Prachatai English

Solidarity with Somyot Pruksakasemsuk

prachatai — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:11:04 +0000

Choo Chon Kai, Socialist Party of Malaysia

Today, I represent Socialist Party of Malaysia (PSM) here to express our solidarity with labour activist Somyot Pruksakasemsuk, who has been imprisoned without bail since 30 April 2011 and faced charges under lèse-majesté law.

We are deeply concern over the continuous imprisonment, transferring of prison and bail request being denied numerous times.

Somyot is known for his tirelessly work in the workers movement and the establishment of democratic trade unionism in Thailand. In 2007 he became Editor of the Voice of Taksin magazine (now called Red Power), a political publication opposed to military coup. Somyot is the chair of Union of Democratic Labour Alliance and the leader of 24th June democracy group which was formed in the aftermath of military coup September 2006.

Somyot was arrested on 30 April 2011 by the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) by which he was accused for violation of section 112. Somyot’s arrest came only five days after the launch of a petition for a parliamentary review to revoke Section 112 of the Criminal Code, which Somyot claims contradicts democratic and human rights principles. According to a document produced by the public-prosecutor, Somyot is also alleged to have allowed two articles that make negative references to the monarchy to be published in his magazine.

There have been hearing dates for the Prosecutor's witnesses on 21 November 2011, 19 December 2011 and 16 January 2012 in different provinces and today is in Songkla province. These will be followed by dates for the Defendant’s witnesses in Bangkok Criminal Court in May 2012.

We are concerned that the hearings for the Prosecutor's witnesses which being held outside Bangkok in different provinces have put tremendous burden on Somyot and his attorneys as well as participation of trial observers, diplomatic corps, and journalists. We are worried because the moving from prison to prison has threatened Somyot’s health and security.

We are also concerned that Somyot’s application for bail continues to be denied. The authority has yet to provide any adequate justification for the prolonged detention of Somyot. We are in view such measure has severely violated one’s fundamental rights.

We are alarmed by the escalating misuse of the lèse-majesté law to silence social activists and dissidents in the years following the military coup in 2006. We believe the continuous abuses of the lèse-majesté laws are political motivated and detrimental to rebuild democracy in Thailand. Such laws have to be reviewed in accordance to international human rights standards.

We are here to call on the authorities in Thailand to:

1.      Immediately drop all charges against Somyot Prueksakasemsuk and release him unconditionally;
2.      Immediately drop all charges against political activists, journalists and any other individuals based on the lèse-majesté laws and pardon all who are serving sentences under these laws;
3.      Restore freedom of expression and opinion in Thailand for the benefit to rebuild and enhance democracy in Thailand.

THAILAND: Trial of webmaster charged for computer crime resumes tomorrow

prachatai — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:53:51 +0000

Asian Human Human Rights Commission

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is calling for court observers at the resumption of the trial of Chiranuch Premchaiporn, director of the Prachai website, who is being prosecuted under the Computer Crime Act after her arrest in March 2009. The trial of her case, after it was delayed for a variety of reasons, will again resume on February 14 to 16, 2012 at the Criminal Court in Bangkok.

The details about the schedule of trial and the witnesses on which the defense would be presenting are below:

Dates: 14-16 February 2012

Venue: At Court Room 910, the Criminal Court on Ratchadapisek Road, Bangkok

Witnesses for the defense:

1. Professor Sawatree Suksri, lecturer of the Faculty of Law, Department of Criminal Law at the Thammasat University. She is an expert on Computer Crime Law.

2. Professor Jittat Fakcharoenphol, Ph.D, Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Engineering, Kasetsart University. He is an expert on IT Technology

3. Doctor Kitibhoom Chutasmith, Director of Bhusing Hospital, Sri Sakhet Province. Prachatai Webboard user

4. Mr. Wanchat Bhadungrat, Founder of Pantip.com

5. Assistant Professor Pirongrong Ramasoota Rananan, Associate Dean, Department of Graduate Studies, Faculty of Communication Arts, Chulalongkorn University. She is a scholar in Mass Media who researched on the Internet Content Regulations

For details about on which day these witnesses will be testifying:

14 February 2012 (whole day session)
Professor Sawatree, Professor Jittat and Doctor Kitibhoom

15 February 2012 (morning session)
Mr. Wanchat Bhadungrat

16 February 2012 (afternoon Session)
Assistant Professor Pirongrong

For those interested, the court's timetable usually runs 9am to 12am for morning sessions and 1pm to 4pm for afternoon sessions. Simultaneous interpretation will be also be made available for international observers. You can also contact Ms. Kheetanat Wannaboworn at KWANNABOWORN@gmail.com or call +84-899-0509 for more details on the prior arrangement you may require.

