Thai junta faces uphill battle to control social media
Originally published at Siam Voices on June 4, 2014 [Author's note: Due to the military coup of May 22, 2014 and subsequent censorship measures we have placed certain restrictions on what we publish. Please also read Bangkok Pundit's post on that subject. We hope to return to full and free reporting and commentary in the near future.]
And suddenly the progress bar wouldn't stop loading. Thai online users were stumped last Wednesday afternoon when they couldn't access Facebook, prompting a swift outcry on other social networks such as Twitter. While the lockout only lasted less than an hour, it was a chilling reminder of the censorship situation in a post-coup Thailand that also extends online.
After the Thai military's declaration of martial law that resulted in the coup d'état of May 22, the junta set up measures that restrict media outlets from criticizing the coup and the newly-established National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO). Numerous domestic and satellite TV channels temporarily stopped broadcasting and international news channels were blocked until Tuesday of last week.
With traditional news media either being censored or exercising self-censorship, many Thais have turned to social media for updates and commentary on the latest developments - and also for organizing anti-coup protests that have popped up on a regular basis. That explains why the junta is strictly monitoring online traffic and has strongly advised online users against sharing what it considers "wrongful" information that may "incite unrest".
Immediately after the coup, the NCPO summoned representatives of all Thai internet service providers (ISPs) and told them to block all online content that could be seen critical to the coup. As of writing, hundreds of websites have been rendered inaccessible from Thailand without specific tools to circumvent online restrictions. Also, Facebook profiles of Thai pro-democracy and anti-coup activists have disappeared without notice - leaving us to speculate that they were either deactivated by their owners as a precaution or taken down for other reasons.
The Facebook outage was just the most visible episode of the Thai officials flexing their muscles - even though it wasn't entirely clear which authority was responsible for that:
A senior ICT ministry official confirmed the site had been blocked to thwart the spread of online criticism of the military in the wake of a May 22 coup.
"We have blocked Facebook temporarily and tomorrow we will call a meeting with other social media, like Twitter and Instagram, to ask for cooperation from them," Surachai Srisaracam, permanent secretary of the Information and Communications Technology Ministry, told Reuters. (...)
"We have no policy to block Facebook and we have assigned the ICT ministry to set up a supervisory committee to follow social media and investigate and solve problems," said Sirichan Ngathong, spokeswoman for the military council.
"There's been some technical problems with the internet gateway," she said, adding that the authorities were working with internet service providers to fix the problem urgently.
"Thai ministry sparks alarm with brief block of Facebook", May 28, 2014
The aforementioned meeting with representatives from the companies behind social networks and instant messaging apps never materialized. The calls by the Thai Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT) were left unanswered, prompting MICT officials to seek a meeting with Facebook, Google and others in Singapore.
However, earlier this week...
Thailand's junta now says the trip is off. "At this point, things look fine, so there is no need to make any trip now," Maj. Gen. Pisit Paoin, adviser to the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology's permanent secretary, told The Wall Street Journal late Sunday.
Asked on Monday to elaborate on the junta's approach to social-media censorship, Maj. Gen. Pisit reiterated that the trip is off but said he was unable to discuss how leaders intend to work with large Internet companies.
"Thai Junta Says Facebook, Google Meetings Called Off", Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2014
Some of those alternative ideas have been revealed later that day in local media:
The Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT) is proposing a plan to build a state-owned Facebook-like social networking site called Thailand Social Network. (...)
The plan includes building a state-owned nation internet gateway (...)
In the plan, initiated by the military junta, private Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will have to connect to the state-owned ISP TOT, so that it will be easier for the authorities to block websites and prevent terrorism, he said, adding that MICT will oversee the national gateway.
"Thai authorities to build state-owned social network site", Prachatai English, June 2, 2014
Aside from the very ambitious task of creating a new national social network to compete with the massive 26 million-strong user base Facebook has in Thailand - a similar venture by the Vietnamese government simply couldn't keep up - the MICT has been longing for bigger control of the online traffic flow for some time, as the statements by MICT officials at a conference shortly before the coup show.
Freedom of expression online in Thailand has long been an issue for authorities and is being challenged even more since the coup. On the other hand the military junta is facing an uphill battle dealing not only with new technology that didn't exist during previous coups, but also with the way that people are communicating online.
Lèse majesté vigilantism and Thailand's political crisis
Originally published at Siam Voices on April 23, 2014 UPDATE (April 23): The head of the newly created radical royalist cyber-vigilante group has filed a lèse majesté charge against Ms. "Rose" himself. In separate story on Wednesday, Kamol Duangphasuk, better known among the red shirts as a poet under his pen name "Maineung K. Kunthee" has been shot dead by unknown assailants. "Maineung" was also known to be an anti-lèse majesté activist.
ORIGINAL STORY (April 22)
As Thailand's political crisis lingers on, the country's draconian lèse majesté law is still being applied, as two related cases show. Moreover, a new online vigilante group is making sure it stays that way.
The words Wutthipong Kotchathammakhun spoke into the camera were as straightforward as they were blunt. The man more commonly known as red shirt activist and radio talk-show host "Ko Tee" has always been more outspoken than the mainstream umbrella red shirt organization, the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), and he also doesn't shy away from openly criticizing the monarchy.
In a documentary by VICE News on the current Thai political crisis posted on YouTube earlier this month, "Ko Tee" implies that anti-government protest leader Suthep Thuagsuban "is only the figurehead" and points to somebody higher behind the protest movement.
The reporter asks Kotee what the red-shirts’ demands are. Kotee replies: “We demand that they stop mob gatherings on the streets. We demand the electoral system. They say they love the country. But all they do is destroy it and the economy. I'm fighting the system that has dominated Thailand for a long time. Suthep is only the figurehead. I'm fighting the one who is really behind the mob. You know the meaning, right?"
After a pause, he asks the reporter if she understands the implication of his gesture. He then says the name of the alleged de facto leader of the anti-government protest.
"Hardcore red Kotee target of lèse majesté charge", Prachatai English, April 9, 2014
The reactions were swift and even the Yingluck government were quick to pull the trigger, ordering the police to take legal actions against "Ko Tee", who remains at large at the time of publishing. Furthermore, the authorities have also threatened the public not to share said video, since they could also be implicated for lèse majesté.
That wasn't the only lèse majesté charge this month.
A Thai mother and father have sued their daughter, a vocal anti-establishment red-shirt residing in the UK, for posting video clips of herself defaming the monarchy after they received a storm of hate phone calls from Thai loyalists.
Thai media reported on April 17 that Surapong and Somchintra Amornpat filed a police complaint against their daughter Chatwadee Amornpat, 34, who is now working as a hair stylist in London and holds British citizenship.
Declaring herself a “progressive red shirt” and republican, Chatwadee, aka Rose, recorded several video clips, voicing her opinions on the Thai political conflict and attacking the monarchy and published them on her Facebook profile. (...)
Her parents decided to press charges against her because they were threatened by phone calls from people in Thailand. Pressing charges is to show that they do not condone their daughter’s actions, the parents said, adding that they have warned her to stop defaming the King.
"I want people to understand that just because a daughter is doing something wrong, it doesn't mean the parents are also guilty, because we don't condone such actions," Khaosod English quoted Surapong as saying.
"Parents sue daughter for lèse majesté", Prachatai English, April 19, 2014
While "Rose" is in the United Kingdom, she could be arrested if she returns in Thailand. What is more striking in this case is not only that the parents are filing a lèse majesté complaint against their own daughter, but also the apparent climate of fear in the form of the threats made against the parents.
Such a climate of fear and pre-emptive social obedience - something we have mentioned a few times here when it comes to (over-)emphasizing one's loyalty to the monarchy - has now gained another supporter in form of an online vigilante group. The Facebook group, roughly translated to the "Organisation to Eradicate the Nation's Trash" ("องค์กรเก็บขยะแผ่นดิน" in Thai), has taken it upon itself to, as the name implies, to “exterminate” those that in their view "insult, defame and discredit the monarchy." The group, opened by a former military doctor called Dr Rienthong Naenna, has as of writing more than 140,000 likes since its launch a little over a week ago.
Pro-monarchist vigilantism online is not a new phenomenon in Thailand - at one point in recent history it was even state-sponsored. Those accused of being critical of the monarchy have often been the target of cyber witch hunts. Victims of such attacks have often have their personal details and contact information disclosed in public.
But the aforementioned group is seemingly upping the ante:
Mongkutwattana General Hospital director Rienthong Nanna, who unveiled his new Rubbish Collection Organisation (RCO) last Wednesday, yesterday warned critics that he would “respond with violence” to any violent attacks committed against his supporters.
It came as Dr Rienthong claimed yesterday that about 7pm on Saturday he saw “suspicious-looking men” in three cars lurking outside his house on Chaeng Watthana Road. (...)
Dr Rienthong said he was working on the establishment of a “People’s Army to Protect the Monarchy”, which would recruit people in every region (...). He also invited retired military and police officers who are loyal to the King to a meeting (...) to discuss the establishment of “a special task force of old soldiers” to help the National Police Office punish perpetrators of the lese majeste law.
However, Dr Rienthong told the Bangkok Post that his “People’s Army” and the soldiers task force are not intended to persecute or use violence against fellow Thais. Their mission will be only to look for lese majeste suspects and bring them to justice. He denied the RCO is a rogue organisation and vowed that it will operate within the law, without links to political or business groups.
"Monarchists vow to fight ‘armed threat’", Bangkok Post, April 20, 2014
Even if the online mob does not translate its vigilantism into the real life, it does plant yet another dangerous seed in the already hatred-filled plains by naming their perceived enemies as "trash" and vowing to collect and "eradicate" them. The radical monarchists are setting a dangerous precedent, which some observers have compared to the Thammasat massacre of 1976. The holier-than-thou mindset of those claiming to defend the monarchy is further polarizing an already emotionally charged political crisis and could damage the monarchy in the long run more than they're actually protecting it.
Siam Voices 2013 review – Part 5: What else happened in Thailand…?
Originally published at Siam Voices on December 31, 2013 This is the final part of our Siam Voices 2013 year in review, as we look what else made headlines in Thailand in the past 12 months - including the strange, outrageous and ridiculous. You can read the previous parts here: Part 1: Politics - Part 2: Lèse Majesté & the media - Part 3: The Rohingya - Part 4: Education and reform calls
It has become somewhat of a tradition now at the end of every year in review that we highlight all those news stories that were for various reasons not covered in the blog and mostly talked (rather more ranted) about on my Twitter feed. So without further ado, here's the definitive incomplete look back at what else happened in Thailand, from the noteworthy to the quirky and from nonsensical to downright ridiculous.
Most unexpected pro-LGBT message of the year: During the Bangkok gubernatorial race earlier this year, the main challenger to the incumbent (and later re-elected) Governor Sukhumbhand Paribatra, Pheu Thai Party's Pongsapat Pongcharoen published a campaign video with an unexpected pro-LGBT message promoting sexual diversity, mainly aimed at wooing the city's potential transgender voters. While he didn't mentioned more details how that would have been reflected in his policies, this we saw a legislative push to bring legal equality to same-sex marriages in Thailand, which would be the first country in Southeast Asia to do so. While a survey last year polled 60 per cent to be against same sex marriage, Thailand is generally known to be tolerant (but not entirely accepted) towards diverse genders and sexual orientations. A bill would have been submitted for a vote in the later months of the year, but due to the current political crisis and the dissolvement of the House, the legislation has been put on the backburner for now.
Media failures of the year: Those who are regularly following me know that I can be admittedly harsh on my colleagues in the Thai media. But apart from the small typos or mix-ups, there were three particular inexcusable cases of failures: one of them is when Daily News posted the full ID card (with photo) of a British gang-rape victim (which as taken down shortly after public backlash), and then there was Channel 3 showing the full murder of two women, but instead blurred the perpetrator's gun (as per regulation).
