seems it is ok for the father of tree to go to prison and the monarchy left untouched , do you think this is fair for him and his family ,his kids are the future of Thailand ,has he committed crime ? or kill someone ? but, no he has not !!! this stupid law should be abolish and if they don’t !! i am sure they are more to come and i don’t think this will do Thailand any good , look at youtube website , plenty of angry people who posted the clips that insulted the monarchy and family , months ago i didn’t believe them at all but now i do know now why they hate xxxxxxxx so much, don’t blame them at all
These pictures never had been a danger for the monarchy. But now they become a danger to the monarchy, because of this silly, stupid and draconian sentence. People of Thailand will not accept, that a father of 3 children has to go to prison for some silly pictures, and leave 2 generations without income. This type of law and this sentence is not intended to protect the Nation, but to destroy the loyalty to the Nation and the Monarchy.
Please set up a donation link. I like to donate to this poor family.
Charrurat – That’s a reasonable question, and I am assuming a sincere one.
What you seem you be saying is right, that in a strictly technical sense, Abhisit came to power within the legal framework of Thai democracy.
The problem is his path to the top was facilitated by extra-legal means — starting with the 2006 coup, and in a more immediate sense, the illegal actions of the PAD and the continuing interference of the military in the political process, including the pressure applied by Gen. Anupong – well-reported by the press – in the days immediately prior to the parliamentary vote to seat Abhisit.
I daresay many people share your opinion that Abhisit is the best possible choice for PM in a less than sterling field.
But many people also believe it is even more important to take a stand on the principle that military intervention in politics is simply unacceptable.
I’m not sure what you mean by hard evidence, and perhaps what I consider the fairly self-evident events of last year don’t meet your criteria.
OK, then, I’ll offer a more simple proposition. Would Abhisit be prime minister today if the army hadn’t staged the September 2006 coup?
Some people treat the coup as if it was an act of God, something unchallengeable. Actually, it was an illegal and undemocratic intervention into politics (no matter how many ex post facto justifications are manufactured for it).
So I am contending that at a minimum, there is a line connecting the coup and Abhisit’s rise to power. Unless your “understanding about DEMOCRACY and Thai Constitution” leaves room for coups, I think you will understand my point.
One small friendly suggestion: don’t go apologizing in advance for your English language skills – it just comes across as a plea for special treatment. Your post is perfectly understandable. People on this blog will judge you by what you have to say, not how you say it (assuming you keep within the range of decency and avoid personal attacks).
….. (Finally 2 with a lethal kick so there cannot be an unholy third movie) Contempt of the Sovereign is an offence under the common law of England and Wales, but today has fallen into disuse, and most give respect to the Sovereign out of common courtesy. – the wikipedia oracle
…. and (finally) yes, the PM is not our head of state, but surely the Queen has been given worse abuse over the years. Far worse! And she’s a little old lady!
I didn’t think Amnesty International would privately be allowed to be publicly callous in regards to LM outside of Thailand.
Understandably there is some level of silence in Thailand – can you imagine the whole organisation there being charged with Lese Majeste? Is it worth the risk for them? Especially as it would see those in need for other reasons suddenly be that much more helpless…
But that there is nothing from Amnesty International outside of Thailand on Lese Majeste does strike me as a bit toothless, or bleak or without a match for the candle, or some other appropriate metaphor. I suppose their header is a stark yellow, so how much can we really expect?
I found that article by Professor Borwornsak of the King Prajadhipok’s Institute as superficial at best and intellectually dishonest at worst, filled with irrelevant comparisons to other laws, civil or unenforced for ages as crimes, and resorting finally to the paternalism that always seems to be the last refuge for defending lese majeste as a major crime.
One particulary disingenuous comment stands out when the author writes:
“It was unfortunate that Mr. Nicolaides had not petitioned to the King before being imprisoned. Had His Majesty the King learned of his plight before the court issued its verdict, Nicolaides’ case might have been dropped. A number of earlier cases were, as the attorney-general and prosecutors in charge of those cases could testify. ”
Since Harry Nicolaides was arrested on a secret warrant at Bangkok airport, and was then jailed immediately without bail, one wonders how the writer could even suggest that he might have petitioned the King before being incarcerated.
