Quality Journalism at The Nation - Part I
Original article (as long as it's still online): link
Foreign web host company 'snitched' lese majeste critic to Thai authorities
By Saksith Saiyasombut
Earlier this month, the United States has expressed "disappointment" over the prosecution of Joe Gordon, a naturalized US citizen from Thailand who was arrested in May and charged with lèse majesté. Gordon has allegedly linked to the book "The King Never Smiles", an unauthorized and banned biography on Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej and posted translated parts on his blog back in 2007.
The technology website Ars Technica noq has a piece about another Thai-turned-US citizen who ran into trouble with Thailand's draconian lèse majesté law:
In May 2006, Anthony Chai, a naturalized United States citizen from Thailand, took a flight back to the land of his birth to catch up with relatives and friends. He visited his nieces and nephews and spent some time at the resort town of Hua Hin.
But according to a new lawsuit, when Chai tried to return to California via Bangkok airport, he was stopped by a quintet of security agents. Employed by Thailand's Department of Special Investigation, they informed him that they had a warrant for his arrest for committing an act of lèse majesté—a public statement that supposedly violates the "dignity" of a ruler. (...)
The DPI [sic] officers took Chai to an interrogation center and allegedly deprived him of food, water, and sleep until 3.30am while barraging him with accusations and threats. "I know where your relatives live in Bangkok and California," Chai says that one policeman told him. "If you want them to live in peace, you must cooperate."
"Thai censorship critic strikes back at snitch Web host", Ars Technica, August 29, 2011
Just a reminder: this took place in May 2006, back when the numbers for lèse majesté cases were by far not as high as they were today! The article goes on to describe the interrogation, including that Chai allegedly had to hand over passwords and e-mail addresses so the officers could access his confiscated laptop.
At one point during the interrogation, Chai was presented with a document that revealed the e-mail addresses that he and an associate had used to post comments to manusaya.com. (...)
Did Anthony Chai even make statements against the Thai monarchy? No. Using an anonymous e-mail address, he had posted comments critical of Thailand's lèse majesté law to the website www.manusaya.com (...) The site was eventually shut down by its Canadian host, Netfirms, at the request the Thai government.
"Thai censorship critic strikes back at snitch Web host", Ars Technica, August 29, 2011
This shows the problem of the ambiguously worded lèse majesté law, which states "Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years" - without saying though what actually constitutes defamation or insult, criticizing the law itself doesn't seem to fit it.
The fact that Chai could be charged for something he did outside the Kingdom is thanks to the Section 17 of the Computer Crimes Act that basically states anyone, Thai or not, can be charged under this law no matter from where the offense was committed.
The Ars Technica article then highlights a rather strange and blatantly impudent acts of a Thai police Colonel personally showing up in California to meet Chai - that has to be read in its entirety...
So, how did the Thai authorities found out about him...?
But Netfirms didn't just close the site, say Chai and his attorneys.
"Sometime before May 2006, also at the request of Thai officials, Netfirms.com provided Mr. Chai's IP address and the two e-mail addresses associated with that IP address," Chai's complaint charges, "without Mr. Chai's knowledge or consent." In addition, the Canadian company allegedly handed over this data without requesting a court order, subpoena, or warrant from Thai authorities, and without contacting the US State Department for guidance.
"Thai censorship critic strikes back at snitch Web host", Ars Technica, August 29, 2011
This procedure mirrors Yahoo!'s outing of Chinese cyber dissidents over the last several years. What differs in Chai's case though is that Netfirms is not based in Thailand and did not need to appease the Thai government by making amends with their internet services - so it seems quite strange why this Candian company was so willing to snitch him to Thai authorities without any kind of documentation.
This is why Chai is now, with the help of the World Organization for Human Rights, suing Netfirms $75,000 in damages. It will be interesting to see how this court case will turn out, since this is the first time (at least to my knowledge) that a foreign internet firm has actively assisted Thai authorities with the prosecution of alleged lèse majesté offenders.
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Bangkok, Thailand. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and now also on his public Facebook page here.
Can the new Thai Foreign Minister actually speak English?
Originally published at Siam Voices on August 18, 2011 Surapong Towijakchaikul is not somebody to be jealous of for his job right now. The new Thai foreign minister is being criticized from all possible sides, much for him being simply unqualified because he lacks diplomatic background* and he's just there to help Thaksin getting into more countries again.
And now we have this shocking revelation by Spring News TV reporter Techawat Sukrak (เตชะวัฒน์ สุขรักษ์):
มีเรื่องฮาเมื่อรมต.ตปท.แถลงข่าว ต้องให้จนท.เป็นล่ามแปลเพื่อตอบคำถามต่อสื่อต่างประเทศ ทำเอาสื่อไทยงง!!รมต.ต่างประเทศฟัง-พูดอังกฤษไม่ได้เหรอ
Funny story: During a press conference, the FM [foreign minister] had this staff translating the answer to a question from foreign media, which confused the Thai reporters!! Can't the foreign minister understand and speak English?!
Tweet by @TOM_SPRINGNEWS at 16:28h, August 17, 2011 - translation by me
Well, can he speak English at all?
First off, his official bio states that he has a Master's degree and PhD in engineering from Youngstown State University and University of Akron respectively, both located in the US state of Ohio. Second, if Surapong is supposedly not capable of speaking and understanding, how then did he manage to do a whole interview in English with Anasuya Sanyal of Channel News Asia** (which was quite candid by the way)?
It is one thing to have somebody translating, especially if you're unsure of saying the right words since Surapong is allegedly, you know, not qualified enough to be a diplomat and thus speaking diplomatically. But it is an entirely different thing if somebody in his position being absolutely incapable of speaking and understanding the English language - like German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle (you know, the guy who let Thaksin back in) for example, who outright refused to answer a question in English from a BBC reporter right after the last elections in 2009, saying that "since it is common in the United Kingdom to speak English, it is common to speak German here in Germany," - now that's top-notch statesmanship right from the get-go...!
*One could argue that the last foreign minister Kasit Piromya has the best background as a former ambassador to Germany and Japan - but we all know better what happened to Thai foreign policy...!
**Anasuya confirmed on Twitter that the interview was entirely conducted in English
h/t to fellow Siam Voices contributor Panuwat Panduprasert
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Bangkok, Thailand. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and now also on his public Facebook page here.
As opposition against Thailand's lese majeste law continues, it claims another victim
Originally published at Siam Voices on August 16, 2011 Earlier this month, a 23-year old graduate from the Kasetsart University has been arrested for allegedly posting content on his blog that is deemed insulting to the monarchy - also known as lèse majesté. Prachatai and The Nation's Pravit Rojanaphruk (and unsurprisingly no one else) with the details:
The person who filed the charge was said to be a vice rector for students affairs, who reportedly said he was pressed to file the charge by the University Council and that the complaint was filed in a bid to protect the university's "reputation". (...)
The man made remarks on his blog that were allegedly offensive to the monarchy while he was a senior student at the university. These were apparently first spotted by fellow students, prachatai.com reported.
He faces charges both under the lese majeste law, which carries a maximum 15-year jail term, and the Computer Crimes Act, which has punishment of up to five years in jail.
"Student held for alleged lese majeste", The Nation, August 7, 2011
Meanwhile, Prachatai reports that he has been released on bail. This student, whose name and picture has been widely published, is another victim of Thailand's infamous Article 112 of the Criminal Code, also known as lèse majesté. In recent years, this law has been excessively abused, the number of such cases has skyrocketed from just a few cases in 2006 to almost 500 in 2010 and, in conjunction with the equally controversial 2007 Computer Crimes Act (CCA), thousands of websites have been shut down. On the other hand, due to the volatile political atmosphere in Thailand, it has enabled an excessive witch-hunt, as detailed here:
[Name of accused] was apparently 'witch hunted' by a Facebook group calling itself the Social Sanction (SS) group, according to his father. His name, photos, personal address and numbers were posted online, and he was heavily criticised by members of the SS group. (...)
Sawitree Suksri, a law lecturer at Thammasat University, described the SS group's method as "vicious" and "irrational" and a form of online violence that parallels the real-life violence in Thailand. She also noted in a signed article that the ongoing Social Sanction phenomenon appeared to have the support of the Thai authorities.
"THAILAND: Student blogger charged with lèse majesté", University World News, August 13, 2011
As charges for lèse majesté grow in numbers, so does the resistance against this law. We have previously reported about an open letter by a group of 100 young writers calling to amend this law and stop its excessive abuse. This group has now grown to 359 writers and they also have published a new open letter, key excerpt:
We hereby appeal to the Members of the Thai Parliament who are the representatives and law makers for the Thai people to take the lead in amending Article 112 of the Criminal Code. This is our call for courage to politicians, academicians, the media and intellectuals from all sectors of Thai society to awaken their conscience and to recognize that the suppression of freedom of speech and expression through the misuse of Article 112 by means of physical threats, pressing charges, lawsuits and intimidation by government officials in power or among members of the Thai public including the mass media, is a grave danger to the stability of our nation. This is of utmost national concern and in urgent need of reform.
A society will fail not as a result of diversity of opinions, nor lack of solidarity in political discourse, but a society will fail due to its inability to respect basic human rights, to allow opportunities for the public to voice their opinions, and to cherish and learn from the constructive exchange of different points of view. For our society to progress and prosper, it must develop a spirit of cooperation and cultivatean understanding of human rights, freedom and equality. The goal is for all Thais to live harmoniously under the constitutional monarchy rather than privilege those few who hold their view supreme, above and untouchable by common law and legal provisions or even the constitution which governs the nation.
"359 Thai Writers Manifesto", via Prachatai, July 25, 2011
The numerous cases show the problem about how this law is applied. In theory, anybody can file such a complaint at the police, who are obliged to investigate everyone of them, no matter how nonsensical they are. They can forward them to the prosecution and subsequently to the court which then has to decide on the very ambiguously worded law as well. Throw in the also very vague 2007 Computer Crimes Act (which was at one time planned to be replaced by an even worse new draft), then you are in a very (perhaps deliberately) unchartered legal territory - as the trail against Prachatai webmaster Chrianuch Premchaiporn has shown.
