While people may and should debate on the merit of the lese majeste law, outright verbal attacks online, especially those that are unsubstantiated have led to a feeling that the online virtual debating community is degenerating into verbal abuse and uncompromising dogmatism, both from the political left and right. These reckless and vicious contributors end up dissuading others who may otherwise wish to engage in a more cool-headed and rational debate, dialogue and deliberation. On the other hand, the risk of having the ICT Ministry monitor some political views is a potential hazard for some of the contributors and a damning verdict on the state of Thai democracy.

- Extracted from “Internet emerging as a new stage for public debate”, The Nation, 6 September 2009.

AI [Amnesty International] broke its long silence on lese majeste when Darunee’s case began in June this year. It criticised the court for ordering a closed trial of the proceedings, which a judge on the bench justified as a “matter of national security.”

But AI stayed clear of raising concerns if the law infringed on the right to freedom of expression. Public statements delivered earlier by HRW [Human Rights Watch] have also studiously avoided this fundamental right.

“We have felt that working in a more private capacity than in a public way is the most appropriate and the most effective response on the lese majeste issue to date,” says Benjamin Zawacki, South-east Asia researcher for AI. “There is an implicit knowledge of the sensitivity of this law.”

“There are competing interests at stake; one is the right to freedom of expression. But you have an institution here that has played an important role in the protection of human rights in Thailand,” Zawacki explained in an interview. “We can see why the monarchy needs to be protected.”

The Bangkok-based Zawacki admitted, however, that the law has been abused. “The lese majeste law, as is currently applied in the last three years, has been used for the suppression of free speech for largely political purposes and not for the protection of the monarchy, for which the law was drafted,” he says.

The Asian Human Rights Commission has been more outspoken.

And, in one of his email circulars, Jiles Ungpakorn writes:

In my view, there is little point in writing letters to the Thai authorities about this. However, what would be more useful is to write to Amnesty International and demand that they start taking up and campaigning for lese majeste prisoners in Thailand.

From Oliver Jufer and Harry Nicolaides, to Suwicha Thakor and Daranee “Da Torpedo” Charnchoengsilpakul, whenever a lese majeste case is prosecuted, and every time an outrageous sentence is proclaimed, we receive a tragic spike in readership.  Outrage is voiced by those on all sides, and no sides, of our increasingly vociferous debates.

Whenever I am asked about contemporary Thai political matters, I try to explain that as the clock counts down to the end of King Bhumibol Adulyadej’s reign there are some obvious, but not entirely persuasive, reasons for continuing the draconian enforcement of the lese majeste law.  Of course, the general idea is that it shields the palace from scrutiny of its unpublicised political and economic activities.  Sympathetic observers claim that the royals are not in a position to defend themselves from critical jabs.  There is also a sense that without drastic restrictions on what is considered appropriate public comment a barrage of information about the royal family, and particularly Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn, would mortally wound the institution.

I am unconvinced by these lines of argument but, then again, I am not entrusted with preserving the Chakri dynasty and all it represents.  For those sitting in high-backed chairs in the Privy Council I’m sure there are very serious concerns about what might happen if tabloid journalism, the radical fringe and ordinary Thai citizens started to more openly mull over the future of the monarchy.  From that perspective I can understand how, in an age-old cocktail, conservatism mixes with fear to keep renegades such as “Da Torpedo” locked up.  Her incarceration sets a stern precedent.  The palace has its reasons for keeping the lese majeste law in force.

But the more important question is something like this: does the abolition of the lese majeste law makes good sense for Thailand?

This is a question that could never be put to a vote in the kingdom.  There is a small chance that even posing it here leaves me liable to hoary charges of lese majeste.

A democratic society benefits, in all sorts of ways, from a free press and the resulting opportunities to pass judgement on the performance of leaders. The lengthy sentences received by the likes of Suwicha and Daranee will simply drive these judgements underground until such time as they steam up and boil over into the public domain.  The Internet guarantees that Daranee’s 18-year sentence will be drawn to the attention of hundreds of thousands of inquisitive Thais.  If New Mandala’s traffic logs are anything to go by, they are increasingly finding their way to websites like this one.  Many, no doubt, disagree with what we write.  They will read and digest and make up their own minds.  Some will take what they find online back to their offices, universities, farms, schools, hospitals, police stations, markets, and army bases, and all the other places where fresh news and gossip add extra elements to political discussions.

The Great Firewall of Chitralada can only be built so high.

For that reason, while New Mandala may have failed to get Taronga Zoo’s elephant named “Suwicha”, we are still more than prepared to provide an open forum to discuss these important issues.

These are discussions that have now been reignited by Daranee’s harsh sentence.  Some months ago I suggested that “‘Da Torpedo’ remains a formidable weapon against the lese majeste law”.  Her 18-year sentence, and her intention to appeal, gives me no reason to change that assessment.

What would happen if her appeal is allowed to be heard in an open court, with a full press corps prepared to report on every last word of proceedings?

UPDATE (1 September 2009): Broken links fixed.  Thanks for pointing them out.