In both cases, the authorities also are partly to be blamed since it was them who released the pictures to the media, as they did in the case of a 12-year-old ethnic Karen girl that was kidnapped and tortured by a couple in Kamphaeng Phet province (who unsurprisingly jumped bail and are still at large) - in fact they actually stripped her almost naked to document her mutilated body after years of torture by the couple in front of the press. While they did not show her face, the media are the last line of defense for crime victims and should apply their own judgement, rather than to recite everything said by the police ad verbatim - the victims deserve better.
Media mix-up of the year: Channel 5 for running a picture of actress Meryl Streep portraying the late British prime minister Margaret Thatcher instead of the actual Iron Lady herself. However, they weren't the only ones who made such a blunder on that occasion as a Taiwanese TV station ran footage of Queen Elizabeth II during the news of Thatcher's passing. Also, (almost predictably) some people also confused actor Morgan Freeman for the late Nelson Mandela...!
The worst Thailand-related article of the year: "10 Things Americans Can Learn From Bangkok", Huffington Post, February 26, 2013. Where to start...? Nearly all 10 points in this click-bait list are either incorrect ("SkyRail", eh?), horribly wrong ("the red light districts are well regulated by police officers and social workers" - really?!) or sheer nonsensical ("packed with people for whom globalization is a watch word")! But the worst part is: it unwittingly makes a case PRO lèse majesté ("Respect Your Elders") and confuses it for quirky local folklore...!
Pseudo-science in Thai media: In June, The Nation ran a story about John Hagelin, a physicist and "1994 Ig Nobel Peace Prize winner" who proposed the Thai army to use "quantum physics and transcendental meditation let the part of brain that created negative behaviour to relax and thus cut crime and terrorist attacks" for $1 million. What they fail to mention (or to look up): 1) his theory about a correlation between "physics and consciousness" is regarded as nonsense by most physicists and 2) the Ig Nobel Prize is "a parody award presented at Harvard University" as a "veiled criticism of trivial research".
Most celestial Thai political candidate: Thoranee Ritteethamrong, Bangkok gubernatorial candidate No. 21, came in dressed as the Chinese goddess Guanyin at the candidate sign-up and held her campaign without any billboards, but with a mandate "from heaven". That got her at least 922 votes (or 0.035 per cent) on election day.
Most unjustified flip-out by a Thai official: There are couple of well-known public figures well-known for their temper (*cough*Prayuth*cough*), but this one takes the prize this year: Interior minister Jarupong Ruangsuwan blew his lid when an assistant village chief made headlines about his unusual birthday - February 30 - and didn't get it fixed for 53 years. Instead of showing empathy with him (after all he couldn't open up a bank account for example because of this bureaucratic mistake), Jarupong accused the low-ranked official to be a fame-seeker and should "die out of shame" he brought onto the Interior Ministry. Unfortunately, the assistant village chief resigned because of the minister's apparent lack of EQ, but at least gets to officially celebrate his birthday now on every February 1.
Worst impression on the new colleagues at the first day of the new job: After losing his position as deputy prime minister for national security and being transferred to the labor ministry in the last cabinet reshuffle, Chalerm Yubamrung was crying foul play behind this move and that didn't stop on his first day at his new job, when he reportedly "spent more than an hour complaining about his transfer" after introduced himself to his new subjects co-workers - team confidence building, it isn't.
Insensitive and oblivious moments in Thai advertisement: A Thai woman in blackface in a commercial for a whitening-drink (!) actually becoming pale-skinned? Dunkin Donuts promoting their new 'charcoal' doughnuts with a Thai woman in blackface? A cosmetics brand offering 'scholarships' for the 'fairest' student? What could go wrong? A whole lot, actually!
Best Thailand-related viral video of the year: "Never Go To Thailand" by Brian Camusat. If only the Tourism Authority of Thailand would have even nearly as much swagger as this video - but then again it wouldn't possess the irony to title it like this...!
Most unconvincing suicide case:
CHIANG RAI [PROVINCE] - An unidentified foreigner is believed to have committed suicide in a bizarre way, putting his head in a water-filled plastic bag and then sealing it with a copper wire around his neck, in a field near the Myanmar border, reports said.
"Foreigner commits bizarre 'suicide'", Bangkok Post, January 4, 2013
Yeah, right...!
Strangest robbery of the year:
A robber made off with 2,200 baht [$71] in cash from a convenience store in Phuket province on Tuesday, but minutes later returned a 10-baht coin [$0.32] before escaping a second time.
"Store robber returns 10 baht", Bangkok Post, June 18, 2013
Most ambitious promise by a Thai politician:
The Ministry of Transport is expected to improve the entire public transport system within two months as several issues, such as passengers being rejected by taxi drivers and illegal parking, remain unresolved.
"Public transport issues to be solved in 2 months", National News Bureau of Thailand, July 15, 2013
Remember when Thaksin enthusiastically pledged to "free Bangkok of traffic jams in 6 months" back in the 1990s...?
Strangest dare of the year: After persistent rumors of 'chemically tainted' packed rice (which have proven to be not true), the president of the Thai Rice Association announced whoever eats one of their products and dies because of it will get 20 million Baht...!
Best costume: Deputy-prime minister Plodprasop Suraswadi as the 13th century Lanna King Mangrai...!
(Un-)honorable mentions: Wirapol Chattigo, the defrocked monk formerly known as "Luang Phu Nenkham", embroiled in a sea of scandals starting with being filmed on a private jet plane sporting luxury items, followed by accusations of money-laundering and child molestation and reportedly at large abroad. Red Bull heir Vorayuth Yoovidhya, who is suspected to have killed a police officer in a hit-and-run case in 2012, failed to show up to hear charges in early September because he's on an "overseas trip" and still hasn't returned yet. Chalerm Yubamrung (yes, again), for saying it's okay for "police officer to ask for money during Chinese New Year" since that's "not a bribe" and for setting off a terror alert against the US consulate in Chiang Mai and then announcing the suspect "has left the country" unhindered - and all that based on a mere "sniff"...!
And now, the strangest story of the year, from the "Best intentions but poorly executed"-category:
Thai officials say a man who was high on drugs was arrested after attempting to donate methamphetamine tablets to help flood victims at a relief center. (...) [The man] told the volunteers they could sell the drugs and use the money to support the troubled families. The volunteers were actually from a civil drug suppression task force.
"Thai man arrested for giving meth to flood center", Associated Press, October 15, 2013
Final words: I’d like to thank my co-writers and editors at Siam Voices and Asian Correspondent for their contributions and hard work this year. And a special thanks to YOU, the readers, for your support, feedback and retweets! We wish you a Happy New Year 2014 - let's just hope that there'll be more stories to write about for all the right reasons...
Siam Voices 2013 review – Part 3: The Rohingya, unwelcomed and ignored
Originally published at Siam Voices on December 29, 2013 In the third part of our Siam Voices 2013 year in review series, we highlight the plight of Southeast Asia's most persecuted refugees, the Rohingya. In Thailand, it seems that they are particularly unwelcomed by authorities.
Ever since neighboring Myanmar has gradually opened up to the world politically and economically in the past few, it has also unearthed the animosity of some against the Rohingya people, an ethnic muslim minority that has been denied citizenship for decades. This animosity grew into hateful violence when deadly riots in Rakhine state in 2012 (and later in other places) displaced over 100,000 Rohingyas.
Many thousands are fleeing Myanmar in overcrowded and fragile vessels, often operated by human traffickers. Preferred destinations - that is if they make it through the Andaman Sea - are Malaysia and Indonesia, but more often than not they either involuntarily arrive in Thailand or are being intercepted by Thai authorities. During the low tide months between October to February, almost 6,000 Rohingyas according to Thai authorities have entered Thai territory.
Because the Thai state regards them as illegal economic immigrants rather than persecuted refugees, they're repeatedly refused asylum and in most cases the Thai authorities are sticking to the policy they euphemistically call "helping on": intercepted refugee vessels are given food, medicine and additional fuel before towed out to sea again on their way elsewhere. Should a boat be deemed unsafe, they will be deported back to Myanmar. There have been past allegations against Thai officials that these boats have been simply set adrift or even removed their engines - as happened again in February this year - with little inquiry and thus consequences.
This year, reports of human trafficking involvement by Thai officials emerged over the months during and following the waves of refugee boats passing Thailand's coastlines. It started with one of them carrying 73 migrants found on New Year's Day, but instead of the usual procedure they were split up and put on other boats. As it turns out, according to an investigation by the BBC, members of the Thai Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) had sold these people off to human traffickers. An internal investigation found no wrongdoing by their own officers, but has nonetheless transferred two accused ISOC officers out of the South.
However, the allegations did not die down over the course of the year as two investigative reports by Reuters in particular (here and here) have put more weight on these, accompanied most recently by calls to Thailand from the United Nations and the United States to investigate these claims - none of which have taken place so far despite repeated pledges by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra so far. The same empty-handed result happened after a reported shooting incident in late February during a botched boat transfer killed at least two refugees. Again, calls for a probe were met - like in any other case - with deafening silence. Additionally, around 800 refugees were found in illegal human trafficking camps in south Thailand in January.
Those refugees that were being sheltered in Thailand faced no better conditions. In the summer months, around 2,000 Rohingya were detained in 24 stations across the country mostly located in the South under vastly differing standards. Some were overcrowded and caused the detainees to riot, others were regularly made accessible for human traffickers to lure refugees out. Thai authorities have discussed expanding or building new detention facilities, but this was met with resistance by local residents. The fate of these men, women and children is still to this day unresolved as a deadline by the Thai government to find third-party countries taking them on passed on July 26 with no result, thus leaving them in legal limbo.
The Rohingya issue and the (reported mis-)handling by Thai authorities - largely underreported in the domestic media and thus mostly met with indifference by the general public - is slowly becoming a national shame. But judging by its actions it appears little will change about that attitude: a formerly highly-regarded forensic expert reheated her old claim that some Rohingya might be involved in the insurgency in the deep south and a Thai minister even accused them to be "feigning pitifulness" for the media.
In general, the Thai authorities seemed to be more concerned with its own image rather that the wellbeing of the refugees, as evident just last week when the Royal Thai Navy filed a lawsuit against two journalists from Phuket Wan- who have been diligently reporting on this issue - for defamation and even resorted to invoke the Computer Crimes Act (see yesterday's part), even though these two journalists had been merely quoting from the aforementioned Reuters' story. The lawsuit has been met with criticism, including from the UN.
Supreme Commander Tanasak Patimapragorn once accused the international community of leaving Thailand alone to deal with the Rohingya refugees, (perhaps willingly?) oblivious to the fact that Thai authorities have largely denied international aid and refugee organizations access to them. So the question Thailand has to ask itself for the coming year is not what the world can do for Thailand, but rather what Thailand can do to help the Rohingyas?
The Siam Voices 2013 year in review series continues tomorrow. Read all parts here: Part 1: Politics - Part 2: Lèse Majesté & the media - Part 3: The Rohingya - Part 4: Education and reform calls - Part 5: What else happened?
Siam Voices 2013 review – Part 2: Lèse majesté and the media in the crossfire
Originally published at Siam Voices on December 28, 2013 Welcome to the second part of our Siam Voices 2013 year in review series. Today we highlight the state of freedom of speech, which is still endangered by the draconian lèse majesté law. We also take a look at the ongoing protests, where Thailand's media itself became the story.
As the current chaotic protests are dominating the headlines, earlier this month yet another man was found guilty of defaming Thailand's monarchy for posting two anti-monarchy messages on a web forum. Article 112 of the Criminal Code, also more commonly known as the lèse majesté law, cites that "whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years." However, this time there was also this:
The third offence was related to an attempt to insult the monarchy. The prosecutor made the accusation that evidence on the defendant’s computer showed that he had prepared to post another lèse majesté message on the web forum, but the attempt failed because of his arrest and the confiscation of his computer. He was found guilty under Articles 112 and 80 of the Criminal Code for the attempted offence and was sentenced to three years and four months in jail. Nevertheless, the judges did not give the rationale for their decision.