Many have laid their expectations on the new government to change something about this. But hopes for a quick solution to the problem were quickly dashed when the new prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra said that she has no intention to amend Article 112, but does not want see this law misused. Any administration even thinking publicly about reforming or changing this problem will have to face attacks by royalists who will brand them anti-monarchist, a severe accusation which is a killer argument that prevents any rational discussion about possible political and societal reforms.
Even worse, the new Minister for Communication and Technology (MICT) Captain Anudith Nakornthap of the Pheu Thai Party has gone on record declaring this:
(...) นับจากนี้ไป จะมีการกำชับให้ข้าราชการ และเจ้าหน้าที่ของกระทรวง ในทุกระดับ มีการเข้มงวดมากยิ่งขึ้น ในการกำกับดูแลปราบปรามการกระทำผิด พ.ร.บ.เกี่ยวกับคอมพิวเตอร์ และการหมิ่นสถาบันผ่านเว็บไซต์ต่างๆ โดยจะดำเนินการบังคับใช้กฎหมายอย่างเด็ดขาด
(...) from now on, the ministry's officials and staff members of every level have been urged to be more stringent in the pursuing of violations against the Computer Crimes Act and lèse majesté on websites, by enforcing the law to the fullest.
"รมว.ไอซีทีประกาศปราบเว็บหมิ่น ก่อนประเด็นลามถึงในเฟซบุ๊ก เจ้าตัวย้ำจะบังคับใช้กม.อย่างเป็นธรรม", Matichon, August 13, 2011
The new MICT minister made clear that nothing will change about the status quo, which means a continuation of the online witch-hunt, with support from a state-sponsored volunteer 'cyber-scout' network of denunciators and like-minded people who act on anticipatory obedience (see this link again for the aforementioned Social Sanction group and how students feel intimidated to speak their mind). All that in an atmosphere of when the army feels the urge to overemphasize their loyalty to the royal institution and openly threatens to crackdown on lèse majesté offenders. It sets a dangerous precedent of a black-and-white dichotomy against the Thai people, who think out of the norm.
It will be a long process until those who claim to protect the institution see that they are doing more harm than good in the long-run. One of the country's most outspoken social activist Sulak Sivaraksa was recently quoted in an foreign newspaper interview that "loyalty demands dissent. Without dissent you cannot be a free man, you see." Ironically, due to the same legal reasons as discussed here, I cannot provide a link to the source of that quote...!
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Bangkok, Thailand. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and now also on his public Facebook page here.
Thai govt pays €38m to Walter Bau, gets royal plane back
Originally published at Siam Voices on August 10, 2011 Bangkok Post reported on Tuesday night:
A court in Germany has released the Boeing 737 seized from HRH Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn, former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said on Tuesday.
Mr Abhisit told reporters the government has posted the full 38 million euros demanded by Walter Bau company in an account to be controlled by the German court.
As a result, the court released the jet. Terms of the agreement were unclear, as was the role of Mr Abhisit.
The government used public money for the deal. (...)
"Germany 'releases royal jet'", Bangkok Post, August 9, 2011
AP's take:
A Munich airport official confirmed that German authorities on Tuesday had released the plane used by the Thai crown prince. "It has been released, he just has to tell the airport when he would like to fly," Edgar Engert, a spokesman for the airport, told The Associated Press.
"Thailand post German bond to free prince's plane", Associated Press, August 10, 2011
This is quite yet another intriguing turn of events, which probably ends an awkward spat between Thailand and Germany, that started almost a month ago over an issue that dates back even further, when a German construction firm built a tollway to Bangkok's old international airport in Don Muang in a jointventure with the Thai government. The Thai government has broken several contractual obligations, including toll hikes and not building other roads that would compete with the tollway.
This German construction firm later merged with Walter Bau AG, another German construction firm that went bankrupt in 2005 - it was then when liquidator Werner Schneider found the old contract and demanded compensation from the Thai government. An international arbitration court ruled against Thailand in 2009 and ordered them to pay €30m ($42m or THB 1,2bn) - which has grown to almost €38m thanks to interests and the Thai government simply ignoring the order for years.
That's when Werner Schneider had enough, decided to up the ante against the Thai government and seeked to impound the Boeing 737 of Thai Crown HRH Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn. That set off a bilateral spat in which Thailand, partly thanks to the confusing domestic media coverage, but also active disinformation and an apparent failure to distinguish a German court from the German government, had a weak case on their hands in not only trying to release the plane, but also fight against the order to pay the hefty sum to WalterBau AG.
The main legal battle focussed on whether or not the royal 737 plane is owned by the Thai government or is personal property of the Crown Prince. A German court has then decided to release the plane only for a €20m ($28.4 or THB 851m) deposit, which still kinda led some Thai news outlets to believe that the plane is actually freed, since there has been no verdict on the ownership status, which was supposed to take place later this August at a German court.
The lastest developments (which were also the last acts of the now former Thai government of Abhisit Vejjajiva and then-foreign minister Kasit Piromya) consisted of who was going to pay. Of course, it started off with Kasit refusing to pay the deposit, the Crown Prince then announced to pay from his own fund, to which Kasit was suddenly ready to flip the bill so the Crown Prince doesn't have to until Abhisit overruled him and said no - as summarized here by Bangkok Pundit.
Now apparently the Thai government is actually paying the whole bill to Walter Bau after all. But why so suddenly? Was it an attempt to score one last 'victory' by the outgoing government by not only getting the royal plane back? Was the realization that the 'new information' presented to the German courts was neither new nor informative enough to be in favor of the Thai government? Apparently the Thai side ran out of arguments:
DLA Piper, the law firm representing Thailand in the case, said the country is committed to honoring its obligations and wants to rule out premature actions against assets of it or others.
"Thailand has strong grounds for challenging the confirmation of the award," a DLA Piper lawyer, Frank Roth, said in the firm's statement. "However, if the Berlin court finally concludes that the award against the Kingdom of Thailand is enforceable, the Kingdom of Thailand has made the funds available."
"Thailand post German bond to free prince's plane", Associated Press, August 10, 2011
This statement by this law firm is particularly interesting, since just a week ago they have released a press release sounding very confident and trying to convince that the €20m deposit to be a 'victory'. But according to one Thai official, this whole thing is not done yet:
Thai Foreign Ministry official Chavanond Intarakomalyasut said a German court ordered the release of the aircraft Tuesday after the Thai government posted a 38 million euro ($54 million) bond, equal to the Walter Bau claim.
He said Thailand would continue to contest the claim on the tollway dispute until a definitive court ruling. Abhisit stepped down from the prime minister's post last week after his Democrat Party lost a July general election.
"Thailand post German bond to free prince's plane", Associated Press, August 10, 2011
Chavanond probably refers to an ongoing appeal at a New York court, even though the award itself is already final, unappealable and enforceable worldwide - the chances are reportedly 'very slim' (source) though that the Thai government would actually get anything from this procedure.
There's of course at least one Thai news outlet that gets it wrong - you can all probably guess which one it is...
German authorities have agreed to withdraw impoundment of two 737 Boeing jets belonging to His Royal Highness Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn parked at the Munich airport, after Thai government placed 38 million euros as guarantee, former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said yesterday.
The Thai embassy in Germany is working further on the issue to retrieve the two aircraft [sic!], and a lawsuit will be soon lodged with German court, said Chawanong Intharakomalsut, secretary to former foreign minister Kasit Piromya. He did not give details over which grounds over the issue the lawsuit would appeal against.
"Germans to free jet as govt pays Bt1.6-bn surety", The Nation, August 10, 2011
Wait, wait - TWO impounded planes?! Who said that TWO planes have been impounded?! Yes, there was a second Thai royal plane landing on the runway in Munich, but the German liquidator was only considering to impound the second plane - if that would have happened, we would have already known about this, if not from the Thai press, then at least the German press! Even the Thai Embassy in Berlin has said nowhere about a second plane!
This leaves now the question with what they actually mean when they said that 'public money' has been used...?
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Bangkok, Thailand. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and now also on his public Facebook page here.
Thai commander-in-chief's anger at media
Originally published at Siam Voices on August 2, 2011 We have featured the outspoken commander-in-chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha before, which has been a constant source for material including his, erm, shall we say unusual handling with the media. Recently, the armed forces have suffered a series of three consecutive helicopter crashes within a week which has claimed at least 17 lives in total (including a Channel 5 cameraman). The first two reportedly went down due to bad weather, while the last one suffered a technical failure. While accidents are unfortunately unavoidable, the string of tragic events that hit the rescue operations after the first crash on July 17 posed questions about the state of the army's equipment and funding despite a $5.2bn strong war chest.
The more Gen Prayuth felt the need to defend his armed forces from any criticism - in his usual manner...
ประยุทธ์ฉุนจวกนักวิชาการด่าทหารโกงโยงฮ.ตก ซัดพูดแล้วต้องรับผิดชอบ ทำทหารเสียขวัญ อัด “เอเอสทีวี-ทีวีแดง-เฟซบุ๊ควาสนา”ทำบ้านเมืองเสียหาย (...) พ้อไทยไม่ได้เป็นชาติมหาอำนาจจะได้มีฮ.ทันสมัยสูงสุด แต่ยัน ฮ.ไทยทันสมัย อาเซียนก็ใช้ โวจะอยู่เป็นผบ.หรือไม่ ไม่สนใจ แต่ทบ.ต้องอยู่ด้วยเกียรติยศ วอนนำเหตุฮ.ตกเป็นบทเรียนปรับปรุง
Prayuth has slammed military experts, who have accused [the army] of corruption in relation to the crashed helicopters, saying that those have to take responsibility [for their words] for destroying the armed forces' morale. He attacks "ASTV, red [shirts'] TV and 'Facebook Wasana'" for destroying the country. (...) He says: "Thailand is not a developed country, which can have the newest helicopters," but also insists that "Thai helicopters are up to date. Other ASEAN states are also using them." Prayuth is not interested if he stays commander-in-chief or not, but the armed forces should have honor and that the helicopter crashes should be taken as a lesson for improvements.
