Thai Group helping lese majeste detainees upset with media, govt | The Nation
Pravit Rojanaphruk, The Nation on Sunday December 2, 2012
Nearly half a year ago, a group of family members affected by the
controversial lese majeste law decided to form The Network of Family
Members and Peoples Affected by Article 112.
This, they believed, was necessary as they felt not enough is being
done to guarantee justice for those detained under the law while
censorship and the curbs to freedom of expression are not adequately
raised and discussed in society.
When the network launched itself, only Thailand's two-English language
newspapers paid interest while the Thai-language papers ignored their
formation. It is symptomatic of how the media and society warily treat
the issue of lese majeste law, said 45-year-old Sukanya Prueksakasemsuk,
wife of lese majeste detainee Somyos Prueksakemsuk.
"There are more foreigners who pay attention to the formation of our
network," said the mild-speaking Sukanya, a private company employee,
who had to learn about political activism from scratch after the group
was formed to partly help her husband who has been behind bars for more
than a year without bail. Sukanya cited a German radio journalist
interviewing the group and a journalist from France. "Hardly any Thai
media," she added.
That hasn't stop the group, with 18 members, to meet once a month and
hold activities highlighting what they believe to be infringement of
basic legal rights such as the denial of bail to most lese majeste
detainees, and more.
One new member of the group knows this well; Surapak Phuchaisaeng was
released from prison just at the end of last month after the court threw
out his lese majeste case due to insufficient evidence. Surapak, 40, a
computer programmer, was denied bail eight times while fighting the
case.
He said that while he was in prison, the network visited him and other
prisoners of conscience twice or three times a week, offering food and
bringing news about the outside world as well as moral support that
sustained him and others. The support the network proved invaluable, he
said.
"I decided to join the network myself [after being released from jail]
because we share the same predicament," Surapak, who is still trying to
recover from life in jail, told The Nation on the phone from Buengkarn
province. Surapak criticised the recent decision by the Pheu
Thai-dominated Parliament to refuse to debate a proposed amendment of
the law as an act of "cowardice" and said people will probably have to
wait for a new parliament.
"What kind of system does this country have if Parliament dare not
discuss laws pertaining to the monarchy institution?" asked Surapak,
adding that in the future the network will seek
to identify political parties that will openly support the amendment of the law, which now
carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment.
Sukanya said even if there's very little or no hope to see the law
amended, she and others hope that the seven prisoners of conscience,
including her husband, will have the right to get bail. She visited her
husband once a week and clung to the hope that Somyos will be found not
guilty when the court will hand the verdict on December 19, so she can
celebrate the New Year with him.
Showing posts with label Pravit Rojanaphruk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pravit Rojanaphruk. Show all posts
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Somsak 'Pessimistic' about Lese Majeste Law Fight | Prachatai English
Somsak 'Pessimistic' about Lese Majeste Law Fight | Prachatai English
Pravit Rojanaphruk, December 1, 2012
Well-known Thammasat historian Somsak Jeamteerasakul said he was both surprised and appalled by the decision of police to forward his lese majeste police complaint case to the Office of the Attorney General (OAG).
Somsak, who lectures at Thammasat University, said on the phone that since the complaint lodged against him was made by the “influential” Thai Army, the case which first surfaced last year, is unlikely to be dropped.
He insisted that he did not violate the controversial lese majeste law, which carries a maximum imprisonment term of 15 years, because he criticized Princess Chulabhorn who is not an heir apparent and thus not protected under the law.
Somsak requested and was permitted to defer his appearance to the OAG from to a date yet to be set in December in order to prepare his legal fight. “The prosecutor could arrest me [on that day], however,” said Somsak. “Lese majeste is a kind of legal case that has no way out. I look at it very pessimistically.”
The historian also criticized the House of Representatives and the Yingluck Shinawatra administration for not doing anything to amend the law, thus allowing the climate of fear to persist.
He said members of the campaign to amend to law must have been caught “clueless” by the recent rejection by the House to even debate the law. “The government is totally silent. The government has not even left a room,” said Somsak, who enjoys a large following for his writings critical of the law and the monarchy institution.
