NHRC subcommittee discusses lèse majesté law

On 18 May, the National Human Rights Commission’s Subcommittee on Civil and Political Rights held a discussion on the lèse majesté law, attended by academics, activists and individuals affected by the law.

Dr Niran Phitakwatchara, Chair of the Subcommittee, said that the Subcommittee was holding the discussion because it had recently received complaints from several parties about the cases of Somsak Jeamteerasakul and Somyos Phrueksakasemsuk.

Sulak Sivarak, who has in the past been charged repeatedly with committing lèse majesté despite claiming to be a royalist, said that the public needed to understand what the monarchy was for in a democracy.  Thai people have never seriously discussed this issue.  If the institution of the monarchy is to be conserved, how can it be maintained for the benefit of the majority of the people, he asked.

He said that the lèse majesté law, or Article 112 of the Criminal Code, had done more harm than good to the institution, and made a reference to the King’s speech on this point.

‘If we’re to maintain the institution, we must stop arresting people.  The latest case is Somsak.  I don’t really have much respect for him, and dislike him in many cases.  But what Somsak has said, especially what was disseminated with the last issue of Fa Diew Kan magazine, is full of wisdom and good intentions toward the institution,’ Sulak said, referring to Somsak’s talk on 10 Dec last year which was distributed as a CD.

Sulak’s own latest case, which involved an interview published by the magazine, has already been dropped because, he said, it has reached the eyes and ears of HM and HM has ordered the case dropped.  However, HM has been ill, and much effort has been made to block things from reaching him, Sulak said.

He said that the lèse majesté law, if it is to remain, would be the greatest hurdle to maintaining the institution, unless it was modified.  For example, any complaints should be made only by the Office of HM’s Principal Private Secretary or the Privy Council and a committee should be set up to take care of this issue, he said.

Somsak Jeamteerasakul, a historian at Thammasat University who has recently been charged under the law, told the meeting about intimidation which had really worried his family.  Two motorcyclists came asking about him twice in his housing estate.  One of them who exchanged his ID card with the security guards was later identified as a soldier when his registration was checked.

‘There’s been pressure.  Throughout the last month, I’ve consulted several people.  Each of them reckoned there was a chance that I could be taken.  One university administrator also said that I would probably be killed someday.   I’ve been fairly scared, but my wife and the rest of my family are much more so,’ he said.

He said that he was preparing his written statement to be submitted to the police, but he felt quite fed up because what was raised in the complaint against him was very weak.  If what he had written in response to Princess Chulabhorn’s interview was against the law, any class teaching Thai modern politics would have to be scrapped as well, he said.

Somsak raised as an example one part of his work which was quoted by the Judge Advocate General's Department in its complaint to support the allegation: according to the principles held by civilized countries today, when public figures express public opinions, the public should be allowed to argue, otherwise it would be unfair.  All public roles and one-sided indoctrination which supports those roles must be subject to criticism, refutation and accountability from the beginning.

With that passage, Somsak was alleged to have accused the King and Queen of being involved in politics.  Somsak said that the point was so weak that he did not know what to write in response to it.

He said that he was luckier than Somyos and others who had been arrested and denied bail.  However, no case should have been brought against him in the first place, as what he wrote did not constitute an offence.  This did not happen out of a normal legal process, but because of political pressure by the military.

He said that human rights activists and the media could help by making the public aware that to speak about or criticize the institution did not constitute an offence.  But Thailand has come to the point that to say anything about the monarchy or the royal family that is different from the official version will be considered an offence, he said.

Worachet Phakirat, a Thammasat law lecture and member of the Nitirassadorn group which has recently proposed amendments to the lèse majesté law, said that it was obvious that Somsak’s case did not constitute the alleged offence, as the Princess is not protected by Article 112 and the police complaint did not clearly show how his articles were offensive toward the King and Queen.

Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, also a Thammasat law lecturer and member of the Nitirassadorn group, suggested that the National Human Rights Commission ask the Constitution Court to consider whether Article 112 was constitutional or a violation of human rights or not, and that the NHRC act as a bail guarantor for those arrested under the law.

Bundit Aniya, a defendant whose case is pending at the Supreme Court, said that Thai people had been so scared by the lèse majesté law that they did not dare speak the truth.  He had been put in jail for a number of days before a foreign academic helped bail him out.  His trial had also been held in secret.

Jitra Khotchadet, former worker for the lingerie-making Triumph Company, told the subcommittee that she had been fired by her employer, with the help of the labour court, for wearing a campaign t-shirt in support of Chotisak Onsoong during her appearance on a television talk show.  Her employer told the court that she had not worn a yellow shirt on Mondays, and the court told her that she lacked the spirit of being Thai.  She had not received any compensation from the company

Prachatai Director Chiranuch Premchaiporn said that the 2007 Computer Crimes Act had been used as an extension of Article 112, and many people had been arrested and denied bail under this law.  She said that it was probably time for Thai society to discuss the issue of prisoners of conscience and how to help them.

David Streckfuss said that from 1992 to 2004 there were on average 5-10 cases a year that reached the Court of First Instance, 30 in 2005, 126 after the coup in 2006, 77 in 2007, and 164 in 2009 which was a record high number in Thailand.  Most defendants chose to confess to the court to end the legal process so that they could later ask for a royal pardon.

During the last 5 years, 40 cases have gone to the Appeals Court and 9 to the Supreme Court.  Before 2004, the court gave guilty verdicts in 94% of the cases.  Streckfuss speculated that there could be over 200 political prisoners in prison.

Bunyuen Prasertying, a former lèse majesté convict who was released on a royal pardon in May 2010, told the subcommittee about her case and her experience inside prison.  ‘Don’t ever fight.  Because you will be harshly punished,’ she advised those facing lèse majesté charges, looking at Somsak who sat opposite her, causing laughter among participants.

Akekachai Hongkangwan, who was arrested for selling CDs of the ABC documentary and WikiLeaks documents, told the subcommittee about his arrest.  He said that he had to put up 500,000 baht bail, which was almost as high as the 600,000 baht bail required for terrorism cases which carry the maximum penalty of death.

Source: 
<p>http://www.prachatai3.info/journal/2011/05/34603</p>

Since 2007, Prachatai English has been covering underreported issues in Thailand, especially about democratization and human rights, despite the risk and pressure from the law and the authorities. However, with only 2 full-time reporters and increasing annual operating costs, keeping our work going is a challenge. Your support will ensure we stay a professional media source and be able to expand our team to meet the challenges and deliver timely and in-depth reporting.

• Simple steps to support Prachatai English

1. Bank transfer to account “โครงการหนังสือพิมพ์อินเทอร์เน็ต ประชาไท” or “Prachatai Online Newspaper” 091-0-21689-4, Krungthai Bank

2. Or, Transfer money via Paypal, to e-mail address: [email protected], please leave a comment on the transaction as “For Prachatai English”