You can also read our previous appeals AHRC-FPR-006-2011, containing the details of the previous court trials; and our press release AHRC-PRL-008-2011, containing views and extracts of the report of Margaret Sekkaggya, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, regarding Chiranuch's case:

In her appeal calling for court observers, Chiranuch wrote:

"Three years, are the time I have to live my life being accused of committing a crime under Section 14 and 15 of the Computer Crime Act. Still, I have to continue a life like this without knowing an end. For all these time, I would like to thank you for your assistance, support and keen interest on the trial observation always.

The police arrested me at Prachatai Office on 6 March 2009 while the prosecutor filed the case to the Criminal Court on 31 March 2010. On the latter date, I was detained in the court basement for four hours before THB 300,000 bail was guaranteed by my sister’s career (she is a nurse in the government hospital) as an exchange for my contemporary release. The court then arranged a meeting on 31 May 2010 to investigate the witnesses, collect the evidence as well as decide on the hearing dates.

At first, the hearings were scheduled for eight consecutive days in February 2011 but could only continue for four days with five prosecutor witnesses’ presence. The rest of the witnesses said they were not available on the mentioned dates required the judges, prosecutors, and the lawyers’ team to set up a new hearing schedule from September to October 2011. Due to a large time gap; the composition of the judges in the second period were changed with regards to the annual shift occurred in the bureaucratic system.

In September, the hearings of the prosecutors’ witnesses were completed and the hearings of the Defense witnesses had started including that of myself. In October, massive flooding in Bangkok prevented the continual court trial, Mr. Danny O’Brien from Committee to Protect Journalists who was traveling all the way from San Francisco being the only witness allowed.

At the hearing, an interpreter provided by the court was unable to give an accurate interpretation. The lawyers’ team; as a result, was decided to submit the testimony written by Mr. O’Brien beforehand and would like to postponed the rest of the hearings to 14-16 February, 2012."

Police postpone Kan Thoop’s summons indefinitely

prachatai — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:53:45 +0000

On10 Feb, 19-year-old first-year Thammasat student Kan Thoop (her cyber nickname) learned from reporters that police at Bang Khen Police Station had indefinitely postponed her summons regarding alleged lèse majesté offenses, scheduled for 11 Feb, and the police might decide not to prosecute her.

According to Matichon, Pol Maj Gen Nares Nanthachote, Acting Deputy Commander of Metropolitan Police, who is overseeing the Kan Thoop case, said that the case had been delayed during the floods and personnel in the police investigating team had been changed. On reviewing the case, the police investigators found that there was an issue that needed more investigation from IT experts, and decided to postpone the summoning of the alleged offender.

So far, no charges have yet been made, and this has followed legal procedure, he said.

“The police work in a straightforward manner and everybody is under Thai law. […] At this point, more investigation is underway into several issues, which require asking for clearer information from website experts’, he said.

Pol Maj Gen Nares said that the police needed to verify whether Kan Thoop had really committed the alleged offenses. Before interrogating her, the police first have to collect witnesses and clear evidence.

Kan Thoop told Prachatai that upon learning the news from reporters about the postponement, she was quite surprised and confused as she had not been informed directly by the police. She still felt uncomfortable and uncertain about the prospects for her case.

She decided to cancel all planned activities regarding her case, and would instead go to give moral support to Panitan, the son of Somyot Prueksakaemsuk, who had vowed to go on hunger strike at 4pm for 112 hours in front of the Criminal Court to free his dad.