"Thai man found guilty of attempted lèse-majesté", Prachatai English, December 12, 2013
With the other offenses he was sentenced to a total of over 13 years in prison, but it was reduced to six years and eight months due to his plea of guilty and "beneficial testimony". It is an unprecedented and worrying ruling since for the first time somebody was convicted of "attempted lèse majesté", invoking Article 80 of the Criminal Code.
But given the lèse majesté sentencings of this past year, it is clear that things have not improved - it may have gotten even worse.
In January, a red shirt leader was sentenced to two years in prison for merely hinting at the monarchy. Later that month, veteran activist Somyot Pruksakasemsuk was found guilty of lèse majesté in a high-profile case with much international attention and followed by strong reactions. His offense: editing - not writing himself - two political essays that at best made allusions to the royal family for a now-defunct political red shirt magazine. Somyot was sentenced to 11 years even though he had already been in detention since April 2011 and been denied bail 15 times until today.
Numerous lèse majesté complaints filed this year also showed how frivolously the law is being misused: an activist targeted for distributing mock banknotes depicting Thai historical figures other than the King; a TV host filing a complaint against a student activist months after she was sitting on it; a sibling rivalry turned bitter with one brother accusing the other of insulting the King, causing him to be jailed for a year before he was acquitted; and even ex-yellow shirt leader Sondhi Limthongkul was found guilty because he quoted inflammatory remarks by somebody else. In related news, a court upheld a suspended sentence against Prachatai webmaster Chiranuch Premchaiporn for not deleting web comments quickly enough that were deemed insulting to the monarchy.
In November, the courts added a new dimension to lèse majesté that was previously unheard of by stating that the law also applied to previous kings, thus not only arbitrarily expanding taboo topics, but also making critical, academic research into current Chakri dynasty impossible.
What is apparent is the need to openly discuss the law and how it is being misused, as ThaiPBS attempted to earlier this year. But it was met with outrage and resistance by a vocal minority, still maintaining and promoting the perception that even talking about the law is illegal, which is factually wrong and deliberate misinformation. With the current political polarization deeper than ever, even a consideration to reform the lèse majesté is now further away than ever.
Also worrying is the increased usage of 112 in combination with the Computer Crimes Act - which we have criticised numerous times before - as an effective tool to crack down online dissent. So it came as no surprise when the commander of the Technology Crime Suppression Division [TCSD] Pol. Maj-Gen Pisit Pao-in emerged as the new self-appointed chief censor, brazenly using scare tactics to curb political online rumors. Likely emboldened by the sudden public attention, he went a step further and threatened to monitor the mobile messaging app LINE, demanding the developers behind it cooperate (to which they refused). You know when you've taken it too far when even the ICT minister (not widely known as a free speech proponent either) disagreed with Pisit's audacious plans and the latter was soon forced to backpaddle.
Media in the crossfire of protesters
With the country's relapse back to street protests, so grew the news coverage of them both in the domestic and international media. With the volatile political situation the fight over the sovereign narrative was in full swing and again, those not agreeing were at the receiving end of accusations of being biased with even physical attacks against both local and foreign colleagues.
The protesters felt misrepresented especially by the foreign media and fired back in the same vitriolic manner as they did back in 2010 with a sense of hurt national pride, entitlement and superiority. However, the protesters - equipped with their own satellite TV channel and other media outlets - have so far failed to present credible non-Thai language sources to back up their claims. In a similar vein they also targeted Thai free TV stations during one of their rallies in early December. The TV channels have greatly resisted the hostile takeover attempts and the pressure to cease their broadcasts and switch to the protesters' channel.
It is said that "journalism is the first rough draft of history" and it looks like, thanks to the protesters' attitude to the media, the first drafts will be less than favorable towards them regardless of the outcome.
The Siam Voices 2013 year in review series continues tomorrow. Read all parts here: Part 1: Politics - Part 2: Lèse Majesté & the media - Part 3: The Rohingya - Part 4: Education and reform calls - Part 5: What else happened?
Thai navy sues journalists after reports on Rohingya trafficking
Originally published at Siam Voices on December 19, 2013 The Royal Thai Navy has filed defamation charges against international journalists for their reports on authorities being involved in human trafficking of ethnic Rohingya refugees. The move sends a chilling reminder to the media about the dismal state of press freedom in Thailand, the easy exploitation of flawed laws and how little outside inquiry Thailand's military tolerates.
Ever since the deadly persecution of the Rohingya people, an ethnic minority denied citizenship in Burma, in 2012 that caused tens of thousands to flee, mostly on frail and overcrowded vessels on the Andaman Sea, the plight of Rohingya refugees in Thailand has been well documented in the past 12 months*. Reports of abuse, rape, inhumane detention conditions and human trafficking have persistently accompanied the coverage of the refugees in Thailand. A deadline imposed by the Thai government to find and transfer the refugees to another country passed in July with no results and further developments being made, leaving the Rohingyas in legal limbo.
While this story is almost exclusively covered in foreign media and mostly met with apathy in the mainstream Thai media, Phuket Wan has been regularly reporting and unearthing accounts of the mistreatment of Rohingya people, including selling to human traffickers by Thai authorities. In July, Phuket Wan was quoting from an investigative special report by the Reuters news agency that accuses certain sections of the Royal Thai Navy of actively taking part in the smuggling of Rohingya refugees.
This was followed up by Reuters with another special report in December that also carries "startling admissions" by the DSI chief Tharit Pengdit and the Deputy Commissioner General of the Royal Thai Police Maj-Gen Chatchawal Suksomjit over the existence of illegal camps in southern Thailand. In the aftermath of the coverage, both the United Nations and the United States have called on Thailand to investigate the findings of the Reuters report.
This is how the Royal Thai Navy responded to these accusations:
A captain acting on behalf of the Royal Thai Navy has accused two Phuketwan journalists of damaging the reputation of the service and of breaching the Computer Crimes Act. Two other journalists from the Reuters news agency are expected to face similar charges shortly.
The Phuketwan journalists, Alan Morison and Chutima Sidasathian, denied the charges and were fingerprinted when they presented themselves today at Vichit Police Station, south of Phuket City. They are due to reappear on December 24. The pair face a maximum jail term of five years and/or a fine of up to 100,000, baht
It's believed to be the first time an arm of the military in Thailand has sued journalists for criminal defamation using the controversial Computer Crimes Act. (...)
In response to presentation of the charges today, Alan Morison and Chutima Sidasathian issued the following statement:
(...) We are shocked to learn now that the Navy is using a controversial law to sue Phuketwan for criminal defamation. The allegations in the article are not made by Phuketwan. They are made by the highly-respected Reuters news agency, following a thorough investigation. (...)
The Rohingya have no spokesperson, no leader, but through Phuketwan's ongoing coverage, the torment of these people continues to be revealed. Their forced exodus from Burma is a great tragedy. Yet how they are treated in the seas off Thailand and in Thailand remains a constant puzzle.
We wish the Royal Thai Navy would clear its reputation by explaining precisely what is happening to the Rohingya in the Andaman Sea and in Thailand. By instead using a controversial law against us, the Navy is, we believe, acting out of character.
We can only wonder why a good organisation finds it necessary to take such unusual action instead of making a telephone call or holding a media conference.
"Navy Captain Uses Computer Crimes Act to Sue Journalists for Criminal Defamation", Phuket Wan, December 18, 2013
This is an extremely worrying development. The navy is not only using the libel law against the two journalists, but also the controversial Computer Crimes Act of 2007 (CCA). Thanks to the CCA's flawed and vague wording, it opens up the possibility for arbitrary charges against all online users to be held liable not only for their own content, but also for the content of third parties that the user is hosting. Recently, the Appeal Court upheld the suspended sentence against Chiranuch Premchaiporn, the webmaster of the news website Prachatai, for not deleting web comments deemed lèse majesté quickly enough.
Another aspect is that it also shows that allegations of human trafficking are hardly being investigated, let alone by somebody outside of the military. After allegations of human trafficking against army officers earlier this January, an inquiry found the men at no fault but they were transferred out to another region nonetheless.
Earlier this year, we blogged about the then-defence minister Sukumpol Suwanatat's "fear of too much press freedom" and this move again reflects the armed forces' self-image that is still being maintained until today: an essential part of the Thai power apparatus that is not to be questioned or criticized, especially by outsiders.
*NOTE: The plight of the Rohingya refugees will be highlighted as part of a special 2013 year-in-review series starting December 26, 2013 on Siam Voices.
Thai webmaster Chiranuch loses appeal against suspended sentence
Originally published at Siam Voices on November 8, 2013 Thai webmaster Chiranuch Premchaiporn has lost her appeal against her sentence for not deleting online comments deemed insulting to the monarchy quickly enough from the now defunct web board of the Thai news site Prachatai. The Criminal Court found her guilty in May 2012 and initially sentenced her to 1 year in prison, which was then reduced to an 8-month suspended sentence thanks to her testimony and a THB20,000 (US$630) fine.
The court stated that Chiranuch had failed to delete one comment for 20 days, whereas the other nine objected comments were deleted within 10 days, thus violating against Article 14 and 15 of the 2007 Computer Crimes Act which punishes “false data” that damages a third party, causes public panic or undermines the country’s security and “any service provider intentionally supporting” the said offenses, respectively – despite the fact that the court also states that the expectation to pre-emptively delete illegal comments was “unfair”.
On Friday morning, the Appeal Court turned down her appeal, essentially agreeing with the Criminal Court's original verdict, adding that Chiranuch should have known better based on her professional experience:
Appeal court agrees with criminal court: claim by defendants that not consent for comments published on Web for 1-11 days is convincing
— เครือข่ายพลเมืองเน็ต (@thainetizen) November 8, 2013
Court: monarchy is needed for Thai society. the current king has devoted himself for the county and is an ideal monarch.
— เครือข่ายพลเมืองเน็ต (@thainetizen) November 8, 2013
Court: it's duty for all Thais to protect the king
— เครือข่ายพลเมืองเน็ต (@thainetizen) November 8, 2013
Court: given that defendant was 41 yr and graduated from media school, defendant should have taken better precaution measure to prevent LM.
— เครือข่ายพลเมืองเน็ต (@thainetizen) November 8, 2013
Appeal court: Same sentence with suspended jail term #freejiew
— เครือข่ายพลเมืองเน็ต (@thainetizen) November 8, 2013
This case highlights the flawed legal foundation: the Computer Crime Act (CCA), which became effective in 2007, is vaguely worded and leaves a lot of room for interpretation and thus also legal arbitrariness, which can be made worse in conjunction with the draconian lèse majesté law (which Chinranuch isn't charged with in this case, by the way). A new version of the CCA is currently being drafted and already faces criticism by several Thai journalism associations (we will take a closer look at it in a future post).
Today's ruling shows again the ambiguous legal situation not only for online users, but also for providers of online content platforms, as they can be held liable for the contents of others. In the context of free speech, it is a severe hindrance to open discussions especially on politically sensitive issues. The condescending remark by the judges that the defendant should have known that online platforms could be used "to defame the King" is a strong hint of the authority's duty to protect the royal institution from any perceived danger, even if it means restricting online debates and online users have to censor themselves.
Thailand: Uniform protest student accused of insulting monarchy
Originally published at Siam Voices on September 17, 2013 On Monday we reported on the Thammasat University student and her provocative poster campaign against student uniforms.
Now, the controversial student known as "Aum Neko" is facing more trouble:
A TV show host has accused the student known for her campaign against mandatory uniform wearing of insulting the monarchy.
