Prachatai English

The US is behind all political turmoil in Thailand

prachatai — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:44:20 +0000

The US has been behind all the political turmoil in Thailand, including violence in the south, coups, the burning of the country, etc., to create instability so that it can install its military bases to block China’s influence, said Dr Thianchai Wongchaisuwan, a self-styled analyst of global trends and a staunch supporter of the People’s Alliance for Democracy.

On 3 Feb, Thianchai, whose penname ‘Yuk Sri-ariya’ means ‘utopian era’, said in a programme on ASTV that the US so dreaded the expanding power of China that it wanted to block it.

Once the US had a military exercise near North Korea’s borders ‘in a bid to have some bombs land on North Korea’, but when retaliated against, the US condemned North Korea for attacking South Korea. The US tactically said that Japan and South Korea had to cooperate to counter North Korea, hoping that China would give support to North Korea. But China, seeing through the game, remained neutral and told South Korea and Japan that the only way to prevent a North Korean nuclear attack was to build an alliance among them. China was successful and the US failed, he said.

Southeast Asia is another strategic area of contention between China and the US. Thailand, once a key strategic base for the US in fighting the Vietnam War, would be used by the US as the fore line to counter China, he worried.

When the US invaded Iraq, the Thaksin government did not initially send troops to join the allied forces [but later did]. However, after the US had won the war, Thaksin went to the US and, after shaking hands, the US called Thailand a non-NATO ally, he said.

‘We just sent our troops to Iraq like every country did. How could this be special, if there’s nothing more than this? So I think that this must have to do with the issue of getting rid of terrorists, to which the US was giving so much importance. I have followed this issue and have been suspicious that the killings in the south are the result,’ he said.

In the incident at Krue Se mosque [a massacre of Muslims in Pattani in 2004], despite an order from Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyut, then Deputy Prime Minister of the Thaksin Shinawatra government, a general [Gen Panlop Pinmanee, then Deputy Director of the Internal Security Operations Command] ordered military troops to attack the insurgents allegedly hiding inside the mosque. A CNN camera crew broadcast this incident to the world, and shortly afterwards the US Vice President announced that the US was ready to send its forces to help Thailand fight against terrorists, he said.

He suspected that the US was behind the coup on 19 Sept 2006, because two generals who had closely worked with the US, including [Gen Pallop], had ‘clearly been with yellow shirts’. And they were influential in ISOC, whose personnel were the first to start an operation against Thaksin, he said.

He believed that the US had employed a ‘divide and conquer’ strategy. For example, in Libya, the US, after overthrowing Gaddafi, has not supported any group to rule and let them fight on, because as long as the Libyans continue to fight, they have to buy weapons from the US and the US has wanted to occupy the oil fields in the country. In Kosovo, the US instigated Muslims to clash with Christians so that it could install a military base there, he said.

Dubai, where Thaksin has been based, is connected to Saudi Arabia which is close to the US. A news outlet in Singapore has repeatedly propagated news about red shirts in support of Thaksin, he said.

When the red shirts ‘torched the country’, a general [Gen Pallop] was recruited to draw up the plans with Thaksin and Seh Daeng [Gen Khattiya Sawasdiphol]. This general, who had been with the yellow shirts, suddenly switched sides for unclear reasons, but this was for certain a special military operation. Then appeared the men in black, who, according to intelligence, were mercenaries based in Ratchaburi and Kanchanaburi under the control of the CIA.

It was hard to believe that Thaksin did not realize that the red shirts, even with the help of the men in black, could never defeat the military. What they could do at best was to create riots in the hope that many people would be killed, so that the government would have to resign and the US could enter Thailand under the guise of the UN, to oversee the general elections, he said.

The US does not give full support to Thaksin, however. If Thaksin can secure power, the US would turn to support Thaksin’s opposition instead. The US wants Thailand because Thailand is the best front against China, which has already encroached upon Burma and Laos. He viewed the conflicts between Thailand and Cambodia as another possible case in which the US wanted a war to erupt so that it could sell arms and intervene in the name of the UN.

