Everyone should be aware that Amnesty International’s International Secretariat is a private commercial company entirely independent of Amnesty International the NGO/charity.
Members of the latter could, theoretically, ignore its advice.
That would indeed change things, if he’s accused of posting while in Thailand. It’s significant, though, that DSI’s own spokeswomen explained at first that he was charged for actions in 2007, when he was in the U.S. Now they’re saying something different. Thai law on this subject also purports to be extraterritorial. I suspect he will be ultimately be charged with whatever they can dig up, whether it occurred in the U.S. or Thailand.
Going off topic, good luck to you. Many people are wishing you the best, as I’m sure you know.
I have no way of knowing whether or not the new information provided by Somsak in #103 is correct or not. The information about the LM and Computer Crimes charges against the U.S. citizen that has been given to the U.S. Ambassador in Thailand is that he is being charged with “crimes” committed 3 or so years ago while resident in the U.S. and acting legally within U.S. law, and thus contradicts the information given to Somsak per post #103.
It is possible I suppose that the Thailand government has suddenly realized, under the pressure of the worldwide press attention this case has already generated that they are headed for a PR disaster with serious consequences for the way people around the world regard and perceive Thailand, and is scrambling to “save face” by inventing some new charges to replace the earlier ones regarding activity that took place in the United States.
In any case, according to present Thailand law, any and all of the participants in the Melbourne Conference will be placing themselves in legal jeopardy should they make any statements, present any writings or give any comments regarding the present and past situation in Thailand and the role of the King and the Royal Family Members in any such situation, that, even if factual and accurate, might be later mis-construed or mis-interpreted by some officials in Thailand who then might commence an LM or Computer Crimes case against them should they visit Thailand.
@Moe Aung I have no idea what you would find unplatable. For someone like Billy Budd who would like to see the Buddha as someone who “hinted” at a “lack of empiric scientific evidence for rebirth,” then obviously the countless sutras describing rebirth and continuity across multiple lifetimes, other planes of existence such as hells and so forth, or anything really not in conformity with scientific empiricism, would not be palatable.
UPDATE: My apology for going off a bit outside the topic of this post. But since I posted the above comment on the latest LM case, that of Khun Joe W Gordon (Lerpong Wichaikhammat), I’ve found out that Mr.Tharit Phendit, the DSI Chief had told reporters that Khun Lerpong has been charged for writing on websites while he was in Thailand the past year. (See the last paragraph of this report, in Thai, here : http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1306556786&grpid=01&catid=&subcatid= )
If what Mr.Tharit said is true, then the legal issue of committing an alleged LM act outside Thailand would not apply in this case.
Would you care to give us some examples of how the Buddha was a 4th century BC Indian man who believed all sorts of things you would not find palatable? I’m intrigued.
Amnesty International has just replied the letter originally sent by the membership of Amnesty International Thailand and Malaysia a month ago.
To the members and supporters of Amnesty International Thailand and Malaysia
Re: Letter of 29 April 2009, “Calling for an Investigation into the Intervention of the work of Amnesty International (AI) Malaysia by Members of the AI Asia-Pacific team”
Thank you for your letter regarding the cancellation of the 23 April 2011 event featuring Mr. Robert Amsterdam. I understand that the decision to cancel the event, especially taken less than two days before it was due to occur, caused not only confusion but consternation as well. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention.
I have looked into the circumstances surrounding this event and I am comfortable and confident that cancelling the event was the right decision, and that Amnesty International should stand by this position. Amnesty International cannot appear as partisan in any political scenario, and this is especially true in situations of conflict and deep political division. Regardless of the good work that Mr. Amsterdam may be doing in many situations, his position as a paid advocate for Mr. Thaksin has clearly associated him with one side of Thailand’s highly polarized political crisis. We became concerned that there was a likelihood that the proposed event would jeopardise the hard-won perceptions of the fairness and accuracy of our work in the region. Therefore we chose to allow the meeting to proceed without direct involvement from Amnesty International.
I would also like to emphasize that Amnesty International did not deny Mr. Amsterdam’s right to freedom of expression.