Ms. Ponnipa Supatnukul, 41, the host of a talk show called "Best of Your Life" which is broadcast on a satellite TV channel, filed the complaint to the police in Nonthaburi Province, invoking Article 112 of the Criminal Codes which criminalises insults to the Royal Family. (...)
The student, who goes by her nickname Aum Neko, was interviewed in a talk show hosted by Ms. Pontipa 3 months ago, according to Ms. Pontipa. In the show, she said, she talked to Ms. Aum and 20 other Thammasat students about the impact of economic slowdown on students′ livelihood.
Ms. Pontipa claimed that Ms. Aum shocked everyone by "talking outside the topic" and "insulting the higher institution", a term referring to the monarchy. Ms. Aum's words were "so shocking we could not broadcast the show", Ms. Pontipa said, but she has nevertheless stored footage of the interview.
She claimed that she decided to pursue a legal action against Ms. Aum because she was incensed by the student′s continued defamation of the monarchy. Ms. Pontipa also alleged that Ms. Aum is encouraging other students to commit similar crimes.
"Lese Majeste Complaint Against Reformist Student", Khaosod English, September 16, 2013
The complainant made sure that the filing of her charge was well-documented as she let somebody film the process at the police station and posted it later on Facebook. She also had a few press members in tow.
Ms. Ponnipa also provided the officer with documents given by an unnamed Thammasat lecturer that includes personal details about "Aum Neko" including her actual gender by birth (she is a transgender woman), her actual name, birth date and personal ID number - which Ms. Ponnipa also willingly let the cameras film (a reason why I decided against embedding the video, as it was accompanied by an audible cackle by one of the bystanders).
While the nature of the offending comments allegedly made by the student has yet to be disclosed, Prachatai reports that the complainant pointed to a Facebook post by "Aum Neko" that apparently crossed the line for the TV host, as it criticized the pre-screening of Royal tribute movies at cinemas, where standing up is mandatory. In the same report, "Aum Neko" herself has expressed "shock and much anger" as she cannot believe that others would resort to "dirty means" in order to discredit her.
One really has to question the motives and the way Ms. Ponnipa filed her lèse majesté charge, since she was sitting on the alleged offensive remarks for months just to use them against her right now after the anti-uniform campaign gained more attention. Also, she repeatedly showed suggestive pictures of the accused, trying to make the point that such an offence can only be made by an (from her viewpoint) "immoral" person, while repeatedly positively mentioning the virtues of His Majesty and her perceived duty to protect it.
There have been lèse majesté complaints in the past of similar frivolous and spiteful nature: just last Friday a court acquitted a man of lèse majesté, after his own brother filed charges against him in what was a very apparent a long-standing sibling rivalry turned ugly. (It is worth noting that the alleged anti-monarchy comments in this case were made in private, which would have had catastrophic ramifications in case of a conviction). The man was imprisoned for a whole year and repeatedly denied bail while his case was pending.
Another example is the case of actor Pongpat Wachirabanjong's rousing pro-monarchy speech in 2010 (“If you hate our Father, if you don’t love our Father anymore, then you should get out of here!“), after which one person (mostly likely facetiously) accused him of improper language. Unsurprisingly, the case was dropped.
These and many more cases show one of several weak points of the Kingdom's draconian law that can be punished with up to 15 years in prison: since anybody can file a charge against anybody, the police have to investigate every complaint and nearly all cases end up in court. The probability of this law being used out of contempt against outspokenness is very high and ultimately can undermine the purpose of the law: to protect the country's monarchy.
Tongue-Thai'ed!: Has Thailand's self-proclaimed chief censor crossed the LINE?
Originally published at Siam Voices on August 14, 2013 This is part XXI of “Tongue-Thai’ed!”, in which we encapsulate the most baffling, amusing, confusing, outrageous and appalling quotes from Thai politicians and other public figures – in short: everything we hear that makes us go “Huh?!”. Check out all past entries here.
Thailand has a long line of officers, politicians and other authority figures who think they have more authority than their job entitles them and they're not afraid to show it.
For those of you who missed it, last weekend saw the emergence of Police Maj.-Gen. Pisit Pao-in as the new brash, self-proclaimed chief censor of Thailand. The director of the Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD) chief crashed on the scene in the last couple of days after he instructed the summoning of four people for posting coup rumors on Facebook, one of them a red shirt and the other a political editor for ThaiPBS.
The Nation had an exclusive interview with Pisit Pao-in on this matter and he explains his true 'rationale' for this action, which speaks for itself...
Q : Are asking if clicking “like” is now against the law. [sic!]
A : It will be if you ‘like’ a message deemed damaging to national security. If you press ‘like’, it means you are accepting that message, which is tantamount to supporting it. By doing so, you help increase the credibility of the message and hence you should also be held responsible. (…)
A : The TCSD action is just meant to have a psychological impact.We don’t want these four persons to be jailed. We just questioned them and it’s okay for them to say they didn’t mean to create panic. After this action, people are now more careful [about their Facebook messages]. I am mainly aiming at social peace. (…)
“‘Liking’ political rumours is a crime“, by Pakorn Puengnetr, The Nation, August 11, 2013
Just to reiterate, he admits using scare tactics to curb political rumor-mongering online and at the same time seeks to criminalize Facebook 'likes', since he apparently believes in guilt by association.
On Tuesday, it emerged that Pisit has set his sights on another medium that seems to be just spewing with harmful contents...!
Thai police asked the operator of the popular ‘‘Line’’ instant messaging app for access to records of online chats, raising concerns about intrusive surveillance despite promising only suspected criminals would be targeted.
Technology Crime Suppression division chief Pisit Paoin said Tuesday that police want to review the data of users they suspect are involved in crimes, including making statements against the Thai monarchy, arms trading, prostitution and drug dealing.
"Thai police seek to monitor chat app for crimes", by Thanyarat Doksone, Associated Press, August 13, 2013
The Nation put out another story (likely done during the same interview from last week) again showing his line of thinking and also crying foul against foreign companies...
"We have been talking to them [the operators of social media] a lot, but they do not want to cooperate. When they want anything, they expect to get it, but when we ask them for something, they rarely help us. They have taken a lot from Thailand but refused to cooperate with Thailand. I won't let them go if they make any mistakes," he warned. (...)
"We are not violating anybody's rights, as the checking is being done overseas. So you can't really attack me for this," he said. (...)
"If I want, I can investigate all the information on smart phones. We can investigate all the crimes done via computer systems."
"Police seek to check Line posts", by Pakorn Puengnetr, Asina Pornwasin & Chanikarn Phumhiran, The Nation, August 13, 2013
Those evil foreign social media companies refusing to openly disclose user information and their private chats - that are probably full of stickers anyways - to the Thai police without a warrant or any other legal mandate, even they have been requested to do so! However, the Korean-Japanese company behind the LINE application have repeatedly stated on Tuesday that they have never been officially contacted by the Thai police before.
On Wednesday - amidst a flood of bemusement and ridicule of Thai social media users - he clarified his plans to monitor the estimated 15m LINE subscribers...
According to the commander, the plan to keep tabs on messaging app users will not violate people's right to privacy, because the TCSD has software to monitor messages with words that pose threats to national security, such as coup, monarchy, lese majeste, drugs, counterfeit goods and prostitution.
The plan is intended to safeguard political, social and national stability, maintain peace and order in the country, and protect the morality of Thai people, he said.
"Police to keep tabs on Line users", Bangkok Post, August 14, 2013
As usual, no real explanation is given on what actually constitutes a "threat to national security". The only thing that is transparent here is Pisit's total disregard for freedom of expression without fear of restraint, seeing it as an obstacle to his work.
Thai authorities use scare tactics to curb political rumors online
Originally published at Siam Voices on August 12, 2013 Thailand's authorities are openly resorting to scare tactics to curb online discussions of politics after the summoning of several users for posting coup rumors on Facebook and a dumbfoundingly revealing interview with an official admitting his division's use of said methods.
The debate of the amnesty bills in parliament last week and the anticipation of opposition both in and outside the House caused the government to invoke the Internal Security Act in order to deal with anti-government protests. This, along with suspicious tank movements to the capital Bangkok (later dispelled by the army as a routine exercise), triggered heightened political tensions with fears of an escalation of the ongoing standoff between the various factions.
So it comes to no surprise that these tensions are being discussed online, including the inevitable mention of a possible military coup (which unfortunately is never out of the question in Thailand). However, such talk is not tolerated by the Thai authorities and have launched counter-measures, as seen last week:
Four people, including an editor of a TV channel, will be summoned for posting statements on social media which could lead to anxiety among the general public, a senior police officer said today.
Pol Maj Gen Pisit Pao-in, commander of the Technology Crime Suppression Division [TCSD], said the four suspects posted messages via social media, saying they anticipated a coup and urged people to stock up on food and water in preparations for shortage. Their statements could put people in a state of panic, he said.
The four included Sermsuk Kasitipradit, political and security editor of Thai Public Broadcast Service (ThaiPBS), Dechatorn Tirapiriya, a Red Shirt leader in Chonburi province, Warnuee Kamduangwong and a user under the pseudonym “Yo Onshine”.
"Four people to be summoned for posting unwanted texts on social media", MCOT, August 5, 2013
The contents of the Facebook posts themselves are largely unknown to the public and the most prominent person to be accused, ThaiPBS' Sermsuk Kasitipradit, has reportedly already deleted the offending Facebook post. He was interrogated on Friday.
The TCSD chief also was of the opinion that the four persons summoned - even before any charges were filed - violated Article 116 of the Criminal Code and Article 14 of the Computer Crimes Act (and NOT "National Computer Act", MCOT!). Both articles address the matter of "national security" stating that "words, writings" or "false computer data" respectively that can cause "disturbance" or "a public panic" is punishable with either a hefty fine or five years in prison or both.
Regular readers know that the Computer Crimes Act (CCA) is vaguely worded and deeply flawed, and thus its interpretation and application in conjunction with the Criminal Code by the authorities are arbitrary as the countless lèse majesté-related cases have shown in the past.
What this case also reveals is the blatant view of the Thai authorities in regards of curbing free speech online with straight-up intimidation, as the TCSD's chief Police Maj.-Gen. Pisit Pao-in shows in what can only be described a dumbfounding interview:
Q : Are asking if clicking "like" is now against the law. [sic]
A : It will be if you 'like' a message deemed damaging to national security. If you press 'like', it means you are accepting that message, which is tantamount to supporting it. By doing so, you help increase the credibility of the message and hence you should also be held responsible. (...)
A : The TCSD action is just meant to have a psychological impact. We don't want these four persons to be jailed. We just questioned them and it's okay for them to say they didn't mean to create panic. After this action, people are now more careful [about their Facebook messages]. I am mainly aiming at social peace. (...)
Q : What about "sharing" such a message?
A : There are two kinds of sharing. If you share in a way to support the original message, this is wrong. But if you comment against the message, this is okay.
"'Liking' political rumours is a crime", The Nation, August 11, 2013
Unfortunately, Pisit's staggering and blatantly anachronistic comments are in line with past and present governments in handling online censorship: under the premiership of Abhisit Vejjajiva the number of blocked URLs skyrocketed and the 'Cyber Scouts'-program to monitor online dissidents was launched. The current government of Yingluck Shinawatra has maintained if not even worsened the trend by doing essentially more of the same, as current Minister for Communication and Technology (MICT) Anudith Nakornthap vowed to continue the crackdown on lèse majesté contents and has also pledged to criminalize Facebook 'likes' not once, but twice now with the current case!
It is just astonishing yet unsurprising that such a self-image and understanding the Thai authorities still have of what and how discussions - especially of political nature - are ought to be like and ought to be dictated by only them. By admitting to openly use such scare tactics against online users and to outlaw simple 'likes' and 'shares' on Facebook, it really begs the question what their understanding of 'social peace' is, that can only be enforced.