There are currently at least seven people detained under the law with hundreds more in the process of possibly being charged or having received police complaints made against them.
Pravit Rojanaphruk, December 1, 2012
Well-known Thammasat historian Somsak Jeamteerasakul said he was both surprised and appalled by the decision of police to forward his lese majeste police complaint case to the Office of the Attorney General (OAG).
Somsak, who lectures at Thammasat University, said on the phone that since the complaint lodged against him was made by the “influential” Thai Army, the case which first surfaced last year, is unlikely to be dropped.
He insisted that he did not violate the controversial lese majeste law, which carries a maximum imprisonment term of 15 years, because he criticized Princess Chulabhorn who is not an heir apparent and thus not protected under the law.
Somsak requested and was permitted to defer his appearance to the OAG from to a date yet to be set in December in order to prepare his legal fight. “The prosecutor could arrest me [on that day], however,” said Somsak. “Lese majeste is a kind of legal case that has no way out. I look at it very pessimistically.”
The historian also criticized the House of Representatives and the Yingluck Shinawatra administration for not doing anything to amend the law, thus allowing the climate of fear to persist.
He said members of the campaign to amend to law must have been caught “clueless” by the recent rejection by the House to even debate the law. “The government is totally silent. The government has not even left a room,” said Somsak, who enjoys a large following for his writings critical of the law and the monarchy institution.
There are currently at least seven people detained under the law with hundreds more in the process of possibly being charged or having received police complaints made against them.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Thailand: Deaths from stray bullets 'shock' group | The Nation Thailand
Thailand: Deaths from stray bullets 'shock' group | The Nation Thailand
The Nation Thailand, September 2, 2012
I was rather shocked by the many 'stray' deaths, of those who had nothing to do with the protests but were hit by stray bullets.
Many think that death and violence occurred after the burning of buildings [on May 19], but we discovered that military operations began from May 14 onwards, and on that day, 11 persons in Bon Kai, Lumpini Park and Rajprarop Road areas were killed. A senior military officer with the pen name Hua-na Kuang wrote in an Army journal [in 2010] about the 'success' of the military operation that it is credited to the use of live bullets against protesters. This is likely the reason why many were hit by stray bullets.
As for the so-called 'men in black', there is no clarity as to who they were and even the [Abhisit Vejjajiva] government has failed to trace them. Also, deaths and injuries occurred on the afternoon of April 10, [2010], before the claim by the Abhisit administration and the Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES) that it occurred in the evening [after clashing with 'men in black'].
The [Abhisit] government says those who died were terrorists but in the evidence we gathered, we discover no traces of gunpowder on the hands of any of those killed.
What about the deployment of Army snipers?
There are so many video clips on the Internet showing many soldiers using telescopic guns. This explains why almost 30 per cent of the deaths resulted from bullet wounds on their heads. And if combined with another 22 per cent who died from gunshot wounds on the chest, the figure is above 50 per cent. This is no shooting for self-defence [as claimed by the Abhisit government].
Who do you think ought to be responsible for all these deaths?
The mastermind, the head of the government, the one who gave orders at the CRES and the person/s who came up with Army strategy. It is the responsibility of those who employed military means to disperse the protest and failed to control it.
Your group is regarded as sympathetic to red-shirt demonstrators. Would this not affect the credibility of your findings?
We are not surprised by the accusation. But what we want society to consider is the information we are presenting, and in many cases point to the excessive use of force and not in line with what the government or CRES claimed.
Even if you have all the military might and the law, you have no right to violate the right to life of protesters who had no lethal weapons and fought against the government. None of those maimed or killed appeared to carry lethal weapons.
You are also pessimistic about two other fact-finding reports soon to be released by the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Why?
The TRCT is still confused between the issue of finding the truth and reconciliation. It appears that they fear that the truth may hinder reconciliation. As for the NHRC, we hope that it will apply human rights principles equally on both sides and not use human rights principle to defend the [Abhisit] government's use of indiscriminate force.
Also, while many protesters have been detained before verdicts were given, and some have been acquitted, the trial of Abhisit [and his people] has yet to begin. Not even one.
