Prachatai English

Fabio Polenghi’s last photos on exhibition

prachatai — Sat, 18 May 2013 07:06:11 +0000

Some of the last photographs taken by photo-journalist Fabio Polenghi, who was shot and killed on 19 May 2010 in Bangkok during the government crackdown on red-shirt protests, have been put on exhibition by his sister. The court will deliver its verdict on the inquest into his death on 29 May.

On 18 May, Elisabetta Polenghi opened an exhibition of her brother’s photographs at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand.

Elisabetta Polenghi at the exhibition

This is to commemorate the last moments of Fabio’s life and his goodwill towards his fellow humans and justice through the photographs he had taken telling stories amidst conflicts, she said.

In addition to those of the violent incidents in Thailand in 2010, photographs about communities in Brazil and refugees in Myanmar were also shown.

Elisabetta said that it had taken her about a year to collect over 500 of Fabio’s photos and about another 4 months to select 30 to be shown on the exhibition.

Fabio’s last photo from his computer, taken on 18 May 2010.

She said that choosing the photos for exhibition was very difficult because it was like living his life and understanding his last moments before he was shot, as she had not been with him at that moment.

The South Bangkok Criminal Court has been conducting an inquest into Fabio’s death for over a year, and is expected to deliver its verdict at the end of this month.

From the trial and evidence, it can be said that the bullets that killed her brother came from the direction of military troops, she said. She believed that the court would make the right decision.

She said that the Thai justice system was quicker than she had thought. Initially, she believed that her brother’s case might never reach the courts at all.

Although it was hard for her to take each step on the way, she did not expect or wish the killers to be executed or punished. She just wanted the truth to come out, she said.

The exhibition will be on display at the FCCT in Ploenchit, Bangkok, until 30 May.

Fabio’s camera was stolen by an unidentified man right after he was shot. See Who is this man?

Source: http://www.prachatai.com/journal/2013/05/46786

Live it or Leave it

prachatai — Sat, 18 May 2013 05:06:33 +0000

Harrison George

Right, I’ve had enough. I’m sick up to here with this mindless ‘if you don’t like it here, then go and live somewhere else’ garbage.

So what about you? If you don’t like reading this stuff, why don’t you go and live somewhere else where they don’t write like this? Never thought of that, did you, eh?

Of course, this is on the internet, so I suppose it’s everywhere. But nobody’s forcing you to read it. You had the sense to know how to turn on your computer and navigate to this page, right? So how come you don’t have the wit to turn your computer off? Huh?

Or maybe you are one of these people who get their jollies from being outraged. Righteous indignation gives you such a bigger thrill than anything you might agree with, is that your problem?

Don’t worry, you’re not alone. When fans of the original shock jock Howard Stern were asked why they stayed tuned, they reported they wanted to know what he’d say next. The same poll found that people who hated him stayed tuned even longer, because they too wanted to know what he’d say next.

And what’s this gratuitously insulting reference to ‘your Thai sweetie’? Are you referring to my eminently respectable, highly educated and universally well-regarded wife of 37 years?

Pardon, dear?

38? Are you sure?

Yes of course I remember when we got married, darling, I buy roses every anniversary, don’t I?

No, don’t take it like that, it’s just that I thought we got married in, er, 19, er …

No don’t lock the door, dear. I was misled by your youthful good looks, my sweetheart. It was just a slip of the memory, of course it’s 38 years, I remember now. 38 absolutely wonderful years, in fact, and why are you packing a suitcase?

Bugger. See what you’ve done now with your stupid ‘sweetie’ comment?

And who are you calling ‘Mr Farang’? Look, I’m not so stupid that I assume that just because someone calls himself ‘Somchai’, he must be Thai. Or even a he. Oh no, I could see that coming a mile away. So why do you assume that Harrison George has to be farang? Eh? You fall off a Christmas tree or something?

Yes, I know you’re not the only saying ‘love it or leave it’. It’s a common refrain of mindless patriots around the world. There’s the Commander-in-Chief of the bleeding army for one, and anyone choosing to sing off his hymn sheet must a few satang short of a baht.

I mean, he keeps telling people who complain about something, Thais and foreigners alike, to go and live somewhere else. But doesn’t he realize that by saying this, he’s complaining himself?

So if he doesn’t like people complaining, why doesn’t the good General find somewhere else to live where they don’t complain? Like North Korea, maybe. And leave the rest of us to get on with our complaining in peace without his constant threats. I mean, it’s not like he owns this country, is it?

Isn’t it?

And what’s this about me not liking to live in an ‘absurd’ country? This is satire, or hadn’t you noticed? If there’s nothing absurd going on, how am I going to earn an honest crust?