Moreover, the suggestion that the palace was unaware of this farang Nicolaides’ case before the verdict was rendered seems preposterous. If true, the lot of royal advisors in and out of the Privy Council should all be fired.
The only positive aspect of the article is the suggestion at the very end that lese majeste be reformed to allow only the Attorney General to initiate such prosecutions.
One wonders if that’s the real reason the article was written: to put into motion some mechanism to get this lese majeste genie back into the bottle before it upends the institution it’s supposed to be defending.
@Srithanonchai #26
we wept too about the insult
the man should have wept BEFORE he deliberately violated thai laws.
he pleaded guilty and was charged
with violating Article 112 of the Criminal Code and violating the computer crime act
so why the crocodile tears? remorse??
we’ve seen even mass-murderers weeping in the electric chair.
but most of them were NOT weeping about their deeds or their victims,
NO they were weeping in self-pity!
For some people, the UDD actions have really serious problems.
ASTV Phuchatkan (March 31) reports on the PAD supporters in Sungai Kolok, on the Narathiwat/Malaysian border. The reporters interviewed four Chinese-Thai women at the local market. One of them complained:
“We are Chinese-Thai. We always like to dress in red. However, at the recent Chinese New Year, our families and we did not at all wear red. Instead, we dressed in pink. We could not stand the [UDD] slogan ‘The entire country is red.’ Until today, we do not buy any red cloths. All that we have already, we keep in the wardrobe. We do not use them any longer at all.”
The problem with the lèse majesté law is that it is unjust and tyrannical. It has the potential to catch large numbers of innocent people, who would then be treated extremely unjustly. The absurd injustice of the Thai lèse majesté law would be completely appropriate for the plot of a Gilbert & Sullivan operetta scoffing at aspects of the British constitution that resemble asiatic despotism.
The argument that everything would be OK if it were applied unchanged, but sparingly at the discretion of some official or other, is not, I think, one that one that would be accepted by jurists in legally more mature countries. That would be an open invitation for the selected official to use it on his enemies. Hence the ironic suggestion in this thread by Nudi Samsao that General Prem could play this r├┤le.
Since the original clip that got YouTube blocked in Thailand in 2007, there have been any number of clips that could be interpreted as LM. Take your pick.
I don’t know the real reason as I’m not US Ambassador. But isn’t it Gen Prem’s birthday?
Having just read all the comments, it seems to me that you guys are talking about “evidences.” I would love to see evidences too, both in favour and against Thaksin, regarding all the issues you’re talking about here. Could someone please gather all in one comment ? And, if you’re kind enough, having just heard from the news this early night, could someone also provide me evidence –for and against– for the claim that Thaksin has a REALLY large sum of money somewhere at Cayman Islands?
I must say that I am absolutely mystified as to why my original comment on this post seems to have not past muster, whereas comments from R. N. England and Ralph Kramden did.
Without comment from the moderators, it seems that one of the guidelines for posting on NM is “Criticism of Amnesty International: OK, Criticism of the UN: verboten.”
Considering that I, in good faith, believed that I was furthering the conversation by connecting the rationale given for LM laws to the larger debate concerning the globalization of media and free speech, perhaps a moderator would be so kind enough as to explain why my original comment was neither “high-quality” nor “original”.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The fate of Suwicha Thakhor
seems it is ok for the father of tree to go to prison and the monarchy left untouched , do you think this is fair for him and his family ,his kids are the future of Thailand ,has he committed crime ? or kill someone ? but, no he has not !!! this stupid law should be abolish and if they don’t !! i am sure they are more to come and i don’t think this will do Thailand any good , look at youtube website , plenty of angry people who posted the clips that insulted the monarchy and family , months ago i didn’t believe them at all but now i do know now why they hate xxxxxxxx so much, don’t blame them at all
An international disgrace
These pictures never had been a danger for the monarchy. But now they become a danger to the monarchy, because of this silly, stupid and draconian sentence. People of Thailand will not accept, that a father of 3 children has to go to prison for some silly pictures, and leave 2 generations without income. This type of law and this sentence is not intended to protect the Nation, but to destroy the loyalty to the Nation and the Monarchy.