Amnesty International declined an opportunity for him to express his political views on a platform co-sponsored by Amnesty International. We take great pains to ensure that Amnesty International’s statements, and statements by any one of our many partners around the world who may share a platform with us, conform to our basic principles and our overall strategy in support of human rights. Therefore, it is not uncommon for us to avoid appearing at events or sharing platforms on specific issues or with particular actors around the world. We have no interest in denying Mr. Amsterdam the right to air his positions in the public arena, and in fact, he has repeatedly and forcefully done so before and after the event scheduled by AI Malaysia.
Lastly, there are also some important procedural lessons to be learned from this situation, chief among them the importance of consultation and sharing information better within the Amnesty movement. In this instance, unfortunately, both the International Secretariat and AI Thailand only learned of this event purely by chance less than two days before it was scheduled to take place. In particular, the International Secretariat specialist on Thailand was not involved or consulted in setting up this event.
I hope that this clarifies the situation for you, and I would like to thank you again for raising your concerns. Indeed it is only through such diligence and self-examination that our movement can move forward.
Best regards,
Colm ├У Cuanach├бin
Senior Director of Campaigns
Amnesty International – International Secretariat
Email: [email protected]
Here’s a link to a useful compendium summary of several detailed articles about the case of the U.S. citizen arrested and imprisoned without bail in Thailand a few days ago for his legal Free Speech activities about 3 years ago while resident in the U.S.:
As close as Nattavud Pimpa may or may not be working with the present Thailand government, I do not think he is in a position, despite his implied claims, to provide any guarantees whatsoever to any of the non-Thai citizen participants (much less the even more vulnerable Thai citizens) in the Melbourne Conference taking place in Australia, that any of the words, comments and thoughts they might express in regard to the role of the monarchy in Thailand’s present situation and politics at this conference, will not be recorded and noted and later used as “evidence” to bring an LM or Computer Crimes case against them should they happen to visit Thailand.
The American citizen who was arrested and charged under the LM and Computer Crimes laws in Thailand a few days ago is being charged for posting a link to a blog and doing some translations of the legally published Yale University Press book and posting some comments to a blog about 3 years ago while he was resident in Colorado as a U.S. citizen, approximately 10,000 miles from Thailand.
In other words, the present Thailand government is making the astonishing claim that Thailand laws supercede U.S. Free Speech laws inside the U.S. for U.S. citizens. And then 3 years after the event, arresting and denying bail to the U.S. citizen when he happens to be in Thailand, and threatening him with a staggering 15 years of hard time in a Thai prison.
Arnold, i agree with you re thieving Banksters and the military-industrial complex are bleeding many Treasuries especially the US. Nor did I call for an Ayn Rand Libertarian zero welfare for the West, I suggested that limited safety net welfare simply reduces the parasites on the public teat and the expense, nor does a welfare culture create a productive physiology. Stakeholders in profligate welfare will obviously disagree.
Likewise I observe that the US seems to be now devaluing their dollar and targeting unions whereas the real problem stemmed from the greed of bankers and company CEOs exporting jobs to Asia just to boost their own bonuses. I didn’t address any of this as the topic was welfare in Thailand.
All Thai parties are now promising increased social welfare, some is affordable and some may not be. However if they want to spend more on welfare then they had better look at taxing the filthy rich a little more, that will unlikely go over well with those that really call the shots. Plus look at the absurd military budget. There are no Lee Kwon Yus emerging in Thai politics.
I wonder if the people participating in this conference in Melbourne will also be liable for following Thailand laws and subject to arrest the next time they visit Thailand, even though they are not Thai citizens and they are writing/discussing the role of the Thai monarchy in Australia.
I share (what I think is) your implied political objection to the arrest, but the following is just to clarify matter of law, as I understand it, and as I think maybe useful for others.
Section 7 of the Thai Penal Code states:
Section 7 Whoever [i.e. a Thai person – SJ] to commit the following offences outside the Kingdom shall be punished in the Kingdom, namely:
(1) Offences relating to the Security of the Kingdom as provided in Sections 107 to 129;
(1/1) The offence in respect of terrorization as prescribed by Section 135/1, Section 135/2, Section 135/3 and Section 135/4.