It seems that different groups in Thai society already have their own conclusions as to what happened in 2010.
We do not expect society to change their conclusion. Whether the information we gathered will be beneficial or not will depend on political change in the future. Then the culprits will be punished.
Are you not confident that state impunity will end?
I have no confidence. But we can't just sit idly and do nothing. We hope that if we do not accept [state impunity] then it will be shaken. What we are doing is to challenge the culture of impunity.
The Nation Thailand, September 2, 2012
After two years, the People's Information Centre (PIC), a group of activists and academics who seek to end state impunity in relation to the 2010 crackdown on red-shirt protesters, is releasing its report, titled "Truth for Justice: Events and Impact on the Dispersal of Protests in April-May 2010". The group claims there were 94 deaths from all sides. Pravit Rojanaphruk talks to PIC coordinator and co-editor of the report, Puangthong Pawakapan, about what they discovered. Excerpts:
What did you discover that might change the way society looks at the incidents?I was rather shocked by the many 'stray' deaths, of those who had nothing to do with the protests but were hit by stray bullets.
Many think that death and violence occurred after the burning of buildings [on May 19], but we discovered that military operations began from May 14 onwards, and on that day, 11 persons in Bon Kai, Lumpini Park and Rajprarop Road areas were killed. A senior military officer with the pen name Hua-na Kuang wrote in an Army journal [in 2010] about the 'success' of the military operation that it is credited to the use of live bullets against protesters. This is likely the reason why many were hit by stray bullets.
As for the so-called 'men in black', there is no clarity as to who they were and even the [Abhisit Vejjajiva] government has failed to trace them. Also, deaths and injuries occurred on the afternoon of April 10, [2010], before the claim by the Abhisit administration and the Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES) that it occurred in the evening [after clashing with 'men in black'].
The [Abhisit] government says those who died were terrorists but in the evidence we gathered, we discover no traces of gunpowder on the hands of any of those killed.
What about the deployment of Army snipers?
There are so many video clips on the Internet showing many soldiers using telescopic guns. This explains why almost 30 per cent of the deaths resulted from bullet wounds on their heads. And if combined with another 22 per cent who died from gunshot wounds on the chest, the figure is above 50 per cent. This is no shooting for self-defence [as claimed by the Abhisit government].
Who do you think ought to be responsible for all these deaths?
The mastermind, the head of the government, the one who gave orders at the CRES and the person/s who came up with Army strategy. It is the responsibility of those who employed military means to disperse the protest and failed to control it.
Your group is regarded as sympathetic to red-shirt demonstrators. Would this not affect the credibility of your findings?
We are not surprised by the accusation. But what we want society to consider is the information we are presenting, and in many cases point to the excessive use of force and not in line with what the government or CRES claimed.
Even if you have all the military might and the law, you have no right to violate the right to life of protesters who had no lethal weapons and fought against the government. None of those maimed or killed appeared to carry lethal weapons.
You are also pessimistic about two other fact-finding reports soon to be released by the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Why?
The TRCT is still confused between the issue of finding the truth and reconciliation. It appears that they fear that the truth may hinder reconciliation. As for the NHRC, we hope that it will apply human rights principles equally on both sides and not use human rights principle to defend the [Abhisit] government's use of indiscriminate force.
Also, while many protesters have been detained before verdicts were given, and some have been acquitted, the trial of Abhisit [and his people] has yet to begin. Not even one.
It seems that different groups in Thai society already have their own conclusions as to what happened in 2010.
We do not expect society to change their conclusion. Whether the information we gathered will be beneficial or not will depend on political change in the future. Then the culprits will be punished.
Are you not confident that state impunity will end?
I have no confidence. But we can't just sit idly and do nothing. We hope that if we do not accept [state impunity] then it will be shaken. What we are doing is to challenge the culture of impunity.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Thailand: Beware the perils of selective history | The Nation
Thailand: Beware the perils of selective history | The Nation
Pravit Rojanaphruk, The Nation, June 13, 2012
The past is always subject to editing, omission, co-optation and selective memorisation.