Referring to former Rector of Thammasat University Charnvit Kasetsiri’s support of Nitirat’s proposed amendments to Article 112 of the Criminal Code, he said that Cornell University in the US had been a major hub of bright international students, including Charnvit.

In expanding its power, the US has also extended its intellectual domination and manipulated those students’ thoughts, using Charles Darwin’s Evolution Theory which dismisses ‘old things as backward and authoritarian.’

Works on Southeast Asian history produced by Cornell scholars have always been about wars between this king and that, making them look authoritarian and barbarian. These people like to read ‘The Face of Thai Feudalism’ by Jitr Bhumisak, who was brilliant but very pessimistic, showing only negative aspects of the monarchy, he said.

Thianchai himself graduated from Binghamton University in the US.

No lèse majesté talk at Mahasarakham University

prachatai — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:08:29 +0000

A group of students and alumni of Mahasarakham University has been refused permission to use a room in the Faculty of Fine and Applied Arts to hold a public forum to discuss Article 112 of the Criminal Code.

Opas Sinthukhot, representative of the group, told Prachatai that after his group’s request to use a room at the College of Politics and Governance had been refused, they had turned to the Faculty of Fine and Applied Arts and rescheduled the date to 8 Feb.

However, the Faculty has also refused permission. Assoc Prof Pheeraphong Sensai, Dean of the Faculty, issued a statement saying that, in consideration of the current news of social reaction to the ‘proposed repeal of Article 112 of the Criminal Code,’ the Faculty of Fine and Applied Arts is of the opinion that ‘such a move’ would possibly create several repercussions, so it was announcing a prohibition against any use of its facilities, inside or outside its buildings, for holding activities, starting from 3 Feb, except for those permitted by the Faculty Dean.

Somyot’s son to go on a hunger strike to ‘Free My Dad’

prachatai — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 07:13:51 +0000

Free Thammasat Group for Democracy

Update: Panitan will go on a hunger strike for 112 hours at the Criminal Court on Ratchadapisek Rd on Saturday 11, starting from 4pm.

Panitan Prueksakasemsuk, the son of well-known labour activist Somyot who has been incarcerated on lèse majesté charges since late April 2011, has announced he will go on a hunger strike for 112 hours in protest at his father’s ordeal.

Somyot has been repeatedly denied bail by the court. He has been moved to several prisons around Thailand to hear testimony of prosecution witnesses, one in each province.

Panitan will begin his hunger strike from 4pm on 11 Feb until 8am on 16 Feb at Suvarnabhumi Airport, Domestic Arrival Door A, 2nd floor.

On Valentine’s Day, Thammasat students and activists will give him flowers, as a symbolic call for justice for all victims of Article 112.

After the hunger strike, Panitan plans to go to see his father who will make his seventh bail request at the Criminal Court on Ratchadaphisek Rd.

Interview with Robert Amsterdam

prachatai — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 06:53:21 +0000

Pravit Rojanaphruk interviews Robert Amsterdam, lawyer for the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, in Prachatai's 'Core Respondence' TV programme.

Yielding to Pressure

prachatai — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:14:10 +0000

Harrison George

Much has been made of the decision announced by Dr. Somkit Lertpaithoon, Rector of Thammasat University, on his FaceBook page that the Nitirat group was banned from using university premises for their campaign to amend Article 112 of the Criminal Code (the lèse majesté law). As with other contentious decisions in Thai politics the rationale given for the decision is perhaps deliberately opaque.

One reason the Rector gave was that he feared use of university facilities might lead members of the public to believe that Thammasat as an institution was in support of the Nitirat campaign.

Blatant hogwash.

First of all, it implies that Thammasat has an abysmally low opinion of the common sense of the average Thai. If each and every Nitirat event was prefaced with a statement to the effect that the opinions expressed were not necessarily those of the university, then there’s only a problem if the audience is too thick, too prejudiced or too asleep to understand. Is that all you get at Thammasat events?

And in any case, Thammasat hosted all those PAD meetings and PAD’s attitude toward the Nitirat proposals have been little short of bloodthirsty. If you let both sides speak on campus, where’s the bias?