Mind you, you don’t want it to get so absurd it starts making fun of itself. Like a Deputy Prime Minister prancing about in some bizarre bare-breasted ancient costume and calling fellow citizens garbage. Stuff like that is bloody hard to satirize, let me tell you.

Now if you’re looking for someone who should go away and live in his own world, there’s your man.

Or maybe he already has.

Inquest into two deaths at Bon Kai during May 2010 unrest

prachatai — Fri, 17 May 2013 10:07:32 +0000

On 29 April, the Criminal Court began an inquest into the deaths of Mana Saenprasoetsi and Phonsawan Nakhachai who were shot at Bon Kai on Rama IV Rd on 15 May 2010 when the Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation was cracking down on red-shirt protests.

Mana Saenprasoetsi, 22, was a resident of Bon Kai and a rescue volunteer of the Poh Teck Tung Foundation. He was fatally shot in the back of the head near the mouth of Soi Ngam Duplee in front of a branch of Thai Farmers Bank at about 2-3 pm while he was trying to help people who had been shot there.

One of those who had been shot and was helped by Mana was Phonsawan, 23, who came from Roi Et province in northeastern Thailand. He was shot in the stomach and died later.

Mana, left, giving first aid to one of the injured on the evening of 14 May at the entrance to Soi Ngam Du Plee on Rama IV Rd.

According to the testimony of his mother Naree, 53, Mana on that day was eating at home when he received a radio call from his colleagues telling him that people had been shot near his home and asking him to go out to provide assistance. He went out and at about 6 pm she was told by his colleagues that her son had been shot dead and his body was at Lerdsin hospital.

She later learnt from the rescue staff that her son helped bring Phonsawan, who was shot in the middle of Rama IV Rd, to the footpath, and when he left his shelter to help two injured persons, he was shot and killed on the spot, while holding a red-cross flag in his hand.

Phonsawan’s elder brother Nanthawan, 34, told the court that his brother was a motorcycle driver for hire, and he was not one of the red-shirt protesters.

At about 6 pm on that day, he received a phone call from Lerdsin Hospital that his brother had been seriously shot. He went to the hospital with his brother’s girlfriend, and found that he had already died.

He later learnt from his brother’s friends that Phonsawan had taken his girlfriend to Silom and come to see friends at Soi Ngam Du Plee before being shot. They told him that the bullet came from the direction of the Lumpini Boxing Stadium.

The next hearing will be on 8 July.

In an interview with VoiceTV not long after the incident, Atthachai Thapji, Mana’s fellow rescue volunteer for the Poh Teck Tung Foundation who was crawling behind Mana before he was shot, also believed that the bullet came from the direction of the boxing stadium.

In a CRES television press conference on 20 May 2010, then Deputy Chief of Staff Lt Gen Daopong Rattanasuwon, now a general and Deputy Army Chief, used the picture of Mana shot and lying on the footpath to explain the military operation on 19 May 2010.

The picture was shown on screen as Daopong explained the situation that fires had broken out at Central World, and military troops and firefighters were prevented from entering the area due to armed resistance.

‘During the time we were waiting outside, some of those inside started a fire. They started to burn Central World, Centara Grand Hotel. The fire stopped and started again. We tried to bring fire trucks into the area. But when the fire trucks went in, they were fired at from the inside, making it inconvenient to go in and causing losses. But we tried our utmost to bring in the fire trucks, but were met with resistance all the time.’

Picture of Mana shot and lying on the footpath of Rama IV Rd on 15 May 2010.

The same picture of Mana is shown at 0.45 minutes into the clip of the CRES press conference about the burning of Central World on 19 May 2010.

In a video clip shot on the afternoon of 15 May 2010, soldiers are seen deployed in front of the Lumpini Boxing Stadium, with two snipers stationed on an upper floor of a building.

At 0.29 minutes, a voice is heard shouting ‘Don’t shoot! Put out the fire first!’ It is possible that this was the same time as when Mana was trying to extinguish a fire at a telephone booth in front of the Kasikorn Bank branch, as can be seen in several photos.

Mana (circled)

Mana and Phonsawan were among about 16 people killed at Bon Kai during 13-16 May 2010.

Source: http://www.prachatai.com/journal/2013/05/46735

"Democratic Control of the Military: Thailand in Comparative Perspective"

prachatai — Fri, 17 May 2013 01:32:54 +0000

A public forum on 'Democratic Control of the Military: Thailand in Comparative Perspective' organized by the Institute of Security and International Studies (ISIS) on 9 May 2013 at Chulalongkorn University.