(2) Offences Relating to Counterfeiting and Alteration as provided in Section 240 to Section 249, Section 254, Section 256, Section 257 and Section 266 (3) and (4); (2 bis) Offences Relating to Sexuality as provided in Section 282 and Section 283;
(3) Offence Relating to Robbery as provided in Section 339, and Offence Relating to Gang-Robbery as provided in Section 340, which is committed on the high seas.
This means that if you are a Thai citizen, no matter where you are and where you commit the act that the Thai authorities deem to be violating the article 112 (lesse majesty), you could be punished once you show up in Thailand.
How about non-Thai citizens? The next section of the Code states:
Section 8 Whoever commits an offence outside the Kingdom shall be punished in the Kingdom; provided that, and, provided further that the offence committed be any of the following namely:
(a) The offender be a Thai person, and there be a request for punishment by the Government of the country where the offence has occurred or by the injured person; or
(b) The offender be an alien, and the Thai Government or a Thai person be the injured person, and there be a request for punishment by the injured person;
If such offence to be the offence specified as following shall be punished within the Kingdom namely:
Offences Relating to Cause Public Dangers as provided in Section 217, Section218, Section 221 to Section 223 excepting the case relating to the first paragraph of Section 220, and Section 224, Section 226, Section 228 to Section 232, Section 237, and Section 233 to Section 236 only when it is the case to be punished according to Section 238;
Offences Relating to Documents as provided in Section 264, Section 265, Section 266 (1) and (2), Section 268 excepting the case relating to Section 267 and Section 269; (2/1) Offence Relating to the Electronic Card according to be prescribed by Section 269/1 to Section 269/7.
Offences Relating to Sexuality as provided in Section 276, Section 280 and Section 285 only for the case relating to Section 276;
Offences Against Life as provided in Section 288 to Section 290;
Offences Against Body as provided in Section 295 to Section 298;
Offences of Abandonment of Children, Sick or Aged Persons as provided in Section 306 to Section 308;
Offences Against Liberty as provided in Section 309, Section 310, Section 312 to Section 315, and Section 317 to Section 320;
Offences of Theft and Snatching as provided in Section 334 to Section 336;
Offences of Extortion, Blackmail, Robbery and Gang-Robbery as provided in Section 337 to Section 340;
Offences of Cheating and Fraud as provided in Section 341 to Section 344, Section 346 and Section 347;
Offences of Criminal Misappropriation as provided in Section 352 to Section 354;
Offences of Receiving Stolen Property as provided in Section 357;
Offences of Mischief as provided in Section 358 to Section 360.
(from the same source as above)
Notice that the offences committed outside Thailand listed above for non-Thai citizens to be punishable in Thailand do NOT include article 112. Thus, in theory, suppose that, say, Khun Paul Handley were to show up in Bangkok, he should not be arrested under article 112 (since he is non-Thai and his book was published aboard).
I say “in theory” because, as everyone knows, Khun Handley’s book has been widely distributed in Thailand in many different forms although not by Khun Handley himself and – who knows? – the Thai authorities could claim that it means Khun Handley himself had committed the violation “here” through the book’s presence in this country.
In the case of the latest 112 victim, Khun Joe W Gordon (Lerpong Wichaikhammat), I guess that, although he does have US citizenship, he quite possibly still holds the Thai citizenship as well. Hence his alleged act comes under Section 7 above.
But, even if he in fact no longer holds the Thai citizenship and should therefore (“in theory”) be outside the Thai jurisdiction for what he allegedly posted on his website few years ago when he was in the US, the Thai authorities – who knows? – could claim that, since his website is even now being seen/accessible/appearing “here”, he had in fact committed the act “here”.
I am not a legal expert and could be wrong. I would welcome correction by anyone more knowledgeable on the issue.
According to the BBC, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8174640.stm) in the UK the the richest quintile was 16 times better off than the poorest, in a report in July 2009. Which, of course, only tells a bit of the story – the bottom fifth had an average income of ┬г4700 pa.
Given differences in living costs, an interesting statistic would be the relative buying power of each segment in each country.
I have finally had a chance to look at this lengthy report and want to thank NM for posting it. I agree with SteveCM above. It has plenty of data and some things that others have missed. In an earlier comment on another thread I said the HRW report failed to do this kind of forensic background work. This report is most welcome.