No, the more cogent reason is the second one given by Rector Somkit. If more Nitirat meetings were arranged, there is the danger of violence and we have all been urged by many voices, including the one from the Very Top, to preserve national unity. Giving the lunatic fringe an excuse for another 6th October would not achieve that goal.

This again reflects badly on Thai society, assuming as it does that the only way of resolving differences of opinion resembles the one favoured in Egyptian football matches. But it seems to have struck a chord in the Thammasat community.

Somchai Sobmaidai, a first-year student in Media Studies, has successfully petitioned the university authorities to cancel this term’s final examinations. He claimed that he and his friends were almost certain to fail Cartoons 101 and he couldn’t vouch for his friends’ behaviour should this happen.

According to Somchai, students who expected a failing grade were getting ready to fire-bomb the acharn’s office, stage a noisy public protest at the university gates and hack into the university website and leave obscene messages. Probably misspelled.

Student Somchai argued that giving students different grades, especially F’s, created division in the university body and did nothing to foster the national unity that we should all strive for. After consulting with the university authorities, the Faculty Dean cancelled the exams to avoid violence and disunity.

Protests by the teacher in charge of the course and the majority of students who had done the coursework and expected a decent grade were overruled. ‘Students must learn that there is a time and place for everything, and that includes giving in to threats and intimidation,’ said a representative of the Rector’s office. ‘This is an important part of Thai education.’

The university administration was then asked to look at the planned elections for the Student Council. The Front for Appropriate, Suitable and Correct Ideas among Students at Thammasat, a party with a platform based on the right to suppress inappropriate expression, argued that if they did not win the election (as seemed almost certain given that they had almost no support), they could not be held responsible for any violence that ensued.

They also argued that elections, requiring parties to put forward different and sometimes contradictory proposals, only confused students and if, in their confusion, students voted for different parties, disunity would result. This went against the basic aims of higher education in Thailand.

The university agreed. In the face of widespread protests, the university issued a statement that elections were not always necessary for a democracy. ‘Democracy means having good people in charge. If an election can do this, then we should hold an election. But often it is better for a democracy to choose its leaders by some other means. This is the most appropriate form of Thai democracy.’

Kan Thoop to report to police on 11 Feb

prachatai — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 09:53:11 +0000

Free Thammasat Group for Democracy

Kan Thoop will report to police on lèse majesté charges on Saturday 11 Feb, after having postponed twice since late last year due to the floods and university exams.

The 19-year-old first year Thammasat student was accused of lèse majesté for comments she posted on Facebook in March and April 2010, when she was a minor.

In 2010, her applications for admission to Silpakorn University and Srinakharinwirot University were rejected, both for the same reason - that she was not loyal to the monarchy. She decided not to show up for an interview at Kasetsat University due to declared physical threats by some internet users.

Finally, she was accepted by Thammasat University in 2011 to study in the Faculty of Social Administration. This created outrage and resentment among royalists. Threats of violence against her are still being made by royalists and some Thammasat students.

She was summoned by Bangkok’s Bang Khen police on 25 Oct 2011, but she has postponed the reporting to 11 Feb.

On that day, at 9am, before reporting to the police, Kan Thoop and a group of Thammasat students will go to pay respect to the People’s Party’s spirit at Lak Si Circle Monument, which marks its triumph over the royalist Boworadej Rebellion which aimed to bring Thailand back under an absolute monarchy. And then at 10am, she will report to Bang Khen police station.

In conversation: Tyrell Haberkorn and Kevin Hewison

prachatai — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 09:47:34 +0000

Suluck Lamubol

Interview with the two academics who head signature supports from 224 international scholars to back article 112 reform campaign, amidst the nationwide uproar

On Wednesday, 224 international scholars from 16 countries, including Noam Chomsky, Cornell West, Chris Baker and Craig Reynolds, have backed the call of the Campaign Committee to Amend Article 112 (CCAA112) to amend the article 112 to be in line with human rights and rule of law, using the proposal of Nitirat group as blueprint.