In conversation with Tai Pruksakasemsuk: 112-hour hunger strike begins on 11-2

prachatai — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 05:38:59 +0000

Suluck Lamubol

“Tai” or Panitan Prueksakasemsuk, only son of Somyot Pruksakasemsuk and a second year student at the Faculty of Law, Thammasat University, announced last month he would go on a 112-hour hunger strike in front of the Criminal Court, lasting from February 11 to February 16, to call on the judges to “free my Dad.”

The announcement came after seven failed attempts to bail his activist father, Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, and multiple letters of complaint filed with various departments and ministries, which yielded no result. Somyot, accused of lèse majesté as editor of Voice of Taksin magazine, has been detained without bail in Bangkok Remand Prison for 10 months since April 2011. He has been on trial since November in Sa Kaew, Phetchabun, Nakhon Sawan, and in February 13 in Songkhla.

Prachatai talks to Tai Prueksakasemsuk, before his 112-hour hunger strike begins.

0000

What made you decide to go on hunger strike in front of the Criminal Court?

I want to call on the court directly. We want to call for my father’s right to bail. That is the main issue I expect the court to hear. I want them to understand that the point we want to make here is that he deserves the right to bail. It doesn’t mean that we want to change, reverse or abolish the court’s decision. I mean, if the court is to change its decision, it can do so according to its own judgment. I just want to do this to protest the court’s decisions to deny my father’s right to bail, which we have already appealed seven times. This is main thing I want to express, if the court has the mercy to hear us, that is. And if the court is to change its decision, it would have to be entirely up to the court.

Do you get to visit your father in prison often?

I usually go there once a week. If I’m not too busy then I get to visit him quite often. In the beginning we talk about moral support, and then he would ask me about legal matters, facts and the case. I would then take his questions to consult with my lecturers at the university. I also bring friends, people, lecturers who know about my father to visit and give him moral support. Later we talk more about the future of his case, and recently I discussed with him mostly about the hunger strike.

What does he say about your upcoming hunger strike?

He didn’t criticize it much. At first, he disagreed. He thinks this should be used as a last resort. Still, he gave me support and some advice. He’s also quite worried.

When did you become interested in activism? Was it before your father’s arrest?

I became involved in activism way before that. I’ve done many activities both inside and outside campus, just about every kind. Whether they are typical university events, like the traditional football matches, parades, volunteer camps, symbolic political activities, organizing academic seminars or protests about hazing, I’ve done them all. So, any activity that has been available for the past 2 years of my student life, really.

As a law student, how do you feel when the law isn’t applied in reality, like in the case of your Dad, who’s supposed to have the right to bail?

That is according to the law, but not in reality. Reality is something we must practise to make it happen, and in legal terms, it is something we have to consider, whether this is just. If it is, then it must apply to everyone equally, and so in reality it should be that way, too.

I don’t feel anything about it, actually. I feel that it is something that should be fixed, but I don’t feel angry or anything. Even though I feel impassive about this mentally, in my heart I feel that it’s unfair, and we need to fix it, become part of the solution. That’s what I’ve always believed in and what I’ve had in mind. However, I won’t use my emotional feelings to judge or in my work.

So how have you prepared yourself for the hunger strike?

I decided on this before I ordained for a month, so I got to practice fasting during that time, because monks only eat one meal per day. After having completed my period in the monkhood, I started having meetings with student groups, and announced what we plan to do. Then we looked for and talked to different groups that could support the activity and consulted about how we should do it. About two weeks ago I tried fasting for about 2 days, I felt a little dizzy as a result.

But the hunger strike will last four days. Aren’t you afraid bad things could happen?

Not really. I’m not afraid at all. I don’t know, I guess I might be stronger than other people, but I feel that life is just life. If you look at the goal of living, it might matter more. If one gets to do what one likes, then it doesn’t matter if you die today or tomorrow. At least I go about my life in the way that I believe in. It’s like when you say you want to become a musician, and now you’re on the path of getting there. It wouldn’t matter of you get hurt or die. So I just want to focus on the outcome, things that I’ve done. That’s all that matters.

What would you do if the court still won’t release your father?