Nattavud Pimpa C97,
The book by Pual Handley was published in the US and by YALE University Press. In the event where Paul Handley decided to come to Thailand, I am sure the fact that his book is published in the US by one of the “TOP” academic institutions in the US wouldn’t help him from being off the hook from article 112.
So I don’t see why Nathan’s question isn’t “for real”.
(1) Who fired the first shot? Red/Black Shirts or Abhisit/military?
(2) Who first gave the ‘shoot-to-kill’ orders? Red/Black Shirts or Abhisit/military?
(3) Who sufferred the first casualty? Red/Black Shirts or Abhisit/military?
On the basis of the chronology of the Thai mayhem in Y2010, the answers are: (1) Red/Black Shirts (2) Red/Black Shirts (3) Abhisit/military/civilian camp
A government is the most incompetent entity to look up for (a) creating wealth, and, (b) ‘redistributing’ accumulated wealth.
I am sorely tempted to join those violent colored Shirts everytime I calculate how much of my taxes had been wasted/used up in/by: government incompetence, corruption, redundant/unpproductive overhead and ‘nationalistic’ destructive pursuits.
Leave alone those Thai capitalists to merrily and selfishly make more money for themselves while they create more jobs and more business opportunities (for others) in the process.
The only important job that a government could really do is to create the ‘environment’ whereby a profit-seeking Thai or foreigner would naturally gravitate to the ‘formal’ sector (where taxes are levied and collected) rather than the ‘informal’ because that’s where more money could be made (incentives!) year after year with the least hassle.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Amnesty International and Robert Amsterdam
Everyone should be aware that Amnesty International’s International Secretariat is a private commercial company entirely independent of Amnesty International the NGO/charity.
Members of the latter could, theoretically, ignore its advice.
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
Ajarn Somsak @103:
That would indeed change things, if he’s accused of posting while in Thailand. It’s significant, though, that DSI’s own spokeswomen explained at first that he was charged for actions in 2007, when he was in the U.S. Now they’re saying something different. Thai law on this subject also purports to be extraterritorial. I suspect he will be ultimately be charged with whatever they can dig up, whether it occurred in the U.S. or Thailand.
Going off topic, good luck to you. Many people are wishing you the best, as I’m sure you know.
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
I have no way of knowing whether or not the new information provided by Somsak in #103 is correct or not. The information about the LM and Computer Crimes charges against the U.S. citizen that has been given to the U.S. Ambassador in Thailand is that he is being charged with “crimes” committed 3 or so years ago while resident in the U.S. and acting legally within U.S. law, and thus contradicts the information given to Somsak per post #103.
It is possible I suppose that the Thailand government has suddenly realized, under the pressure of the worldwide press attention this case has already generated that they are headed for a PR disaster with serious consequences for the way people around the world regard and perceive Thailand, and is scrambling to “save face” by inventing some new charges to replace the earlier ones regarding activity that took place in the United States.
In any case, according to present Thailand law, any and all of the participants in the Melbourne Conference will be placing themselves in legal jeopardy should they make any statements, present any writings or give any comments regarding the present and past situation in Thailand and the role of the King and the Royal Family Members in any such situation, that, even if factual and accurate, might be later mis-construed or mis-interpreted by some officials in Thailand who then might commence an LM or Computer Crimes case against them should they visit Thailand.
Unpopular facts about one of Buddhist philosophy’s most popular doctrines
@Moe Aung I have no idea what you would find unplatable. For someone like Billy Budd who would like to see the Buddha as someone who “hinted” at a “lack of empiric scientific evidence for rebirth,” then obviously the countless sutras describing rebirth and continuity across multiple lifetimes, other planes of existence such as hells and so forth, or anything really not in conformity with scientific empiricism, would not be palatable.
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
UPDATE: My apology for going off a bit outside the topic of this post. But since I posted the above comment on the latest LM case, that of Khun Joe W Gordon (Lerpong Wichaikhammat), I’ve found out that Mr.Tharit Phendit, the DSI Chief had told reporters that Khun Lerpong has been charged for writing on websites while he was in Thailand the past year. (See the last paragraph of this report, in Thai, here : http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1306556786&grpid=01&catid=&subcatid= )
If what Mr.Tharit said is true, then the legal issue of committing an alleged LM act outside Thailand would not apply in this case.