Prachatai interviews Tyrell Haberkorn, Research Fellow from the Department of Political and Social Change of Australia National University, and Kevin Hewison, Professor of Asian Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill about recent developments of backlashes against the reform of article 112.

How would you respond to Deputy PM Chalerm Yubamrung's comment on Thursday, about those 224 academics supporting the amendment of 112 should go back and work them in your own countries?

Haberkorn: My response to Deputy PM Chalerm Yubamrung’s comment that the 224 academics supporting the amendment of Article 112 should go back to their countries and work there is that … we do! To think of a few people on the list, and the work of theirs that I would highlight (note: they might highlight other work)…

Noam Chomsky has been a loud and clarion critic of different repressive U.S. policies and laws for decades. He has consistently criticized the foreclosure of the freedom of speech in the United States. Mark Selden, historian and editor of the Asia-Pacific Journal, has documented and written against U.S. military bases in Japan and other countries for many years. Chris Hedges, journalist and writer, has consistently investigated U.S. complicity and violence during war, fearlessly exposed the ways in which the U.S. government stifles dissent, and has been an even more important public thinker in the months since Occupy Wall Street began. Robert Meeropol, executive director of the Rosenberg Fund for Children, founded and runs an organization that supports children in the U.S. whose parents have been attacked as a result of their involvement in movements for social justice. Cornel West has consistently worked in the service of civil rights, labor rights, and other democratic movements in the United States. Sarah Schulman, novelist, playwright, and professor, has been a long-time advocate around LGBT issues, HIV/AIDS, and women’s rights in the United States.

My own involvement in fighting against injustice began in 1994 in the United States, the country where I was born and of which I am a citizen, when I joined a demonstration in front of the Department of Justice protesting proposed state restrictions on women’s reproductive rights and has continued up to protesting during the long years of U.S.-led wars and present-day indefinite detention. In Australia, the country where I currently live and work, I join protests for the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. Similar comments could be made about many of those on the list, whose commitment to fighting injustice is one that began at home.

So the direct answer is that most of us do work against injustice in our own countries. The point of this letter, if the deputy prime minister read it carefully, is explicitly one of solidarity. The people who signed the letter signed it in order to show our support for the courageous actions of our colleagues in the Khana Nitirat and the Campaign Committee for the Amendment of Article 112 who proposed the amendment of Article 112. The reaction in the weeks since the initial launch of the campaign on 15 January demonstrates why solidarity is necessary.

Hewison: I am very pleased that Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm and several other ministers have taken note of the open letter signed by 223 academics concerned about human rights. This group includes some of the world's leading scholars, so I am pleased that the letter is seen, heard and considered. The government has been clear and loud for some time in saying that it will not amend the law in question, so there is no surprise there.

I am unsure what the Deputy Prime Minister means by "work them in their own countries." In recent years, the lese majeste law has been used mostly against Khun Chalerm's party's own supporters. Essentially, the signatories were concerned to support Thai academics who are asking that Thai laws restricting freedom of expression and that are used for political purposes be reconsidered. Those calling for a consideration of changes have the support of these 223 international scholars and intellectuals.

As someone who is from freer academic atmosphere, what is your opinion about the consensus of TU board not to allow any groups to use campus to talk/organize about lese majeste law?

Haberkorn: I was very pleased to see the news today that the TU rector had chosen to allow academic seminars on Article 112 to resume. The initial decision to not allow these discussions to happen was concerning. Like many people, I followed the news of the rising contention on the campus with concern, and was particularly disturbed by the burning of the effigy of Ajarn Worachet Pakeerut last weekend. Yet it is precisely at the moment of contention when the challenge is to facilitate safe and open discussion, rather than foreclose it. My, perhaps naïve, view is that this is part of the role of universities in society.

Hewison: As someone who has studied Thailand's politics and development for more than three decades I have always thought of Thammasat University as a bastion of academic freedom and political rights. I know that there have been times when authorities and university administrators have attempted to limit or close this space. Such actions have usually been associated with dictatorial regimes. That is why the current decision to close political space is so startling.