I might continue to do what is needed, but in what form I’m still not sure because I haven’t had that much experience. I’m only 20 years old, so I would look for advice. In terms of student activism, we’ll see what the priority right now is, and then we can work with each other to support our agenda. It also depends on what the situation looks like.

How much do you expect from the court in this hunger strike?

Of course I expect a lot because it’s been quite exhausting preparing myself for this hunger strike. So I expect this will result in something, whether from society or from the court, whose response will depend on its judgment.

What do you want to say to the court?

I respect your decision, because it’s the principle that I should respect. The court must have free judgment. The fact that whoever wants the court to change its mind can carry out hunger strike, is definitely not right, because that would be against the law. But what I want to point out here is justice. It’s like lighting the spark on the lèse majesté prisoners’ right to bail. I want the court to see this fact, and stop their prejudice, no matter what their political stance or opinion might be. They should rethink what is more important, justice or their political opinion. It’s like I’m reminding the court one more time; how they decide will be up to them.

As a matter of fact, some said this hunger strike is to pressure the court. It is not pressuring. If you want pressure you need political power. But in my case, it is symbolic power.

Personally, how much influence has your father had on you in your activism?

Not that much really. My father doesn’t know much about me. When I was in high school, I was president of the student body, and president at the district level youth council. I did so many activities, but my father doesn’t know much about it. He always said I was too busy playing video games and stayed at home too much. I know this because my father told my friend, Kan Thoop (laughs).

Sometimes he even asked me what year I’m studying now, because he doesn’t know. He had a lot of activities to do outside, and barely stayed at home. However, I respect him a lot for his work to contribute to society. It is some sort of direction for me, but he personally didn’t teach me very much.

So most of your interests you just found by yourself?

I have a lot of sources of inspiration. I really liked the movie “Gandhi”. I also have really good teachers that have also become my advisors. They give me moral support. I also like to read, all kinds of books, especially about politics, capitalism, socialism, Dharma and history. Mostly they are books about society.

Threats Against Khana Nitirat "Hate Speech", Say Amnesty International: Kantoop To Report To Police: 'Free Somyot' Hunger Strike at Criminal Court

prachatai — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 04:09:18 +0000

Lisa Gardner

Thai authorities should "vigorously pursue perpetrators of hate speech directed at Nitirat and other peaceful critics," say Amnesty International (AI).

Via email, the international rights group would express concerns that the proposals of the Khana Nitirat are being increasingly met with public incitements to violence.Citing recent comments made by readers of the Thai-language newspaper 'Manager':

… (which) advocate that the members of Nitirat be thrown by soldiers from helicopters; necklaced and burned alive in front of their houses; beheaded with their heads placed on stakes outside Thammasat University; and dealt with on an ‘eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’ basis…

Amnesty International is concerned with many responses to Nitirat and its critics by Thai citizens, which either stifle freedom of expression and academic freedom, or constitute hate speech and incitement to violence.

Earlier in the week, Amnesty called for "the protection of academic freedom" in response to decisions made by university officials at Thammasat and Mahasarakham universities, respectively, to no longer allocate university facilities for public seminars pertaining to Thailand's controversial lese-majeste law.

In this latest statement, Amnesty would direct its concerns for free expression, given these recent incitements, to Thai authorities both "civilian and military" alike:

to promote and protect freedom of expression, rather than attempt to silence dissenting voices. …
Pursuant to Thailand’s status a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The statement comes as today, 19-year old university student Abhinya Sawatvarakorn, nickname 'Kantoop', is expected to report to police later this afternoon. The youngest person to ever face such charges, 'Kantoop' is alleged to have made statements on Facebook back in 2010 deemed to constitute acts of lese-majeste. If convicted for a single such offense, she would face a maximum fifteen-year prison sentence. A subsequent protest calling for the charges against her to be dropped is expected to take place, with local Thammasat University students, outside the police station.

Furthermore, a hunger strike will begin this afternoon at Bangkok's Criminal Court. As Pavin Chachavalpongpun writes:

Panitan “Tai” Pruksakasemsuk is planning a hunger strike to demand justice for his father, Somyot Pruksakasemsuk, a well-known labour activist who has been imprisoned (under charges of lese-majeste) since April 2011. The court has not allowed Somyot to receive bail throughout the prolonged trial period.

