Thailand as a whole finds itself trapped in a paradox of Alice in Wonderland proportions, where the most pressing concern to most people is an event that is inevitable and probably imminent, and yet cannot be discussed or even contemplated. Is it any wonder that most journalists take the easy, state-sanctioned route (Land of SmilesтДв)?
Hi Simon, for the last remark, it’s far from a ridiculous statement, but actually the consensus belief among people who study constitutional courts. I actually cited to prominent studies full of evidence for the proposition that: “[constitutional] courts are not necessarily created with the altruistic goal of protecting fundamental rights. Rather, constitutional court justices serve to enforce the policy preferences of the political elites who appointed them.” Ginsburg and Hirschl have written quite a bit using both large and small samples to show that political elites tend to create constitutional courts in order to enforce their vision of the constitution. Check those sources for more evidence.
As for evidence in the political implications of the decisions, I am working under an assumption that judges operate under political constraints and act in accord with their political interests. That’s a fairly common (though not universal) assumption in any political science approach to courts. The law itself is ambiguous enough to be manipulated by both and/or any side in a legal dispute. Thus, judges can and will interpret the law in accord with their own life experiences/political biases/and/or sociological leanings.
For Thailand in particular, there are some accounts of certain judges, their background, and reputation that make it seem some took political considerations into account. Former Justice Jumphol actually admitted as much recently with regard to the 2001 Thaksin case. Also, when a particular person is appointed by somebody who was their friend/colleague/or crony, then it is reasonable to suspect that those other relationships might influence their judgment (Baker and Pasuk discuss three of Thaksin’s justices in their biography of the man).
Again, I have to stress that I’d ascribe most (if not all) of these broader arguments to most constitutional courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. In America, there is a frankly disturbing trend of justices who are appointed by presidents to vote in favor of the policies of that president’s party. That’s why we see so many close 5-4 votes on ideological issues (think abortion, gay marriage, etc). I would subscribe to the notion that the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are political and vote politically, and use the law to justify their decisions. It is neither ridiculous nor irrespecutful to suggest that courts in other countries also behave politically.
Debunking popular myths? This article is full of them. Nothing is ever straightforward, everything has to be a diabolical political manipulation. The concept that a Thai court could conceivably attempt to carry out its duty is just unthinkable.
The article implies that the court’s decisions have been the result of personal bias and political intrigue. So pardon me for asking: Where is the evidence? Show me some solid evidence. There isn’t any, is there? All you have is academic over-analysis of court decisions that could be interpreted in any number of ways by people with a different political bias.
The author lost me with the following ridiculous statement: “These courts are not necessarily created with the altruistic goal of protecting fundamental rights. Rather, constitutional court justices serve to enforce the policy preferences of the political elites who appointed them.” Got any evidence? A lot of Thai people think the constitution court has been rather diligent and even handed of late.
I suppose if things were simple you guys would be out of a job, eh?
Suzie Wong #6, some good points, but re.
“1. Thailand has always been colonized in the form of “Indirect Rule,” that’s why she grows at a faster rate than her immediate neighboring countries e.g. Laos, Cambodia (Kampuchea), Vietnam, Burma (Myanmar)”.
This was true in the past, but for considerably more than the past decade Vietnam has been growing economically at a notably faster pace than Thailand. Indeed Vietnam’s catch-up to Thailand has been quite surprising and spectacular.
Sorry, that webpage seems not to work. I posted here the whole report from Prachathai. But I wonder if we can trust this report:
BBC Seeks Solution after its Reporter is Charged with Lese Majeste
Sat, 12/04/2008 – 00:00
Prachatai
10 April 2008 –Associated Press reported progress in the case of Jonathan Head, BBC’s Asia-Pacific reporter who has been charged with lèse majesté under article 112 of the Criminal Code. The charge arises from his role as moderator of a seminar entitled “Coup, Capital and Crown” at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand (FCCT) on 13 December 2007. A representative of the international news broadcasting company said it is aware of the case and will find a solution as soon as possible.