It wasn't that long ago that the university's administration permitted the PAD to rally at the University and defended this as the proper use of public facilities that needed to be open. That position seems quite reasonable and proper. That is why it is so disappointing that the current administration has now decided to take actions that limit freedoms and rights. I believe that this is a retrograde step, not just for Thammasat, but for the deepening of democratic practices more generally.

There're almost clashes on Thursday between the supporters of Nitirat and those who are against, do you think this would make the TU consensus more legitimate, that they don't want any violence happened in the campus?

Haberkorn: I recognize the concern that the TU administration has for the prevention of incidences of violence on campus, and I do not want to discount the gravity of the potential for violence. But it seems to me that the challenge here is two-fold, and the issues are interconnected: how can needed and urgent discussions on the issue occur, and how can violence which might surround these discussions be prevented? Conversations about Article 112, and whether or not it should be amended, are going to take place whether or not they are permitted to take place on the TU campus. Is it possible that there are solutions which would limit the possibility of violence which do not involve the forbidding of certain topics of discussion? Might universities, and particularly TU, given its history, be the ideal places where discussions about contentious issues could take place? Rather than shutting down discussion, what could the university administration do to make the university a safe, constructive, and engaged place of debate?

Hewison: At the same meeting in 2008, where the PAD rallied at Thammasat, there actually were clashes. Then, the University administrators affirmed the position on openness.

That there may be clashes is not surprising as some very senior persons have spoken in highly emotional ways, attacking the Nitirat group in terms that are meant to incite hatred and action against it. This is a kind of politics that will inevitably remind some observers of the terrible events of 6 Oct 1976, where people were incited to be violent and murderous against those with whom they disagreed politically. Of course, political violence is always a convenient political weapon and rational debate is not always the norm.

In this current situation, it seems to me that the Nitirat group has repeatedly called for rational debate. In hindsight, that looks like a futile call as Nitirat and its proposals are simply a convenient focal point for a proxy battle in a much larger political conflict that is long-running and unresolved. If Nitirat wasn't an available target there would certainly be another found and used.

Some activists have expressed how much this is similar to October 6th incident, do you see any resemblance?

Haberkorn: I am wary of the claim of history repeating itself, in any time or context. Rarely is there sheer repetition. But I do think there are resonances worth examining between the two moments. What I see as similar between the present moment and the period before 6 October 1976 are the kinds of accusations and the kinds of violence being called for against those who are seen to dissent, by those both within the state and those outside it. The kinds of language used against the students at Thammasat in the days before the massacre and those used against the Khana Nitirat are similar in their tone, dehumanization, and explicit calls for violence.

In addition, there are similarities in the blurred line between those within the state and those outside the state calling for action against the Khana Nitirat. When General Prayuth publicly states that the members of the Khana Nitirat should leave the country this is different than the anonymous comments on the Manager website for them to be beheaded and their heads placed on stakes outside the Thammasat gates. Yet these kinds of statements should be considered together – and it is important to ask what kind of a signal, direct or indirect, it sends to citizens when the commander-in-chief of the army claims that seven law lecturers should leave the country because they drafted an amendment to a law. What does it indicate about present-day Thailand when a call to amend the law [and an amendment that leaves the institution of the monarchy intact, and still permits harsh punishments for actions judged to be lese majeste] is equated with revolt and disloyalty?

Yesterday (Febuary 3), Foreign Minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul said the international academics might have done so "out of a lack of understanding of the way of life of the Thai people, who have high respect for the country's highest institution," how would you respond to that?

Haberkorn: With respect to Foreign Minister Surapong, he appears to have misunderstood both the letter from international scholars, writers, and activists, and the proposal to amend Article 112. My question to Foreign Minister Surapong would be to ask, where, precisely, in the proposed amendment is there a phrase or sentence that disrespects the institution of the monarchy? To be clear: Calling for Article 112 to be amended does not equal, or even imply, a lack of respect for the institution of the monarchy. The proposed amendment has nothing to do with the respect for the institution of the monarchy or the sacredness of the institution. The proposed amendment instead aims to protect citizens from the constriction of speech and other violations of rights by making the punishment proportionate to the crime, limiting and regulating who can file complaints under the law [and so end the current witch hunt atmosphere], and clearly differentiating threats against the monarchy from truthful and sincere discussion and criticism.