Tai will begin a hunger strike for 112 hours, the number corresponding to Article 112. The hunger strike will… (total) four and a half days. He said that his protest will be held peacefully and will not affect the airport’s operation...

(Following which) Tai will attend the hearing of his father’s seventh request for bail at (the Ratchada) Criminal Court.

Malaysia: Don’t Send Saudi Back

prachatai — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 03:45:44 +0000

Human Rights Watch

Faces Likely Death Sentence for Twitter Post

(Washington, DC, February 10, 2012) – The Malaysian authorities should not send a Saudi citizen back to Saudi Arabia to face almost certain conviction and a death sentence on charges of apostasy, Human Rights Watch said today.

Hamza Kashgari fled Saudi Arabia to Malaysia on February 7, 2012, after a storm of outrage erupted over a fictitious conversation between him and the Prophet Muhammad that Kashgari published on his Twitter account. On February 8, an official Saudi religious body declared him to be an apostate for his writings. The body sets out authoritative Islamic law interpretations and although the clerics called for his trial, they also predetermined its outcome.

“Saudi clerics have already made up their up mind that Kashgari is an apostate who must face punishment,” said Christoph Wilcke, senior Middle East researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The Malaysian government should not be complicit in sealing Kashgari’s fate by sending him back.”

Kashgari was on his way to another country when security officials arrested him at Kuala Lumpur airport on February 9, his lawyer, Muhammad Afiq Muhammad Noor, told Human Rights Watch. A friend of Kashgari said he is being held at the Travel Control section in the Bukit Amin neighborhood.

The lawyer said that the police inspector general and the Home Affairs Ministry acknowledged receiving his documents seeking access to his client, but that they had not yet granted permission. The home affairs minister, Hishamuddin Hussein, on February 10, acknowledged that the authorities were holding Kashgari. The friend also said that officials for the United Nations refugee agency, UNHCR, have sought access to Kashgari but so far without success.

Malaysia does not have criminal apostasy laws and Kashgari has not violated Malaysian law, the lawyer said. He questioned the legality of Kashgari’s detention and any attempt to extradite him to Saudi Arabia. Malaysia and Saudi Arabia do not have an extradition treaty, Malaysian lawyers said, but it appears that Kashgari is being held based on a request from Saudi Arabia, which issued an arrest warrant for him.

Saudi Arabia does not have written criminal laws. Apostasy is not a clearly defined criminal offense, but it is one of about six so-called crimes against God (hadd, plural hudud) for which the Quran sets out specified punishments, including the death penalty. Saudi Arabia has sentenced and executed people for this offense.

In a separate case, on February 7, the government released Hadi Al Mutif, a member of the Ismaili religious minority in Najran, a southern province bordering Yemen, after he expressed remorse to chief mufti Abd al-‘Aziz Al al-Shaikh over alleged insults to the Prophet Muhammad.

Al Mutif was arrested in late 1993 and sentenced to death for apostasy in 1996 after a patently unfair trial and remained under the death sentence until his release. Al Mutif told Human Rights Watch in 2006 that secret police beat him and deprived him of sleep during interrogation and that at trial, a witness physically assaulted him.

“If Kashgari is not presumed innocent, he can hardly expect a fair trial if returned to Saudi Arabia,” Wilcke said. “Malaysia should save him from any travesties of justice and allow him to seek safety in a country of his choice.”

Detention of Saudi Writer for Twitter Posts Raises Concerns

prachatai — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 03:37:54 +0000

Freedom House

Washington - February 10, 2012 - Freedom House is deeply concerned about the detention by Malaysian authorities of Saudi writer Hamza Kashgari, who fled Saudi Arabia to escape death threats for allegedly insulting the prophet Mohammad on Twitter. The 23-year-old Kashgari is at imminent risk of extradition to Saudi Arabia, where he faces charges of blasphemy that can carry the death penalty.