[UPDATE: This disgrace is getting some coverage in Australia.]

Thailand and many scholars of Thailand have long resisted comparative perspectives on that history. The latter have squandered the potential of those perspectives to serve as the bases for a reconceptualization of Thai history. For adoption of comparative perspectives would challenge the myths — along with some fairy tales — of uniqueness whose invocation has long served as national placebo, obviating clear-eyed diagnosis of national pathologies.

The full article is, of course, well worth a look for anyone hoping to understand Thailand’s recent political history.

Instead of silence, a series of pointed questions to Prime Minister Abhisit would have indicated a U.S. commitment to an end to impunity and a return to accountability:

1. Will Thailand release the national security detainees and others being arbitrary detained in southern Thailand? Yala, Pattani, and Narathiwat – the southern border provinces of Thailand – were placed under martial law in January 2004, and have been under emergency rule since July 2005.  The central Thai state has offered rising Islamic insurgency as the explanation for the abrogation of rights under martial law, and then the intensification of repression under emergency rule.  Since 2004, thousands of people have been arrested.  Martial law permits detention for seven days before charges need to be brought against someone being held suspected of threatening national security, and the emergency decree adds another thirty days before charges need to be brought.  Detainees do not have access to lawyers during the initial 37-day period of detention.  The International Crisis Group has noted that during the first seven days, detainees are often held in temporary sites of detention and cannot see family members or other visitors, which means that the risk of torture is greatest during this period.  Some of those arrested have been extralegally detained, re-educated, and released without ever passing through a court and others have been charged with crimes of national security under the Criminal Code.  For those who become national security detainees, an additional eighty-four days of detention are possible before they must be charged with a crime.  National security cases move very slowly through the judicial system, with months of detention possible between court hearings.

2. Will Thailand stop the use of the torture and honor its commitments as a ratifier of the UN Convention Against Torture?  Thailand ratified the UN Convention Against Torture on 2 December 2007.  Yet in January 2009, Amnesty International reported that state forces in southern Thailand systematically use torture against civilians. The most notable is the case of Imam Yapa Kaseng, who was arrested as a suspected insurgent in Narathiwat province on 19 March 2008.  Imam Yapa died on 21 March 2008 from wounds inflicted from being tortured while interrogated.  The autopsy ruled that he died from “blunt force trauma.”  The military officers who carried out the torture that killed Imam Yapa have not been held accountable.

3. Will Thailand continue using the lèse majesté law (Article 112 of the Criminal Code) and the Computer Crimes Act of 2007 to censor speech and repress dissent?  Clinton called for the immediate release of imprisoned Burmese Nobel laureate and leader of the National League for Democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi, but left unspoken the names of Suwicha Thakor and others imprisoned or accused of lèse majesté in Thailand. While the lèse majesté law - which prohibits any speech critical of the royal institution and allows any citizen to make a complaint – has been in existence for many years, its use has been stepped up in the last year.  In April 2009, Suwicha Thakor was sentenced to fifteen years in prison for allegedly posting YouTube clips insulting to King Bhumipol, Thailand’s 82-year-old monarch. Chotisak Onsoong, a young activist, has been charged with lèse majesté for not standing up during the royal anthem before a film.  Journalists and web editors have been accused of the crime for their words, or their refusal to censor other’s words.

Or Secretary Clinton and the Obama administration can choose silence.  As Clinton was at pains to mention while in Bangkok last week, the United States and Thailand have had a cordial relationship for over 175 years.  During the Vietnam War, Thailand was the closest ally of the United States, providing soldiers, space for military bases, and the pleasures of R and R.  In the past thirty years, Thailand has remained a major economic and security partner of the United States, most recently providing space for a controversial CIA black site prison. Why jeopardize the relationship by raising thorny issues of human rights and violence?  The answer is simple: because people’s lives are at stake.

Our small hope was that our effort would raise awareness of Suwicha’s plight.  Suwicha Thakor’s incarceration is a black mark against Thailand and any claims it makes to be a free or democratic country.  His 10-year sentence for lese majeste is an outrage.

We have sadly noticed that compared to the few foreigners who have been locked up in Thailand for similar crimes he, and the other Thais in his predicament, receive scant international attention.  This needs to change.

Through the elephant campaign we succeeded in generating some media and blog interest about Suwicha.  We don’t know how many people suggested that “Suwicha” was an appropriate name for the elephant but there were plenty of “clicks” from New Mandala to Taronga Zoo.

Today Taronga has announced that instead of “Suwicha” the elephant will be known as “Luuk Chai” (ลูกชาย), meaning “son”.  It is a banal choice.

New Mandala wishes the young son a long and happy life.  Of course, Suwicha Thakor remains locked up. He too is a luuk chai, and a father of three. More information on his case is available here, here and here.  And Political Prisoners in Thailand continues to update its links.

Perhaps, as one reader has suggested, we should turn our attention to the panda.

Don’t forget to take a minute to show your support for Suwicha Thakor. Details are here. We have already had some interest from Australian media. The more votes we get for “Suwicha” the more we can generate media interest in his fate.