed against Darunee in the court decision is that by sheer virtue of the existence of the court decision, the court presents itself as just. But is it? I close by calling for a proliferation of interpretations of the court decision. This has already started to happen in Thai in the same issue of ฟ้าเดียวกัน (Same Sky) journal in which the court decision was reprinted. It is time to do so in English and other languages as well.
[The author can be contacted at lizziefitzy@gmail.com]
31 responses so far ↓
1 Nganadeeleg // Jan 30, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Great Stuff – would be nice to see summarised versions of Ms Fitzgerald’s work published in mainstream media.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
2 Noone // Jan 30, 2010 at 2:32 pm
what has Prem got to do with LM , Since when was he covered ?
Only if acting as the Regent is my understanding ?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
3 Aladdin // Jan 30, 2010 at 6:07 pm
I think that by making such an argument one risks falling in line with royalist propaganda about the Thai monarchy.
First, we need to distinguish between two kinds of statements: (i) statements that a defendant would make in court as a defense against a lese majeste charge; and (ii) statements concerning the monarchy that are free of the threat of imprisonment, violence or some other penalty.
In court, unless one wants to grandstand or commit legal suicide, one would want to fight the charges by whatever means necessary, and the question of intent would be one legal strategy. It would be in one’s interest to argue that by saying the things one is accused of saying one did NOT intend those words to refer to the Thai King, Queen, or royal family, and therefore such statements could not be interpreted as having violated lese majeste.
In other words, one would argue that the defendant certainly did not imply that the King and Queen were behind the coup, that they supported the PAD, that the King interfered in the judiciary, that the King was “involved” in the killing of his elder brother King Rama VIII, and that the Thai monarchy was despotic and oppressed the Thai people, etc.
That is, by denying that one had intended to mean such things in making those statements one’s real views would be assumed to be consistent with royalist propaganda about the monarchy and thus within the law.
This would be a sensible argument to make in a courtroom to avoid an 18 year prison sentence.
But it seems to me that in the poster’s penultimate paragraph she comes close to implying that “Da Torpedo” was imprisoned based purely on a WRONG interpretation by the court.
Now, *** outside of a Thai courtroom context *** this line of argument is dangerous, in my opinion, because it shifts the focus away from the injustice of the lese majeste law and onto the question of interpretation and the role of the courts and judges. That is, the counterargument (to that of the sentencing judge) could be that the judges erred in their interpretation of DT’s intention; DT did not really intend her statements to mean that she was referring to the King and Queen. Why? Because (according to royalist propaganda) the King and Queen are virtuous and above politics, and DT believes that to be true.
(In fact, this is precisely the royalist argument about the lese majeste law; the law is not in itself wrong, but it is abused by others – the finger is usually pointed at politicians, but one could add over-eager judges. )
This is not just a legal problem but also a problem for Thai politicians. Because of the lese majeste law they must go along with the fiction that the King and Queen are virtuous and above politics even when the King and Queen are assisting and supporting their political opponents, sometimes openly.
It seems to me that if one thinks of statements that are made based purely on the factual evidence and even on simple common sense – the things many Thais say privately where there is little threat of imprisonment or other penalty – there is no question that people intend what they mean when they say exactly the same things that DT was accused of saying: that the King and Queen WERE behind the coup, that the King and Queen WERE supporting the PAD, that the King DID interfere in the judiciary, that the King WAS involved in the killing of his elder brother, that the Thai monarchy IS despotic, etc. etc.
Such views are not a question of interpretation or intention. People mean and intend what they say because they believe it to be the truth. The only problem is that they can’t say so in public because of the lese majeste law and the political regime which it supports.
In summary, the problem, in my opinion, is not the question of intention or interpretation, but the lese majeste law itself which forbids criticism of the monarchy.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
4 Nganadeeleg // Jan 30, 2010 at 11:18 pm
An unjust law and/or an unjust interpretation of it – either way, I still think more people know about it.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
5 Elizabeth Fitzgerald // Jan 30, 2010 at 11:36 pm
Aladdin, I agree that the problem is “the lese majeste law itself which forbids criticism of the monarchy.” However, what became of interest to me when I read the decision was how the court justified and argued its claims against Darunee. The precise injustice of the court is that the issue of whether or not one should be able to say what Darunee said cannot even be raised within the court. There is literally no space within the court to raise this question — that is a problem. So I return to the question with which I ended: when one examines this court decision, and how the incredibly harsh sentence against Darunee was justified, what might one conclude? In particular, what does the logic of the court tell us about injustice, democracy, censorship and repression in Thailand?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
6 Frank G Anderson // Jan 31, 2010 at 8:43 am
To repeat my earlier few suggestions, Thais and/or expats here in Thailand must take the lese majeste issue into the courts by swearing criminal and civil plaints against:
1. those administering the law.