Unpopular facts about one of Buddhist philosophy’s most popular doctrines
Greg
Would you care to give us some examples of how the Buddha was a 4th century BC Indian man who believed all sorts of things you would not find palatable? I’m intrigued.
Amnesty International and Robert Amsterdam
Amnesty International has just replied the letter originally sent by the membership of Amnesty International Thailand and Malaysia a month ago.
To the members and supporters of Amnesty International Thailand and Malaysia
Re: Letter of 29 April 2009, “Calling for an Investigation into the Intervention of the work of Amnesty International (AI) Malaysia by Members of the AI Asia-Pacific team”
Thank you for your letter regarding the cancellation of the 23 April 2011 event featuring Mr. Robert Amsterdam. I understand that the decision to cancel the event, especially taken less than two days before it was due to occur, caused not only confusion but consternation as well. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention.
I have looked into the circumstances surrounding this event and I am comfortable and confident that cancelling the event was the right decision, and that Amnesty International should stand by this position. Amnesty International cannot appear as partisan in any political scenario, and this is especially true in situations of conflict and deep political division. Regardless of the good work that Mr. Amsterdam may be doing in many situations, his position as a paid advocate for Mr. Thaksin has clearly associated him with one side of Thailand’s highly polarized political crisis. We became concerned that there was a likelihood that the proposed event would jeopardise the hard-won perceptions of the fairness and accuracy of our work in the region. Therefore we chose to allow the meeting to proceed without direct involvement from Amnesty International.
I would also like to emphasize that Amnesty International did not deny Mr. Amsterdam’s right to freedom of expression.
Amnesty International declined an opportunity for him to express his political views on a platform co-sponsored by Amnesty International. We take great pains to ensure that Amnesty International’s statements, and statements by any one of our many partners around the world who may share a platform with us, conform to our basic principles and our overall strategy in support of human rights. Therefore, it is not uncommon for us to avoid appearing at events or sharing platforms on specific issues or with particular actors around the world. We have no interest in denying Mr. Amsterdam the right to air his positions in the public arena, and in fact, he has repeatedly and forcefully done so before and after the event scheduled by AI Malaysia.
Lastly, there are also some important procedural lessons to be learned from this situation, chief among them the importance of consultation and sharing information better within the Amnesty movement. In this instance, unfortunately, both the International Secretariat and AI Thailand only learned of this event purely by chance less than two days before it was scheduled to take place. In particular, the International Secretariat specialist on Thailand was not involved or consulted in setting up this event.
I hope that this clarifies the situation for you, and I would like to thank you again for raising your concerns. Indeed it is only through such diligence and self-examination that our movement can move forward.
Best regards,
Colm ├У Cuanach├бin
Senior Director of Campaigns
Amnesty International – International Secretariat
Email: [email protected]
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
Here’s a link to a useful compendium summary of several detailed articles about the case of the U.S. citizen arrested and imprisoned without bail in Thailand a few days ago for his legal Free Speech activities about 3 years ago while resident in the U.S.:
http://goo.gl/isDzP
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
As close as Nattavud Pimpa may or may not be working with the present Thailand government, I do not think he is in a position, despite his implied claims, to provide any guarantees whatsoever to any of the non-Thai citizen participants (much less the even more vulnerable Thai citizens) in the Melbourne Conference taking place in Australia, that any of the words, comments and thoughts they might express in regard to the role of the monarchy in Thailand’s present situation and politics at this conference, will not be recorded and noted and later used as “evidence” to bring an LM or Computer Crimes case against them should they happen to visit Thailand.
The American citizen who was arrested and charged under the LM and Computer Crimes laws in Thailand a few days ago is being charged for posting a link to a blog and doing some translations of the legally published Yale University Press book and posting some comments to a blog about 3 years ago while he was resident in Colorado as a U.S. citizen, approximately 10,000 miles from Thailand.
In other words, the present Thailand government is making the astonishing claim that Thailand laws supercede U.S. Free Speech laws inside the U.S. for U.S. citizens. And then 3 years after the event, arresting and denying bail to the U.S. citizen when he happens to be in Thailand, and threatening him with a staggering 15 years of hard time in a Thai prison.