"ในหลวงพระราชทานน้ำหลวงอาบศพเหยื่อฮ.ตก ผบ.ทบ.จวก“เอเอสฯ-ทีวีแดง-เฟซบุ๊ควาสนา”ทำบ้านเมืองเสียหาย", Siam Rath, July 25, 2011 - translation by me
This is an unprecedented case in which a high ranking, influential army officer has explicitly singled out media outlets for criticizing, as if he were trying to point out those who have been especially naughty. But what and who is he referencing to? At the center of Prayuth's attack is Wassana Nanuam, military correspondent for the Bangkok Post, whom he bizarrely referred to only as 'Facebook Wassana' (which also doesn't make much sense in Thai as well).
Here is what Wassana wrote on her Facebook a day before:
เก้าอี้สะเทือน ฮ.ตก3 ลำซ้อนพล.อ.ประยุทธ์ โฟนอินทีวี3-ทีวีไทย ยันเครื่องขัดข้องเสียใจ อย่าตำหนิทหารขอกำลังใจเห็นใจทหารเสี่ยง สายข่าวเผยเจนเนอเรเตอร,มีปัญหา แต่ก็เอาขึ้นบิน นักบินเสียขวัญ คำถามตามมา ให้ ผบทบ.ตอบมากมาย..แต่ควรมาแก่งกระจานเยี่ยมลูกน้องบ้าง ไม่กล้านั่งฮ นั่งรถก็ได้
The chairs are shaking, three helicopters down - Gen. Prayuth phones into Channel 3, TVThai, claims technical failure and mourns [the deceased] - urges not to criticize the army, but to show sympathy and acknowledge their risks. Reports have indicated problems with the generator, but still went up anyways, the pilot has lost confidence [in the machine]. Many more questions for the commander-in-chief to answer [now], but he should visit the troops in Kaeng Krachan - if he's too afraid to take a helicopter, he can go there by car!
Facebook status update by Wassana Nanuam, July 24 at 12:49pm - translation by me
Of course, Wassana took a small swipe at Prayuth and this status update has set off a long discussion thread in the comments with now few heavily taking aim at the commander-in-chief and the armed forces. This was then later mentioned on ASTV and Manager Radio, both media outlets of the yellow shirted, ultra-nationalistic PAD, who have been fiercely criticizing the armed forces ever since the Preah Vihear temple conflict with Cambodia.
Clearly, this appears to be a case of somebody mixing up the medium with the person and its interaction possibilities. Wassana seems to share the sentiment as she wrote in her rebuttal on Facebook:
ผบ.ทบ.เปิดศึกโซเชี่ยลมีเดียตำหนิทวิตเตอร์เฟสบุ๊ควาสนา แย่มากโจมตีกองทัพเรื่องฮ...ไม่รู้ท่านอ่านเองรึเปล่า...คนอื่นแสดงความเห็นทั้งนั้น วาสนาช่วยแจงจนคนหาว่าวาสนาเข้าข้างทหารด้วยซ้ำ ทหารฝ่ายเสธ.เอาแต่เรื่องไม่ดีรายงานนาย ทีช่วยกองทัพกลับไม่รายงาน..สงสัยเห็นวาสนา เป็นผู้ชายเหมือนกันมั้ง
Commander-in-chief declared a war on social media, blames Twitter and 'Facebook Wassana'. What disgrace, criticizing the army over the helicopters... I don't know if the general has read them himself... it was all the other people expressing their opinions! I tried to explain this until they [the comments] accuse me to side with the army. The Chiefs of Staff only report about the bad news to [Prayuth], but when I try to help [explaining] them they don't. May be they think that I'm a man among those men.
Facebook status update by Wassana Nanuam, July 25 at 2:03pm - translation by me
One really wonders what Prayuth thinks about the media, old and new alike (other than closing them down). Nevertheless, a day later, he tried to justify his public erratic behavior:
พล.อ.ประยุทธ์ ยังกล่าวอีกว่า ทุกครั้งที่ตนแสดงสีหน้าอาการดุออกโทรทัศน์ เพราะต้องการแสดงให้เห็นถึงภาวะผู้นำของตนเองเท่านั้น
General Prayuth said: "Every time when I appear angry on television, it is because I only need to show my leadership [authority]"
"ผบ.ทบ.เตรียมจัดซื้อเฮลิคอปเตอร์ล็อตใหม่30ลำ", Naew Na via RYT9, July 26 - translation by me
Which probably then excuses the next nervy outburst:
"วันก่อนผมเดินทางไปร่วมพิธีรดน้ำศพของผู้เสียชีวิตที่กาญจนบุรี ซึ่งเรามีแผนการเดินทาง (...) ทั้งเดินทางด้วยรถยนต์ หรือฮ. ถ้าโดยปกติถ้าอากาศไม่ดีก็จะไม่บินขึ้น (...) แต่ไม่ใช่ว่าไปเขียนกันว่ารมว.กลาโหม ผบ.ทบ.ไม่กล้าขึ้นฮ. แต่ให้ลูกน้องขึ้นแทน ซึ่งผมไม่ได้โกรธ แต่เป็นธรรมหรือไม่"
"Yesterday, I traveled to the funeral in Kanchanaburi, for which we had plans for the travel (...) including by car or by helicopter, which normally in bad weather would not be used. (...) But it's not like in the newspapers that the Defense Minister and the Commander-in-Chief are too afraid to go on the helicopter, but let their soldiers go on it instead - I'm not angry about it, but it is not fair!"
"ถ้าไม่ตอบคำถามตนว่าใครพาดหัวข่าว ก็ไม่ต้องมาถามกันอีก ต่อไปนี้จะไม่ให้สัมภาษณ์แล้ว"
"If you don't tell me who wrote those headlines, then you should not come to me for questions, from now on I would not give any more interviews!"
"ปรากฎการณ์" ฟิวส์ขาด"ผบ.ทบ.วาทะร้อนไม่กล้าขึ้น ฮ. สื่อvsบิ๊กตู่"บทบาท"ที่แตกต่าง แต่"เจตนา"ไม่ต่าง", Matichon, July 28 - translation by me
As usual, General Prayuth talks about journalists required to take responsibility over their words and not 'destroy the country' (or at least his vision of it), while at the same time being completely oblivious about his own words and how they come across to the public eye. The commander-in-chief's relation with the press will remain a contentious one.
BONUS UPDATE: Thanks to @SteveInCM on Twitter, we have now video footage of that most recent incident, including him walking off the interview and making gestures at the press. Also, I forgot to mention that Matichon headline has been aptly named "Blowing up his fuse, Commander-in-Chief spews fury, (...) media vs Big Tu [Prayuth's nickname] (...)"
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Bangkok, Thailand. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and now also on his public Facebook page here.
The impounded Thai plane is free - but not for free
Originally published at Siam Voices on July 21, 2011 A German court has decided on the fate of a Royal Thai Air Force aircraft, belonging to Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn - or to the Thai government, depending on who you listen to - which was impounded last week by a liquidator for the bankrupt Walter Bau AG construction company. For more background, see Bangkok Pundit's posts here and here. From Reuters:
A German court on Wednesday ruled Thailand's Crown prince would have to pay a 20 million euro deposit ($28.40 million) for the return of his plane, impounded during a long running commercial dispute.
The Landshut court in Bavaria said in a statement on Wednesday the 20 million figure was based on the estimated value of the plane. It said a deposit was necessary as it had not yet decided on the ownership of the plane.
"German court wants $28 mln to free Thai prince's jet", Reuters, July 20, 2011
AFP further details the verdict:
But a court in nearby Landshut said it had received an assurance under oath from the Thai Department of Civil Aviation's director that the plane belonged to the prince, not the Thai state, as well as a 2007 registration certificate.
The vice president of the court, Christoph Fellner, said however that since these documents provided only a "presumption of ownership," 20 million euros ($28.2 million) had to be deposited in the form of a bank guarantee.
"No guarantee means no take-off," he said. "If everything goes well for the prince and we establish that the aircraft really belongs to him, than he will get his bank guarantee back."
"German court releases Thai prince's plane", AFP, July 20, 2011
In a nutshell the court gave the Thai government the benefit of the doubt over the ownership of the plane and if this assurance would be decided as wrong, it will cost the Thais 20 million Euros.
But how do the Thai media outlets report on this, given how gingerly they handled this story in the past week? The Nation goes with the headline "German court releases Thai plane", Bangkok Post writes "Royal jet released", which both wrongly imply that the plane can now leave Germany. But the biggest offender is MCOT who went with:
German court rules royal jet doesn't belong to Thai government: Thai Foreign Ministry (MCOT, July 13, 2011)
But the court said its decision was only preliminary so a bond was requires and 20 million euros (US$28.2 million) must be deposited as a bank guarantee. When the court finally establishes that the aircraft does belong to the Crown Prince, it will return the bond.
A German court on Wednesday ruled that the impounded aircraft used by Thailand's Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn does not belong to the Thai government and agreed to release it on condition that a 20 million euro (over US$28 million) bank guarantee must be deposited, according to Foreign Ministry's Information Department deputy director-general Jesda Katavetin. (...)
He said the Thai legal team was working on the details of the ruling and could not reveal the details at the moment, but the ruling could be considered as a successful crucial step for the lawyers. (...)
