On 1 February 2012, 224 noted international scholars, writers, and activists sent an open letter to Yingluck Shinawatra expressing grave concern over the use of Article 112 and the erosion of the basic rights of those who face charges under it. The letter notes that “Article 112 has become a powerful tool to silence political dissent, and in particular, any dissent interpreted as disloyalty to the monarchy.”
The letter is explicitly in support the call of the Campaign Committee to Amend Article 112 (CCAA112/ครก.112) to reform Article 112 in line with the amendment proposed by the Khana Nitirat. The signatories support the CCAA112 and the amendment law because “reform is necessary to protect the basic rights of Thai citizens and support the consolidation of democracy and the rule of law.”
The signatories of the letter include distinguished scholars, writers, and activists from 16 countries and territories: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, Philippines, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, UK, US.
The letter is provided here below in English and in Thai, with the full list of signatures on both.
Noam Chomsky and Cornell West—wow.
It’s wonderful that this was done to show these brave seven scholars that they indeed are not alone. They need to stand firm and know the international community backs them.
Quality comment or not?
23 
4
Is Noam Chomsky in there? What has Noam Chomsky written about Thailand or Lese Majeste recently?
Why did they strangely merge the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs? After I read “There are many known cases in which charges
have been filed and prosecutions carried out over the last five years, as well as an unknown number which have not been made public but which court statistics indicate have taken place.“, I was expecting to read figures, statistics … but they just launch into how easy it is for any interested party in Thailand to initiate a Lese Majeste case … yawn, yawn.
Quality comment or not?
3 
10
And really this is gonna help the nitirat to survive or make it a more urgent target to be taken down by the hyper royalists?
Quality comment or not?
1 
8
Let’s wait and see if the 224 persons can challenge the Thai ideology. In my opinion, Thais do not consider the foreigners’ points of view on the criminal code 112; they think that the criminal code 112 is their own internal affairs.
When they look at foreigners’ opinions, Thais have two sorts of perception: if the foreigners’ points of view are not involved with their ideology, they will accept those, and vice versa.
If Thais do not pay attention to the 224 persons they may think the names are rubbish; if they are concerned Thai nationalism (anti-westernisation) will be mobilized. Let’s wait and see.
Quality comment or not?
7 
1
Bunny has a point. The show of solidarity is impressive, but the inclusion of names like Chachavalpongpun, Handley, Marshall and Ungpakorn might simply reinforce the establishment’s conviction that the Khana Nitirat should be shut out of whatever counts for national debate in Thailand.
What I find surprising is that people like Marshall and Ungpakorn (not to mention Chompsky) would express support for a Khana Nitirat proposal that upholds the need for specific legal protections against defamation of the royal institution above and beyond those that apply to regular citizens. I wonder how many of the signatories gave the content of the Khana Nitirat proposal careful consideration.
Quality comment or not?
4 
2
Going against the grain and I’m sure some people will judge me harshly on this (or maybe, more likely, they don’t care) I was asked to sign the letter and refused to do so on point of principle.
I simply couldn’t sign a letter that backed a reform that would likely keep people in prison and which would keep a pretty lengthy prison sentence for this on the books.
I have also been disappointed that while plenty involved in the CCAA112 campaign have been happy to use the imagery of the prisoners, their immediate release from prison has not been a central campaign aim.
However, I would like to state that I support without question the principle that Nitirat should be allowed to put forward reforms, that a discussion is opened up and that, obviously, Nitirat’s proposals are a step in the right direction.
I think the reforms offer the same kind of compromise and deal Pheu Thai are being roundly condemned for agreeing to.
I also don’t have any problem with letters like this and find some of the comments above that it might draw unnecessary flak, disingenuous. You guys should be criticising the crazies getting ready to burn new effigies and make more threats not the targets of those actions. It’s the rapist and the short skirt argument “I was so provoked, I simply couldn’t help myself.” While I don’t agree with all of Nitirat the space they are opening up needs to be defended.
Quality comment or not?
26 
1
I have checked the feedback in Thai media today and found that the Thai media are not interested in the 224 which they might have interpreted that the 224 are aliens. As I have suggested that Thais be excited with foreigners if they are not involved with their internal affairs. The 224 will fade away easily in the river of conflicts in Thailand. However, we should wait for Yingluck’s reaction. Then we can evaluate what it would be in the coming future.
Quality comment or not?
4 
4
I guess I am not on enough lists because no one asked me to sign. I will sign up with CCAA112 and write a personal letter in protest directly to the rector at Thammasat University, as my colleague and friend Tom Hoy has done. It is extremely embarassing to work and live in Thailand as an academic, when actions like the one against the Nitarat Group by unchallenged by faculty here.
Donald Arthur Johnson, Faculty of Graduate Studies, Mahidol University, Salaya, Thailand
Quality comment or not?
13 
1
@Andrew Spooner: At the risk of further torturing your metaphor, my point was akin to saying that those inclined to rape might use short skirts as an excuse for their actions, not that such an excuse is in any way valid. Anyone invited to sign the letter was of course morally justified in doing so, provided the agreed with its content. I simply doubt that those who receive the letter will be particularly moved by it, in part because they view some of its signatories as extremists whose views have no place in Thailand’s national dialogue.
My second point hinted, I think, at the line of reasoning that lead you to withhold your signature, although I didn’t key in on the status of those currently imprisoned, as you have so rightly done.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I actually agree with K.Andrew Spooner on this, that the Nitirat proposals do not go far enough.
