Prachatai English

Thailand: Protect academic freedom at university

prachatai — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:16:20 +0000

Amnesty International

Thammasat University’s decision to ban from its campus an academic group working on reform of the lèse majesté law constitutes a violation of the human rights principle of academic freedom and should be revoked, Amnesty International said today.

On 30 January Thammasat rector Somkid Lertpaithoon announced that Nitirat (known in English as Enlightened Jurists), made up of seven Thammasat academics, was no longer permitted to campaign for reform of Article 112 of Thailand’s Criminal Code on campus. Known as the lèse majesté law, the Article criminalizes defamatory remarks, insults and threats to several members of Thailand’s royal family.

Thammasat’s Somkid stated that because the university is a “state agency”, “people may understand that Thammasat agrees with or disagrees with the campaign”, and that Nitirat’s actions could affect “the safety of staff and property”.

The university’s decision, part of an ongoing tightening of restrictions on freedom of expression in Thailand, further violates that right as well as academic freedom.

Academic freedom is a principle based on the rights to free expression and opinion, as well as the right to education. This right is enshrined in Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, to which Thailand has been a state party since 1999.

Passionate and even contentious debate and disagreement are the pillars of academic freedom. Where academic freedom is threatened by violence, the correct response is to redouble efforts at protecting it—not to suppress it by singling out a party for banning.

The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR), which interprets the Covenant, has stated that “the right to education can only be enjoyed if accompanied by the academic freedom of staff and students”.

In its comment on the right to education, the CESCR wrote:

Academic freedom includes the liberty of individuals to express freely opinions about the institution or system in which they work, to fulfill their functions without discrimination or fear of repression by the State or any other actor, to participate in professional or representative academic bodies, and to enjoy all the internationally recognized human rights applicable to other individuals in the same jurisdiction.

Background

On 1 and 8 February 2012, state-supported Mahasarakham University also refused permission for a group of students to hold a public forum on the lèse majesté law, citing concerns of possible violence.

Nitirat is part of the Campaign Committee for the Amendment of Article 112, an umbrella organization of nine groups which since 15 January 2012 has been trying to solicit 10,000 signatures in support of a reform bill for Thailand’s parliament.

Since the start of 2011, various groups have expressed public support for or against calls for review of the lèse majesté law. While the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand, formed in the wake of deadly political violence in 2010, advocated reform of the law on 30 December 2011, on 18 January the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand issued a public statement supporting the law.

Eight persons of royal lineage and 224 international academics wrote letters in favour of reform on 6 January and 1 February respectively, while the political parties making up Thailand’s coalition government and the opposition Democrat Party agreed in January 2012 to oppose any amendments to the law.

Public deserves more respect over lese majeste law

prachatai — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 05:26:45 +0000

Pravit Rojanaphruk, The Nation

By now many Thais might have already decided as to where they stand on the fiercely emotional debate over proposed amendments to the controversial lese majeste law. After all, there are only two choices: will you or won't you sign and support the proposed amendment presented by the Nitirat group of law lecturers?

I, for one, have already decided.

Regrettably, though I am confident that Nitirat and the Campaign Committee to Amend Article 112 (CCAA) have good intentions, I cannot sign a petition that would legitimise criminal penalty for an act of lese majeste, even though the maximum penalty might be cut to three years as opposed to 15. My principles and conscience will not let me sign because I do not believe in criminalising free speech.

Whether you support Nitirat or oppose them, you should carefully read through their proposals and related literature from all perspectives and not fall for conspiracy theories that do not come with supporting evidence or that might be part of a hate campaign.

Nitirat and the campaign committee's proposed three years maximum penalty is possibly a pragmatic concession to the royalists. We can always debate as to whether another, albeit much less talked about, proposal from the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) is more pragmatic and realistic, especially since they propose that the maximum penalty be reduced to six years instead of three. However, where do we draw the line between principle and pragmatism?

Perhaps there's never a satisfactory answer to all this as it depends on where one has placed his or her priorities. I received an angry e-mail from one well-known scholar, who is a member of CCAA, after I made it known publicly on prachatai.com online newspaper that I'm far from satisfied with the way the campaign is being run. I feel that the whole process could be much more participatory, transparent and that the proposal from Nitirat had "already been completed" without any public deliberation.

Members of the general public are, therefore, just facing a ready-made top-down passive choice on whether or not to sign the petition. This is unfortunate because the involved groups could have made the campaign process an act of participatory democracy and public deliberation.

The angry academic, whom I have known for years, wrote to me in English, saying: "CCAA is not public-financed, not run by tax money, not an elected office. Nobody paid them to do this. It is a temporary campaign by private citizens. It is not a secret campaign … What the CCAA have done is as OPEN as a campaign is supposed to be. They hope that once the draft is presented to the public, then the public can debate … Then it's up to the Parliament to bring this draft up for discussion or not."

It is obvious that I and the scholar, who shall remain anonymous, see things differently. It may be inefficient to involve more people, including members of the general public, to form small groups for deliberation even before the proposals are made and take part in selecting the first 112 committee members. Often times, the general public is left with little or no choice but to passively support one group or the other.

Such passivity and dependency through a top-down approach cannot bring about a democratic culture. Whether the law is amended or not is important, but the democratic and participatory process in driving or opposing the campaign is no less important.

The public deserves to be treated better than having to choose between one group or another, with little or no say in how the stance of each group is formulated.

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.