The charge against Mr. Head was filed on 8 April 2008 by Pol Lt Wattanasak Mungkitjakarndee, Investigation Officer of Bang Mot Police Station, seconded to Phaholyothin Police Station. Pol Lt Wattanasak alleged that during the FCCT seminar Mr. Head used phases that constitute a violation of the laws on lèse majesté. Pol Lt Wattanasak then gathered evidence in the form of a CD of the seminar, an English transcript of Mr. Head’s speech, and a Thai translation and handed this to Pol Maj Boonlert Kalayanamit, an Investigation Officer at the Crime Suppression Division. Pol Lt Wattanasak has also filed a similar charge against the Committee of the FCCT.
Mr. Jonathan Head and the Committee members of the FCCT have reserved the right to remain silent regarding the case and commented that as this is a sensitive issue, any comments could affect the case.
The seminar hosted by the FCCT named ‘Coup, Capital, and Crown’ (meaning the Crown Property Bureau) focused on two publications namely Thai Capital after the 1997 Crisis written by Dr. Pasuk Phongpaijit and Chris Baker, and Journal of Contemporary Asia Special: The Thailand Coup edited by Kevin Hewison and Michael Connors.
Red&White, a blogger who attended the FCCT seminar on 13 December 2007 made a brief record of the speeches and the atmosphere. In his entry the blogger quoted Jonathan Head as saying, “As a journalist, it’s very frustrating not being able to discuss the monarchy, but we must respect the law and be restrained in what we say.”
Apart from that Jonathan also referred to the fact that, “”His Majesty The King is now eighty, he will not be around forever…[d]emocracy, the military and the monarchy are deeply linked.”
After that Jonathan Head introduced the four speakers who were Kevin Hewison, Pasuk Phongpaichit, Porphant Ouyyanont, Ukrist Patmanand.
The same blogger also raised concerns that there could be more charges against seminar participants apart from Jonathan Head and the FCCT committee, since the book “Thai Capital after the 1997 Crisis” analyses the effects of the economic crisis in 1997 on business, society, and politics. It refers to the important role of the Crown Property Bureau in supporting different investments.
The “Journal of Contemporary Asia Special: The Thailand Coup” is a compilation of 10 articles by Thai and international academics discussing the elements that led to the coup d’état in September 2006. It also discusses the effects of the coup on Thai society, including the question whether or not Thaksin was a threat to the monarchy.
Source:
Khi Kwai has dug up a July 11th, 1934, Bangkok Times Weekly Mail newspaper article titled:
“German News: Foreign Lying Reports – Dr. Goebbels Protests”, which quotes Germany’s Third Reich Minister of Propaganda Goebbels complaining about the foreign press coverage of the “Night of the Long Knives” events of June 30, 1934:
“I appeal to you fellow citizens to witness what in the history of journalism is an almost unexampled case of lying calumny and distortion of simple fact. June 30 (**the “Night of the Long Knives”**) passed off in Germany smoothly and without disturbances. The Fuehrer with authority and absolute courage smashed a small group of saboteurs. Aside from a few more serious foreign papers (**by this he means the “Friends of the Third Reich” foreign papers”**), the rest of the world press went into a frenzy of malevolent comment and hysterical libel.”
Not that Dr. Panitan has any resemblance to Dr. Goebbels or the present Thailand government any resemblance to the Third Reich……..but an interesting parallel nonetheless…….
The recent comments on the Head case are important. Did acting government spokesman Panitan really say the case had been “dropped”? Recall that Abhisit said the same thing about Chotisak Onsoong and that was a lie. As far as I can tell, many of these accusations can be investigated for ages. It also seems useful for the powers that be to allow cases to hang for an eternity. If charges are not laid, they can always be reactivated, so they act as a kind of disciplining mechanism.