Quality comment or not?
15 
1
@Doug and Andrew
I did sign the letter, although I do share the wish that people would not be jailed for their opinions altogether (and not just, as you say, jailed less). But one must go with what’s possible here. Giving 112 some oversight is putting it on a path towards England or Sweden’s lese-majeste laws, where the enforcement is only in rare and extreme cases (as in Sweden, when someone threw a pie at the king – not his picture, at the royal person himself!).
This is a reasonable and (one hopes, although decreasingly so) more achievable goal.
Quality comment or not?
5 
1
RU is simply wrong. I also checked the Thai media, and there is quite a lot of reporting and discussion.
Is Tony back as Jon Wright? yawn, yawn and wake up in a stinking Thai jail (for some).
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
Andrew Johnson
Don’t misunderstand me, I respect completely those who have signed the letter and believe those who have done are completely committed to changing this law.
However, I do think CCAA112 have made a couple of strategical errors by adopting the Nitirat proposals.
First of all, in any political negotiation always put out a tougher stance than you are willing to accept. CCAA112 would’ve put themselves and Nitirat in a better position if they’d said “We want abolition and all the prisoners freed.” This is a very simple stance, that is unambiguous and easy to clarify.
By adopting this position CCAA112 would’ve created the space where Nitirat could’ve moved into – a ‘middle ground’ position.
As it is using the Nitirat ‘middle ground’ position from the start means three things. 1) What is the point of CCAA112 when they are identical to Nitirat? 2) Both groups have nowhere to go. 3) Abolitionists are now isolated, marginalised and alienated.
The abolitionists could’ve been very very useful to Nitirat strategically. Unfortunately the abolitionists can easily be dismissed as extremists or that they are “asking for too much and too quickly”.
I would also say that CCAA112 and Nitirat both adopting the same “middle ground” position will only be interpreted as one thing by the “amaart” – weakness. Hence they are going on an all attack on Nitirat.
And where were the prisoners and prisoners families in CCAA112′s campaign? Why not put their human story upfront and in a headline position? There are very very few people who didn’t feel sympathy for Ah Kong – this aspect has been totally under utilised.
Having said all that I still commend both CCAA112 and Nitirat for adopting a principled stand (even though I disagree with the reforms themselves) and acknowledge and respect the people taking the risk and pushing the debate forward.
Quality comment or not?
10 
1
I wrote: “…if they are concerned Thai nationalism (anti-westernisation) will be mobilized.” In Kom Chad Leuk, Sumeth Tantivejakul, Secretary general of the Chai Patthana Foundation, warned Nitirat not to follow Farang’s interference on the Criminal Code 112. This is a symptom of anti-westernisation.
Quality comment or not?
2 
4
Anyways, I think Yíngluck is the wrong person to address. What is left for her to say but “Yeah, I KNOW. But you have to understand that things are ‘a bit inconvenient’ for me that at present.”
Honestly, since they set up Chalerm’s web GeStaPo just a few weeks ago, I have my doubts and expect little from this govt that goes beyond securing their political survival.
Quality comment or not?
7 
2
In no. 7 I wrote: “The 224 will fade away easily in the river of conflicts in Thailand.” Now it is true; no one talks about the 224 in the Thai media. It is important to note that most in the Thai media are not acquainted with the 224 names. Even the famous Noam Chomsky–the Transformationalist linguist turned to international affairs–may not be known among them. Although they are open and can be asked about personal, Thais will resist others’ involvement in their very personal affairs. Then the 224 easily faded away in the river of conflicts.
Quality comment or not?
0 
1
RU must read pretty narrowly in the Thai press. There has been plenty of pro and anti comment on this letter including rejection by Chalerm and another (name escapes me just now). Further interviews by the Thai media with some of the signatories have been reported.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Having join many of Nitirat conference, I have a conclusion that Nitirat never intended to have their proposal the come to effect. Obviously PT is too scared to even talk about the topic. I agreed with Ajarn Somsak and Andrew that the proposal doesn’t go far enough. However, the more important aspect about this movement is, in my opinion, to give people “courage” to talk about the matter in public. In the past, talking about the law itself might be considered as lese majeste, but after this campaign has been initiated, I can already noticing people talking about this topic more openly.
Time will tell will Thai people ready to face the reality.
Quality comment or not?
1 
1
Letters like this one have many audiences. The letter is addressed to the Thai prime minister, but others inside Thailand will read it or come to know of it – Thai officials in government departments, journalists, academics, NGOs, and activists. To the outside world, the letter reports the excessive measures being used in the name of an unjust law. Diplomats, officials in international organisations, and journalists, among others, will take note, or so one hopes.
Will anyone in a position of authority inside or outside the country do anything as a result of this letter? The effects are impossible to gauge. I do not sign the letter because I think the prime minister or the legislators or the DSI or the courts will pay attention to this particular appeal to reform 112. I do not sign the letter because I think the proposed reforms are ideal. I sign the letter because I think it is important that the Nitirat group and CCAA112 group know that the outside world understands the risks they are taking and is concerned about their welfare. The letter encourages their bold move. The letter states “we stand in solidarity with….,” no more, no less.
Quality comment or not?
4 
1
If this letter by 224 academics falls on deaf ears like a similar one a few weeks earlier with half that nuber ( 112 ) signing – will there be another round with then 448 and 996 coming up ?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0