'Democratization and Civilian Control in Asia'

Presenter:Professor Dr. Aurel Croissant

Institute of Political Science, Heidelberg University, Germany

Panel discussion and Q&A

Discussants:

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Panitan Wattanayagorn

Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University

Col. Dr. Teeranan Nandhakwang

Deputy Director of Strategic and Security Affairs Division National Defence College

Moderator: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Thitinan Pongsudhirak

Director of ISIS Thailand Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University

Sexism is buried deep in our daily language

prachatai — Wed, 15 May 2013 08:34:01 +0000

Pravit Rojanaphruk, The Nation

The past two weeks have been rather sobering for those who think Thailand has already risen above misogyny. It has not. People of both sides of the political divide have given us clear evidence, which, if looked at "positively", reminds us of the challenges that lie ahead.

It all began with Thai Rath newspaper political cartoonist Chai Rachawat, who posted a comment on his Facebook page that suggested Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra is worse than a "whore" because she is selling Thailand out. Soon after, the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology (MICT) threatened to suspend any website that carries a lewd message against Yingluck.

That appeared to spur a second misogynistic remark, prompting a hacker to post a message on the PM's Office Ministry's official website that said: "I am a slutty moron" with a picture of a laughing Yingluck.

Opposition media appeared to take delight in expounding on and relaying the two sexist remarks. Some on the other side tried to protect Yingluck's reputation but were not helpful, however.

The premier's nephew, Panthongthae Shinawatra, tried to defend his aunt by demanding that Chai should apologise. Failing to apologise, he said Chai should just wear an airhostess's skirt instead.

This was followed by deputy spokesperson of the PM's Office Ministry Sunisa Lertpakawat, a woman, who last week criticised the anonymous hacker by saying the person should be "man" enough to criticise the premier in a creative manner.

However, you cannot defend women's honour by telling someone to act "like a man" or by telling a man to go and wear a woman's skirt.

And one couldn't help but wonder: if Yingluck were not a woman, would the premier be treated like this by some of her opponents?

This writer is for full criticism of Thailand's first woman prime minister. Nevertheless, you do not need to use sexist remarks to either criticise or defend her. Some cannot differentiate between criticising Yingluck and making misogynistic remarks about her, however.

To make the matter worse, most feminists simply kept silent because they chose to be on the opposite side of the political divide, thus helping to ensure that the latest orgy of sexist verbal abuse is unlikely to be the last.

Since the situation is most unlikely to improve anytime soon, Thai society should at least try to understand why a number of men and even women keep using sexist words and stereotypical remarks that perpetuate the notion that women are innately inferior and dishonourable.

Are some people perpetuating misogyny for fear of losing the culture of male domination?

Do they feel more "masculine" by talking down and looking down on women?

If that's the case, what kind of "men" are they?

This writer personally thinks the matter should not be left solely to feminists and women. People, both men and women, must become more active in helping reduce the level of sexism in Thai language and society.

Sexist speech is sometimes almost "automatic" and "natural". This writer does not think that Sunisa, for example, intended to reinforce the sense of male superiority over women by telling the hacker to "act like a man". Deep-rooted misogyny in our language is thus more insidious and difficult to address. It is embedded in the very foundation of our language and will require conscious efforts to transform Thai language into a more gender-sensitive tongue.

May I suggest that the Ministry of Culture or some universities conduct studies on sexism in the Thai language?

I do not believe that merely banning these words or expressions will work. Society needs to become more aware of the issue, however. It will require effort from men and women alike to change the mindset so no one in the future can proudly tells us to "act like a man" or "shame" us by telling us to wear a skirt.

Source: http://nationmultimedia.com/national/Sexism-is-buried-deep-in-our-daily-language-30206171.html

Outside the University Walls: Yukti Mukdawijitra on Wearing Red

prachatai — Wed, 15 May 2013 02:12:47 +0000

Tyrell Haberkorn

In “Red Shirt Academic,” Yukti Mukdawijitra, Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Sociology and Anthropology at Thammasat University, tells his own story of growing involved in struggling for accountability, freedom and human rights in the years since the 19 September 2006 coup. Simultaneously, he tracks the discomfort this has caused among his colleagues and others in Thai society who would prefer that he and others were less active. They call him a “red shirt academic,” a title he comes to embrace.

Yukti’s essay recalls poet and revolutionary Otto Rene Castillo’s poem, “Apolitical Intellectuals,” a critique of those intellectuals who did nothing when faced with injustice.

Castillo writes that the apolitical intellectuals will be asked:

"What did you do when the poor

suffered, when tenderness

and life

burned out of them?"

His answer:

“Apolitical intellectuals

of my sweet country,

you will not be able to answer.

A vulture of silence

will eat your gut.

Your own misery

will pick at your soul.

And you will be mute in your shame.”

The poem can be read in the original Spanish here, in English translation here, and in Thai translation in Thanet Aphornsuvan’s book, สังคมและการเมืองไทย.

Otto Rene Castillo never had the chance to be apolitical during his short life. He was born in Guatemala in 1936, and went into exile at age 18, after the 1954 CIA-sponsored coup, which ousted the elected Arbenz government. During Castillo’s exile, he was first in El Salvador and then Germany, and returned to Guatamala in 1964. He was tortured and killed along with other dissidents in 1967.