Tongue-Thai'ed! Part XIX: An insult to the PM, a libel suit and an avalanche of poor decisions
Originally published at Siam Voices on May 10, 2013 This is part XIX of “Tongue-Thai’ed!”, in which we encapsulate the most baffling, amusing, confusing, outrageous and appalling quotes from Thai politicians and other public figures – in short: everything we hear that makes us go “Huh?!”. Check out all past entries here.
In her tenure for almost two years now, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra generally comes across as a restrained, non-aggressive politician who generally shys away from personally addressing controversial issues or being confrontative - mostly for the sake of a shaky stability.
However, many saw Yingluck's recent speech in Mongolia as the end of Ms. Nice PM. In her speech at a conference of democratic countries in late April she addressed the importance of democracy in Thailand, praising the red shirts who have elected her into office and her brother and former prime minister Thaksin for his achievements (overlooking his wrongdoings) before he was toppled by the military and other forces in what Yingluck called an "undemocratic regime".
For many observers, this was an uncharacteristically sharp and committed speech (more on the speech itself in a future Siam Voices post). For her critics, it's the ultimate proof of her being solely Thaksin's puppet and they have been taking to social media platforms to yet again vent their anger at the prime minister, her government, her brother, the red shirts and everybody else they perceive as a threat to the nation.
One of these was "Chai Ratchawatra" aka Somchai Katanyutanan, a well-known political cartoonist at the Thai language daily Thai Rath, who commented on his personal Facebook account:
โปรดเข้าใจ กระหรี่ไม่ใช่หญิงคนชั่ว กระหรี่แค่เร่ขายตัว แต่หญิงคนชั่วเที่ยวเร่ขายชาติ
Please understand: whores are not evil. They just sell their bodies. But an evil woman is going around selling her country.
Facebook post by "Chai Ratchawatra", approx. May 1, 2013
This vile and nasty remark spread around Facebook very quickly among both pro- and anti-Yingluck camps and has unsurprisingly sparked condemnation and commendation respectively (and in the light of such a horrendously sexist insult, Thailand's leading feminists have remained quiet again (and again).
The first to react were sections of the red shirts that have almost immediately converged with 100 people to the Thai Rath headquarters to demand an apology and also bizarrely laid a funeral wreath with the cartoonist's name on it, which could be perceived as a threat. Also, the ruling Pheu Thai Party slammed Chai's slandering, saying the cartoonist "lost his mind."
What then followed though is a bizarre series of poor decisions and even poorer remarks from across the political spectrum that warrants this XXL-sized "Tongue-Thai'ed!" in three acts - this is going to be a long one...!
Act 1: The MICT's wrathful verbal rampage
Shortly after the controversy was about to fade, Prime Minister Yingluck (again unprecedentedly) filed a lawsuit against Chai Ratchawatra for defamation last Friday. As understandable the suit is, it did make the head of the Thai government look thin-skinned (no matter how vile and sexist the insults are) and the timing couldn't have been any worse: of all days, that Friday was also World Press Freedom Day and that move also reminds of Thaksin's past rigorous handling of critical press.
However, the government's enemies got even more fodder for their fake sanctimonious outrage in the guise of Anudith Nakornthap, Minister of Information and Communications Technology (MICT), who went on record pledging to shut down any websites that contains criticism of the PM. Obviously, he had to defend his stance...
The Information and Communications Technology Ministry had been misunderstood and accused of blocking people's right to free speech following attacks from "ill-intentioned people", Minister Anudith Nakornthap said.
The ministry had no mandate to shut down websites on its own, and would normally need a court order to do that, he added. However, defamatory remarks about the prime minister could cause a site to be immediately suspended. (...)
Meanwhile, the ICT minister confirmed reports of his vow to take action related to criticism against Yingluck. He insisted he was doing his duty and that he had the authority to do so.
He urged anyone who finds offensive messages on the Net to report them so the ministry could ask the web administrator to immediately remove the messages.
"My right to close anti-PM websites, minister claims", The Nation, May 8, 2013
This is in line with his previous anti-free speech remarks to crack down on dissenting voices "more stringently" and "by enforcing the law to the fullest", mainly lèse majesté-related content. Anudith also previously went on record threatening to criminalize even simple Facebook 'likes' and 'shares', probably now by his logic also opinions critical against the prime minister, who has given her blessing to Anudith's vowed online crackdown - so far, there have been no reports of blocked websites or netizens hit by lawsuits.
Act 2: The Democrat's sanctimonious outrage
The MICT's vow of course created a huge opportunity for the Democrat Party to condemn the PM and the MICT for "violation of democratic principles", spearheaded by former prime minister and party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva and deputy spokesperson Malika Boonmeetrakul. This is the same Democrat Party with the same persons that have allowed the MICT during the tenure of the Abhisit administration to create the 'Cyber Scouts' volunteer force for monitoring dissenting voices online and to draft a worse version of the Computer Crimes Act than we already have.
Their party members have also gone on record endorsing online censorship, especially in lèse majesté cases ,so much so that the aforementioned Malika Boomeetrakul has called for a complete shutdown of social media sites like Facebook and Twitter in the most extreme cases - and that coming from a former journalist, no less!
Act 3: The self-inflicted hack attack
But the absolute climax in this saga was an almost self-inflicted blow for the prime minister and the MICT:
Hackers got into the PM's Office website (www.opm.go.th) yesterday and posted (...) the picture of Yingluck laughing, captioned: "I know I am the worst Prime Minister ever in Thai history." The hacker also changed a menu item listing Yingluck's Cabinet on the top left-hand corner of the page with a very rude sentence.
"Hackers name PM the worst ever in Thai history", The Nation, May 9, 2013
Anudith's words have goaded reactionary hackers to take over one of Thailand's official websites, which have been notoriously unsafe and in some cases a cesspool of potential malware, apart from being bloated with useless graphic and auto-play music elements. This incident is a big embarrassment for the authorities, since the MICT has just recently announced an overhaul of government websites - guess they better start sooner rather than later!
The 'very rude sentence' has been widely withheld in Thai media outlets (probably fearing Anudith's and the MICT's wrath). The line is "I'm a slutty moron", or as the as the Bangkok Post has wittingly paraphrased it: "The message made derogatory remarks about the premier's intelligence and sexual morality."
Having learnt from the debacle after Yingluck's Twitter account was 'hacked' in October 2011 and not finding the suspect until he turned himself in, the authorities have already quickly identified the hacker suspect and he is reportedly going to surrender to the police.
That is hopefully going to be the last chapter in this undignified saga, in which nobody really looks good - from the initial nasty sexist comment by the Thai Rath cartoonist, the PM's lawsuit against him and the MICT's verbal crackdown, the opposition's misplaced outrage to the hacked government website.
This is the partisan ridiculousness in its purest concentrated form that blows a side-shows out of proportions and also detracts from the most important issue(s) here: Prime Minister Yingluck's speech itself!
Thailand lifts ban on Preah Vihear border conflict documentary
Originally published at Siam Voices on April 26, 2013 Earlier this week, the Thai independent documentary “Boundary” or “ฟ้าต่ำแผ่นดินสูง” (literally “Low heaven, high ground”) on the Thai-Cambodia border dispute around the ancient Hindu temple Preah Vihear was banned from commercial release by a sub-committee of the Thai national Film and Video Board (see previous coverage) for endangering "national security and international relations" and misinforming an unknowing audience about ongoing legal cases. The Film and Video Board lifted the ban on Thursday, citing a "technical mistake".
Filmmaker Nontawat Numbenchapol follows a young Thai ex-soldier who took part in the bloody crackdown on the anti-government red shirt protests 2010 on his way back to his home village in Sisaket province near the border, where the conflict between Cambodia and Thailand was heating up. The movie also features accounts from locals from both sides of the border and mentions Thailand's other conflicts, such as the insurgency in the Deep South.
Thailand and Cambodia have been in a territorial dispute since the ownership of the ancient Preah Vihear temple was awarded to Cambodia in 1962 by International Courts of Justice, where both countries testified last week in seeking a new ruling on the 4.6 sq km area around the World Heritage site from the ICJ. A verdict is expected in October later this year.
In recent years the conflict has escalated into armed clashes between the two countries. Forty people have been killed since June 2008, hundreds injured and thousands of locals displaced. The Preah Vihear issue is also constantly exploited by Thai ultra-nationalists to drum up anti-Cambodia sentiment and pressure military and politicians, driven by the fear of "losing territory to the Khmer".
Reports indicated that the censors might have taken offense at a lot of things in the documentary, including soundbites of Cambodian soldiers and villagers criticizing their Thai neighbors, the stated number of casualties of the 2010 red shirt protests (100 vs. officially 84) and footage from the clashes.
"Boundary" would have been the third movie banned from commercial release in Thailand, along with 2010's "Insect in the Backyard" and 2012's "Shakespeare Must Die". The ban unsurprisingly drew much attention and condemnation, especially from foreign media - such as* AP, The Guardian or The Hollywood Reporter - and on social networks. The movie was screened at small movie festivals in Thailand, and also at the Berlinale earlier this year.
Now it seems things have turned, according to the filmmaker on the movie's Facebook page on Thursday evening:
Ban Verdict Overturned: “Boundary” has been cleared to screen with 18-plus rating
The Film and Video Board, attached to the Office of Cultural Promotion, contacted the filmmaker of Boundary on Thursday to apologize for the “technical mistake” regarding the ban order on Tuesday, April 23. The filmmaker was informed that the ban order was the decision of a sub-committee that in fact has no authority to issue such verdict. Only the main committee has the jurisdiction to do so. When the main committee saw the film on Thursday, April 25, they decided to let the film pass. Also, before banning any movie, the committee is required to allow its director to defend himself, but that didn’t happen on Tuesday.
However, the censors asked the director to remove two seconds of ambience sound in an early scene. That scene is the New Year’s celebration at Ratchaprasong Intersection during which an MC announces on stage: “Let’s count down to celebrate HM the King’s 84th anniversary”. The censors expressed concerns that this might lead to misinterpretation.
The filmmaker realizes that the sound has no significance to the story of the film and agreed to mute it.
The sub-committee who banned the films cited several inappropriate issues and presentation, but the main committee does not object to any of them. Besides those two seconds of audio, the entire film remains intact.
Nontawat Numbenchapol 25 April 2013
(emphasis by me)
A couple of interesting points here: Why does the documentary get an 18+ rating? Also, that part that is to be muted also seems odd - why did the censors take so much offense to it when it bears no significance to the movie? How severely misinterpreted can that part (in Thai "เรามาร่วมเคาท์ดาวน์และร่วมฉลองให้พระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัว มีพระชนมายุครบ 84 พรรษา" ) be that it needs to be muted?
What went wrong at the Thai Film and Video Board that allegedly a subcommittee was able to order a ban, while it had no power to do so? And how much did the public backlash affect yesterday's decision?
No details for a release date and locations have been released yet.
* the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) also published a press release condemning the ban on Thursday night Bangkok time - just six hours after the ban was already overturned...!
Thai documentary on Preah Vihear border conflict banned
Originally published at Siam Voices on April 24, 2013 A Thai independent documentary about the disputed border region with Cambodia and the ancient Hindu temple Preah Vihear has been banned from screening in Thailand for "national security" reasons, according to the filmmaker.
The movie "Boundary" or "ฟ้าต่ำแผ่นดินสูง" (literally "Low heaven, high ground") by Nontawat Numbenchapol revolves around a young Thai soldier from the violent crackdown on the anti-government red shirt protests 2010 on his way back to his home village in Sisaket Province near the border and local life with the dispute looming in the background.