This was manifested recently when the red shirts flocked to listen to their leaders' speeches at Muang Thong Thani's Thunder Dome. Before people like Jatuporn Promphan and Nattawut Saigua took the stage, a video showing how resistance to the September 19, 2006, military coup took shape was screened.
Conveniently omitted or edited out was the crucial role of the September 19 Network Against the Coup, which was a mixed bag of anti-Thaksin democracy activists who decided they had to come out and oppose the coup, which ousted Thaksin anyway.
The half-dozen or so members of the network include Thanapol Eiwsakul, editor of the leftist Fah Diew Kan magazine; Chotisak On-soong, a political activist who later became infamous for his refusal to stand up for the royal anthem at a Bangkok cinema; and Sombat Boon-ngam-anong, who later inspired the use of the colour red to oppose the junta-sponsored 2007 charter.
Thanapol and Chotisak are not red shirts and the fact that such people got out to oppose the coup even before any pro-Thaksin figures did made the simplistic us-versus-them history problematic.
A more simplistic plot of us versus them is needed and ordinary red shirts are being directed to remember only the deeds of their current leaders who came out much later.
Even Sombat, the man who inspired the adoption of red and the leader of the Red Sunday Group, is often regarded by some reds with suspicion because he dares to criticise Thaksin Shinawatra publicly when he thinks criticism is merited.
The attempt by the red-shirt movement to use June 24 as the date for its next show-of-force street demonstration is another bid to invoke the past and bathe itself in the aura of The Promoters, who led the revolt that ended absolute monarchy 80 years ago on June 24, 1932.
Whether people like Pridi Banomyong, the late co-leader of the revolt, would approve of the use of such a symbolic date, we may never know, but the attempted co-optation is there for all to contemplate. The past cannot defend itself from omission or co-optation, especially when the people involved are no longer alive.
If we look at the present, we can see that countless things occur each day and so it is impossible to record them all or retell all of them at a later time. History is thus already selective by default, but those who selectively remember or narrate events for political gain make history their "tool" to help them shape the present and the future.
One must be wary when history is invoked, or told in a simplistic manner and without irony or complexity. It is easier to fan passions than encourage understanding - especially when history is told by those who stand to gain something from it.
In a similar fashion, the history of the massacre of October 6, 1976, when a right-wing mob lynched dozens of suspected communist sympathisers, mostly university students, and left many dead is often edited out of the collective memory of royalists.
Be wary of just one version of sanitised history. Be aware of the hegemonic power of history telling. The red-shirt leaders have their own take on anti-coup history. Contrasting versions of the past - laid bare before the public to debate and discuss - are always preferable to one version of history, red or not red, royalist or republican.
All these explain why history often tells us more about those who control and narrate the historic "tale" than about what had really happened in the past.
At times, the task of narrating the past can be like writing a better-than-reality job resume - only the positive parts are put on paper while those that diminish the cogency or unity of the message are often edited out.
Pravit Rojanaphruk, The Nation, June 13, 2012
The past is always subject to editing, omission, co-optation and selective memorisation.
This was manifested recently when the red shirts flocked to listen to their leaders' speeches at Muang Thong Thani's Thunder Dome. Before people like Jatuporn Promphan and Nattawut Saigua took the stage, a video showing how resistance to the September 19, 2006, military coup took shape was screened.
Conveniently omitted or edited out was the crucial role of the September 19 Network Against the Coup, which was a mixed bag of anti-Thaksin democracy activists who decided they had to come out and oppose the coup, which ousted Thaksin anyway.
The half-dozen or so members of the network include Thanapol Eiwsakul, editor of the leftist Fah Diew Kan magazine; Chotisak On-soong, a political activist who later became infamous for his refusal to stand up for the royal anthem at a Bangkok cinema; and Sombat Boon-ngam-anong, who later inspired the use of the colour red to oppose the junta-sponsored 2007 charter.
Thanapol and Chotisak are not red shirts and the fact that such people got out to oppose the coup even before any pro-Thaksin figures did made the simplistic us-versus-them history problematic.