Yukti Mukdiwijitra’s essay and Otto Rene Castillo’s poem resonate with one another. The message is clear: political engagement by intellectuals inside and outside the university is a social and political necessity, not a luxury to be chosen when the mood strikes.

***

Red Shirt Academic

Yukti Mukdawijitra

“Red shirt academic.” This has become a category of academic position. The branding [of people] with this title reflects the indifferent, narrow-minded views held by Thai academics about the problems of human rights and justice.

Before the 2006 coup, I participated in the wave of criticism of Thaksin Shinawatra. This was particularly the case after military forces massacred citizens at Krue Se and Tak Bai in 2004. But I never commended the movement of the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), especially when they used the institution of the monarchy for support and called for the use of Article 7.¹ Then the coup occurred. I criticized the junta and various entities produced by the coup. I was one of those called "no to the two camps" [neither supporting the coup nor Thaksin--trans.] and “spineless.”

At that time, the red shirt movement, which had yet to adopt the red colour, had started to form. The People's Power Party [the party reconstituted from the Thai Rak Thai party after it was banned—trans.] wing of what became the red shirt leadership was not yet part of the movement. In 2007, the People's Power Party was elected to power. The PAD began to rise up again.

In 2008, when we saw a trend of using violence as part of political movement emerge, a group of academics, myself included, established the “Santi Prachatham Network.” We called for the Samak Sundaravej government, the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) and the PAD to be peaceful. But after Samak was deposed and Somchai Wongsawat became prime minister, the PAD still continued until the dispersal of the protest, which was the background of “Nong Bow’s funeral.”² Next, the PAD shut down the airport.

At the end of 2008, the People’s Power Party was dissolved and there was a change of government. During 2009, the red shirt movement unquestionably matured. The UDD held a large protest in front of Government House during Songkran. The Abhisit Vejjajiva government used military force to disperse the protests.

I was not called a “red shirt academic” immediately when the movement came into its own. In fact, prior to the assassination of people in the streets on 10 April and mid-May 2010, I was called “centrist” by Thai Rat newspaper when I joined with academic friends to call on the Abhisit government to dissolve parliament in 2010. My activities after that, from 2010 until the present, were what caused me to more fully become a “red shirt academic.” Perhaps it came from my work with the People’s Information Center: April-May 2010 (PIC), my research about the emergence of the red shirts, and my work with the Campaign Committee to Amend Article 112 (CCAA 112).

After the dispersal of protests at Ratchaprasong in May 2010, a group of academics and social activists came together and established the PIC. Activist colleagues were the primary force behind the center. They looked for information, conducted fieldwork, and met with those affected by the events. Academic colleagues and I were the backup, and aided in writing, identifying key points, and presenting the work to the public. We worked as volunteers and used time outside of work. No one profited from it, at all.

The PIC worked as a citizen’s organization that checked and supplemented the information that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT), which was set up by the Ahbisit government, was unable, or did not want to, access. Moreover, affected citizens did not trust the TRCT and therefore preferred to provide information to the PIC. The PIC ultimately presented a report of more than 1000 pages. During the past three years, those who comprised the PIC realized that, if the PIC had not worked on this, the stories of the victims of the dispersal of protests would have disappeared without a trace.

Afterwards, I and some of the other Santi Prachatham academics wanted to present a new vision of understanding Thai society. This was because the available scholarly work, in terms of both information and theoretical framework, was incapable of providing an understanding of the rise of the red shirts. My view was that the explanation that the red shirts “were buffalos, radicals, only stupid, tricked, bought off by Thaksin” was incapable of accounting for the significant transformations in Thai society. So we began a research project, which has now been concluded.

Most recently, beginning at the end of 2011, the Khana Nitirat invited writer and academic colleagues from the PIC and Santi Prachatham to come together to establish the Campaign Committee for the Amendment of Article 112 (CCAA 112). I was one of those who spoke during press releases, appeared in the media, and explained the social and cultural rationale for why Article 112 [of the Criminal Code or lese majeste law] needed to be amended to the public. Throughout this period, those against the amendment of Article 112 referred to me as a “monarchy-toppling academic.” Some referred to me as “one of those Nitirat [people]” even though I am not a legal expert, by any stretch.

The CCAA 112 proceeded within the confines of the law. We gathered names and copies of the house registration documents of those who supported the amendment of Article 112 in line with the proposal of the Khana Nitirat. We called for the amendment because we thought that Article 112 violated the rights and liberties of the people, had come to be used politically and detrimentally affected the institution of the monarchy by causing it to be associated with the filth of politics. Ultimately, the CCAA 112 obtained the number of signatures and evidence, complete and verified, stipulated by the law. This was submitted to Parliament. But in the end, the Speaker of the House dismissed it and claimed that amending this law was not within the scope of the rights and liberties of the people.