On Tuesday, the movie's Facebook page posted an update that the movie has been banned from screens nationwide and cites the authorities as saying:
ผลการตรวจพิจารณาภาพยนตร์ ของคณะอนุกรรมการพิจารณาภาพยนตร์และวีดีทัศน์ เรื่องฟ้าต่ำแผ่นดินสูง ไม่อนุญาตให้เผยแพร่ในราชอาณาจักรไทย ด้วยเนื้อหาที่ขัดต่อความมั่นคงของชาติ และความสัมพันธไมตรีระหว่างประเทศ และการนำเสนอข้อมูลบางเหตุการณ์ยังอยู่ในขั้นตอนการพิจารณาของศาล โดยไม่มีบทสรุปทางเอกสาร
“The Film and Video sub-committee [attached to the Ministry of Culture] do not permit the documentary film “Boundary” (Fah Tam Pandin Soong) to be screened in the Kingdom of Thailand. The film’s content is a threat to national security and international relations. The film presents some information on incidents that are still being deliberated by the
Thaicourt and that have not yet been officially concluded.”Facebook update by Nontawat Numbenchapol, April 23, 2013 - translation by Nontawat, emphasis by me
The area around the ancient Hindu temple has been at the center of a long territorial dispute between Cambodia and Thailand since the ownership of the temple has been awarded to Cambodia by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1962. The conflict heated up again in recent years, escalating in armed clashes on the border in 2011. Forty people were killed, hundreds injured on both sides and thousands of locals have been displaced.
The 4.6 sq km area remains disputed territory with both countries drawing up different border lines. Last week, the two countries went to court again at the petition of Cambodia to the ICJ to reinterpret the vicinity of the original 1962 verdict. A judgement is expected in October 2013.
The movie has already been screened at small independent theaters and movie festivals in Thailand, and also at the Berlinale earlier this year - one of the major international movie festivals.
The Bangkok Post has listed some points in the film that might have caused issues with the censors:
The film also includes YouTube footage of Thai soldiers in action during a border skirmish in 2011, a survey of damage from Cambodian shellings, and a long monologue from a Cambodian soldier who criticises Thailand. (...)
One concern is a caption explaining that there were "nearly 100 deaths" during the red-shirt crackdown at Ratchaprasong on May 2010. The official figure is 89.
"Preah Vihear documentary banned", Bangkok Post, April 24, 2013
Nontawat defended his documentary, saying that...
จากย่อหน้าข้างต้นคือส่วนหนึ่งของเหตุผลที่ภาพยนตร์ฟ้าต่ำแผ่นดินสูง ไม่ได้รับอนุญาตให้เผยแพร่ในราชอาณาจักรไทย โดยข้อมูลทั้งหมดที่ผมได้จากการลงไปยังพื้นที่จริงจากมุมมองของประชาชนในพื้นที่จริงที่อาศัยอยู่บริเวณชายแดน ไทย - กัมพูชา ที่ได้รับผลกระทบโดยตรงจากข้อพิพาทกรณีเขาพระวิหาร ส่วนหนึ่งทางผู้สร้างต้องการให้ภาพยนตร์เรื่อง ฟ้าต่ำแผ่นดินสูง เป็นพื้นที่การแสดงออกให้ประชาชนในพื้นที่ที่ได้รับผลกระทบจริงๆได้แสดงมุมมอง ทัศนคติ และ ความคิดเห็นที่พวกเค้าไม่มีโอกาสได้สื่อและได้พูดออกมาสู่สาธารณชนได้รับรู้ ประชาชนควรมีสิทธิได้พูดในสิ่งที่คิด และภาพยนตร์ฟ้าต่ำแผ่นดินสูงเป็นการนำสารของประชาชนทุกฝ่ายมาสู่สาธารณชน และอยากให้ฟังความคิดเห็นที่ต่างกันและอยู่ร่วมกันได้ในสังคม และยังคงเชื่อว่าประชาชนไทยมีวิจารณญาณในการทำความเข้าใจในชุดข้อมูลนี้ด้วยตัวของพวกเขาเอง
The information I present in my film has been gathered from my first-hand experience in actual locations of the ongoing Thai-Cambodian border conflicts. It presents the viewpoints of the residents in the border areas who feel direct impact of the Preah Vihear spats. One of my intentions is to let the film be a space for the people in the troubled territories to voice their views, opinions and feelings that they haven’t had a chance to do so in the media report on the issue. I believe that the public deserve to hear these voices, and I believe that the people in the conflicts have a right to speak their minds. The film “Boundary” wishes to bring messages from involved parties to the public domain, in order that we’re able to listen to, as well as learn to tolerate, different opinions. I believe that the Thai public possess the intellect and judgment to interpret and understand the information proposed by the film.
Facebook update by Nontawat Numbenchapol, April 23, 2013 - translation by Nontawat, emphasis by me
What eventually led to the ban - be it the Preah Vihear angle or references to the 2010 red shirt protests the film begins with - has unsurprisingly not been further explained by the National Film Board and the Film and Video Screening Office, which has a track record of issuing rare but notable bans on small independent films critically dealing with social or political issues.
Among these were 2010's “Insect in the Backyard” by Tanwarin Sukkhapisit - a drama about a transsexual taking care of two teenagers who eventually turn to prostitution - that was not banned for strong depictions of sex, but rather the "immoral" and "unnecessary" display of child sex workers.
More recently, last year's "Shakespeare Must Die" also fell victim to the censors. The Thai adaptation of Shakespeare's "Macbeth" by Ing K. and Manit Sriwanichpoom is set in an alternative Thailand ruled by a "dear leader" and mob mentality - a thinly veiled allegory to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and to the various political color-coded street protesters. The film board banned the movie fearing it could "causes divisiveness among the people of the nation".
What all these bans have in common is that the censors assume that the content is too much to handle for the Thai audience and might be confused by the messages, images or motives, fictional or not. In the case of "Boundary", the censors deny on ludicrous grounds the viewers a chance to see the daily lives of those that are affected most by the border dispute around Preah Vihear.
Nontawat says he will appeal the ban.
After the Thai TV monarchy debate, controversy is growing
Originally published at Siam Voices on March 22, 2013
A Thai TV program discussing the role of the monarchy has sparked growing controversy, with reactionary voices sparking a police investigation. The public broadcaster ThaiPBS aired a week-long special of its interview and discussion program "Tob Jote Prathet Thai" ("ตอบโจทย์ประเทศไทย", roughly translated to "Answering Thailand's Issues") about the royal institution. The series culminated in a two-episode debate between Thammasat University historian Somsak Jeamteerasakul and royalist critic Sulak Sivaraksa, focusing on the draconian lése majesté law. However, ThaiPBS decided not to air the last part of the series, citing fears it could "spark social unrest". (Read our previous post here).
During the whole run, the program was deemed controversial as it was both commended and condemned for openly discussing the role of the monarchy in Thailand on national television. Similar condemnation and commendation was aimed at ThaiPBS after their decision to cancel the airing of Friday's episode, which sparked rumors about political intervention. A collateral damage was the show "Tob Jote" itself, when host Pinyo Traisuriyathamma announced shortly after the cancellation that he and his team would no longer produce any episodes of the program.
However, much to the surprise of everyone, ThaiPBS eventually reversed its decision and aired the second part of the Somsak-vs-Sulak debate on Monday night without any prior notice and promotion. An executive explained before the broadcast that by showing the final part, the audience would understand that part of the political crisis and divide stems form the lèse majesté law, and its abuse actually harms the royal institution.
The controversy over the show is now growing as a group of 100 "fed-up" ultra-royalists, led by self-proclaimed monarchy-defender Dr. Tul Sittisomwong (whose stances on pro-LM and against LM reform have been well documented), protested at the ThaiPBS headquarters on Wednesday and have called for the executives to resign. We have also already mentioned the 40 appointed (as in NOT democratically elected) senators claim that the show's content is deemed lèse majesté.
The program also provoked army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha to break his months of relative silence and to revert to his usual brazen rhetoric and also slammed the program and its makers. As seen in this video, Prayuth struggled to find the right words, in order not to be too harsh, but nevertheless said this:
"The TV show and its contents are allowed by law but we should consider if it was appropriate. If you think Thailand and its monarchy and its laws are making you uncomfortable, then you should go live elsewhere," Prayuth told reporters.
"Thai TV show draws army wrath for lese-majeste debate", by Amy Sawitta Lefevre, Reuters, March 20, 2013
The hawkish general has been previously quoted saying that victims of the lèse majesté law "should not be whining" because "they know it better." He has also said the following (as previously blogged here), which kind of foreshadows his own words from this week and may should adhere to his own advice then:
"(...) คือกฎหมายเราและประเทศไทยก็คือประเทศไทย ผมไม่เข้า(ใจ)ว่าหลายๆคนอยากจะให้ประเทศไทยเป็นเหมือนประเทศอื่น มีเสรีทุกเรื่อง แล้วถามว่ามันจะอยู่กันยังไงผมไม่รู้ ขนาดแบบนี้ยังอยู่กันไม่ได้เลย” พล.อ.ประยุทธ์ กล่าว
"(...) Our laws are our laws and Thailand is Thailand. I don’t understand why so many people want Thailand to be like other countries – to have freedom in everything – how can we live? I don’t know… I can’t live even like it is now already!” said Gen. Prayuth
“‘ประยุทธ์’แจงปิดวิทยุชุมชนหมิ่นยันทำตามกฎหมาย“, Krungthep Turakij, April 29, 2011
The absolute low points so far in terms of reactions came from Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung and the Royal Thai Police, which are under his watch. They claim to found content in the show that is deemed lèse majesté and have now started to take action:
An initial check of the tapes of the fourth and fifth episodes of the monarchy-debate series found that some statements by guests on the programme were in violation of the law. [Royal Thai Police spokesman Pol Maj-General Piya Uthayo] said that because the programme has attracted a huge public interest and the issue has ramifications on national security, the police have appointed a team of 50 investigators led by Pol General Chatchawan Suksomjit with Pol Lt-General Saritchai Anekwiang as deputy investigator. Police from stations across the country have been instructed to accept complaints about the programme from members of the public.
The national police chief ordered the team to conduct a speedy yet careful investigation and report on their progress within 30 days.
The public is also warned against disseminating information on the Internet that might be deemed insulting to the monarchy and in violation of the Computer Crime Act. Anyone found involved in the dissemination of the lese majeste content would also face action.
"Monarchy debate broke law: police", The Nation, March 22, 2013
This is basically calling for a crackdown on the program, its makers, the guests, and all online discussions about the content of the show!
As a countermeasure, ThaiPBS has meanwhile set up a legal team.
Chalerm defended the police action, saying that it was his order to transcribe the two episodes and pledged to take legal action against whoever on that show broke the law. He also makes the bizarre statement that the government doesn't need to get involved, since he is in charge of the police, despite also being deputy prime minister. He also said this:
"Don't they have anything better to do than criticise the monarchy? It is their right to do so but there must be some limit," he continued. "Thailand has a population of 64 million. Why give so much attention to the opinions of a small group of people?"
"Monarchy debate broke law: police", The Nation, March 22, 2013
The same can be asked about the initial 20 (!), then 100 "fed-up" royalists protesting at ThaiPBS. These self-proclaimed defenders of the monarchy fail to understand that a reform of Article 112 of the Criminal Code does not seek to abolish or to overthrow the monarchy; that criticism of the draconian law does not equal disloyalty to the crown and the country; and that a public discourse about the vaguely written, arbitrarily applied law is essential if Thailand is to move forward.