2. those enforcing the law.
3. class action suit against those in the past who filed wrongful lese majeste charges.
4. those involved in the legislation process from beginning to passing into law.
While the courts get and deserve many high marks for administering justice in many cases, it is no secret that here in Thailand they fall far short of either preventing or properly dealing with injustice, particularly in this area…in part because of the attitudes of justices and lawyers and police toward the real intent of the lese majeste law and why it is being retained and used so often. The fact that now the military is openly involved in policing opinion and expression should highlight that things can only get worse.
There is the opinion that any group that actually carries this issue into the courts will face imprisonment. I am sure it will face harassment and derision, denunciation and possibly demonstrations (orchestrated), and possibly even minimal violence, but right now over sixty million citizens are living under an archaic law that does so much more harm than good.
So, again, get together one and all and let’s take this issue into the courts – demanding open trials and media coverage – where it will get the attention it deserves.
In Darunee’s case as to the secrecy involved, one of the main considerations on the part of the court had to be prevention of opposing viewpoints that would undermining the juristic portion of administering the law. This is one of the things that a group which gets together to take the lese majeste circus into court can latch onto. Unless justices are put on the defense they are not going to back down – which it seems they currently feel is an evil concept.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
7 Srithanonchai // Jan 31, 2010 at 4:12 pm
“In particular, what does the logic of the court tell us about injustice, democracy, censorship and repression in Thailand?” >> A lot, presumably.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
8 Aladdin // Jan 31, 2010 at 7:06 pm
EF – I don’t think there is much difference between our positions on the injustice of the lese majeste law. But the details are important.
From the evidence presented in the judgment that was published in FDK, it didn’t seem to me that there was a great deal of doubt about DT’s intention. While I am no expert in Thai law I didn’t think that the judge’s interpretation of her intention was unreasonable.
So I think it is the wrong tactic to emphasize interpretation of intention, if you are opposed to the injustice of people who are imprisoned under lese majeste.
The real problem is that under the lese majeste law if you tell the truth about the monarchy you will be prosecuted. So if you want a rational understanding about the place of the monarchy in Thailand, based on fact, you have to abolish lese majeste, not quibble about interpretation of the law (IMHO).
Re. your comment that, “The precise injustice of the court is that the issue of whether or not one should be able to say what Darunee said cannot even be raised within the court”; again, I don’t think I can agree.
In my understanding the role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law, not to question whether the laws are just or not.
In a democracy it should be the people, through their political representatives, who decide whether or not a law is just, not unelected judges – who in recent years appear in any case to be more beholden to the monarchy than they are to the people. So this debate should take place in society generally. Then, if it is the will of the people, the politicians as the people’s political representatives change the law.
***
FGA – For the same reason as above I can’t agree with your call to “take the lese majeste issue into the courts”.
I do agree that one could and should demand open trials and open reporting, but it would be a futile effort under the current regime. Can you really imagine Thai newspapers or TV news programs reporting that a defendant in a lese majeste case had accused the King of being involved in the killing of his brother, that the Thai monarchy was despotic and that the Thai royal family should be guillotined or shot? And this is the tip of the iceberg. I understand that there are 100s of cases pending prosecution. The whole idea of lese majeste is to limit criticism of the monarchy, not broadcast it through the media, even if it were in the form of court reporting.
As I said in my first post, the notion that the problem with the lese majeste law is that it is misused or abused by others is a royalist argument and should be rejected.
The lese majeste law is at the heart of the current undemocratic regime. If Thais knew all the facts about and could openly discuss and criticise the monarchy then it could not survive in its current form. This would mean that the “network” of military, business, party political and bureaucratic interests that depend on the monarchy would also be severely weakened.
That is why those interests would never consider altering the lese majeste law themselves.