On Saturday, February 4, Kashgari posted a series of introspective tweets about the Prophet Mohammad on the prophet’s birthday, prompting personal attacks on social media from Saudi citizens and religious figures, and calls for his execution. Although Kashgari removed the posts and apologized for any offense, the Saudi government issued an official call for his detention, prompting him to flee the country. He was detained February 9 in the Kuala Lumpur airport after Saudi officials tracked his travel plans. He has been denied access to legal counsel during his detention in Malaysia, which also has anti-blasphemy laws that carry severe penalties.

“This case is yet another example of the dangers blasphemy laws pose. It is particularly disturbing to see Saudi Arabia attempting to extend its censorship outside its borders,” said Courtney Radsch, program manager for the Global Freedom of Expression Campaign at Freedom House. “Freedom House urges the Malaysian government to reject Saudi calls for his extradition and release Kashgari immediately.”

There is no formal extradition agreement between Saudi Arabia and Malaysia, and negotiations to determine Kashgari’s fate are ongoing. The Saudi government has put out a warrant for Kashgari’s arrest, which reports say came directly from the King, and its Fatwa Council has issued a fatwa, or religious edict, calling him an apostate and calling for his prosecution. His Twitter feed has been deleted, although it is not clear by whom.

The musings of Kashgari are not the first time social media postings have led to accusations of blasphemy or apostasy. Earlier this week, Indonesian police charged a civil servant with blasphemy for insulting Islam and writing “God doesn’t exist” on Facebook and in December 2011 Saudi Arabia beheaded a woman convicted of witchcraft. In 2010, Pakistan shut down YouTube and Facebook and called for Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to be tried for blasphemy because of an online contest encouraging users to draw cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.

Saudi Arabia is ranked Not Free in Freedom in the World 2011, Freedom House's survey of political rights and civil liberties, Not Free in Freedom of the Press 2011 and Not Free in Freedom on the Net 2011, Freedom House’s global assessment of internet and digital media freedom. Malaysia is ranked Partly Free in Freedom in the World 2011, Not Free in Freedom of the Press 2011, and Partly Free in Freedom on the Net 2011. Both countries were profiled in a report examining the pernicious impact of blasphemy laws on a range of human rights.

Joint Open Letter to Thailand's authorities: Upcoming trials of human rights defenders Somyot Prueksakasemsuk and Chiranuch Premchaiporn

prachatai — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 03:25:23 +0000

International human rights group have jointly sent an open letter to Thailand's Prime Minister and authorities, regarding the trials of Somyot Prueksakasemsuk and Chiranuch Premchaiporn which will resume next week.

000

H.E. Yingluck Shinawatra,
Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Thailand
Office of the Prime Minister

Government House
Thanon Phitsanulok, Dusit
Bangkok 10300

Thailand

10 February 2012

Re: Thailand - Upcoming trials of human rights defenders Somyot Prueksakasemsuk and Chiranuch Premchaiporn

Your Excellency,

We, the undersigned independent human rights organizations, write to you to reiterate our serious concerns about the ongoing use of the lèse majesté law, particularly against human rights defenders, and its deleterious effect on fundamental freedoms. We deeply regret the continued resistance by members of the Thai government, including high-level members of your Cabinet, political parties, and the military, to enter into a reasoned, broad-based debate of the necessary reforms of the lèse majesté law in order to improve Thailand’s observance of its obligations under international human rights law and constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and fair trial rights, including the right to bail.

Next week, two high-profile lèse majesté trials will resume and Thailand’s failure to respect freedom of speech and fair trial standards will again be placed under public scrutiny.

The hearings of the trial of Ms. Chiranuch Premchaiporn, a known advocate for freedoms of expression and the media and Executive Director of the online news website Prachatai, will resume on 14 February and conclude on 16 February. She is facing ten counts of charges of violations of Article 15 of the 2007 Computer Crimes Act and Article 112 of the Criminal Code on lèse majesté for allegedly not removing quickly enough anonymous third-party posts deemed offensive to the monarchy on a public forum on the Prachatai website. Chiranuch faces up to 20 years imprisonment if found guilty.