You couldn't be further from the truth! That's what you get when you only speak to government officials: you only get opinion soundbites that aren't necessarily true - and of course they will try to sell this as a success, which clearly isn't. This whole piece is only topped by the last paragraph, which basically contradicts the whole article! Even the Thai language media, both press and TV, were more accurate in their reporting.
All in all, this is not to be considered a victory by the Thai side but the final verdict has not been delivered yet - until then, the plane will remain grounded and with it hopefully the rabble rousing by all people involved as well.
[UPDATE] The liquidator Werner Schneider has issued a statement in German through his law firm (PDF here), some excerpts:
"Even though the plane has been released, with the deposit of 20 million Euros we have achieved an important, successful interim result. It will be interesting to see who will pay the security deposit," says Werner Schneider, liquidator of the WALTER BAU-AG. Eventually, the point of the impoundment was not to turn the Thai plane into account, but to push [the Thais] for the required payments. In the point of view of Schneider, Geiwitz & Partner [the law firm], we have gone one big step ahead. (...)
Schneider sees the responsibility for potential diplomatic disturbances between Thailand and Germany only at the Thai government, because of their refusal to pay. "Thailand violated a bilateral intergovernmental agreement to protect investments for years - without any effective reactions from the [German] Federal Government," continues Schneider.
From: "Pressemitteilung: Insolvenzverwalter Schneider: Pfändungsaktion war ein Erfolg" (PDF), Kanzlei Schneider, Geiwitz & Partner, July 20, 2011 - translation by me
I think Schneider can now really forget about a holiday to Thailand anytime soon...!
The impounded Thai aircraft and lessons from the Thai media
Originally published at Siam Voices on July 20, 2011
You may have heard by now that last week a Boeing 737 airplane of the Royal Thai Air Force was impounded by a German liqudator and is now in a hangar at Munich airport. And by now you might have also heard that this plane belongs to Thailand's Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn - or does it? The outgoing Thai foreign minister Kasit Piromya is claiming and trying to prove to the German judiciary that this plane is not Thai government property, but the Crown Prince's personal aircraft. The German court is not convinced and sees this plane as of the Royal Thai Air Force plane and thus as a government vehicle.
This is where things stand at the moment before said German court will, after the examination of countless documents provided by the Thai side, decide on Wednesday if the plane remains impounded or not. For more on the background on why this plan was seized in the first place, read Bangkok Pundit's coverage here and here.
What's interesting to see was how the Thai media handled this story - or not at first, given the sensitivity of the subject. This story broke exclusively on Financial Times Deutschland (google for “Der Insolvenzverwalter des ehemaligen deutschen Baukonzerns Walter Bau streitet sich mit Thailand um Millionen”) last Tuesday, which quickly was reported in German and international media - only in Thailand the media was predictably silent.
This was until outgoing foreign minister Kasit Piromya called in for a press conference on last Wednesday evening shortly before he got on a plane to Germany (a regular Thai Airways flight, mind you!) to get this plane back, thus effectively making this issue a state affair. Still, despite explaining the legal reasons (the debt to be paid by the Thai government), many Thai media outlets were treading a fine line on what to mention and what not. Let's take this article from The Nation as an example:
Thailand will make all efforts to release a Thai national's Boeing 737 impounded in Germany due to a payment conflict between the government and a German construction firm, outgoing Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya said yesterday.
"Germany made the great mistake of confiscating property that does not belong to the Thai government," Kasit told reporters yesterday. (...)
"I made it clear that this matter has nothing to do with the royal court," he said. "It is a huge mistake for Germany to do this and we will not allow this issue to jeopardise relations between the two countries."
"Thailand's making 'all efforts' to end aircraft spat: FM", The Nation, July 15, 2011
As you can see, no references to the Crown Prince were made here. But slowly over the course of the next day the newsrooms realize they couldn't tell the story without the owner of that plane. So bit by bit they started to mention the Crown Prince as the owner of this aircraft, for example Thai Rath, Bangkok Post and also the evening news on Thai TV (with ThaiPBS even leading in with this story on Friday).
Only The Nation was most likely the last media outlet to hold off mentioning the Crown Prince's name - even when they put articles together from foreign news agencies as they referred to it only as a "Thai national's personal plane". It took them until Sunday, two whole days after everyone else, when they have finally mentioned his name, albeit again only with agency material.
The only original content from The Nation on this whole plane saga was an opinion piece by a certain Alexander Mohr, who wrote:
(...) first of all, the seizure of a plane from a royal fleet is simply not the most straightforward approach. One cannot help thinking that the insolvency manager went for the most sensational approach. Seizing a plane from the Thai royal fleet guarantees media attention and exposure. (...)
But while the identity of the aircraft's owner may remain unclear, the action of seizing a vehicle used by a member of the Royal Family exceeds all bounds of a reasonable approach towards a solution. The damage is done.
The Thai side tried to solve the issue on a political level last week. Foreign Minister Kasit flew to Germany where he met with Cornelia Piper, an under secretary of the German foreign ministry. The German side does not want to intervene in the case and refers to the independence of the judiciary. (...)
It is very likely the dispute will be settled soon. However, the avoidable damage caused to bilateral relations between Germany and Thailand is done, with both the economic and also political ties suffering.
"Plane stupid: the damage is done", by Alexander Mohr, The Nation, July 19, 2011
First off, the author is billed as a "partner for International Relations at the government relations firm Alber & Geiger in Brussels", which is a "political lobbying powerhouse (...) known for representing foreign governments" - so pretty much this was most likely written for the Thai government who wants to get their message across. What this piece reveals as well is that the Thai side seems genuinely astonished that the German government cannot influence its judiciary whatsoever and that only the they see the bilateral damage, since they made it a state affair.
It was an interesting lesson in how the Thai media handles such sensitive stories - if at all. After the void of total silence at first was mostly filled by the international media and the internet, the floodgates opened as soon as this was made into an affair of upmost national importance by the foreign minister. Granted, due to the legal restraints no one is allowed to publicly say why the Crown Prince and that plane is in Germany in the first place...
Exclusive: Pheu Thai should talk policies first - Suranand Vejjajiva
In this two-part interview, Saksith Saiyasombut talks to Suranand Vejjajiva, a former Cabinet Minister under the Thaksin Shinawatra administration who served as the Minister of the PM's Office and spokesman of the Thai Rak Thai Party, until the ban of this party and 111 politicians in 2007. The cousin of the now outgoing prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, Suranand is a columnist for the Bangkok Post and host of "The Commentator" on VoiceTV.
In part one we talk about Pheu Thai's election victory and the work ahead of them, including the economy and reconciliation process and where it went wrong for the Democrat Party. In part two, we'll look ahead at the fate of the new government, the red shirts, the Democrat Party and Thaksin Shinawatra and also at the state of education and the media in Thailand.
We had Election Day on Sunday, July 3 - then on Monday, July 4, we already have a coalition or at least an agreement to form a coalition. What this to be expected to happen so quickly?
I‘m not in the inner circle, but what I was thinking is that - since PT has 265 seats - they don‘t have a wide enough margin. They expect that some elected MPs could get disqualified [by the Election Commission], so they have already talked to smaller parties to get the margin up to 299 seats to be safe. (Note: it‘s 300 now, ed.)
Do you think this coalition is stable enough?
In terms of numbers yes, definitely. The coalition partners don‘t have any leverage to change anything much because PT already has enough seats. If PT would have fewer seats, let‘s say 220, and a coalition partner with 20 seats would come in, then they would have more leverage, then the coalition would be unstable. But number-wise, this coalition is stable.
We have now the usual claims on the ministries, but as you just said, the coalition partners don‘t have any leverage - still, I cannot imagine that they want to go out empty handed...
Oh, they will get their ministries! My first observation was along this line, too. But it‘s too early to talk about cabinet positions - the Election Commission has not even certified the MPs yet, there‘s still a lot of time. I think Pheu Thai is being pushed by the media...
...practically hyped up...
...yeah, hyped up - to talk about cabinet positions, because that‘s what the media is interested in. But I don‘t think Pheu Thai should fall for that. For example when I saw in the news today, when Khun Yingluck came out and talked about policies - that‘s what parties should talk about right now.
So what are the policies they should look at first?
It will be two-prong. The first one is reconciliation, it‘s a policy-cum-mechanism that they have to implement. They cannot say by themselves that they will do this and that, since they are a part of the conflict as well. So what Khun Yingluck is trying to propose, a neutral committee while keeping the Truth and Reconciliation Committee of Dr. Kanit, is good in a way...
Even though Dr. Kanit's panel has hardly found anything...
It‘s because the now-outgoing administration didn‘t give them anything. It‘s a paper tiger, they don‘t even get the budget they needed - let alone access to all the evidence. So if Yingluck comes in as the prime minister and opens up everything to Kanit‘s committee - that‘s one thing she has to make sure that happens.
The other thing of course is the economic situation. Not all people care for reconciliation, but a lot of them care what is going to be in their wallets and in their stomachs.
And are Pheu Thai‘s policies a real way out? For example, one of the first things they have planned is to raise the minimum wage to 300 Baht...
It's hard to say. I have criticized nearly every party's policies, I don‘t believe in these so-called 'populist platforms'. Yes, Thailand still has gaps and loopholes concerning wages or the welfare system. But to give handouts from the first day will be a strain on the fiscal discipline for the government. What they should have done though, while I agree with the wage raise, is to explain what kind of structural adjustments they would do for the economy. When investors and business people see that for example the minimum wage increase is part of a larger restructuring, they might be more confident over the economy.
Let‘s take a look back for a moment. You said that you have criticized almost every party‘s policies - what made Pheu Thai stand out from anybody else?
Pheu Thai and its previous incarnations (People‘s Power Party and Thai Rak Thai) have a track record - if you look at their economic team, all former cabinet ministers - that is for me and probably for many people enough for us now to have confidence in them.
Where did it go wrong for the Democrat Party then?