I suspect that Pavin relies on PPT’s page: http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/pendingcases/. Note that PPT uses the term “pending cases.” This isn’t about charges having been laid (as far as I can tell) but rather about accusations being made and police announcing investigations.
PPT adds: “PPT acknowledges that this is a very limited listing. There are no accurate figure on how many have been charged under these draconian laws. Recent (2010) estimates are that there are some 300 cases since the 2006 palace-military coup.”
When the Minister of Information Panitan appeared at a FCCT panel in February 2010, he made some fairly harsh remarks to the assembled journalists about how he perceived their reporting on what was going on in Thailand. As I recall, he said something like, “What happened? You used to like Thailand so much? And now you only report bad things about us?”…….
He then went on to announce that the government had decided to no longer pursue the LM case against the BBC correspondent Jonathan Head, kind of as if he were throwing a biscuit to a dog, and seemed surprised that there was no applause or any reaction at all….
He seemed completely unaware and oblivious that the assembled journalists thought the LM charge was so ludicrous, that dropping it was not really a favor to the FCCT crowd or Jonathan but more in the line of a step to save further embarrassment to the government………….
“Take the blue pill, Neo” – “The Matrix”
“Medication Time” – One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest
“…is in the altogether. But all together the altogether. He’s altogether as naked as the day that he was born” – “Hans Christian Andersen”
My understanding is that, although he has been accused several times, Jonathan Head has not been charged. (His departure from Thailand had nothing to do with the accusations. It was due to the normal re-shuffling processes of BBC, as he has been at pains to point out.)
Anyone may file LM accusations, and this has led to some people of rather dubious mentality &/or suspect agendas making complaints. Following a complaint there is an investigatory process, which can take some time, before a charge is made.
Luksna Kornsilpa sent out a hilariously funny Press Release, following her complaint against the FCCT board, in which she referred to FCCT as “a brothel of conspirators.” It’s one of my favorite pieces of ephemera on LM. It may be seen on Prachatai English next time the Ministry for Certain Things unblocks it.
A google search will assist NM readers to form their own opinions on Akbar Khan’s state of mind & motives for his mission, as well as his prospects in journalism, a profession he would apparently like to be in.
This is the time for investigative journalism to get to work. Plenty of opportunity, with some risk to those involved. Also, the diplomatic corps really has to start waking up to what is going on. And that is a near-uncertainty as it has to date kept aloof.
I would like to ask for clarification of “allegations” vs. “charges,” as the two are often used to mean the same thing – which they do not.
Charges are official accusations made by state agencies or formally filed in civil litigation. Allegations are far less formal, albeit they may be quite public as were nefarious LM charges against Head and others, but they do not carry the same weight as actual charges that can arise from allegations.
When we say “charged,” then, we need to make sure that actual state charges or formal charges in either the civil or criminal context have indeed been issued and state agencies are involved. If individuals or groups are filing allegations, then they are allegations and not charges unless the police or prosecutor’s office files them.
I stand ready to be corrected if this is inaccurate.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thailand’s war with the foreign media
I haven’t been charged with LM – yet. After the Thaksin interview a compaint was made but, so far, that is as far as it has gone.
Thailand’s war with the foreign media
Thailand as a whole finds itself trapped in a paradox of Alice in Wonderland proportions, where the most pressing concern to most people is an event that is inevitable and probably imminent, and yet cannot be discussed or even contemplated. Is it any wonder that most journalists take the easy, state-sanctioned route (Land of SmilesтДв)?
The Pink Man comes to Canberra
Is this artist’s choice of colour risking LM ?