The trial of Mr. Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, long time labour rights activist and Editor of Voice of the Oppressed (Voice of Taksin), who is facing charges of lèse majesté for the publication of two articles that allegedly made negative references to the monarchy, has been detained since 30 April 2011. Somyot’s trial started in November 2011 and continues on 13 February in Songkhla province. He is facing a maximum of 30 years' imprisonment if found guilty. Following the 13 February hearing, the Defence witnesses will be called to appear before the Bangkok Criminal Court on 18-20 April 2012, 24-26 April 2012, and 1-4 May 2012.

We are troubled by the fact that the three previous hearings of Somyot’s trial have all been held outside Bangkok, in Sa Kaeo, Petchabun and Nakorn Sawan provinces. Somyot reports that he had to stand up throughout the transfers between trials in an overcrowded truck, with his ankles shackled and without access to rest room facilities. Somyot suffers from hypertension and gout, a painful condition that affects the joints. While in Petchabun province, he was moved to the prison infirmary due to aggravation of his medical conditions.

A number of prosecution witnesses in fact work and live in Bangkok, although their original registered residences are in the provinces. On 12 September 2011, the Criminal Court rejected Somyot’s lawyer’s request to hold hearings in Bangkok. Three other similar subsequent requests put forward to the Sakaeo, Petchabun and Nakorn Sawan Courts were also denied.

We reiterate our concern that the holding of the trials from province to province places undue physical and psychological burden on Somyot and his family. The transfers also undermine his fair trial rights, including the right to a speedy trial considering there are ten more hearings scheduled up to 4 May, by which time he will have been in detention for over a year. We are disturbed that Somyot’s application for bail has been denied for the 7th time on 6 February. The authorities have still not provided an adequate justification for his continued detention or a legally sound explanation as to why less restrictive and non-custodial measures are not sufficient to prevent flight and non-tampering with evidence. The repetition of the ill-defined concept of “national security” as a ground for rejecting the bail applications of those charged under the lèse majesté laws reinforces the perception that the criminalization of speech, a common practice by authoritarian regimes to silence criticisms, is increasingly becoming a tool of institutionalized oppression in Thailand, including against those documenting human rights violations.

In light of the numerous commitments to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms made by Thailand under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and during the Universal Periodic Review of its human rights record in October 2011, we strongly urge the Thai authorities to:

1 Immediately grant Somyot Prueksakasemsuk his constitutional right to bail, in accordance with fair trial standards under domestic and international law;

2 Request the court to refrain from bringing new charges against individuals under the lèse majesté laws pending a comprehensive review of the said laws;

3 Immediately drop all charges against Chiranuch Premchaiporn, Somyot Prueksakasemsuk and all other human rights defenders based on the lèse majesté laws and, more generally, guarantee in all circumstances that all human rights defenders in Thailand, especially those working on freedoms of expression and the media, are able to carry out their legitimate human rights activities without fear of reprisals and free of all restrictions, including judicial harassment, in line with the UN Declaration on the Rights and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

4. Facilitate the review of the lèse majesté laws by the Law Reform Commission and the National Human Rights Commission’s working group on the lèse majesté law with an aim to develop concrete proposals to bring the relevant laws into line with Thailand's international human rights obligations, as recommended by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression;

5. Encourage and foster a civil, reasoned and public debate regarding the need to amend the lèse majesté laws and cease to portray respect for the universally recognized freedom of expression and opinion as contradictory to the protection of the monarchy;

6. Honor its voluntary pledge made at the UPR to issue a standing invitation to UN human rights experts by inviting the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression and the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders to visit Thailand at the earliest instance.

Yours Sincerely,

Souhayr Belhassen
President
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)

Gail Davidson
Executive Director
Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada

Brittis Edman
Programme Director, Southeast Asia
Civil Rights Defenders

Gerald Staberock
Secretary General
World Organisation against Torture (OMCT)

Arjan van der Waal
Programme Director
Protection International

Yap Swee Seng
Executive Director
Asian Forum on Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)

Copied to:

H.E. Mr. Pracha Promnok
Minister of Justice of Thailand

H.E. Mr. Suraphong Towijakchaikun
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand

H.E. Mr. Yongyuth Wichaidit
Minister of the Interior of Thailand

Mr. Jullasingha Wasantasingha
Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General of Thailand