On reconciliation - they were not sincere enough about it, they haven‘t provided an official explanation on what happened last year yet, we only got political rhetoric so far. And no cases have gone into the judicial process yet.
What about the economic side?
They have not been able to deal with the rising cost of living. Of course, they would say the export figures are excellent, but they are excellent because we are a food producing country. But the prices on (palm) oil, nearly all prices went up. They haven‘t been able to manage the domestic side, not even the 'trickling down' of these benefits towards the urban population but also to the farmers. I think that‘s why they lost the vote.
Then there was the last-ditch attempt to hold a rally at Rajaprasong, which didn‘t really help them in the end...
Well, I‘m trying to figure out the Bangkok vote, which consists of two factors: first, the Democrats control the election mechanics in Bangkok for a very long time, so they‘re better organized than Pheu Thai in Bangkok. Secondly, Abhisit was continuing to bet on the politics of fear - the fear of Thaksin, the fear of the red shirts. Abhisit was targeting the Bangkok electorate, especially the middle-class.
We have now talked about the reconciliation and economic policies of the Pheu Thai Party. What else should be on top of their list?
Foreign policy. Especially with the neighboring countries, because I think we cannot live among ourselves. The outgoing government has created very bad relations with our neighbors and that doesn‘t help because ASEAN 2015 (the planned establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community, ed.) is coming very soon. If you really want to be a real borderless ASEAN, it has to be proven on the mainland and if Thailand doesn‘t have good relations with its neighbors, it will be problematic. The border situation with Cambodia was mishandled very badly from a diplomatic standpoint - it could have resolved bi-laterally long time ago. If there were good relations, we wouldn‘t have any incidents, not even at the UN Security Council or to the International Court of Justice or the World Heritage Committee. That is embarrassing.
Part of the much-discussed reconciliation policy of Pheu Thai has been a potential amnesty plan - if there has been ever one. Is it a smart move to give everybody, convicted of political wrongdoings, amnesty? Is this how a proper reconciliation looks like?
I don‘t agree at all with that. I don‘t see that an amnesty will help anyone. You can forgive, but only after a certain process. I‘m a banned politician for only eight more months and I have never called for an amnesty. But if you absolve all these cases, including Thaksin, the terrorist accusations against red and yellow shirts, the military coup, the defamation cases - you cannot give an amnesty that way, because there are a lot of other people in jail who will call for their own amnesty as well! The best way for reconciliation is not an amnesty, but to make sure that the judicial process is fair and transparent in order to provide real justice.
But does it like it at the moment or does the judicial system need changes?
Once you say you have to reform the whole judicial process, then that‘s a big problem. For example, the government has to find a credible and socially accepted Minister of Justice first...
Now who would that be?
I don‘t know! But it‘s important this person is independent. This government has to set an example, especially for the cases that involve the red shirts and Thaksin. I don‘t think Thaksin wants an amnesty, since he himself said he didn‘t do anything wrong. But if he‘s sure that the judicial process is fair and transparent, he might be able to come back and fight his case.
Behind the scenes with Thailand's 'cyber-scouts'
Originally published at Siam Voices on May 11, 2011 AFP ran a story on Wednesday about Thailand's 'cyber-scouts', who patrol the internet for material deemed offensive to the monarchy. It follows the work and the motivations of one of the mostly young volunteers:
Wearing his special "cyber scout" polo shirt with pride, Thattharit Sukcharoen scans the Internet pages on his computer in search of remarks deemed offensive to Thailand's revered monarchy. He is one of several dozen volunteers recruited by the Thai justice ministry to patrol cyberspace in search of anybody violating the kingdom's strict lese majeste rules -- an offence punishable by up to 15 years in prison.
"My inspiration to be a cyber scout is the king. There are many ways to protect the institute, and this is one of them," Thattharit, a 39-year-old administrative worker at a school in Bangkok, told AFP. "Sometimes there are just fun conversations among teenagers and they think it's not important, but for those who love the royal institute, some comments that I see are not appropriate. I must report them to the authorities." (...)
According to the project's website www.justice-cyberscout.org, volunteers "will have a duty to monitor information and actions dangerous to the country's security and will protect, defend and hold the royal institute in esteem."
Students in particular are invited to sign up. Thattharit attended one day of training to become a cyber scout. "I learned about the history of the king, his majesty, and how divine he is ... and also how to use a computer, the Internet and Facebook," he said.
The project is in its infancy and so far Thattharit has not reported anybody to the authorities. He explained that if he finds comments deemed offensive to the king he plans to contact the person who posted them to first to warn them and give them a chance to change their views, before informing officials. "Not many people know about the project. They may think they're talking to a friend because I don't tell them I'm a cyber scout," he said. "I feel I am doing an important job. I can give back to the country."
"Thai 'cyber scouts' patrol web for royal insults", by AFP, May 11, 2011
We have previously blogged about the launch of the 'cyber-scout' initiative back last December, where the ministry of justice has organised an introductory seminar and laid out the objectives of the project, including first and foremost "observing [online] behavior that is deemed a threat to national security and to defend and protect the royal institution," and "promote the moral and ethics with the help of the volunteers, to ensure the correct behavior".
This reveals how the cyber scouts work (emphasised in bold above): They seem to roam around certain websites and social networks more or less incognito and look for seemingly insulting posts, only to step in, reveal themselves as a cyber scout and give out a warning "to change their views", otherwise the authorities will be informed - and regular readers know by now how severe the consequences are.
The same notion I had back last year still stands...
But it is quite clear that this is a general trend of over-emphasizing the loyalty by all means and more than a sudden urge to protect the royal institution against a perceived, invisible threat. And since the internet is a quite an anonymous place, it’s an even more frightening threat. Thus these mental and cultural barricades are built with the recruited man-power and the social dogma of loyalty – both off- and online. The term ‘Cyber Scout’ reflects some historical parallels to the ‘Village Scouts’ of the 1970s, which were set up for almost the same reasons in order to battle a perceived communist threat.
"Become a cyber-scout, clean up Thailand’s internet!", by Saksith Saiyasombut, Siam Voices, December 17, 2010
We will probably hear more about their work and their results pretty soon.
BONUS: AFP has posted the accompanying video report on the same topic with the same people involved:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAJeSS8-LXc
Thailand’s cyber-police draft new Computer Crimes Act
Originally published at Siam Voices on May 2, 2011 Thailand's authorities have been patrolling the internet more and more vigorously, mostly to clamp down on content that is allegedly lèse majesté and to silence political opponents. In recently published research by Freedom House, the US-based think-tank has labeled the kingdom's internet as 'not free', putting it below countries such as Zimbabwe, Turkey, Venezuela, Pakistan, Rwanda and among countries the likes of China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Cuba. More details at fellow Asian Correspondent blogger Jon Russell.
That is partly thanks to the Computer Crimes Act of 2007, hastily set up by the interim military government of Surayud Chulanont after videos mocking the King of Thailand appeared on YouTube and the service refusing to delete them despite the request of the Thai government (and subsequently blocking the whole site for a brief time). The law was drafted initially to lay down a legal groundwork against hacking and internet scams, but also sections such as these:
Section 12. The perpetration of an offense under Section 9 or Section 10 that:
(1) causes damage, whether it be immediate or subsequent and whether it be synchronous to the public shall be subject to imprisonment for no longer than ten years or a fine of not more than two hundred thousand baht.
(2) is an act that is likely to damage computer data or a computer system related to the country's security, public security and economic security or public services or is an act against computer data or a computer system available for public use shall be subject to imprisonment from three years up to fifteen years and a fine of sixty thousand baht up to three hundred thousand baht. The commission of an offense under (2) that causes death to another person shall be subject to imprisonment from ten years up to twenty years. ... Section 14. If any person commits any offence of the following acts shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine of not more than one hundred thousand baht or both: ... (2) that involves import to a computer system of false computer data in a manner that is likely to damage the country's security or cause a public panic;
(3) that involves import to a computer system of any computer data related with an offense against the Kingdom's security under the Criminal Code;
The Thai Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT) is currently drafting a new cyber law, but instead of clarifying some vague passages, it rewrites or adds new ones which are even broader in definition than the previous parts and thus creating more leeway for abusing it. The manager of the Thai internet advocacy group iLaw, Orapin Yingyongphatthana, said in an article by Prachatai the draft "contains all the same problems and is even more regressive."
In a post on their own website, iLaw has dissected and commented on some of the passages of the draft (which can be seen here in Thai, including the full draft), including*:
*Section 4 adds the definition of "administrator" which means "a person with the computer rights to provide others with services accessible on the internet or by other means through a computer system, no matter if it's in their own interest or on behalf of others."
[Comment] (...) In the new draft (...) "administrator" (...) could include webmasters, website owners, network administrators, data base administrator, forum moderator, web editors, blog owners and (...) even the internet service providers.
Under this act, the 'middle man' should be as equally punished as the violator, e.g. who writes content that does not match with the truth [and] threatens national security. (...)
With the word "administrator" pretty much left as it is in the law, it could mean that either content manager but (more importantly) content creators such as bloggers and editors can be targeted under this section. Although, as seen in the case of Prachatai webmaster Chiranuch Premchaiporn, it can also mean that content managers (such as a webmaster) can be charged for hosting data or information created by a third party.
With that in mind, the next passage requires even more observation:
*Section 24 ["If any person commits any offense of the following acts shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine of not more than one hundred thousand baht or both:] (1) that involves import to a computer system of forged computer data, either in whole or in part, or false computer data, that causes damage to the national security or causes public panic"
[Comment] The above excerpt includes passages from Section 14 (1) and (2) of the current law to underline the original intention [to act against phishing and other online scams] (...) thus leading to the phrasing that creating incorrect [or wrong] data [or information] can be a misconduct.
iLaw further commented that the very vague wording of "false computer information" is problematic (and not only problematic to translate). What exactly is "false computer information"? With the necessary legal acrobatic you could for instance interpret this making "false statements" or just flat-out simply "spreading lies". So who decides then what is true or not? In this political climate and given the numerous legal cases, it looks like this passage alone will increase the possibility to file charges against opinions differing from a main narrative that is being claimed by the government.