Forum on Article 112 banned at Mahasarakham University

prachatai — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:38:17 +0000

The College of Politics and Governance of Mahasarakham University has refused permission to a group of students to hold a public forum to discuss Article 112 on its premises, citing concerns of possible violent conflict.

A group of students planned to hold a public forum on ‘Rights and Freedoms in a Democracy under the Lèse Majesté Law’ on 1 Feb, and asked the college for permission to use a room in one of its buildings for the forum, but their request was denied by the Dean of the College.

On 31 Jan, the students launched a campaign collecting signatures of students, alumni and other people to demand an explanation from the college.

In response, College Dean Assoc Prof Sida Sonsri released a statement to the media explaining the decision to refuse permission, saying that the college’s administrators, in consideration of the increasing conflicts of ideas in society, were concerned that they would not be able to deal with any violence that might occur on the college’s premises if the activity was allowed to happen.

The college does not suppress academic freedom, but needs to maintain its neutrality because students and staff at the college include those who have differing views on the lèse majesté issue, she said.

She asked the students to hold the forum at a more proper place where ‘diverse views can be expressed with no risk of violence, which is unforeseeable due to conflicts on such a sensitive issue. This may lead to damage to public property and, more importantly, affect the unity of students and staff in the overall image of the College.’

On 2 Feb, a group of students held a protest at the college, holding banners and reading a statement against the Dean’s decision and explanation under the watchful eye of the administrative authorities and police.

While they were protesting, another group of students also held banners to defend the College and support the Dean, claiming that ‘students do not want the forum to be held because it is a sensitive issue.’

Sida and other College administrators came out to meet the protesters, saying that they had not restricted academic freedom and asking them to reread her statement. She then gave flowers to the protesters.

'We don't want a wreath.' :College supporting students

The protesters decided not to lay a wreath in protest as had been planned for fear of clashes with the College’s supporters, and instead distributed information to other students and people instead.

Thailand: Ignorance, fury and blind faith in the wrath against Nitirat

prachatai — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:25:21 +0000

Kaewmala, Asian Correspondent

Yesterday [1 Feb] someone posted an audio file on YouTube. The clip is cut from a call-in radio talk show called “Kid Dai Kid Dee” (English title: Talk News and Music) hosted by Mr. Veera Theeraphat. The caller asked the host about Nitirat (the group that’s been calling for amendment of Thailand’s controversial lese majeste law, or Article 112 of the Criminal Code). What the caller had to say is extremely revealing.

Following is my English translation of the original Thai-language exchange between the caller and the host.

……

Host: So, your third point.

Caller: Yeah, my third point. What’s that? That Nitirat. What’s the deal? They’ve come out and it’s, it’s , it’s… about that Article 112. The way I see it, it’s not right. It’ll, it’ll make people… It’ll cause something to happen, don’t you think? Look, what are they wanting to amend? Who are they really, these Nitirat? Who’s the ring leader?

Host: Aww! They’ve announced their names. They are law lecturers at Thammasat.

Caller: Oh right, they’re at Thammasat, right? If I ever see them, I’ll surely cut their heads off. If they’re going to fix this, this 112, about things like this. I’m human, I won’t put up with this. There’ll be surely that sort of thing. I, I, I…

Host: No. Do you, do you even know the content of Article 112? Do you know what Article 112 is? Do you know what it is?

Caller: That’s the thing!

Host: No, no. Do you even know what it is? Do you know what this Article 112 is all about? You want to behead people, do you know what it’s all about? Do you know that it’s in the Criminal Code?

Caller: Yes, but what they say, if, if… they say, if… those opinions that have come out, about this, this… won’t be wrong–

Host: Have you ever read it?

Caller: No, I haven’t. I admit I haven’t.

Host: And you’re giving your opinion and feelings without even knowing the facts.