One needs somehow to build up a political constituency that demands abolition or at least drastic change to the law. What this means, therefore, is that you need a political constituency, and a strategy, to fight the monarchy.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
9 Frank G Anderson // Jan 31, 2010 at 10:12 pm
You may have entirely missed the point. There would be no allegations against despots in high places if that is what you mean. I thought I had indicated that police, justices, public prosecutors, plaintiffs in past and current LM cases all be included in a class action suit. The point is not to challenge any monarchy per se, but instead to get the issue out onto the court, in the court, and open media. It’s a fight worth fighting. I am not a great ACLU fan, but I believe this is what they did when they were first founded – they took on a major social issue for the first time and won.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
10 thomas hoy // Feb 1, 2010 at 2:41 am
Aladdin, part of the process of changing or getting rid of this law could be to highlight its manifest absurdity and arbitrariness. Elizabeth Fitzgerald does well to point this out saying that the judges make the point that “Even though the defendant does not clearly mention any individual by name, the fact is that the prosecutor has brought evidence that makes it possible to interpret that the defendant meant the King and Queen Sirikit”.
So with this reading she is guilty not simply of what she said but of what people might interpret her to have said. Any negative comment on the ruling classes in Thailand by anyone could be interpreted by someone somewhere as an attack on the monarchy.
I don’t read Thai so there may be translation issues here but, on the face of it, it really amounts to a judgement that she “possibly” committed a crime. That’s a very weak standard of proof for 18 years jail.
If it is as they say “possible” to interpret Da Torpedo’s speech one way, then logically it must be possible to interpret it in other ways.
So I agree with Elizabeth that those other interpretations should be made. For three reasons, to relieve a person who is oppressed, to make inroads against the continuing oppression of speech and thought, and to highlight the injustice of this law and its application.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
11 chris beale // Feb 1, 2010 at 4:35 am
Aladdin – you’re raising a lot of very serious allegations that would stand almost no chance of conviction even in a Western court of law.
Where’s your evidence, other than rumour ?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
12 thomas hoy // Feb 1, 2010 at 5:52 am
A further word. I just read somewhere that Darunee’s case is still on appeal. This makes it more urgent that her case be argued in every way possible.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
13 Frank G Anderson // Feb 1, 2010 at 9:18 am
The appeal is merely a re-eamination of existing evidence and review of procedures, etc. if I am correct.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
14 Aladdin // Feb 1, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Rep to chris beale – what allegations do you mean?
Rep to thomas hoy – I agree with you and Elizabeth Fitzgerald that the law and its application is unjust.
I just think that arguing that the judge made an error of interpretation will not work, if your aim is to fight this law.
And I don’t think it would work in the specific case of DT either, based on my reading of the evidence presented in the judgment published in Fa Dio Kan.
But someone more knowledgeable in Thai law than me might have a better idea.
Rep to FGA – my point is exactly that fighting the lese majeste law is indeed a direct challenge to the monarchy. That is why it is an extremely hard thing to do: it’s a political problem, not a legal one.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
15 StanG // Feb 1, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Alladin:
Apparently this “will of the people” is not present despite all the publicity attracted by recent cases.
I don’t think “she didn’t mean the King” defense strategy could have achieved anything, no one would have believed her despite all the theoretical possibilities she referred to anyone else.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
16 Frank G Anderson // Feb 1, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Use substitute pronouns for a moment, she did say “The people love them more than they love the people.” I listened to her say this and to me there was no misconstruing as to what she meant. And some feel there is sufficient evidence to prove that she was right. That is why she is in prison.
As to coup or no coup, saying there will be no coup is as dicey as saying there will be. The only thing keeping a coup away is a situation that power keepers feel a threat – then there will be a coup. No doubt about it.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
17 Aladdin // Feb 1, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Rep to StanG – on your second point I agree with you.
On your first point, I would say two things:
(i) one should never take appearances at face value. People know how dangerous it is to openly question such things so most do not outwardly express such views. This, however, does not mean that many people do not feel that the law is unjust.
(ii) to gain “the will of the people” so that politicians could legislate to repeal or reform the law one would need a public campaign. As I said, fighting the lese majeste law represents a direct challenge to the monarchy. This makes such campaigns very difficult under the current political circumstances.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
18 Frank G Anderson // Feb 1, 2010 at 9:21 pm
“As I said, fighting the lese majeste law represents a direct challenge to the monarchy. This makes such campaigns very difficult under the current political circumstances.”