*"Section 26: Whoever (...) provides computer data that depicts [about] another individual (...) that in whichever way would damage, bring disrepute, defame, incite hatred or that would embarrass or lead to others believing this information to be true shall be punished with not more than three years of prison or a fine not exceeding 100,000 Baht or both."
[Comment] In the past, there have been lots of efforts to bring defamation lawsuits by using the Computer Crimes Act, but the current law does not have a suitable section yet except for Section 14 (1) as mentioned above and Section 16, which states ["any person, who imports to a computer system (...), computer data where a third party's picture appears either created, edited, added or adapted by electronic means or otherwise in a manner that is likely to impair that third party's reputation or cause that third party to be isolated, disgusted or embarrassed..."]. The new law creates a convenience for the authorities to charge defamation lawsuits more easily.
Again, uncertain wording makes it hard to determine what is punishable and what not.
The draft further proposes the set-up of a so called "Committee to Prevent and Suppress Computer Crimes", which has the ability to appoint officials and request copies of data. The concern shared by many is that the group could be a powerful enforcer of the even more regressive and even more ambiguous law.
But the draft has hit a bump as prime minister Abhisit surprisingly put it on hold before it could reach the cabinet:
The government's acting spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn (...) said the Information and Communications Technology Ministry still needed to seek opinions from relevant state agencies about the draft. (...)
ICT Minister Chuti Krairiksh (...) said the [newer] current draft is the version that has gone through the process of public hearings and has already been revised by the ministry's committee assigned to draft the law. He said the version being opposed by the three groups was the one that had been written before the public hearings.
"PM stalls computer crime act", The Nation, April 20, 2011
The problem here though is, that apparently there has been no public hearing on the draft whatsoever, as pointed out in a Bangkok Post column.
That leaves us with the question why the MICT is in a rush to write a new law that is even more ambiguous than the current one? Granted, this is a draft that will see numerous revisions before it will be solidified but if the disputed passages are anything to go by, it tells much about the understand (or the lack thereof) of the MICT on this delicate subject. There always has been an urge to have the capability to 'control' the flow of information, especially with the emergence of social media. Back in 2009, a Bangkok senator has openly asked how to do exactly that.
We have plenty examples of the actions of the authorities to curb online freedom, be it by recruiting 'cyber-scouts' or openly threatening users abroad, all with the aim to fight a perceived, invisible threat. What the authorities repeatedly fail to realize though is that it is an uphill battle to marginalize a diversity of opinions and views of the soon 20 million Thai online users: it doesn't really work. They even have admitted it!
*all passages have been translated from Thai by me
Thailand journalist death: More criticism of DSI probe
Originally published at Siam Voices on March 2, 2011 The most recent findings of Thailand's Department of Special Investigation (DSI) that the death of Japanese cameraman Hiro Muramoto during the clashes in Bangkok last April was not caused by the military draws more criticism (see our most recent coverage here and here). Both the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and Reuters have voiced their concern about the findings and have pointed out the contradictions.
The DSI claims to have found "AK-47 bullet wound patterns" on Muramoto's body and since the Thai military is officially not using this rifle, they absolved the soldiers of any fault - despite contradicting a previous report that the Reuters cameraman was killed by a shot after "gunfire flashed from the direction of soldiers". Furthermore, there have been rumors that this comes after the army's chief of staff paid the DSI a visit to protest the previous finding.
Shortly after the announcement on Sunday, the Bangkok Post reported via a source how the DSI actually came to this conclusion:
The source said that while Pol Lt Gen Amporn might be providing advice to the DSI, he was not among the people who observed the autopsy to determine the cause of death of Muramoto. He was overseas at the time. Pol Lt Gen Amporn only analysed the cause of Muramoto's death from photos of the wounds on his body and concluded that the wounds were caused by an AK-47 rifle.
The panel itself had concluded that Muramoto was hit by two bullets fired from a high velocity gun, once in the head and the other in the heart, the source said. Given the pattern of his gun wounds, it was believed he was shot dead by a sniper, and normally snipers use an M16 rifle, not an AK, the source said.
The panel did not reach a conclusion about the exact type of weapons used in the killing of Muramoto and the other people because no bullets were found in any of the examined bodies, the source said.
"No firm view on AK-47 role in deaths", Bangkok Post, January 28, 2011
The latest to slam the DSI's finding is Metropolitan Police Bureau deputy chief Pol. Lt.-General Amnuay Nimmano. He said to the media that:
He said the DSI jumped to the conclusion the fatal shot must have been fired from the direction of a group of red shirts confronting the troops. For this information they relied on the dead man's camera, in which the last shots shown were of soldiers.
"It turns out that the camera's lens was covered, and the camera did not work the moment he was shot. A person can turn in any direction when [hit by a bullet]," said Amnuay. (...)
"It's DSI's own theory, own leads, own investigation and own conclusion, without police getting involved, and based on nothing convincing or credible. To put it simply, the conclusion is simply muddled," Amnuay said.
"Police refute DSI finding on shot cameraman", The Nation, March 3, 2011
My take: The moment I read about bullet patterns, I was (more than usually) skeptical. No bullets, just patterns!
As pointed out by in the comments on my previous article, even though the army does not use the AK-47 rifle it uses the same kind of 7.62 caliber bullets. These bullets are also used by the SR-25 and the SSG 3000 - both are sniper rifles used by the Thai armed forces. Military snipers were seen numerous times during the protests, especially during the crackdown in May 2010, and multiple witnesses claim to have seen armed men shooting from above during the April 10 clashes as well. So there is a possibility that Muramoto has been shot - deliberately or not - by military soldiers.
The DSI and their fact-finding are losing more credibility (not that they had much to begin with) with this apparent u-turn and with their inability to full shrug off rumors of colluding with the military, there's no other verdict than that this an active cover-up to evade full responsibility.
h/t to ricefieldradio for the aforementioned pointer
The tale of two trials: Da Torpedo and Chiranuch Premchaiporn
Originally published at Siam Voices on February 25, 2011 Over the last weeks both the international media and to some extent the local media as well have taken great interest in the trail of Chiranuch Premchaiporn, webmaster of the news site Prachatai, who has been charged for anti-monarchy comments on the website made by one of the readers, despite having complied with the authorities in removing them. See our previous coverage on the day when she was arrested (for the second time) back in September last year here and here.
Earlier this month the first part of the trial went ahead and lasted five days with the prosecution's testimonies marking the beginning. Guest contributor John Dent has observed the first day for Siam Voices and comments on the first testimony:
Day one of the trial started with the prosecution’s testimony of Mr. Aree Jivorarak, Thailand’s Ministry of Information and Communications Technology’s (MICT) IT Regulation Bureau chief. Among his other duties, Mr. Jivorarak is one of the key officials tasked with censoring Thailand’s Internet. (...)
For sake of argument, let us accept Mr. Jivorarak’s premise, that webmasters should (or even can) filter user comments. (...) While the specific guidelines are still being drafted, in practice it is up to the “authorized officer” at the MICT to decide retroactively what stays and what goes. Such decisions are often inconsistent and subject to the personal interpretation of Thai government officials.
So what is a webmaster to do? According to Mr. Jivorarak’s testimony, it would seem that they are expected to know what a censor may find inappropriate at a future date, before the content itself has been posted. Simply put, they are expected to peer into the hearts and minds of censors through space and time to decide what goes online. Not a minor achievement of precognition and quite a burdensome requirement for anyone operating a web site.
"Observations from the trial of Chiranuch Premchaiporn", John Dent, Siam Voices, February 6, 2011
In the following days, more witnesses for the prosecutionmade their testimonies. The website Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT) have posted daily summaries from the hearings and here are some interesting tidbits:
[Day 2] A posting to Prachatai’s web forum included a hotlink to a Mediafile audio file of of a speech made from a Redshirt stage by Darunee Charnchoensilpakul, nicknamed Da Torpedo. Darunee was torpedoed with an 18-year sentence for this instance of lèse majesté in which she called for abolition of the Royals.
The audio file was not enough for our MICT. The file was transcribed and added to the police charges against Chiranuch. However, Mediafile was not blocked and no prosecution was initiated against the file’s uploader.
This raises a crucial legal question as yet untested. Does the Computer Crimes Act criminalise hotlinks?
[Day 3] The second witness for the prosecution, Thanit Prapathanan, a legal advisor to Thailand’s ICT ministry since 2005, (...) stated that any intermediary shares the same criminal liability as the poster. Creating a hub for people to communicate and share information made Prachatai liable for all its webboard’s users. (...)
Defence lawyers pointed out that the ICT ministry’s website itself linked to media hosting lèse majesté content. The witness stated that MICT could not delete content from third parties so was, therefore not liable for their content. This appears to contradict his statements of Prachatai’s liability for postings, comments and hyperlinks not their own.
[Day 5] Colonel Dr. Wiwat Sidhisoradej is a police scientist and has a doctoral degree in physics from Chulalongkorn University appearing for the prosecution. He copied Chiranuch’s laptop hard disk seized by the police on March 6, 2009 for forensic analysis. (...)
The most interesting part of the police scientist’s testimony was regarding the way email works. Thunderbird, an offline email client similiar to Microsoft’s Outlook application was found on Jiew’s laptop. (...) Dr. Wiwat readily conceded the probability that the images and postings were received by Chiranuch in email and were not redistributed by her. (...)
Col. Wiwat said that a computer user could not be in violation for simply receiving these emails.
After the last hearing on February 12 and with just five witnesses out 14 having given their testimonies, the trail will resume in September later this year, due to scheduling conflicts of the judges.