No country for bold stances: Thai TV station cancels royalty debate
Originally published at Siam Voices on March 19, 2013
For the second time this year, a television program was forced off the air in Thailand due to the perceived politically controversial content. However, this episode is much more than just a cancelled show - it was a test on how much it was possible to have a debate on the most sensitive and serious issue in Thailand, writes Saksith Saiyasombut
In general, programming of the Thai Public Broadcast Service (ThaiPBS) is considered to be of decent quality, aimed at an informed audience or those that want to be informed. This, is a unique approach among the roughly half dozen free-TV channels, whose TV listings are mostly dominated by the infamous lakorn soap operas and variety shows. However, it is also said that this great programing is watched by hardly anyone for the exact same reasons.
The channel has seen many transformations in its young, turbulent history - from an independent, hard-hitting bedrock of Thai TV journalism to the slow neutering under Thaksin Shinawatra's ShinCorp to the eventual takeover the military junta in 2006. The most recent chapter is going to leave another mark on the channel's track record, albeit not a very positive one.
Over the past week, the ThaiPBS interview and discussion show "Tob Jote Prathet Thai" ("ตอบโจทย์ประเทศไทย") or roughly translated to "Answering Thailand's Issues", had a week-long special series discussing and debating the role of the constitutional monarchy in Thailand. This is a very hot topic considering the current political climate where the long-held notion that the King and the royal institution are above politics is being challenged and defended with equal passion.
On the first three days of this series, host Pinyo Traisuriyathamma interviewed former foreign minister Surakiart Sathirathai, Thammasat historian and academic Somsak Jeamteerasakul, and self-proclaimed "ultra-royalist" and former palace police chief Pol Gen Vasit Dejkunjorn, while the last two episodes had Somsak and veteran social activist and monarchy critic Sulak Sivaraksa mostly debating Thailand's still existing draconian lèse majesté law (a summary can be read here).
It turned out that the program attracted attention for the right reasons, as the Bangkok Post's Kong Rithdee notes:
Clearly the programme is pushing the envelope. And envelope-pushing is what we need when the same old blabbering inside our old, cobwebbed envelope isn't taking us anywhere. The highlights of the five-night series were on Thursday and Friday, when Mr Sulak and Mr Somsak sat next to each other debating, eyeing up and staring down, hands moving in a complex telegraphy of their thought. (...) What's most important, however, is the fact that they said many things we never thought we'd hear on television. (...) the mentions of the monarchy were as frank, or as evasive, as the law allows. Of course they both wish the law would allow more, that's the gist of it all.
(...) We as the citizens, and we as journalists, who can now take comfort in the fact that some of the "sensitive" issues often talked about in murmurs, with hand covering mouth, or online, or totally underground, have made their way to national TV, in HD to boot. Television is known for accommodating emotion (think drama series) but in the right setting, it also encourages reason as a condition of being persuasive. It's official: this five-day talk has raised the bar on possible discussion about the monarchy.
"Everyone wins in the Thai PBS royalty debate. Right?", by Kong Rithdee, Bangkok Post, March 16, 2013
Given the current political climate, this TV show had its opponents: as many as 20 (yes, you read that right!) royalist protestors demonstrated in front of ThaiPBS on Friday evening before the airing of the last episode and demanded for the show to be taken off the air. They claimed that the monarchy should not be dragged into any political discussion and that the discussion about (an amendment) to the lèse majesté law is the first step towards dismantling the monarchy - a deliberate disinformation.
Nevertheless, the small but vocal group got its way and apparently ThaiPBS caved, deciding just moments before it was to go on air that the second part of the debate between Sulak and Somsak was to be cancelled on Friday evening, citing fears that the program could "spark social conflict" - an often-heard and convenient phrase to shut down any public discourse that could be deemed uncomfortable.
Unsurprisingly, the decision caused instant controversy. It was met with shock, anger and ridicule online, with some also pointing out that this has been the second recent cancellation of a TV program on Thai airwaves for apparent political reasons, the first being soap opera "Nua Mek 2" which took an apparent jab at the existing government (read more on this here).
Meanwhile, the team of "Tob Jote Prathet Thai" have announced the cancellation of the whole show altogether following Friday's incident. Pinyo Traisuriyathamma has said there was no political or royal interference, but the decision was made by the channel executives.
Whether it was political interference or just pre-emptive obedience by the ThaiPBS higher-ups, the cancellation of an open and straight public debate about the role of the monarchy in the Thai state is a cruel reminder that a certain section of the Thai population is still not ready to face differing notions about Thailand's power structure. While ThaiPBS is to be commended on tackling a thorny issue, it has made a number of discouraging steps backwards by deciding to cancel the show.
UPDATE (Tuesday, March 19): In yet another reversal, ThaiPBS decided to show the last part of the series after all on Monday - without any advertisements or announcements. Here's the YouTube video to the full debate with Somsak Jeamteerasakul and Sulak Sivaraksa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKcLdpYK87Y
Before that earlier on Monday, Thai Rathreports that a group of 40 appointed (read: NOT democratically elected!) senators have slammed the "Tob Jote" program for "insulting the monarchy" and see the content as a violation of the lèse majesté law - showing once again that certain groups of people are incapable of a constructive discourse and (deliberately perhaps?) do not know that it is legal to talk about lèse majesté and other issues.
UPDATE 2 (Wednesday, March 20): The pattern of "one step forward, several steps back" has been repeated again, as all videos linked here have been pulled. But since this is the internet, the video have been reposted multiple times already and have been linked here as well.
Thai Culture Minister slams SNL 'Rosetta Stone' sketch
Originally published at Siam Voices on February 5, 2013 About two weeks ago, the long-running US-American TV-show "Saturday Night Live" on NBC* had a skit lampooning the language-learning software Rosetta Stone (see embedded video below). In the parody commercial, some of the testimonials claim to use the software to learn Thai, order "to go to Thailand - for a thing...!" Of course, given that these are sketchy-looking white male - that 'thing' could mean only one thing: these men are learning (surprisingly accurate) Thai phrases to engage with prostitutes - including the groan-inducing ping-pong reference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZCXy8XIIfk
Now, since the show is hardly shown anywhere but the United States and the 'meh'-sketch of course is tailored to an American audience by a comedy show that had its best days - you would think that this would go away very quickly, right? Not really: a bootleg was put on YouTube for the whole world to see until it eventually made its way to Thailand. And that's how the story kicked off.
While this doesn't qualify as 'viral' (that video only had slightly more than 120,000 views), the sketch sparked outrage and heated debate online among Thais. Most of the comments cannot be reproduced here, but you can read some of them (mostly in Thai) here. This story was quickly picked up by local mainstream media outlets like Channel 3, ThaiPBS and Thai Rath. While it is understandable that some Thais would take offense, some of the reactions were perhaps over the top.
And then the Thai Culture Minister chimed in...
Culture Minister Sonthaya Khunploem** said on Monday that the Culture Watch Centre is working with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in an effort to have the video removed from the world's most popular video sharing website.
The government will also inform the United States embassy that the commercial spoof is tarnishing Thailand's image and will ask the embassy to explain the situation to the producer of Saturday Night Live, Mr Sonthaya said.
"Government to demand takedown of sex-trade spoof", Bangkok Post, February 4, 2013
Yes, the self-proclaimed cultural heralds of everything “Thai”-ness that we like to call the "ThaiMiniCult" are back and they inadvertently caused the Streisand effect to take place. While the YouTube video was removed, most likely because it too many people flagged it as spam (and not as Thai officials would like to think that YouTube has granted their request), more copies have popped up elsewhere, including the one embedded above.
And by moaning complaining to the US Embassy, it reveals the misguided conception by Thai officials that foreign officials can wield the same influence in their country as they do (or like to think they still can) here in Thailand, as the recent controversy over a cancelled soap opera and rumors about political interference has shown.
In general, Thailand tends to be very sensitive by negative perceptions of the country, especially if there are being pointed out by foreigners: Last summer upon her arrival in Bangkok, pop artist Lady Gaga tweeted her desire to buy a fake Rolex watch. The comment sparked outrage that climaxed with the Commerce Minister's official complaint at the US Embassy.
It is understandable that Thailand wants to protect its image, given the value of its booming tourism industry. However, there is no real attempt to address real and serious issues like the sex industry and in general, many inconvenient truths are being swept under the carpet for the sake of the Kingdom's image. It is an image (whether it is accurate or real is the topic for another debate) that Thais are strongly defending - while at the same time much of Thai entertainment promotes stereotypes about its neighboring countries and even about their own people - why else are people from the rural Northeast still being called 'water buffaloes'?
May be Thais can counter the SNL sketch. Global Post's Patrick Winn has a good suggestion:
So here's an idea for any Thais intent on a rebuttal. Film a Rosetta Stone parody of misfit Thais learning English. Why English? So they can fly to America and purchase assault rifles.
"Thai government aghast at SNL's "Rosetta Stone" sketch", by Patrick Winn, GlobalPost.com, February 4, 2013
*What a shame that the comedy series "30 Rock" has wrapped up its run - would have loved to see how they would have handled it!
**By the way: The current culture minister Sonthaya took the post not too long ago after his five-year ban from politics ended, during which time his wife kept this seat warm for him. Also, his father is currently in some serious trouble...!
Debates rages over Thailand's lèse majesté law
Originally published at Siam Voices on February 4, 2013 After the verdict against veteran labor activist Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, discussions about lèse majesté have been reignited on many levels and also in many forms. Somyot was recently sentenced to 11 years in prison, 10 of them for publishing articles (which he didn't write himself) in a magazine that were deemed insulting to the monarchy - after being previously held in detention for 21 months and denied bail 12 times (read our report as it happened here).
We begin with more reactions condemning the decision by the Criminal Court, after the numerous statements by international NGOs e.g. Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch and including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, saying “the conviction and extremely harsh sentencing of Somyot sends the wrong signals on freedom of expression in Thailand. Also, the United States State Department issued a short statement during a press briefing last week, expressing "deep concern" and that "no one should be jailed for expressing peacefully their views".
One of the first foreign reactions came from the European Delegation in Thailand, that sees press freedom and freedom of expression "undermined" by the verdict. It was just a matter of time until the statement was met with very extreme (but unsurprising) responses:
In response to the EU, an anonymous message was sent out on Facebook that went on to be shared by a large number of Thai royalists’ online social networks. In the highly politicised context of the ongoing Red-Yellow paradigm, politicking remains a key dynamic of course, in almost any social-political equation.
Nevertheless, it read: “Preserving our beloved Monarchy is the right of the Thai people - not the business of the EU... we have our own distinct culture, much of which has evolved around our beloved monarchy…This may be difficult for Europeans to understand: It is our long-held tradition to pay the utmost respect to our King, with a type of respect that is unique to Asian cultures.”
"Is our debate over freedom forever in conflict with Thai culture", by Titipol Phakdeewanich, Prachatai, January 30, 2013
There was initially noticeable silence by Thai organizations such as the toothless National Human Rights Commission or similar domestic institutions. On Sunday, Prachatai reported on the reaction by the Thai Journalists' Association (TJA):
Chavarong Limpatthamapanee, President of the TJA, has been forced to admit that they do ‘support and protect freedom of expression of the media’. But they then ring-fence this support and protection with as many caveats as they hope will protect them from the ultra-royalists. First they circumscribe the right to freedom of expression within Thai law. (...)
The TJA then decides that freedom of expression does not belong to everyone, but only ‘media’ and says there is a debate going on within the TJA over a definition of what does and does not constitute media.
Khun Chavarong offers a novel definition: “What we protect is media that reports objectively, but if any media tries to have a political agenda for certain political groups, then we cannot protect them.”
"To Be Media or Not To Be Media", Prachatai, February 3, 2013
On the heels of the verdict, the Foreign Correspondent's Club of Thailand (FCCT) hosted a panel discussion on lèse majesté with Somyot's wife Sukanya Pruksakasemsuk, Prachatai webmaster Chiranuch Premchaiporn, prolific academic and lèse majesté expert Dr. David Streckfuss and Dr. Tul Sittisomwong, self-proclaimed leader of the ultra-royalist "multicolored-shirt group" and apparently the only one who is regularly willing to stand in a public debate to defend the draconian law (and also in English).