Becoming a “red shirt academic” took me a reasonably long time. I slowly came to appear more fully red, I slowly came to appear more vile in Thai society. People close to me came to be viewed as red, and to have objections raised against them. But this is not important. My troubles are not comparable to the troubles of those who are accused of being red and have to be imprisoned for nothing. I am not as tormented as those who have to wither and die for nothing. I am not as distressed as those whose freedom has been constricted.

No less atrocious is that those who call themselves academics, those with education in Thai society, including many academic colleagues, do not want to associate with me. They do not want to work with me. They do not want to see my face. They do not trust me. This is due to my activities described above.

Some think that I have had a role in creating the conflict in Thai society. But don’t they think how sitting idly would help things improve? Some say that, “These days, Thai society is complicated. The people do not understand how complicated it is, at all. So they then become victims.” Oh! You once said that villagers have wisdom, villagers are clever. What has caused you to now think that villagers are stupid? Some say that, “These days, villagers are no longer naïve like before.” Oh! Since they have become proficient, is it that you no longer trust them anymore?

Some say that, “Going to support any actions now is no good, or you will play into the hand of vile capital” Oh! How exactly is sitting idly, watching people die, watching people be detained, watching people be maligned, a better way to resist vile capital? Some say that, “When ‘that time’ comes, it will change on its own. Why do you have to rush a reaction now?” Oh! After all, you agree with me, but you are incognito, waiting to steal a big piece of cake when the opportunity arises?

Some say that, “You have to look beyond this conflict, with a view to the bigger problem.” You have to look at the danger of risks society is now facing at the global level. You have to look at the dangers of neoliberalism. You have to look at the dangers of vile capital. Sorry, what about the capital of the Crown Property Bureau, which was immune from the Asian Financial Crisis due to “special” measures, protected by Article 112 that blocks out rights and freedom. How is that not a danger to Thai society? How, precisely, is that not a risk? How, exactly, are the problems of violating human rights with Article 112 and the dispersal of the protests in 2009 and 2010 not about neoliberalism? How are they not grand enough in terms of being theories to provide a better understanding of Thai society? Unless you are indifferent to the acute fraud in Thai society, or else you willfully avoid it cowardly, if not foolishly (ignorantly).

And what of the people who died on the streets in April-May 2010, the Article 112 prisoners and the many other political prisoners? How are they any lesser than the people whose rights you struggled for and protected on 7 October 2008, May 1992, October 1976, October 1973 or in the cases of Krue Se and Tak Bai in 2004? Or is it simply because red shirts and those not red but hit by stray bullets died with the stain and residue of Thaksin upon them? So you do not want to understand them, do not want to help them, you do not see them as human the same as you.

As for me, if you are going to call me a “red shirt academic ” for what I have done for my fellow humans, for what I have done to expand the power of the man in the streets, for what I have done for social justice, then I will go ahead and put on a red shirt. I will wear it until humanity, equality, justice cease to be the necessary principles of living life in these times.

Note:

1. Article 7 of the 1997 Constitution, which states that, ‘Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State.'

In 2006, at the height of its anti-Thaksin campaign before the coup on 19 September, the PAD called on the King to use his royal prerogative, as perceived by the PAD, under this article to remove Thaksin and appoint a new Prime Minister.

2. “Nong Bow,” or Angkhana Radappanyawut, was a yellow shirt protestor killed during a clash between police and PAD demonstrators on 7 October 2008. Queen Sirikit presided during her funeral on 13 October 2008.

Source: ยุกติ มุกดาวิจิตร: ตำแหน่งนักวิชาการเสื้อแดง

Thailand: Ongoing detention of human rights defender Mr Somyot Prueksakasemsuk

prachatai — Wed, 15 May 2013 01:46:37 +0000

Front Line Defenders

On 8 May 2013, the lawyer of human rights defender and magazine editor Mr Somyot Prueksakasemsuk submitted an application to the Supreme Court in Bangkok to refute the ruling by the Appeal Court rejecting his previous application. On 3 April 2013, the Appeal Court had rejected the lawyer's application for Somyot Prueksakasemsuk to exercise his right to bail. Somyot Prueksakasemsuk was sentenced to 10 years in jail by the Court of First Instance on 23 January 2013 on charges of publishing two articles with negative references to the Thai monarchy under the lèse majesté law.