Ms. Amara Pongsapich
Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand

Mr. Kanit na Nakorn
Chairperson of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Thailand

Mr. Kanit na Nakorn
Chairperson of the Law Reform Commission of Thailand

Mr Jon Ongpakon
Chairperson of the Working Group to Amend the Computer Crimes Act and Lèse Majesté Law
National Human Rights Commission of Thailand

H.E. Mr. Pisanu Chanvitan
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
Permanent Representative of Thailand to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva

HG is behind all political turmoil in Thailand

prachatai — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:52:10 +0000

Harrison George

A shadowy figure identified only by the acronym HG has been behind all the political turmoil in Thailand, including unconstitutional statements from the military, dubious court verdicts and anything that Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung might say or do. This was all a plot to create mass insanity in the country so that he could continue writing satirical articles about Thailand.

This is the explosive claim of a Marxist-Anarchist-Nationalist-Rightist writing under the pen-name of ‘Yuk Khat-ariya’, a staunch supporter of the People’s Alliance for Demagoguery. Speaking on a satellite TV programme, he said that as a satirist, HG was so afraid of increasing normalcy in Thailand that he wanted to stop it.

In the incident at Krue Se mosque, despite a clear order from Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyut, then Deputy Prime Minister of the Thaksin Shinawatra government, Gen Panlop Pinmanee, then Deputy Director of the Internal Security Operations Command ordered military troops to attack the insurgents allegedly hiding inside the mosque. This assault was in fact a provocation by HG in an attempt to show that the government, even with powerful military figures in it, could not tell soldiers what to do and that civilian control over the military was a complete farce.

‘As a result of this and similar irresponsible, counter-productive and possibly criminal actions by the military, all secretly instigated by HG, he has been able to eke out a pathetic living from writing scathing articles about the Thai armed forces. And also about the government, though this is less important.’

Yuk Khat-ariya also suspected that HG was behind the coup in 2006. It had all the hallmarks of a satirical conspiracy, he said, even down the decision of the coup-makers to call themselves the Council for Democratic Reform when they had just undemocratically overthrown a democratically elected government. ‘Also, the government they then installed was a complete joke, a satirist’s dream’, said Yuk.

He believed that HG was employing a ‘humiliate and mock’ strategy. He would convince leading figures in Thai politics of the truth of some outlandish claim and then provoke them into issuing a public statement that out of context would appear hysterical. He would then ridicule these statements in his articles, all for personal gain.

It was hard to believe, he said, that HG did not realize that satire was poorly understood in Thailand and that most Thais would believe every word he wrote. ‘It may be just a laugh to him’, said Yuk, ‘but he is damaging the faith of the public in the people who are their natural leaders. How will the ordinary people maintain their faith in the ruling elite to do what is best for them?’ he ambiguously asked.

Some Thai intellectuals had been seduced by HG’s silvery style. This could be traced back to their fluency in English and ability to understand ‘hidden’ meanings, all of which was an unfortunate result of being educated abroad.

‘The Thai education does not teach anyone how to read between the lines,’ said Yuk, ‘so when HG instigates Sondhi Limthongkul into saying that US energy and financial capitalists are bankrolling Nitirat in order to overthrow the monarchy so that the US can exploit oil reserves in the South China Sea, well, people think it’s all true.’

The Department of Special Investigation had been asked to specially investigate the activities of HG. ‘We decided to start by trying to find out who he is’, said a Department official. ‘We worked on the theory that “HG” might be the initials of his name. We thought we had found him when we discovered there was a writer with these initials who had tried to fool us by leaving off the last part of his name. Unfortunately we then discovered that HG Wells has been dead for quite a long time.’

The DSI however believe they are closing in their man. ‘We suspect that, because he seems to write only in English, he may be a foreigner. But then again he seems to know a lot about Thailand and we know that this is impossible for non-Thais. Maybe he’s a luk khrueng or something.’

When contacted by Prachatai, HG laughed off these charges. ‘Are they out of their minds?’ he asked. ‘The hardest thing for a satirist in Thailand is how to ridicule the already ridiculous.’

Thailand: Protect academic freedom at university

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

Amnesty International

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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