The Pink Man comes to Canberra
as a critique of hyper-consumption fine/But in his perverted and pro-fascist political voice there is not much to cheer Manit about
Thailand’s war with the foreign media
Igor // Aug 15, 2010 at 12:19 am,
Since it was Dr Goebbels who mentioned the Fuehrer and not you directly, I think we may let the point stand? 🙂
Thai institutions: Constitutional Court
Hi Simon, for the last remark, it’s far from a ridiculous statement, but actually the consensus belief among people who study constitutional courts. I actually cited to prominent studies full of evidence for the proposition that: “[constitutional] courts are not necessarily created with the altruistic goal of protecting fundamental rights. Rather, constitutional court justices serve to enforce the policy preferences of the political elites who appointed them.” Ginsburg and Hirschl have written quite a bit using both large and small samples to show that political elites tend to create constitutional courts in order to enforce their vision of the constitution. Check those sources for more evidence.
As for evidence in the political implications of the decisions, I am working under an assumption that judges operate under political constraints and act in accord with their political interests. That’s a fairly common (though not universal) assumption in any political science approach to courts. The law itself is ambiguous enough to be manipulated by both and/or any side in a legal dispute. Thus, judges can and will interpret the law in accord with their own life experiences/political biases/and/or sociological leanings.
For Thailand in particular, there are some accounts of certain judges, their background, and reputation that make it seem some took political considerations into account. Former Justice Jumphol actually admitted as much recently with regard to the 2001 Thaksin case. Also, when a particular person is appointed by somebody who was their friend/colleague/or crony, then it is reasonable to suspect that those other relationships might influence their judgment (Baker and Pasuk discuss three of Thaksin’s justices in their biography of the man).
Again, I have to stress that I’d ascribe most (if not all) of these broader arguments to most constitutional courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. In America, there is a frankly disturbing trend of justices who are appointed by presidents to vote in favor of the policies of that president’s party. That’s why we see so many close 5-4 votes on ideological issues (think abortion, gay marriage, etc). I would subscribe to the notion that the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are political and vote politically, and use the law to justify their decisions. It is neither ridiculous nor irrespecutful to suggest that courts in other countries also behave politically.
Thai institutions: Constitutional Court
Debunking popular myths? This article is full of them. Nothing is ever straightforward, everything has to be a diabolical political manipulation. The concept that a Thai court could conceivably attempt to carry out its duty is just unthinkable.
The article implies that the court’s decisions have been the result of personal bias and political intrigue. So pardon me for asking: Where is the evidence? Show me some solid evidence. There isn’t any, is there? All you have is academic over-analysis of court decisions that could be interpreted in any number of ways by people with a different political bias.
The author lost me with the following ridiculous statement: “These courts are not necessarily created with the altruistic goal of protecting fundamental rights. Rather, constitutional court justices serve to enforce the policy preferences of the political elites who appointed them.” Got any evidence? A lot of Thai people think the constitution court has been rather diligent and even handed of late.
I suppose if things were simple you guys would be out of a job, eh?
French communist on Thai politics
Suzie Wong #6, some good points, but re.
“1. Thailand has always been colonized in the form of “Indirect Rule,” that’s why she grows at a faster rate than her immediate neighboring countries e.g. Laos, Cambodia (Kampuchea), Vietnam, Burma (Myanmar)”.
This was true in the past, but for considerably more than the past decade Vietnam has been growing economically at a notably faster pace than Thailand. Indeed Vietnam’s catch-up to Thailand has been quite surprising and spectacular.
Thailand’s war with the foreign media
Here is the link to the Bangkok Times Weekly Mail article about Dr. Goebbels discovered by Khi Kwai:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35876068/Goebbels-1934
Thailand’s war with the foreign media
Sorry, that webpage seems not to work. I posted here the whole report from Prachathai. But I wonder if we can trust this report:
BBC Seeks Solution after its Reporter is Charged with Lese Majeste
Sat, 12/04/2008 – 00:00
Prachatai
10 April 2008 –Associated Press reported progress in the case of Jonathan Head, BBC’s Asia-Pacific reporter who has been charged with lèse majesté under article 112 of the Criminal Code. The charge arises from his role as moderator of a seminar entitled “Coup, Capital and Crown” at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand (FCCT) on 13 December 2007. A representative of the international news broadcasting company said it is aware of the case and will find a solution as soon as possible.