On 1 April 2013, the human rights defender's lawyer submitted an appeal against the verdict by the Court of First Instance. Somyot Prueksakasemsuk's application on the right to bail has been rejected twelve times by the Court of First Instance and twice by the Appeal Court. In it, Somyot Prueksakasemsuk's lawyer reiterated that there is no proof that the human rights defender would flee if the bail was granted as he still continued to travel in and out of Thailand after an arrest warrant was issued for him in 2011. The lawyer also stated that until the decision on the case is reached by the Supreme Court, Somyot Prueksakasemsuk's right to bail is guaranteed under the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand. He also underlined that there are health concerns regarding the human rights defender's detention since he is suffering from high blood pressure and gout as well as Hepatitis B.

Somyot Prueksakasemsuk works as a human rights defender in the area of labour rights and freedom of association in Thailand, and is editor of Voice of Taksin. He was found guilty of violating Section 112 of the Thai Criminal Code, which criminalises defaming, insulting or threatening the royal family, commonly known as the lèse majesté law. The trial was attended by approximately 170 observers including local and international journalists, academics, human rights defenders and organisations, and members of the diplomatic corps. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in its sixty-fourth session from 27-31 August 2012 stated that the deprivation of liberty of [the human rights defender], being in contravention of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 19 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which Thailand is party is arbitrary, and it called for his release.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, and the European Union expressed grave concern at the outcome, with the UN High Commissioner also reacting on the denial of bail over such a long period of time. The Commissioner communicated her concern to the Thai government on 15 June 2012, and Front Line Defenders did the same on 23 January 2013 and 14 May 2012.

Front Line Defenders is concerned at the continued detention of Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, which it believes to be solely motivated by his legitimate and peaceful human rights activities, and at the above-mentioned fair trial irregularities including the rejection of request for bail fourteen times.

Front Line Defenders urges the authorities in Thailand to:

1. Quash the conviction and sentencing of Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, and immediately grant his request for bail, as Front Line Defenders believes he has been sentenced solely as a result of his legitimate and peaceful human rights work;

2. Guarantee in all circumstances that all human rights defenders in Thailand are able to carry out their legitimate human rights activities without fear of reprisals and free of all restrictions including judicial harassment.

(Prachatai: The International Federation for Human Rights, Media Defence South East Asia, and Media Legal Defence Initiative have submitted their joint statement to the Supreme Court in support of Somyot's application for bail. See attachement.)

Attachment	Size
FIDH-MLDI-MDSEA Somyot Legal Brief ENG-FINAL.pdf	321.85 KB

Over the Top

prachatai — Sun, 12 May 2013 04:59:07 +0000

Harrison George

Dear me, I can hardly keep up. A Prime Minister talks about democracy in something more than platitudes, and in front of foreigners. And comes home to a chorus of boos from those whose recent contributions to democracy have included coups, live fire zones, and mass censorship of the internet. How dare she mention the word ‘democracy’ 27 times in a speech at a forum on democracy!

Included in the brick-bats hurled at Yingluck was a singularly offensive comment by the Thai Rath cartoonist Chai Ratchawat, whose real name is Somchai Katanyutanan (don’t you just hate these people who masquerade behind patently fabricated pen-names?).

Chai made an unfavorable comparison between PM Yingluck, an ‘evil woman’ who sold her country, and sex workers, who are not evil because they only sell their bodies. (Chai has previously published royalist cartoon books, some of which are directed at children, doubtless to help them develop proper moral attitudes.)

The PM was evidently not amused at being seen as something less than a sex worker and has filed a criminal defamation case against Chai, which seems vindictive but is par for the course for politicians of all stripes. What else you do expect if you include defamation in the criminal as well as civil code?

And her minions in the Ministry of Internet Censorship Technology have threatened to go beyond the legal and close down websites that insult the PM. (Yes, they can legally close a website provided they first get a court order, and the courts routinely rubber stamp these while you wait, but the MICT lads have a tendency to short circuit this tiresome legal rigmarole by leaning on Internet Service Providers to block access without any legal authority whatsoever.)

That staunch defender of free speech, the Bangkok Post, sees here a threat to the right to freedom of expression, and I have to agree, no matter what taste it leaves in my mouth. But their editorial curiously reckons that the PM’s suit has no chance of winning.

‘Mr Somchai’s post is so offensive, so exaggerated, so over the top, that it can’t really defame the premier’, they say.

The theory seems to be that if you say something that is just normally offensive, then you can get done for defamation; but you are extremely offensive, then you can’t.

Now I have looked long and hard at Title XI, Chapter 3, Articles 326-333 of the Criminal Code and I can’t find anything that defines a degree of ‘excessive libel’ beyond which you are no longer committing an offence.

But I suspect that the Post may be correct and is referring to one of the non-laws of Thailand, the rules that are nowhere in the statute books, but which everyone is supposed to know about and observe. And observe far more strictly than the written rules, in fact.