In a similar, but less prominent case, the aforementioned Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul alias "Da Torpedo" has won an appeal against the criminal court and her case has been declared a mistrial. She was imprisoned and convicted one and a half year ago for making anti-monarchy comments during a red shirt rally in 2008.
The reason for most recent turn of events was a petition filed by Daranee which argued that the absence of the public and cameras, as cited by the prosecutors on the basis of national security considering the contents that are being discussed, it would contravene with sections of the constitution that it should be an open trial. Since this petition has not been been forwarded by the criminal court to the constitutional court as requested and the prosecution went ahead and convicted her anyways, the appeal court pointed out this flaw and the trial has to start anew. Nevertheless and despite the conviction being annulled, Daranee has not been released and bail has been denied.
While both cases seem to be different, they both share the same problem with the draconian legal ramifications these two and many other people have been accused of. The fact that we cannot discuss what has actually been said and thus the extreme vagueness of the application of the law restricts an open discussion. This vagueness does not help to refute the impression that the lese majeste charges are being indiscriminately used to silence either inconvenient truths or political foes.
Thai cyber-police's warning to netizens abroad
Originally published at Siam Voices on February 22, 2011 2Bangkok.com has posted has a scan from a booklet provided by the Thai Ministry of Information and Communications Technology (MICT) explaining the following:
The page reads: "Michael: Does everyone know that the bill regulating computer crimes is subject to penalize the wrongdoer outside the Kingdom of Thailand as well? If there is anyone who starts a website outside the country to distribute information disgracing the monarchy, destroying the security of the juristic system or generating fear among Thai people, the wrongdoer will be persecuted by law and receive penalties inside the Kingdom of Thailand."
"MICT booklet explaining Thai internet laws: We can get you wherever you are on earth", 2Bangkok.com, February 22, 2011 (translation by 2Bangkok.com)
This snippet refers to a passage of the Computer Crimes Act of 2007, where...
Section 17 Any person committing an offence against this Act outside the Kingdom and;
(1) the offender is Thai and the government of the country where the offence has occurred or the injured party is required to be punished or;
(2) the offender is a non-citizen and the Thai government or Thai person who is an injured party or the injured party is required to be punished; shall be penalized within the Kingdom.
Computer Crimes Act 2007, unofficial translation by Prachatai.com
Essentially the MICT is now threatening to expand its crackdown on cyber-dissidents beyond the borders of the Kingdom after a move to clamp down domestically when several authorities joined hands last year with a strong emphasis on protecting the monarchy and controlling the political narrative against a perceived threat. This goes even so far that recently volunteer 'cyber scouts' are being recruited to monitor the web. Even though the blocking of by now over 113,000 websites has proven to be ineffective, the authorities are still keen to keep a very close eye on the flood of information and opinions.
via Thai Political Prisoners and New Mandala
"Enter The RED Shirts" - An upcoming documentary
Originally published at Siam Voices on February 18, 2011 Several readers have pointed out a trailer for an upcoming documentary titled "Enter The RED Shirts: A Documentary Project" by Aphiwat Saengphatthaseema. The filmmaker himself explains his project as following:
I documented both camps’ activities on the field and found that the topic is very relevant to the interests of the Thai and foreign communities, who are interested, yet still confused about the politics on the road and the historical event of Thailand. (...) Despite the news coverage, the Thais and foreigners did not have a clear picture of the details of the incident. This documentary aimed to provided in-depth incidents under a theme “diving to the red shirt’s world.” It wanted to shed the light why we need to understand the red shirts.
The Thai society has ambiguous opinions about the red shirts, thus I want to portray why the red shirts think and decide to fight these ways. I use many viewpoints of people that inspired the red shirts on well-rounded basis and based my story on an “understanding” that the people should respect and tolerate the differences among them. (...)
I used black and white footage in the documentary to signify that we can look at them neutrally, naturally and instinctively as human being with some values on their own, regardless of being defined by colors during their struggles. Finally, their spirits cannot be defined or be delusive by the colors the distinct them apart. The black and white footage highlight “fundamental instincts” because the human complexities are indivisible and people cannot be simply categorized politically, unlike the spatial arrangement in the modern thoughts.
From the looks of the trailer, this is to my knowledge the first documentary film that attempts to create a complete portrayal of the recent political crisis and also a very detailed account of the red shirt movement, including what happened after the 2010 May crackdown. Many familiar faces appear in the trailer like Prachatai's Chiranuch Premchaiporn, social critic Sulak Sivaraksa, activist Sombat Boon-ngarmanong and many more. New footage might also give some new vantage points of key events.
All in all, this 8 minute preview is intriguing and we will certainly keep an eye out when the full movie is out. Be sure to check the trailer out below!
[vimeo http://vimeo.com/20006164 w=600&h=360]"Enter The RED Shirts : A Documentary Project." from Aphiwat Saengphatthaseema on Vimeo.
British MPs voice concern over Thai webmaster trial
Originally published at Siam Voices on February 2, 2011 British MPs have signed a motion voicing their concern over the trials against embattled Prachatai webmaster Chiranuch Premchaiporn, who faces charges for violation of the Computer Crime Act and also lèse majesté. The Early Day Motion (EDM), proposed by Labour MP Tom Watson, warns that Chiranuch's case may threaten freedom of speech in Thailand and calls for the UK government to review it. The proposal was signed by 11 MPs from all three major parties. For more details on Chiranuch's case, see previous coverage here, here, here and here. Here's the notion in full:
That this House notes with concern the case of Chiranuch Premchaiporn, the Director of Thai news website Prachatai, who is on trial in Thailand under its Computer Crime Act for not removing third party comments criticising the monarchy from her website quickly enough and who, if convicted, faces a maximum sentence of 50 years in jail; believes that this action threatens Thailand's reputation for tolerance of free expression and risks creating a climate of fear; further notes with concern that this particular law has led to thousands of websites being blocked in Thailand; opposes web blocking and censorship; and calls on the government of Thailand to review the situation.
"Trial Of Chiranuch Premchaiporn", EDM number 198 in 2010-2011, proposed by Tom Watson on 10/06/2010
It has to be mentioned that the EDMs play generally a minor role with a low number of MPs signing them. Nevertheless this is, to this author's personal knowledge, the first public statement of Western politicians over this particular case and the general situation of freedom of speech in Thailand.
h/t to fellow Siam Voices writer Pokpong Lawansiri
Become A Cyber-Scout, Clean Up Thailand's Internet!
Originally published at Siam Voices on December 17, 2010 In an everlasting attempt to uphold its image as a fierce defender of the royal institution and thus effectively controlling a national narrative the Thai government now sets its aims into the online world. The ministry of justice, where the Democrat party is in charge, has set up a so-called ‘Cyber Scout’ training programme for next week December 20-21 at Kasetsart University. On their website, the organizers laid out following goals (translated by me):
Objectives of the project
1. To create a Cyber Scout volunteer network [...] that observes [...] [online] behavior that is deemed a threat to national security and to defend and protect the royal institution.
2. To collect the work of the Cyber Scout volunteers.
3. To set up a network of Cyber Scout volunteers to contact.
4. To promote the moral and ethics with the help of the volunteers, to ensure the correct behavior, build reconciliation and awareness towards the use of information with regard to morality and safety of individuals in society.
5. To promote and support to various sectors of society to careful and responsible usage of information technology.
6. To create a society of sharing and knowledge about security and decency of society.
The seminar is open to every volunteer, but specifically targets students and generally young people. But, in story by The Nation in July, ICT Minister Chuti Krairiksh said that initially 200 people will be recruited (!) "from around the country, including students, teachers, government officials and the private sector, who have computers and Internet literacy" - that pretty much covers nearly all walks of lives!
Let's look at some highlights on the schedule and what you can learn at this seminar:
Monday, 20 December 2010
10.00h to 11.45h : "Joint group to defend and protect the royal institution" by Boworn Yasintorn [president of the Network of Volunteer Citizens to Protect the Monarchy on Facebook] (program points: "The monarchy in Thai politics" and "Defending the institution")
11.00h to 12.00h : "Computer usage ethics" by Asst Prof Dr Nuanwan Sunthornphisat (program points: "Computer-related laws" and "Case studies of actions that are considered unethical acts")
13.00h to 14.30h : "Thailand's monarchy" by Asst Prof Patcharaporn Suwannakut (programs points: "His Majesty the King's talent in various fields" and "Royal duties and important royal projects")
14.45h to 16.30h : "How to correctly use the computer and the internet" by Dr Pakaket Wattuya
On Tuesday you get the light version of the seminar with three of the speeches listed above.
My take: It's easy for us to get all Orwellian over this project and it's probably easy for them to dispel such concerns as a simple overreaction, since PM Abhisit highlighted the project has only the best intentions to "also help bridge the digital divide between people who have and those who do not have a chance to access the internet" and that this project would also be in line with "the government's promotion of a knowledge-based society." (Source)
But it is quite clear that a general trend of over-emphasizing the loyalty by all means and the sudden urge to protect the royal institution against a perceived, invisible threat. And since the internet is a quite anonymous place, it's an even more frightening threat. Thus these mental and cultural barricades are built with the recruited man-power and the social dogma of loyalty - both off- and online. The term 'Cyber Scout' reflects some historical parallels to the 'Village Scouts' of the 1970s, which were set up for almost the same reasons in order to battle a perceived communist threat.
The results of this over-protective mood can already be seen by simple numbers: at least 113,000 websites have been blocked so far, most of them for lèse majesté and by the looks of it, this number will continue to grow. It has yet to be seen though, how successful and effective the seminar will be and whether a network of volunteers will help the government to reach its goals. Nevertheless the government will try to push it's national narrative.
Generally speaking, using the internet is like teaching someone to ride a bicycle - you can try to tell what the person has and can do, what obstacles and dangers he or she has to avoid, but ultimate the rider is on his or her own out there. You can either stick to the known paths or branch out and discover more new things, which isn't necessarily a good thing. But to in order to build a knowledge-based society, which the government eventually wants to have, you have to allow the freedom to collect the knowledge by yourself and not being shoved into the throat.