A more simplistic plot of us versus them is needed and ordinary red shirts are being directed to remember only the deeds of their current leaders who came out much later.
Even Sombat, the man who inspired the adoption of red and the leader of the Red Sunday Group, is often regarded by some reds with suspicion because he dares to criticise Thaksin Shinawatra publicly when he thinks criticism is merited.
The attempt by the red-shirt movement to use June 24 as the date for its next show-of-force street demonstration is another bid to invoke the past and bathe itself in the aura of The Promoters, who led the revolt that ended absolute monarchy 80 years ago on June 24, 1932.
Whether people like Pridi Banomyong, the late co-leader of the revolt, would approve of the use of such a symbolic date, we may never know, but the attempted co-optation is there for all to contemplate. The past cannot defend itself from omission or co-optation, especially when the people involved are no longer alive.
If we look at the present, we can see that countless things occur each day and so it is impossible to record them all or retell all of them at a later time. History is thus already selective by default, but those who selectively remember or narrate events for political gain make history their "tool" to help them shape the present and the future.
One must be wary when history is invoked, or told in a simplistic manner and without irony or complexity. It is easier to fan passions than encourage understanding - especially when history is told by those who stand to gain something from it.
In a similar fashion, the history of the massacre of October 6, 1976, when a right-wing mob lynched dozens of suspected communist sympathisers, mostly university students, and left many dead is often edited out of the collective memory of royalists.
Be wary of just one version of sanitised history. Be aware of the hegemonic power of history telling. The red-shirt leaders have their own take on anti-coup history. Contrasting versions of the past - laid bare before the public to debate and discuss - are always preferable to one version of history, red or not red, royalist or republican.
All these explain why history often tells us more about those who control and narrate the historic "tale" than about what had really happened in the past.
At times, the task of narrating the past can be like writing a better-than-reality job resume - only the positive parts are put on paper while those that diminish the cogency or unity of the message are often edited out.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Amphon's death challenges both red shirts and the govt - prachatai.com
Amphon's death challenges both red shirts and the govt - prachatai.com
Pravit Rojanaphruk, The Nation
The death of lese majeste detainee Amphon "Akong" Tangnoppakul, also known as "Uncle SMS", inside Bangkok Remand Prison Hospital on Monday has re-ignited hopes of amending the draconian lese majeste law.
Some 300 people attended the controversial placing of his body in front of the Bangkok Criminal Court on Wednesday and vented their anger against the law they perceived as an obstacle preventing them from attaining a basic right to freedom of expression.
Well-known red-shirt writer Wat Wayangoon asked the gathering if Thais were not being treated like humans when it came to freedom of expression about anything critical of the monarchy.
At the same venue, red-shirt Pheu Thai MP Jaruphan Kuldiloke talked about legally protected rights in England and how Thailand has yet to achieve anything similar. And political scientist Paungthong Pawakapan, a key member of the Public Campaign Committee to Amend the lese majeste law, announced in front of Amphon's body that enough signatures had been collected to push the proposed amendment before Parliament.
It must not be forgotten, however, that Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has insisted repeatedly her administration will not touch the lese majeste law.
Even Jaruphan was soft, almost apologetic on Wednesday, in front of the crowd of angry mourners wondering why this government was not doing anything - meekly suggesting they should try again to convince government MPs.
It's no secret a large percentage of the red-shirt movement is opposed to the draconian law, ever since the military coup on September 19, 2006, which ousted Thaksin Shinawatra. Many Thaksin supporters who subsequently became red shirts question the role of Privy Council President General Prem Tinsulanond in the coup, and more.
In private conversations, some-red shirt leaders try to defend Yingluck's position that the government won't touch the law - saying the government can't start a war on too many fronts, or by saying the government doesn't really have the power to push for such change and it could risk a military coup by insisting on it.
In public,however, there's a visible attempt to forge a truce between the old and new elites as well.
Nevertheless, yesterday, the red-shirt movement, the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship, sponsored the first night of the funeral rite for Amphon at Wat Dan Samrong in Samut Prakarn province. And at least two key red-shirt members, Somyos Prueksakasemsuk and Surachai Sae-Dan, remain in prison under the lese majeste law.