Any such fight does not challenge the monarchy, to be contrary. Even the king has said he is tired of the law and the cases. That his words were put on the back burner and no such court cases challenging the law were even brought up is nothing to do with challenging the monarchy as it is driving a wedge into a very tight crack full of vested interest worms that don’t want legal challenges to the immense power they hold.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
19 StanG // Feb 1, 2010 at 10:37 pm
There are different ways to convert the “will of people” into laws. Convincing Abhisit that the LM needs to be reviewed is one of possible solutions, and that could come through the media and civil society, and just general public opinion.
Some people would certainly have more influence on the process than others but that’s the reality of translating the will of 65 million people who generally don’t think too much on the subject.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
20 Aladdin // Feb 2, 2010 at 2:07 pm
There is no reason why Abhisit would consider reviewing LM. It’s just not in his political interest to do so – quite the opposite. LM does the job of intimidating anyone who would challenge the political dominance of the monarchy and the royalists. There’s no question that the Democrats benefit politically from this.
All Abhisit needs to do is field a couple of questions a year from foreign journalists – Thai journalists would not dare raise the issue of reforming LM – and give one of his polished answers. There would be no international pressure.
On the issue of what 65 million people think – we’ve seen that when the dominance of the royalists is challenged it doesn’t matter what the majority thinks. They will carry out coups, write new Constitutions, ban opposition politicians, dissolve opposition political parties, seize airports, in order to regain their control.
But when it has been given the chance the Thai electorate has voted overwhelmingly for Thaksin’s parties. I would think that there is much more sympathy for reforming LM from within the Thaksin camp than that of the Democrats.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
21 Frank G Anderson // Feb 2, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Giles Ungapakorn thus possesses considerably more credibility than Thaksin in his quest to have the law repealed much less reformed. While his socialist outlook gets in the way of logic and reason, his approach to the LM law is no longer a question. This is really what other Thais here need to do – must do: fight to have the law reformed at the minimum, and take it to the courts to get it done.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
22 StanG // Feb 2, 2010 at 6:02 pm
LM has nothing to do with current political battles. The only real political opponent was Jakrapob and he has lost his mind with threats of guerrilla war. Suwicha and Da Torpedo are not political opponents in any sense.
Real political opponents, the reds, spent several months collecting signatures for the royal petition, not trying to reform LM law.
Somehow Abhisit got the review panel going, if his speech at Oxford last year is any indication, he wants to prevent the abuse of LM for hidden purposes. That was also the speech where he made Giles look like a lunatic with feet clappers and a touch of paranoia.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
23 thomas hoy // Apr 5, 2010 at 1:52 am
Stan G,
Abhisit said that the law was fine but that it was sometimes misused.
One of the specific instances of this misuse according to Abhisit was the case of Chiranuch of Prachatai.
She has now been arrested, imprisoned and faces charges that could result in 50 years jail time.
What did the review panel you mentioned do? Who are its members? What are its terms of reference? Where is their report?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
24 Thongchai Winichakul // Apr 5, 2010 at 12:58 pm
To Stan G (#22) — In so many ways, LM is an important piece in the current political injustice in Thailand. It is the bedrock of political suppression preventing people cannot debate the root causes of conflict. It generates the climate of fear, preventing freedom to speak and argue openly with reasons. This leads to onesided or heavily biased information in the media and in public. It forbids people to disucss the succession crisis even though it is at the heart of the current crisis.
The LM law is not a magic solution that would solve the current conflict. It is a weapon that destroys Thai democracy.
The LM law is responsible for making the Orwellian Minitrue, Doublespeak, and so on, become reality in Thailand. Orwell’s Oceania is too “total”. Thailand’s LM law is subtler; it creates a repressive authoritarianism with smiles
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
25 Frank G Anderson // Apr 5, 2010 at 1:31 pm
It will be interesting this Friday afternoon. I have an appointment with police and public prosecutor to find out/determine if they are going to or not go ahead with formal charges based on Akbar Khan’s allegation against me for criminal defamation. I wonder if my counter-filings had anything to do with this.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
26 Frank G Anderson // Apr 5, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Re. Stan G:
As I said before, it’s basically useless to comment on his remarks or debate with him. The rules of logic and reason are not palatable to him.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
27 Thongchai Winichakul // Apr 5, 2010 at 1:33 pm
FYI — The human rights (HR) organizations in Thailand and the international ones do not defend ANY of the victims of the LM law. They consider the Thai king a champion of HR; but he is so vulnerable to malicious attacks, hence the need for special protection by the LM law.