Please set up a donation link. I like to donate to this poor family.
Full text of Abhisit speech in Oxford
Charrurat – That’s a reasonable question, and I am assuming a sincere one.
What you seem you be saying is right, that in a strictly technical sense, Abhisit came to power within the legal framework of Thai democracy.
The problem is his path to the top was facilitated by extra-legal means — starting with the 2006 coup, and in a more immediate sense, the illegal actions of the PAD and the continuing interference of the military in the political process, including the pressure applied by Gen. Anupong – well-reported by the press – in the days immediately prior to the parliamentary vote to seat Abhisit.
I daresay many people share your opinion that Abhisit is the best possible choice for PM in a less than sterling field.
But many people also believe it is even more important to take a stand on the principle that military intervention in politics is simply unacceptable.
I’m not sure what you mean by hard evidence, and perhaps what I consider the fairly self-evident events of last year don’t meet your criteria.
OK, then, I’ll offer a more simple proposition. Would Abhisit be prime minister today if the army hadn’t staged the September 2006 coup?
Some people treat the coup as if it was an act of God, something unchallengeable. Actually, it was an illegal and undemocratic intervention into politics (no matter how many ex post facto justifications are manufactured for it).
So I am contending that at a minimum, there is a line connecting the coup and Abhisit’s rise to power. Unless your “understanding about DEMOCRACY and Thai Constitution” leaves room for coups, I think you will understand my point.
One small friendly suggestion: don’t go apologizing in advance for your English language skills – it just comes across as a plea for special treatment. Your post is perfectly understandable. People on this blog will judge you by what you have to say, not how you say it (assuming you keep within the range of decency and avoid personal attacks).
UDD – where to?
what do you think of Thailand’s ‘socialist’ party as the way out of the current ‘bad or worse’ situation?
The fate of Suwicha Thakhor
….. (Finally 2 with a lethal kick so there cannot be an unholy third movie) Contempt of the Sovereign is an offence under the common law of England and Wales, but today has fallen into disuse, and most give respect to the Sovereign out of common courtesy. – the wikipedia oracle
My comments are irrepressible tonight!!!!
The fate of Suwicha Thakhor
…. and (finally) yes, the PM is not our head of state, but surely the Queen has been given worse abuse over the years. Far worse! And she’s a little old lady!
The fate of Suwicha Thakhor
and Stephan — here is one country: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSJ6OR9tx8&feature=related
The fate of Suwicha Thakhor
and by Frank, I mean Ralph.
The fate of Suwicha Thakhor
Stephan, perhaps this http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/2009/02/amnesty-international-and-lese-majeste.html is where Frank’s coming from?
I didn’t think Amnesty International would privately be allowed to be publicly callous in regards to LM outside of Thailand.
Understandably there is some level of silence in Thailand – can you imagine the whole organisation there being charged with Lese Majeste? Is it worth the risk for them? Especially as it would see those in need for other reasons suddenly be that much more helpless…
But that there is nothing from Amnesty International outside of Thailand on Lese Majeste does strike me as a bit toothless, or bleak or without a match for the candle, or some other appropriate metaphor. I suppose their header is a stark yellow, so how much can we really expect?
On lèse majesté
I found that article by Professor Borwornsak of the King Prajadhipok’s Institute as superficial at best and intellectually dishonest at worst, filled with irrelevant comparisons to other laws, civil or unenforced for ages as crimes, and resorting finally to the paternalism that always seems to be the last refuge for defending lese majeste as a major crime.
One particulary disingenuous comment stands out when the author writes:
“It was unfortunate that Mr. Nicolaides had not petitioned to the King before being imprisoned. Had His Majesty the King learned of his plight before the court issued its verdict, Nicolaides’ case might have been dropped. A number of earlier cases were, as the attorney-general and prosecutors in charge of those cases could testify. ”
Since Harry Nicolaides was arrested on a secret warrant at Bangkok airport, and was then jailed immediately without bail, one wonders how the writer could even suggest that he might have petitioned the King before being incarcerated.
Moreover, the suggestion that the palace was unaware of this farang Nicolaides’ case before the verdict was rendered seems preposterous. If true, the lot of royal advisors in and out of the Privy Council should all be fired.