For example, Vorayuth Yoovidhya, the scion of the Red Bull family whose Ferrari ran down and killed a policeman on Sukhumwit Road last September, has still not been indicted because the public prosecutor is waiting for the police to include the offence of speeding on his charge sheet. The police seem very reluctant to do this. It must be because their cameras clocked him at a 170 kph and ‘everyone knows’ that breaking the speed limit means driving at between 81 and 103 kph (which is the fastest speed that any of the well-maintained Thai police vehicles can manage). Anything over that and you’re away scot free.

Similarly, there has been no prosecution of anyone for the deaths of 78 men and boys in military custody after the Tak Bai incident in 2004 (well there was a prosecution of the survivors, but that’s a different matter). Clearly the non-law in this case is that if you bump off a one person, or maybe even 3 or 4, then you could end up facing the death penalty. But if you are responsible for the deaths of scores, then you have gone too far and there is no case to answer.

This must be true because in the only massacre since then in 2010, the same thing happened. Or rather didn’t happen.

In this case, however, there is another non-law at play. The investigation into the 3 generals responsible for the circumstances leading to the deaths exonerated them (oh come on, stop feigning surprise there). But the army commander-in-chief at the time, General Pravit Wongsuwan, made it clear that it wouldn’t have made any difference if they had been found guilty. “There is no disciplinary penalty for those holding the rank of general,” he said, proving that not only are some actions so over the top that they can’t be punished, some people are too.

Sino-Thai Ties: At a Crossroads

prachatai — Fri, 10 May 2013 02:55:54 +0000

Pavin Chachavalpongpun

China and Thailand have forged even closer ties with the recent exchanges of visits of key policy makers. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, during his Bangkok trip early this month, extolled Thailand for playing a “significant” role in promoting relations between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

The two countries agreed to increase bilateral trade to US$100 billion by 2015. In 2012, two-way trade stood at nearly US$70 billion, as a result of the successful Sino-Thai FTA signed in 2003. Thailand became the first ASEAN country concluding a FTA with China. Wang stressed, “The unique Sino-Thai relationship will play an exemplary role in the development of China’s relations with ASEAN”. Thailand is this year the country coordinator of China-ASEAN relations.

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi

Meanwhile, on the sidelines of the Defence Ministers Meeting of ASEAN and its allies, the Thai and Chinese ministers met and pledged to expand their military ties. Marines from the two countries have held a ‘’Blue Strike’’ joint exercise for two years, with Thailand and China alternately hosting the programme designed to counter terrorism. The two countries’ armed forces first kicked off their cooperation in joint drills under codename ‘’Strike’’. Albeit in a much smaller scale, “Strike” is a copycat of Thai-US military exercise called “Cobra Gold”, which has remained the oldest and largest operation in Asia-Pacific.

Since the early 1980s, Thailand has purchased armaments and military-related equipment at “friendship prices” from China, much of which effectively amounted to “military gift aid”. Sino-Thai military links are among some of the most developed in the region — second only to Myanmar, China’s quasi ally. Some analysts claim Thailand is intentionally balancing its military and financial dependence on the United States by nurturing better relations with China.

At a deeper level however, Sino-Thai defence exercises and other military exchanges, although progressively advancing over the years, have quantitatively and qualitatively lagged far behind the US-Thai security relations. Ian Storey, a senior fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore, argues that a typical Cobra Gold exercise—summoning 12,000 troops and spanning two weeks—dwarfs the largest Sino-Thai drill: a 2005 naval operation that ended in less than four hours. Basically, China does not possess the same military capabilities as those of the United States, and certainly lacks sophisticated military know-how to lure Thailand away from its American friend.

It may be true that the overall Sino-Thai relations have greatly improved over the years and that the scale of Chinese military exercises with Thailand will probably increase in the future. But Thailand’s relationship with China is different from that with the United States. It is much less about security, but more on politics and business. Although China has rapidly modernised its army in the past decades and augments its military budget annually, it will take a while before the country could confidently challenge the US’ military supremacy in Thailand.

In any case, it is expected that Thailand will not allow its defence ties with China to be similar to the Thai-US military relations. Surachart Bamrungsuk, a military specialist at Chulalongkorn University, averred that Thailand remained highly protective of Cobra Gold and its friendship with the United States. Because of incomparable values and firm commitment on the part of the United States, Bangkok will likely not attempt to jeopardise its military ties with Washington. Yet, at the same time, the Thai government sees nothing wrong with nurturing an intimate relationship with China in order to diversify its policy options.

Quietly, Thailand is sliding into China’s warm, embracing arms. Most Thai cabinet ministers and powerful businesses have significant investments in China. Thailand’s Charoen Pokphand (CP), one of Southeast Asia’s largest companies, has been doing business in China since 1949. The current Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra also has a Chinese blood. Thailand has gleefully welcomed China’s soft power. More Thai students are now keen to learn Mandarin, prompting China to dispatch a large number of language teachers to Thailand.