Thailand can afford equitable social welfare
Arnold, i agree with you re thieving Banksters and the military-industrial complex are bleeding many Treasuries especially the US. Nor did I call for an Ayn Rand Libertarian zero welfare for the West, I suggested that limited safety net welfare simply reduces the parasites on the public teat and the expense, nor does a welfare culture create a productive physiology. Stakeholders in profligate welfare will obviously disagree.
Likewise I observe that the US seems to be now devaluing their dollar and targeting unions whereas the real problem stemmed from the greed of bankers and company CEOs exporting jobs to Asia just to boost their own bonuses. I didn’t address any of this as the topic was welfare in Thailand.
All Thai parties are now promising increased social welfare, some is affordable and some may not be. However if they want to spend more on welfare then they had better look at taxing the filthy rich a little more, that will unlikely go over well with those that really call the shots. Plus look at the absurd military budget. There are no Lee Kwon Yus emerging in Thai politics.
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
Anonymousth,
Please go back and read my previous replies.
Have a good day.
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
Khun Nathan #96
I wonder if the people participating in this conference in Melbourne will also be liable for following Thailand laws and subject to arrest the next time they visit Thailand, even though they are not Thai citizens and they are writing/discussing the role of the Thai monarchy in Australia.
I share (what I think is) your implied political objection to the arrest, but the following is just to clarify matter of law, as I understand it, and as I think maybe useful for others.
Section 7 of the Thai Penal Code states:
Section 7 Whoever [i.e. a Thai person – SJ] to commit the following offences outside the Kingdom shall be punished in the Kingdom, namely:
(1) Offences relating to the Security of the Kingdom as provided in Sections 107 to 129;
(1/1) The offence in respect of terrorization as prescribed by Section 135/1, Section 135/2, Section 135/3 and Section 135/4.
(2) Offences Relating to Counterfeiting and Alteration as provided in Section 240 to Section 249, Section 254, Section 256, Section 257 and Section 266 (3) and (4); (2 bis) Offences Relating to Sexuality as provided in Section 282 and Section 283;
(3) Offence Relating to Robbery as provided in Section 339, and Offence Relating to Gang-Robbery as provided in Section 340, which is committed on the high seas.
(from: http://www.samuiforsale.com/Law-Texts/thailand-penal-code.html ; for Thai text, see here : http://www.kodmhai.com/m2/m2-2/thailaw2-2.html )
This means that if you are a Thai citizen, no matter where you are and where you commit the act that the Thai authorities deem to be violating the article 112 (lesse majesty), you could be punished once you show up in Thailand.
How about non-Thai citizens? The next section of the Code states:
Section 8 Whoever commits an offence outside the Kingdom shall be punished in the Kingdom; provided that, and, provided further that the offence committed be any of the following namely:
(a) The offender be a Thai person, and there be a request for punishment by the Government of the country where the offence has occurred or by the injured person; or
(b) The offender be an alien, and the Thai Government or a Thai person be the injured person, and there be a request for punishment by the injured person;
If such offence to be the offence specified as following shall be punished within the Kingdom namely:
Offences Relating to Cause Public Dangers as provided in Section 217, Section218, Section 221 to Section 223 excepting the case relating to the first paragraph of Section 220, and Section 224, Section 226, Section 228 to Section 232, Section 237, and Section 233 to Section 236 only when it is the case to be punished according to Section 238;
Offences Relating to Documents as provided in Section 264, Section 265, Section 266 (1) and (2), Section 268 excepting the case relating to Section 267 and Section 269; (2/1) Offence Relating to the Electronic Card according to be prescribed by Section 269/1 to Section 269/7.