Caller: Wait, wait, it’s not just me.

Host: Forget about other people. Let’s focus on just you because I’m not talking with other people, but–

Caller: Even, even government officials–

Host: –with you. No, no! Listen first. Start with the facts first. You don’t even know what it is all about! That’s why I asked if you know what this is. This Article 112 that people are talking about, what is it? Which section is it in the Criminal Code?

Caller: That’s right, but the news that’s come out–

Host: The news that’s come out–

Caller: –is mixed up–

Host: No, no, the news won’t be mixed up, if you knew, but you don’t! That’s why you’re mixed up!

Caller: Right. But because I don’t know, so–

Host: So, you go and find the information. It’s just like finding a rally video.

Caller: Yes, yes.

Host: If you want to know, then you go find the knowledge, and not sitting here…

Caller: But there’s news every day.

Host: Why are you sitting here imagining things? If you don’t have the facts, what basis do you have to form your feelings? You could go and behead the wrong people!… Alright, go and find knowledge first.

Caller: Yes, yes, yes, sir.

Host: I won’t do the job of explaining it. With things like this… it’s every man for himself in finding knowledge. But I’ll say, about Article 112 in the Criminal Code, you need to read it first, then find out what exactly they [Nitirat] are proposing to amend, where and why. But it has to start with the actual facts. This is not about amending the Constitution. Article 112 is not about the Constitution. Constitution amendment is another matter. Article 112 is in the Criminal Code. I will tell you that it has been amended once before in 1976.*

Note*: Thailand’s lese majeste law has been amended several times since its promulgation in 1908. The 1976 amendment was the most recent with increased penalty from up to seven years jail to a minimum of three years to up to 15 years jail. Thailand’s lese majeste law is considered the harshest in the world.

……..

One hopes that the caller in the radio show is a rarity in today’s Thai society, but recent Thai history is not on one’s side. The brutality against leftist students at Thammasat in 1976 was committed by their fellow countrymen (see history of Thammasat University Massacre), and much hatred against the students was stoked by the deadly mixture of ignorance, blind faith, unfounded fear and disinformation. Those who brutally killed the young students in 1976 were told – and readily believed – that the students were “Vietnamese communists” who had ill intentions against Thai monarchy and not Thai students who simply protested against military dictatorship.

Now, a generation later, a group of seven law lecturers who call themselves “Nitirat” or “Law for the People,” who are proposing to put a stop to military dictatorship and make the most politically abused law of the land less prone to abuse, are being accused of having an evil plan to topple the monarchy, being lackeys of Thaksin, being Red, or simply being suspected of harboring some mysteriously ill intentions.

Nitirat has a website in Thai, with detailed statements about their ideas and proposals, as well as their articles, interviews and documents. A number of seminars, with packed audience, have been organized, reported, commented on on blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and videos posted on YouTube, etc. Still most Thais outside a small circle of the intelligentsia and political enthusiasts don’t know – and don’t seem to want to know – what exactly Nitirat is proposing. Lack of knowledge doesn’t seem to dampen their zeal to condemn them.

Only last week, a group that called themselves “Thais with Patriotic Heart” gathered at the entrance of Thammasat University and burned an effigy of Worachet Pakeerat, the most prominent Nitirat member.

Why did these “Thais with Patriotic Heart” burn Worachet’s effigy? How much do they know about Nitirat and their proposals? We don’t know for sure. Perhaps even they themselves don’t know for sure. But that didn’t stop them having and acting upon their conviction that Worachet and Nitirat must be “bad” for the country.

This group of Thais seems to believe Worachet and his Nitirat fellows are intent on “destroying the country.” They believe there is a conspiracy in which Nitirat are cohorts of Thaksin, the evil one. No matter that Worachet has said he has never met or talked to Thaksin, or the fact that one does not need to like Thaksin, let alone be his cohort, to support Article 112 amendment (many who do are not admirers of Thaksin). Or that discussing the monarchy and wanting to change a law about the revered institution does not mean one is disloyal. But that’s not how these Thais with Patriotic Heart see it. One placard in the picture below (on the far left) reads: “Execution ONLY for whoever insults the monarchy!”