Clearly, Thailand’s foreign policy toward China has been implemented on the basis of a win-win formula, based on the rule of “respecting each other’s sovereignty”. To confirm this, Thailand has repeatedly expressed its one-China policy and the support for China’s sabre-rattling towards Taiwan. In return, Beijing has avoided intervening in the protracted Thai political crisis. The current Chinese ambassador to Bangkok, Guan Mu, is a fluent Thai speaker and has served in the country for 18 years in different capacities. The personal familiarity has given China a personal edge and allowed an access to top Thai elite.

In retrospect, Thailand and China established its diplomatic ties in 1975. Throughout the latter half of the Cold War, Thailand and China formed a loose military alignment against the advancement of Vietnamese communists in Indochina. After the end of the Cold War, bilateral relations have remained healthy thanks to the absence of territorial disputes, the firm ties between the Thai royal family and the Chinese leadership, and the well-integrated Chinese community in Thailand.

But today, the inexorable ties also place Thailand in an awkward position. For example, Thailand has refused to make its position on the South China Sea for fear that this could upset the Chinese leadership. And the Thai indecisiveness has cost ASEAN its unity.

A more balanced Thai foreign policy is needed, not just for the sake of the country’s interests, but also for the regional stability which both Thailand and China could mutually enjoy.

Pavin Chachavalpongpun is associate professor at Kyoto University’s Centre for Southeast Asian Studies.

Appeals Court upholds 34-year jail sentences for 4 red shirts in Ubon

prachatai — Tue, 07 May 2013 11:03:10 +0000

On 2 May, the Appeals Court Region 3 in Ubon Ratchathani pronounced its verdict in the case of red shirts accused of torching the provincial hall during the unrest on 19 May 2010.

The Appeals Court upheld the previous court’s decision to sentence Patthama Munnin (female), Thirawat Satjasuwan, Sanong Ketsuwan, and Somsak Prasansap to 34 years in prison.

In August 2011, the Court of First Instance initially sentenced them to life imprisonment for terrorism and arson, among other charges, but reduced the penalties to one third due to their useful cooperation.

They are currently imprisoned in Lak Si prison in Bangkok. They have been denied bail since their arrests in 2010.

The Appeals Court also upheld the sentences on 7 other defendants: two acquitted, one imprisoned for one year, and four imprisoned for two years.

However, On-anong Banphachat (female) was given two years’ imprisonment, increased from the previous sentence of 8 months, and Sumali Sichinda (female), who had been acquitted by the Court of First Instance, was sentenced to two years in prison.

List of 21 defendants in the case:

1. Phichet Thabutda. The Appeals Court upheld the previous sentence of one-year imprisonment. As he had been imprisoned for 15 months, he was immediately released, pending the public prosecutor’s decision to appeal.

2. On-anong Banphachat. Her previous sentence of 8 months’ imprisonment was increased to two years by the Appeals Court.

3. Sumali Sichinda. She had been acquitted on all charges by the Court of First Instance, but was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment by the Appeals Court.

4. Pradit Bunsuk. The Appeals Court upheld the previous sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

5. Patthama Munnin. The Appeals Court upheld the previous sentence of 34 years’ imprisonment.

6. Sithon Thongma. Acquitted of all charges by the Court of First Instance in 2011.

7. Likhit Sutthiphan. The Appeals Court upheld the previous sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

8. Bunrian Lila. Acquitted of all charges by the Court of First Instance in 2011.

9. Thirawat Satjasuwan. The Appeals Court upheld the previous sentence of 34 years’ imprisonment.

10. Ubon Saenthawisuk. He had been sentenced by the Court of First Instance to 8 months’ imprisonment, after being in prison for 15 months.

11. Chatchawan Srichanda. Acquitted by the both courts.

12. Sanong Ketsuwan. The Appeals Court upheld the previous sentence of 34 years’ imprisonment.

13. Thawon Saengthawisuk. Acquitted by the Court of First Instance.

14. Thanusin Thanuthong. Acquitted by the Court of First Instance.

15. Suphot Duang-ngam. He had been sentenced by the Court of First Instance to 8 months’ imprisonment, after being in prison for 15 months.

16. Somjit Sutthiphan. Acquitted by both courts.

17. Somsak Prasansap. The Appeals Court upheld the previous sentence of 34 years’ imprisonment.

18. Chaiya Disaeng. The Appeals Court upheld the previous sentence of two years’ imprisonment, after being in prison for one year and 9 months.

19. Phisit But-amkha. The Appeals Court upheld the previous sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

20. Khamploi Nami. Acquitted by the Court of First Instance.

21. Pongsak On-in. Acquitted by the Court of First Instance.

Source: http://www.prachatai.com/journal/2013/05/46556

See related news: Suspended jail terms for 9 red shirts in Ubon