P.S.: You might think that such a government-sponsored event would a more professional looking email-address than justice_cyber@hotmail.com? Just sayin'...!
Thailand Court Scandal Video Blocked on YouTube
Originally published at Siam Voices on November 12, 2010 The scandal at Thailand's Constitution Court revolving the leaked clips has taken a more absurd turn. After the latest clip has been uploaded to YouTube, this very clip has been blocked by the Thai authorities. But why? Matichon reported on Thursday that they have been hit with a criminal complaint by the judges for publishing the names of the of the judges shown in the video.
The article also mentions that the judges have agreed to prosecute the uploader of the videos, especially concerning the latest video, that allegedly hints at nepotism in hiring the judges' personal staff, on the base of articles 198, 326, 328 of the criminal law - all concerning defamation - but also article 112, the article for lese majeste! According to the court's secretary, the content of the latest clip is deemed lese majeste.
It seems that this was the reason that the clip was blocked in Thailand. So, where in the clip was something that could be labeled as lese majeste?
Thaksin and the "Bad Exes" Story
Originally published at Siam Voices on October 12, 2010 The Foreign Policy (FP) magazine has published a story under the title "Bad Exes", where author Joshua E. Keating has listed five former heads of state including Gerhard Schröder, José María Aznar and Joseph Estrada on what they have been doing after they left office - most of them are controversial to say the least. Thaksin was also featured in this story:
Since being deposed in a 2006 coup amid allegations of graft and human rights abuses, Thaksin has lived a peripatetic existence. The former billionaire businessman has served as a "special ambassador" for Nicaragua and an economic advisor in Cambodia, and was briefly owner of the Manchester City soccer club. Thaksin reportedly lived under a false name in Germany for more than a year and has used illegally received passports from a number of other countries as well. He now makes his home in Dubai. (...)
"Bad Exes", by Joshua E. Keating, Foreign Policy, October 1, 2010
Keating then goes on to describe his alleged role during the red shirts protests of this year. On Monday Thaksin's lobbyist legal adviser and former foreign minister Noppadon Pattama went to press to slam the article:
Fugitive Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra will not sue writer of a US magazine who listed him among "Bad Exes," but instead will write to explain facts, Thaksin's personal spokesman Noppadon Pattama said Monday.
Noppadon also dismissed on behalf of Thaksin (...) that Thaksin used false name and passport to enable him to live in Germany for a year.
"Thaksin is not bad exes : Noppadon [absolutely sic!]", The Nation, October 12, 2010
As I reported back in February, Thaksin indeed was given a German residence permit legally. But under dubious circumstances and even more dubious people accompanying him, he wasn't actually supposed to be allowed in there in the first and when the German authorities found out about this, his visa was cancelled.
Noppadon then went on to say that the American journalist was "apparently misinformed only to discredit Mr Thaksin," an argument that we have heard in different contexts several times already.
Oh, and there's one more thing:
Noppadon said in a press conference, "I dare to challenge anyone to come out to show evidence that Thaksin used the false name and passport. If anyone could, he or she will be rewarded Bt1 million per each evidence."
"Thaksin is not bad exes : Noppadon [friggin' sic!]", The Nation, October 12, 2010
Anyone dares to say: "Challenge accepted"?
ADDENDUM: First off, when the alleged use of a false name was mentioned ("Thaksin reportedly lived under a false name in Germany for more than a year"), the link in the original story apparently leads to another FP story, but instead the page is inaccessible.
Secondly, last year the Thai foreign ministry came up with this claim:
Runaway ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra has used new name in his passports issued by some African countries, Thai Vice foreign minister Panich Vikitsreth said Wednesday. Thaksin's name in passports issued by Nicaragua, Uganda and Montenegro has been changed to "Takki Shinegra" he said.
"Thaksin's new name : Takki Shinegra", The Nation, November 25, 2009
And here's Thaksin's answer to that:
"If the ministry really did say that, then it must have reached the bottom-most level," he said in a Twitter message. He said it would be pointless for a person like him to travel under a different name because he was recognised wherever he goes.
"Thaksin denies being 'Takki Shinegra'", Bangkok Post, November 26, 2009
Whether he ever really used this name or someone in the foreign ministry watched too much Japanese stuff is yet to be seen. What I can say with absolute certainty is:
Takki Shinegrea?! What an utterly stupid name...!
After The Arrest of Prachatai Webmaster Chiranuch Premchiaporn: Observations and Analysis
Originally published at Siam Voices on October 4, 2010 Two weeks ago, the webmaster of the Thai news site Prachatai Chiranuch Premchiaporn was arrested after she arrived in Bangkok from a conference on online free expression in Hungary (as previously reported). Chiranuch was charged for violating the Computer Crimes Act regarding reader comments on the website deemed offensive to the monarchy. The complaint was filed by a man in Khon Kaen. Chiranuch was released on bail on the same night. She was previously arrested and in court last year for the same charges that could put her in jail for 50 years.
There was a considerable amount of outcry by international human rights groups, press advocacy groups and even prime minister Abhisit was reportedly concerned by the case, although one could suggest that he more feared the damage to an already ruined international reputation of the country (see Bangkok Pundit for details). Chiranuch's arrest has set off some discussions about her case and the state of freedom of expression in Thailand.
First, in an interview with Pravit Rojanaphruk of The Nation, Chiranuch told she was shocked upon her arrest at the airport and voiced doubts about her case(s). Also, she talked about the ramifications of her most recent arrest:
[Pravit] What will you do next?
[Chiranuch] We'll have to see if the Office of the Attorney-General will forward the cases to court or not. My first [case for violating computer crime law] is already taking years. After getting bail, I have to travel to Khon Kaen once a month and it's a burden.
P: How has this affected your life?
C: I have doubts about the judicial process. In this case, if someone wants to hurt you, the person can lodge a police complaint in a far-flung province and the suspect has to travel far. This incurs real expenses.
P: Do you know the person who has pressed charges against you?
C: No, I have never met this person, though I have learned that he's a real-estate businessman based in Khon Kaen.
"Facing charges two years later in another province", Pravit Rojanaphruk, The Nation, September 30, 2010
The last sentence highlights one of the main problems of the lèse majesté law, since virtually every person can file such a complaint at the police and the police would have to go after every case. How ridiculous these procedures can go, was shown recently in the case of actor Pongpat Wachirabanjong, who despite or because of the widely-applauded speech praising the king got slapped with a lèse majesté complaint as well - in his case though, it was thrown out in lightning speed.
The Thai Netizen Network has analyzed the case and got revealed more details:
After considering that comments related to the interview of Chotisak Onsoong, who refused to stand for the royal anthem in a theater, on Prachatai, which attracted more than 200 comments within the first week of published, and Sameskyboard.com on April 28, 2008 deemed lese majeste, Sunimit Jirasuk, a Khon Kaen businessman, went to the police station and filed charges against Chiranuch and Samesky webmaster Thanapol Eawsakul for publicizing and persuading others to approve, praise and imitate Chotisak’s ‘disloyal’ act, Manager Online reports. (...)
“Most of the comments approve Chotisak’s act, indicating that they want to overthrow the monarchy. It is believable that letting people freely express their opinions regarding the issue on the Internet indicates that [the webmasters] want to be the center of the people who want to undermine the throne. Therefore, both webmasters should be charged,” Manager online reported Sunimit’s remark. (...)
Chiranuch, who has travelled abroad four times since the court issued the warrant, said she has never seen an arrest warrant or a summon letter before and never had trouble passing through the immigration counter at the airport. This is similar to Thanapol from Sameskybooks.org who is reportedly facing the same charges. Thanapol said he has gone abroad once after the arrest warrants was supposedly made, but never had problem passing through the immigration police counter and had never seen any legal document from Khon Kaen police. (...)
A reliable anonymous source said the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology and a police department specifically dealing with cyber crime did not acknowledge and did not order the arrest. The source further observed that the arrest followed police reshuffle in August.
"Analysis On Chiranuch Latest Charges And Arrest", Thai Netizen Network, October 2, 2010
The aforementioned businessman from Khon Kaen has also filed against Chotisak himself and was quoted that he "could not accept that Chotisak and friends claimed to be Thai" (Bangkok Pundit has more).
Also, as pointed out in the article, the timing of the arrest is bears an ironic coincidence since Abhisit was out of the country and in a speech said this:
He also defended himself against accusations of damaging media freedoms, saying that only outlets which "incite violence" had been closed. "I'm not sure whether you'd allow any special station for Al-Qaeda here," he told his mostly American audience.
"Thailand could hold early 2011 elections: PM", AFP, September 25, 2010
The Bangkok Post points out in a very critical story about the ongoing repression against freedom of expression and the media. Key excerpt:
There are many problems with the massive media crackdown by the Abhisit government. The most obvious is the continual use of the Computer Crime Act to intimidate and silence websites, blogs, videos and other forms of legitimate media. The thousands of times this law has been invoked is telling. It means that authorities either cannot or will not bring normal legal charges. It is enormously discriminatory. If an article, a photo or a video appears in a newspaper or on a TV station it is legal; but because it is on the internet, it is not. (...)
Ms Chiranuch has been the personification of an unseemly, unnecessary and eventually self-defeating government policy. The current government of Mr Abhisit did not start the persecution but it has pursued it more aggressively than its predecessors. They have brought in the military in the form of the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES). (...) It is clear to all observers that the government considers Prachatai a media enemy, and has used strong-arm tactics against it.
"Persecution of the media", Bangkok Post, September 28, 2010
While radio and TV stations (and to a certain extend the print media) can be monitored and easily controlled, the internet is from the viewpoint of the authorities a frustratingly, uncontrollable, wild stream of diverse opinions and footage, no matter their validity, authenticity or truth.