That kind of message brings to mind the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. Or treatments of Christian heretics in the middle ages. Forget about the finer point of what constitutes “insult” in the law or the concept that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime (in line with what’s expected in the modern civilized society). Emotions have run too high for a lot of people and the heat of emotions has burned and short-circuited their analytical faculty.

These days with so much information circulated through countless channels, one would think it’s hard for anyone to remain ignorant about things they find important enough to want to behead somebody. But I’ve come to realize, ignorance, especially the willful kind, often has little to do with availability, even ubiquity, of information. Why? Intense and blind fury that comes with ignorance generally has to do with faith, not knowledge. It’s the kind of fury at the sacrilege – the violation of the inviolable. The kind of thing that people can’t do, because they just can’t, and that’s that. Faith needs no logic.

This kind of faith-based reaction is found not only among the common believers, but also among the so called educated elite. Amidst the emerging row on freedom of expression following the Thammasat’s ban of Nitirat to use the university campuses for Article 112-related campaign activities, King Prajadipok Institute’s Society alumni association also demanded that Nitirat called off its campaign (for Article 112 amendment and a new constitution). It also urged Thammasat University to “control the behaviors and actions of [Nitirat]” which it argued “has led to division in the country.” It also threatened, if Nitirat doesn’t stop their actions, “the society would respond with measures from light to drastic.”

“This is not about the laws, but about the faith,” it added.

Kudos to King Prahadipok Institute’s Society alumni for their frankness!

Some people may disagree but to me it makes a lot of sense to see Nitirat as the Thai equivalent of Galileo, who insisted that the Earth was not fixed but revolved around the Sun and was swiftly condemned. The question is: how will it play out for this group of Thai Galielos and how strong will be the wrath of the pious Thai believers.

Note: See more information on what Nitirat proposes for lese majeste law amendment here and its proposed constitution draft here.

————

Kaewmala is a writer, a blogger and an avid twitterer. She blogs at thaiwomantalks.com and is a provocateur of Thai language, culture and politics @thai_talk. Kaewmala is the author of a book that looks at the linguistic and cultural aspects of Thai sexuality called “Sex Talk”.

Thammasat should instead host public activities to debate Article 112

prachatai — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:18:43 +0000

A group of Thammasat lecturers and alumni led by former Rector Charnvit Kasetsiri has sent an open letter to the University’s Rector and administrators to protest their decision to ban Nitirat’s activities and suggest that the University itself should play host to public debates on the issue.

Somkid Lertpaitoon, Rector of Thammasat University, posted on his Facebook page on 30 Jan a message that the university’s administration had decided not to allow any activity concerning Article 112 to be held on its premises, reasoning that the public might mistakenly think that the university agreed with such activity, and that might lead to violent conflict.

Charnvit’s group, which consists of 26 academics, said in their letter that the decision ruined academic freedom and the freedom of expression.

Without such freedoms, universities no longer have any reason to exist. Furthermore, the ban is against the founding principle and spirit of Thammasat University which has been a bastion protecting the people’s rights and freedoms, the group said.

Thammasat has always been a public venue for various groups to hold debates and rallies, but never has the public mistakenly believed that such activities were organized or sanctioned by the university; on the contrary, Thammasat has been held in high regard for that very role, they said.

They said that the decision was tantamount to ditching debate on the socially sensitive issue of Article 112 from the academic sphere into the streets, and risked violent social conflict.

While Thai society is obviously in need of more understanding about Article 112, Thammasat should take the lead in disseminating a proper knowledge among the public and lessening social conflict, they said.

They suggested that the university instead take up the role of hosting academic activities on Article 112 for each side to present their views to avoid confrontation and to create an opportunity for each side to express its opinion without having to descend into the atmosphere of a debate which aims to have one side win.

Such activities would show the public that debates on any sensitive issues can be done in a civil, constructive and socially beneficial way, and would serve to avoid any public misunderstanding, about which the university administrators are so concerned, they said.