The charge against Mr. Head was filed on 8 April 2008 by Pol Lt Wattanasak Mungkitjakarndee, Investigation Officer of Bang Mot Police Station, seconded to Phaholyothin Police Station. Pol Lt Wattanasak alleged that during the FCCT seminar Mr. Head used phases that constitute a violation of the laws on lèse majesté. Pol Lt Wattanasak then gathered evidence in the form of a CD of the seminar, an English transcript of Mr. Head’s speech, and a Thai translation and handed this to Pol Maj Boonlert Kalayanamit, an Investigation Officer at the Crime Suppression Division. Pol Lt Wattanasak has also filed a similar charge against the Committee of the FCCT.
Mr. Jonathan Head and the Committee members of the FCCT have reserved the right to remain silent regarding the case and commented that as this is a sensitive issue, any comments could affect the case.
The seminar hosted by the FCCT named ‘Coup, Capital, and Crown’ (meaning the Crown Property Bureau) focused on two publications namely Thai Capital after the 1997 Crisis written by Dr. Pasuk Phongpaijit and Chris Baker, and Journal of Contemporary Asia Special: The Thailand Coup edited by Kevin Hewison and Michael Connors.
Red&White, a blogger who attended the FCCT seminar on 13 December 2007 made a brief record of the speeches and the atmosphere. In his entry the blogger quoted Jonathan Head as saying, “As a journalist, it’s very frustrating not being able to discuss the monarchy, but we must respect the law and be restrained in what we say.”
Apart from that Jonathan also referred to the fact that, “”His Majesty The King is now eighty, he will not be around forever…[d]emocracy, the military and the monarchy are deeply linked.”
After that Jonathan Head introduced the four speakers who were Kevin Hewison, Pasuk Phongpaichit, Porphant Ouyyanont, Ukrist Patmanand.
The same blogger also raised concerns that there could be more charges against seminar participants apart from Jonathan Head and the FCCT committee, since the book “Thai Capital after the 1997 Crisis” analyses the effects of the economic crisis in 1997 on business, society, and politics. It refers to the important role of the Crown Property Bureau in supporting different investments.
The “Journal of Contemporary Asia Special: The Thailand Coup” is a compilation of 10 articles by Thai and international academics discussing the elements that led to the coup d’état in September 2006. It also discusses the effects of the coup on Thai society, including the question whether or not Thaksin was a threat to the monarchy.
Source:
http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/11821
Thailand’s war with the foreign media
Khi Kwai has dug up a July 11th, 1934, Bangkok Times Weekly Mail newspaper article titled:
“German News: Foreign Lying Reports – Dr. Goebbels Protests”, which quotes Germany’s Third Reich Minister of Propaganda Goebbels complaining about the foreign press coverage of the “Night of the Long Knives” events of June 30, 1934:
“I appeal to you fellow citizens to witness what in the history of journalism is an almost unexampled case of lying calumny and distortion of simple fact. June 30 (**the “Night of the Long Knives”**) passed off in Germany smoothly and without disturbances. The Fuehrer with authority and absolute courage smashed a small group of saboteurs. Aside from a few more serious foreign papers (**by this he means the “Friends of the Third Reich” foreign papers”**), the rest of the world press went into a frenzy of malevolent comment and hysterical libel.”
Not that Dr. Panitan has any resemblance to Dr. Goebbels or the present Thailand government any resemblance to the Third Reich……..but an interesting parallel nonetheless…….
Thailand’s war with the foreign media
Michael – 6,
It seems that Jonathan Head was actually charged with LM (Please see:
http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/586) But the charge was later dropped.