The only positive aspect of the article is the suggestion at the very end that lese majeste be reformed to allow only the Attorney General to initiate such prosecutions.
One wonders if that’s the real reason the article was written: to put into motion some mechanism to get this lese majeste genie back into the bottle before it upends the institution it’s supposed to be defending.
On lèse majesté
@Srithanonchai #26
we wept too about the insult
the man should have wept BEFORE he deliberately violated thai laws.
he pleaded guilty and was charged
with violating Article 112 of the Criminal Code and violating the computer crime act
so why the crocodile tears? remorse??
we’ve seen even mass-murderers weeping in the electric chair.
but most of them were NOT weeping about their deeds or their victims,
NO they were weeping in self-pity!
UDD – where to?
For some people, the UDD actions have really serious problems.
ASTV Phuchatkan (March 31) reports on the PAD supporters in Sungai Kolok, on the Narathiwat/Malaysian border. The reporters interviewed four Chinese-Thai women at the local market. One of them complained:
“We are Chinese-Thai. We always like to dress in red. However, at the recent Chinese New Year, our families and we did not at all wear red. Instead, we dressed in pink. We could not stand the [UDD] slogan ‘The entire country is red.’ Until today, we do not buy any red cloths. All that we have already, we keep in the wardrobe. We do not use them any longer at all.”
An international disgrace
I have seen no descriptions anywhere of what he posted, except this in the BBC’s report after the sentencing:
“A court in Bangkok said Suwicha Thakho, 34, digitally altered images of King Bhumibol Adulyadej and his family and posted them on the internet.
“The court did not say how the pictures were changed or where they appeared, but local media cited YouTube.”
On lèse majesté
The problem with the lèse majesté law is that it is unjust and tyrannical. It has the potential to catch large numbers of innocent people, who would then be treated extremely unjustly. The absurd injustice of the Thai lèse majesté law would be completely appropriate for the plot of a Gilbert & Sullivan operetta scoffing at aspects of the British constitution that resemble asiatic despotism.
The argument that everything would be OK if it were applied unchanged, but sparingly at the discretion of some official or other, is not, I think, one that one that would be accepted by jurists in legally more mature countries. That would be an open invitation for the selected official to use it on his enemies. Hence the ironic suggestion in this thread by Nudi Samsao that General Prem could play this r├┤le.
An international disgrace
BBC report http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7981769.stm
Bkk Post http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/14507/man-gets-10-years-for-insulting-monarchy
Since the original clip that got YouTube blocked in Thailand in 2007, there have been any number of clips that could be interpreted as LM. Take your pick.
On lèse majesté
Sorry, the link is on Srithanonchai’s #27, NOT 26. Recommended for everyone with an interest in LM.
The fate of Suwicha Thakhor
A sentence that shames humanity, and by a nation that imported a religion based on tolerance and understanding…
The fate of Suwicha Thakhor
LSS – no deliberate action to block your comment. Just a combination of poor internet connections and jetlag. AW
901, royal politics and Thaksin Shinawatra
Peter#85
I don’t know the real reason as I’m not US Ambassador. But isn’t it Gen Prem’s birthday?
Having just read all the comments, it seems to me that you guys are talking about “evidences.” I would love to see evidences too, both in favour and against Thaksin, regarding all the issues you’re talking about here. Could someone please gather all in one comment ? And, if you’re kind enough, having just heard from the news this early night, could someone also provide me evidence –for and against– for the claim that Thaksin has a REALLY large sum of money somewhere at Cayman Islands?
The fate of Suwicha Thakhor
I must say that I am absolutely mystified as to why my original comment on this post seems to have not past muster, whereas comments from R. N. England and Ralph Kramden did.
Without comment from the moderators, it seems that one of the guidelines for posting on NM is “Criticism of Amnesty International: OK, Criticism of the UN: verboten.”
Considering that I, in good faith, believed that I was furthering the conversation by connecting the rationale given for LM laws to the larger debate concerning the globalization of media and free speech, perhaps a moderator would be so kind enough as to explain why my original comment was neither “high-quality” nor “original”.
Thank you.