Offences Relating to Sexuality as provided in Section 276, Section 280 and Section 285 only for the case relating to Section 276;
Offences Against Life as provided in Section 288 to Section 290;
Offences Against Body as provided in Section 295 to Section 298;
Offences of Abandonment of Children, Sick or Aged Persons as provided in Section 306 to Section 308;
Offences Against Liberty as provided in Section 309, Section 310, Section 312 to Section 315, and Section 317 to Section 320;
Offences of Theft and Snatching as provided in Section 334 to Section 336;
Offences of Extortion, Blackmail, Robbery and Gang-Robbery as provided in Section 337 to Section 340;
Offences of Cheating and Fraud as provided in Section 341 to Section 344, Section 346 and Section 347;
Offences of Criminal Misappropriation as provided in Section 352 to Section 354;
Offences of Receiving Stolen Property as provided in Section 357;
Offences of Mischief as provided in Section 358 to Section 360.
(from the same source as above)
Notice that the offences committed outside Thailand listed above for non-Thai citizens to be punishable in Thailand do NOT include article 112. Thus, in theory, suppose that, say, Khun Paul Handley were to show up in Bangkok, he should not be arrested under article 112 (since he is non-Thai and his book was published aboard).
I say “in theory” because, as everyone knows, Khun Handley’s book has been widely distributed in Thailand in many different forms although not by Khun Handley himself and – who knows? – the Thai authorities could claim that it means Khun Handley himself had committed the violation “here” through the book’s presence in this country.
In the case of the latest 112 victim, Khun Joe W Gordon (Lerpong Wichaikhammat), I guess that, although he does have US citizenship, he quite possibly still holds the Thai citizenship as well. Hence his alleged act comes under Section 7 above.
But, even if he in fact no longer holds the Thai citizenship and should therefore (“in theory”) be outside the Thai jurisdiction for what he allegedly posted on his website few years ago when he was in the US, the Thai authorities – who knows? – could claim that, since his website is even now being seen/accessible/appearing “here”, he had in fact committed the act “here”.
I am not a legal expert and could be wrong. I would welcome correction by anyone more knowledgeable on the issue.
Is inequality in Thailand getting worse?
According to the BBC, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8174640.stm) in the UK the the richest quintile was 16 times better off than the poorest, in a report in July 2009. Which, of course, only tells a bit of the story – the bottom fifth had an average income of ┬г4700 pa.
Given differences in living costs, an interesting statistic would be the relative buying power of each segment in each country.
Shoot to kill
I have finally had a chance to look at this lengthy report and want to thank NM for posting it. I agree with SteveCM above. It has plenty of data and some things that others have missed. In an earlier comment on another thread I said the HRW report failed to do this kind of forensic background work. This report is most welcome.
Shoot to kill
c7
Feel free to produce verifiable evidence to validate your answers to your own questions.
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
Nattavud Pimpa C97,
The book by Pual Handley was published in the US and by YALE University Press. In the event where Paul Handley decided to come to Thailand, I am sure the fact that his book is published in the US by one of the “TOP” academic institutions in the US wouldn’t help him from being off the hook from article 112.
So I don’t see why Nathan’s question isn’t “for real”.
Thailand can afford equitable social welfare
I will post a link once the publication is officially released from the TDRI.
Shoot to kill
(1) Who fired the first shot? Red/Black Shirts or Abhisit/military?
(2) Who first gave the ‘shoot-to-kill’ orders? Red/Black Shirts or Abhisit/military?
(3) Who sufferred the first casualty? Red/Black Shirts or Abhisit/military?
On the basis of the chronology of the Thai mayhem in Y2010, the answers are: (1) Red/Black Shirts (2) Red/Black Shirts (3) Abhisit/military/civilian camp
Thailand can afford equitable social welfare
A government is the most incompetent entity to look up for (a) creating wealth, and, (b) ‘redistributing’ accumulated wealth.
I am sorely tempted to join those violent colored Shirts everytime I calculate how much of my taxes had been wasted/used up in/by: government incompetence, corruption, redundant/unpproductive overhead and ‘nationalistic’ destructive pursuits.
Leave alone those Thai capitalists to merrily and selfishly make more money for themselves while they create more jobs and more business opportunities (for others) in the process.
The only important job that a government could really do is to create the ‘environment’ whereby a profit-seeking Thai or foreigner would naturally gravitate to the ‘formal’ sector (where taxes are levied and collected) rather than the ‘informal’ because that’s where more money could be made (incentives!) year after year with the least hassle.
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
Nathan,
Is your question for real? Please re-read my previous reply and the conference is organised in Australia, by academic from top Australian University.