The continued vocal opposition to the law by a small but significant and active section of the red-shirt movement could be used by the Yingluck administration to remind the established elites that some form of accommodation might be needed.
But if the government will not touch the law, the loyalty of progressive red shirts to Yingluck (and Thaksin) - and the loyalty of Yingluck and Thaksin to these red shirts - will be severely tested.
The government cannot indefinitely buy time and expect no backlash or a meltdown in trust and expectation among the so-called progressive reds who oppose the law.
If no progress is seen in the near future, the time will come when these progressive red shirts must choose whether to continue to accommodate a government which does nothing to make the law less draconian.
Many reds will face the question whether they continue to support a government that allowed to Amphon die under their watch, a government privately telling them it would have loved to do more but just simply couldn't afford to.
With prisoners of conscience like Somyos and Surachai still in jail and the Public Campaign to Amend the law seemingly ready, that time is approaching sooner than later. And if the death of Amphon cannot make a difference, nothing will.
Pravit Rojanaphruk, The Nation
The death of lese majeste detainee Amphon "Akong" Tangnoppakul, also known as "Uncle SMS", inside Bangkok Remand Prison Hospital on Monday has re-ignited hopes of amending the draconian lese majeste law.
Some 300 people attended the controversial placing of his body in front of the Bangkok Criminal Court on Wednesday and vented their anger against the law they perceived as an obstacle preventing them from attaining a basic right to freedom of expression.
Well-known red-shirt writer Wat Wayangoon asked the gathering if Thais were not being treated like humans when it came to freedom of expression about anything critical of the monarchy.
At the same venue, red-shirt Pheu Thai MP Jaruphan Kuldiloke talked about legally protected rights in England and how Thailand has yet to achieve anything similar. And political scientist Paungthong Pawakapan, a key member of the Public Campaign Committee to Amend the lese majeste law, announced in front of Amphon's body that enough signatures had been collected to push the proposed amendment before Parliament.
It must not be forgotten, however, that Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has insisted repeatedly her administration will not touch the lese majeste law.
Even Jaruphan was soft, almost apologetic on Wednesday, in front of the crowd of angry mourners wondering why this government was not doing anything - meekly suggesting they should try again to convince government MPs.
It's no secret a large percentage of the red-shirt movement is opposed to the draconian law, ever since the military coup on September 19, 2006, which ousted Thaksin Shinawatra. Many Thaksin supporters who subsequently became red shirts question the role of Privy Council President General Prem Tinsulanond in the coup, and more.
In private conversations, some-red shirt leaders try to defend Yingluck's position that the government won't touch the law - saying the government can't start a war on too many fronts, or by saying the government doesn't really have the power to push for such change and it could risk a military coup by insisting on it.
In public,however, there's a visible attempt to forge a truce between the old and new elites as well.
Nevertheless, yesterday, the red-shirt movement, the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship, sponsored the first night of the funeral rite for Amphon at Wat Dan Samrong in Samut Prakarn province. And at least two key red-shirt members, Somyos Prueksakasemsuk and Surachai Sae-Dan, remain in prison under the lese majeste law.
The continued vocal opposition to the law by a small but significant and active section of the red-shirt movement could be used by the Yingluck administration to remind the established elites that some form of accommodation might be needed.
But if the government will not touch the law, the loyalty of progressive red shirts to Yingluck (and Thaksin) - and the loyalty of Yingluck and Thaksin to these red shirts - will be severely tested.
The government cannot indefinitely buy time and expect no backlash or a meltdown in trust and expectation among the so-called progressive reds who oppose the law.
If no progress is seen in the near future, the time will come when these progressive red shirts must choose whether to continue to accommodate a government which does nothing to make the law less draconian.
Many reds will face the question whether they continue to support a government that allowed to Amphon die under their watch, a government privately telling them it would have loved to do more but just simply couldn't afford to.
With prisoners of conscience like Somyos and Surachai still in jail and the Public Campaign to Amend the law seemingly ready, that time is approaching sooner than later. And if the death of Amphon cannot make a difference, nothing will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