So far, AI refuses to consider any case of the LM victims. For Da Torpedo, they consider her speech is a hate speech, instead of a political speech. They have yet to say why other victims also fail their criteria for prisoner of conscience. They have yet to explain why all of them are not “political prisoners” (with or without hate speech). The charm of the LM law is international and universal.
I truly believe with utmost sincerity that the Thai monarch is so great and he should be globally recognised as the Supreme King International of the Entire Human World, the Galaxy, and the Entire Universe Since the Big Bang (SKIEHWGEUSBB). He is literally the true Universal Monarch (cakkravartin) of our time.
Under the royal spell (SKIEHWGEUSBB), the AI and HR people forget that the H stand for HUMAN. They forget that Thais are also human, not royal subjects any more. Under the royal spell (SKIEHWGEUSBB), the HR becomes HIERARCHICAL rights as if Thais deserve sub-human treatment. Under the royal spell, AI stands for Apologist International or Apathetic International to serious human rights violations in Thailand.
The above comments is a criticism of the HR organizations, plus a highest praise of the King. Therefore it doesn’t violate Thailand’s LM law.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
28 StanG // Apr 5, 2010 at 7:34 pm
“They forget that Thais are also human, not royal subjects any more. ”
So, following this logic, those who consider themselves royal subjects are not human?
Last week we saw a breakdown in negotiations between the government and red shirts and it had absolutely NOTHING to do with LM.
On their stage reds make all sorts of demands and revelations, never ever heard them complaining about LM.
There are all sorts of posts asking for all sorts of discussions here on NM or on Prachatai. I don’t claim to read it all, but so far the main problem appears to be that people have nothing new to say rather than someone stopping them.
Just how many times can you read about breakaway Isan, or JFL, or Susie Wong, quoting from notthenation, of all places.
Intolerance, personal abuse and censorship are far bigger obstacles to debates here, not LM per se.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
29 Frank G Anderson // Apr 5, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Thongchai:
Your earnestness is appreciated! Amen and praise the Lord.
Yess’m mastah!
Note for you’all out there…
Press Release
5 April 2010
Today, 5 April 2010, I received a phone call at 15:00 hrs. from Pol. Lt. Samaphorn Chatrakulphanit (Tel. 089-4555301), case investigation official, Phahon Yothin Metropolitan Police Station (Tel. 02-5122447), Bangkok. She called to indicate that Pol. Lt. Col. Wattanasak Mungkitkarndee , who had filed criminal defamation charges against me for what he claims was defamatory information on my website, http://www.thekoratpost.com, was currently attempting to lodge an additional complaint of violating the Computer Crime Act (2007). Lt. Samaphorn stated that at the moment an allegation as such had not been made but was under review for lodging if it was concluded that the complaint could be substantiated. She indicated that she was just calling to inform me that I may be called to Bangkok again for questioning similar to that during my first visit to answer Akbar Khan’s initial charges. If so, it would be my fourth visit engineered by Khan and Wattanasak.
I informed Lt. Samaphorn that if Wattanasak (and presumably Khan) wanted to play this kind of game he could find himself also facing new allegations including lèse majesté and offense of terrorism as a start. She seemed nonplussed and again stated that she was just calling to inform me.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
30 chris beale // Apr 7, 2010 at 2:12 am
Frank Anderson@29 re. Akbar Khan.
As a UK citizen, Khan could probably be sued for huge damages under English common law, not least by any British members of the FCCT Board, journalists, etc.
If he failed to pay such damages, his UK passport would be withdrawn.
Also there was a post that 20 Thais in the US had filed LM charges against a Thai in the US.
If this Thai is a US citizen, (or even has a Green card?) he could sue the other 20 for huge costs – millions of dollars – for :
1) Infringing his First Amendment rights.
2) Harassment.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
31 Thai Netizen Network calls for changes to the Computer Crime Act « Political Prisoners in Thailand // Nov 2, 2010 at 11:51 pm
[...] [...]
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
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.