Thailand’s war with the foreign media
The recent comments on the Head case are important. Did acting government spokesman Panitan really say the case had been “dropped”? Recall that Abhisit said the same thing about Chotisak Onsoong and that was a lie. As far as I can tell, many of these accusations can be investigated for ages. It also seems useful for the powers that be to allow cases to hang for an eternity. If charges are not laid, they can always be reactivated, so they act as a kind of disciplining mechanism.
I suspect that Pavin relies on PPT’s page: http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/pendingcases/. Note that PPT uses the term “pending cases.” This isn’t about charges having been laid (as far as I can tell) but rather about accusations being made and police announcing investigations.
PPT adds: “PPT acknowledges that this is a very limited listing. There are no accurate figure on how many have been charged under these draconian laws. Recent (2010) estimates are that there are some 300 cases since the 2006 palace-military coup.”
Thailand’s war with the foreign media
When the Minister of Information Panitan appeared at a FCCT panel in February 2010, he made some fairly harsh remarks to the assembled journalists about how he perceived their reporting on what was going on in Thailand. As I recall, he said something like, “What happened? You used to like Thailand so much? And now you only report bad things about us?”…….
He then went on to announce that the government had decided to no longer pursue the LM case against the BBC correspondent Jonathan Head, kind of as if he were throwing a biscuit to a dog, and seemed surprised that there was no applause or any reaction at all….
He seemed completely unaware and oblivious that the assembled journalists thought the LM charge was so ludicrous, that dropping it was not really a favor to the FCCT crowd or Jonathan but more in the line of a step to save further embarrassment to the government………….
Thailand’s war with the foreign media
In his speech Penkair question the type of monarchy Thailand had, and compared it to other nations. There. One more lese majeste charge for me.
The blind men and the elephant in Cambodia
“Take the blue pill, Neo” – “The Matrix”
“Medication Time” – One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest
“…is in the altogether. But all together the altogether. He’s altogether as naked as the day that he was born” – “Hans Christian Andersen”
Are myths universal, or are they memes?
Thailand’s war with the foreign media
My understanding is that, although he has been accused several times, Jonathan Head has not been charged. (His departure from Thailand had nothing to do with the accusations. It was due to the normal re-shuffling processes of BBC, as he has been at pains to point out.)
Anyone may file LM accusations, and this has led to some people of rather dubious mentality &/or suspect agendas making complaints. Following a complaint there is an investigatory process, which can take some time, before a charge is made.
Luksna Kornsilpa sent out a hilariously funny Press Release, following her complaint against the FCCT board, in which she referred to FCCT as “a brothel of conspirators.” It’s one of my favorite pieces of ephemera on LM. It may be seen on Prachatai English next time the Ministry for Certain Things unblocks it.
A google search will assist NM readers to form their own opinions on Akbar Khan’s state of mind & motives for his mission, as well as his prospects in journalism, a profession he would apparently like to be in.
Thailand’s war with the foreign media
This is the time for investigative journalism to get to work. Plenty of opportunity, with some risk to those involved. Also, the diplomatic corps really has to start waking up to what is going on. And that is a near-uncertainty as it has to date kept aloof.
Thailand’s war with the foreign media
I would like to ask for clarification of “allegations” vs. “charges,” as the two are often used to mean the same thing – which they do not.
Charges are official accusations made by state agencies or formally filed in civil litigation. Allegations are far less formal, albeit they may be quite public as were nefarious LM charges against Head and others, but they do not carry the same weight as actual charges that can arise from allegations.
When we say “charged,” then, we need to make sure that actual state charges or formal charges in either the civil or criminal context have indeed been issued and state agencies are involved. If individuals or groups are filing allegations, then they are allegations and not charges unless the police or prosecutor’s office files them.
I stand ready to be corrected if this is inaccurate.
Robert Amsterdam on a “Strategy of Tension” in Bangkok
@Ralph
And who is Tony Carlucci? Can it be a pen name for Tony Waltham at Bannkok Post?
There seems to be one Tony too much accusing Thaksin of pro-globalism.