There's been some controversy that the FCCT did not issue a statement on the Somyot verdict - understandable, since the club board has been targeted with a lèse majesté complaint in the past that was utterly politically motivated. However, the club itself defended their decision on the night of the panel discussion by saying that the FCCT is a club and not a journalist's association. Furthermore, (and I am paraphrasing here) the club is there to foster a debate and argument about the issues in Thailand - preferably by Thais themselves and that evening's debate was a good example (as they have done that in the past many, many times).
Whether or not this is enough is another question (for some it is not, but then again never will be) - but it also begs the question that if a statement by the FCCT was made, it would be doubtful how effective it would have been, considering how ferocious hardcore proponents of lèse majesté reject and attack any criticism, especially from abroad (see above).
The debate itself did not bring anything revolutionary to the discourse, but that was not to be expected. However, it was important that debate still exists and also the incomprehensible mess by Dr. Tul was yet again exposed the weak arguments the proponents of LM have. (See a recap of my live-tweeting of the panel discussion here)
And finally, before a football match between the universities of Thammasat and Chulalongkorn on Saturday, students (including Somyot's son) from both sides were seen showing a large banner in the stands saying "FREE SOMYOT" and protesting around the stadium. The public protest happened in the opening ceremony - from which they were forbidden to participate - where giant paper-mache figures lampoon political figures, which was obviously this year prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra.
This is quite remarkable, since students (or young people in general) are not really publicly perceived as being politically interested and active (unlike in the past). And Thammasat University struggling with itself over their stance towards LM - leading to one of the most bizarre sights as journalism students (!) were protesting against the reform of the law.
While the chances for an actual legal change of the lèse majesté law are still unlikely thanks to an unwilling government - despite their red shirt voter base - all these stories show that the public discourse over lèse majesté is very much still alive and ongoing.
Inside view: Thailand's lese majeste law claims latest victim
Originally published at Siam Voices on January 24, 2013
The court room was packed: 200 people filled the largest room the Criminal Court in Bangkok has to offer - journalists, observers from many Western embassies and other interested parties, all eagerly waiting for the session to begin. The general chatter of the crowd was interrupted by an all too familiar sound from the back of the room: metal being dragged on the ground, the sound of the shackles the defendant was wearing as he walked barefoot into the courtroom.
Some people immediately approached him for his opinion. He smiled and said: "What is important is liberty. Without liberty we ought not to live any longer because our human dignity has been degraded."
Others went to wish him good luck. One of them was Thida Tavornseth, chairwoman of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), the red shirt umbrella organization. But there were, like at the previous hearings of this case, very few red shirt supporters even though this is a lèse majesté case.
The accused is Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, a veteran labor activist charged with lèse majesté for publishing two articles deemed insulting to the monarchy in the political magazine 'Voice of Taksin' (sic). He was the editor of the now-defunct publication and not the author of the articles, who has been by now revealed as Jakrapob Penkair, a government spokesperson under the premiership of Thaksin Shinawatra and later a red shirt leader who fled the country after the violent clashes of 2009. He wrote the articles under a pseudonym.
The judges were late: 90 minutes after the scheduled time of 9.30am the session began and they swiftly began reading their verdict by reciting the two articles from early 2010 that were deemed offensive to the monarchy. To most people these passages were new, since in most lèse majesté cases the content of the alleged crime are not publicly disclosed outside the courtroom until the verdict.
While the King or the monarchy were never directly referred to in the articles, the court ruled that there could be only one solid interpretation, and that the articles were insulting to the monarchy. Neither did the judges accept the defense lawyer's argument that Somyot should have been protected under the 2007 Printing Act, which doesn't hold editors responsible for the content of others. Last October, Somyot's petition was rejected by the Constitutional Court, as it upheld the repressive lèse majesté and did not see a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed free speech.
After 50 minutes, the verdict was in: Somyot Prueksakasemsuk was found guilty of lèse majesté. The court sentenced him to 10 years in prison - 5 years for each article - also adding the cancellation of a suspended one-year jail sentence for defamation back in 2009. Having already spent nearly 21 months in detention since his arrest in April 2011 (five days after he collected signatures for a petition to amend the lèse majesté law) and having been rejected bail 12 times, Somyot will be imprisoned for another 11 years. It was a harsher term than most people expected, especially for a crime he didn't commit directly himself.
There was shock, disbelief and anger among the group gathered in the courtroom. Somyot himself remained calm and collected. A young man said to him "We will keep on fighting!" Outside the courtroom, his supporters broke down in tears and lamented the unjust verdict. His lawyer announced right away that he will appeal the verdict, rejecting the 'normal' route of hoping for a royal pardon - a route that will usually result in a significant reduction of time spent in jail.
The international reports came in quickly: BBC, Reuters, Associated Press, New York Times, Al Jazeera, the German media outlets tagesschau.de and die taz - as did the international reactions. The European Union said Thailand's freedom of expression and press freedom was "undermined" by the decision. Human Rights Watch states that Thai courts see themselves now as the "chief protector of the monarchy at the expense of free expression rights", while the US-based Freedom House said the charges send "a chilling atmosphere of fear and self-censorship that severely undermines Thailand’s self-professed commitment to democracy.". The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay was quoted as saying, “the conviction and extremely harsh sentencing of Somyot sends the wrong signals on freedom of expression in Thailand. The court's decision is the latest indication of a disturbing trend in which lese majeste charges are used for political purposes.”
At the time of writing, there were no reactions from national organizations like the National Human Rights Commission or the Thai Journalists' Association, as they haven't made a statements during the entire length of Somyot's incarceration.
This is indeed a worrying verdict for free speech and the press in Thailand, which is progressively going backwards. Not only is it possible to be charged based on an ambiguously worded law; not only can anybody file a lèse majesté complaint against anybody else; not only are prosecutors determined to prove the intention of the accused (despite the lack of evidence in some cases); but now it is also possible to be held liable for other people's content. This is especially true with online content thanks to an equally terrible Computer Crimes Act, where a culture of denunciation is state-sponsored and self-censorship is the norm.
Changes to lèse majesté are unlikely to happen anytime soon, as a reasonable debate about reform is difficult in a climate where some groups feel the need to compete with public displays of loyalty to the monarchy, and the government of prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra is unwilling to even touch the law, despite potentially upsetting their own voter base.
At the end of the trial, the sound of shackles dragging across the floor faded as Somyot was brought out of the court room and back to prison.
Thailand's latest lèse majesté sentencing: intent on trial
Originally published at Siam Voices on January 21, 2013 Thailand's draconian lèse majesté law continues to curb freedom of expression and has arguably reached a new level of arbitrariness with the most recent sentencing:
A Thai court has sentenced a leader of the Red Shirt political movement to two years in prison for a speech judged to have insulted the country’s monarchy.
The court ruled Thursday that 54-year-old Yoswarit Chuklom made a speech insulting the monarchy at a political rally in 2010. The Red Shirts took to the streets in 2010 in political protests that ended with deadly clashes with the military.
"Thai Red Shirt gets jail term for anti-king speech", Associated Press, January 17, 2013
A Thai court today sentenced a government adviser, who helped lead protests in 2010 against former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, to two years in prison for insulting the royal family.
Yossawaris Chuklom, a comedian who goes by the name Jeng Dokjik, received the sentence for comments made in a speech to protesters that implied King Bhumibol Adulyadej influenced Abhisit’s decision not to dissolve the parliament, according to a court statement. The court said it freed him on bail while he appeals the sentence because he showed no intention to flee.
"Thai Comedian Gets Two-Year Prison Sentence for King Insult", Bloomberg, January 17, 2013
While Yossawaris can not be considered as one of the highest-ranking red shirt leaders - of which there were many during the 2010 protests - his sentencing still needs special attention.
In sentencing a former protest leader to two years in prison, a court ruled that the defendant was liable not only for what he said, but also for what he left unsaid.
The criminal court’s ruling said the defendant, Yossawarit Chuklom, had not specifically mentioned the king when he gave a speech in 2010 to a large group of people protesting the military-backed government then in power. But by making a gesture of being muzzled — placing his hands over his mouth — Mr. Yossawarit had insinuated that he was talking about the king, the court ruled. “Even though the defendant did not identify His Majesty the king directly,” the court ruled, Mr. Yossawarit’s speech “cannot be interpreted any other way.”
The court ruled that it was obvious whom Mr. Yossawarit was talking about. During the trial, Thais with no apparent connection to the case were called to the stand and asked to whom they thought he was referring. All of the witnesses said, “The king.”
"In Thailand, a Broader Definition of Insulting Royalty", by Thomas Fuller, New York Times, January 17, 2013
This is indeed a new dimension of how arbitrarily lèse majesté is being applied here, on top of an already ambiguously written law ("insulting, defaming or threatening"): As many other lèse majesté (e.g. Ampon's) or similar cases (e.g. Chiranuch's) have shown, the principle is actually "in dubio contra reo" ("when in doubt, decide against the accused") for many different reasons. Since the presumption of innocence doesn't apply here, the prosecution is mostly not interested in the actual evidence (or the lack of in some cases), but rather in the "intent" of the alleged crime.
David Streckfuss, a Khon Kaen-based academic and expert on the lèse majesté law, wrote in an academic article in 1995 - long before the recent surge of cases - about the rationale of these cases, since "the truth or accuracy of the defendant's words is irrelevant to the case. The defendant's intent is determined by its hypothetical effect" (p. 452). Taking the case of then-Democrat Party secretary general (and later Thai Rak Thai executive and even later red shirt leader) Veera Musikapong from the 1980s, Streckfuss has deduced five 'principles' that highlight the absurd mechanics of this draconian law - here's an excerpt:
The First Principle: Truth and Intent are Subordinated to Presumed Effect
Truth or guilt is determined purely by its effect. In a regular slander case, the central issue is substantiating the truth - that is, a statement of truth that sullies someone's reputation is not slander. If the defense can prove what the defendant said was true, the plaintiff's case is lost, even if that truth has stained his or her character. In lese-majeste cases, however, it is not necessary to substantiate the truth, for the truth of what was said is not at issue. Ascertaining guilt remains at the level of its hypothetical impact, determined by the projected effect the words, if believed to be true, would have on listeners. [...]
The Second Principle: Actual Proof of Lese-Majeste Requires Further Violation of Royal Dignity
"[G]uilt is determined by what the court estimates a safely abstract (and unascertainable) 'people' would feel were they to hear the words and believe them to be true. As a result, the prosecutors have the contradictory task of trying to argue how inflammatory the slanderous remarks are - that they indeed constitute a threat to the security of the state and would cause people to look down on the king or the monarchy - while at the same time maintaining that the words have no such effect on them personally. [...] If a witness for the prosecution, say, admitted that the intended effect of the words - to cause the king to be looked upon negatively - had succeeded in his or her own personal case, this would indeed be a confession, under oath, of lèse-majesté."
“Kings in the Age of Nations – The Paradox of Lèse-Majesté as Political Crime in Thailand”, by David Streckfuss, in: Comparative Studies in Society and History, 1995, vol. 37 (3), pp 445-475 at p 453, 458
As of now, Yossawaris has appealed his sentencing. Meanwhile on Wednesday, the criminal court is expected to read their verdict against veteran labor activist Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, who is charged for editing articles in a news magazine that were deemed insulting to the monarchy. Lèse majesté continues to make headlines in 2013 and those defending it still find it hard to realize that with each case...
"The end result is that the dynamic of this law do more damage to the monarchy than its critics could ever hope."
“Kings in the Age of Nations – The Paradox of Lèse-Majesté as Political Crime in Thailand”, by David Streckfuss, in: Comparative Studies in Society and History, 1995, vol. 37 (3), pp 445-475 at p 473