I think Dan is interested to see articles you wrote, while you were a journalist in Thailand that would meet the demands you are now making of other journalists who are still working in Thailand. I would be interested to see them too. From my search of the archives what you published as a working journalist is pretty much the same as what other journalists, who you now condemn, are writing.
Nick, I fully understand your predicament, and your fears.
I would suggest that the best thing foreign journalists can do is to make the effort to understand 21st century Thailand, and not be brainwashed by old fairytale conceptions of Thai society.
If all foreign journalists did what you do – approach every situation with an open mind and a hunger for knowledge – then we would not be in this predicament.
If I understand you correctly, “Dan”, not only are you using a fake name that corresponds (I’m sure accidentally) to a friend of mine who I used to regularly disagree with, and who tragically died last year, but you are also suggesting that because I was not based in Thailand when I published #thaistory, my geographical location at the time I wrote it makes it somehow suspect.
Your view seems to be that because after publishing #thaistory I can no longer return to Thailand (even when my wife and son visit their country) I should not be taken seriously.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the offensiveness of your remarks, so I’d like to give you one more opportunity to state your argument more clearly.
Of course whatever issues I face pale into insignificance compared to what Somyot and his family are facing. So I am reluctant to get annoyed by your deliberately provocative remarks until you clarify them.
The King is widely revered and widely respected in Thailand. Many Thais do think of him and look to him as a unifying force. These are factual statements that are needed to set a context in any story about the monarchy and politics in Thailand.
The difference, for me, compared with 5 or 6 years ago is that journalist no longer automatically write “universally revered” as they used to.
In case anyone was wondering, these articles were by me. And if anyone can spot anything I said that is wrong, please let me know.
The key point is, of course, that the king may still be widely revered, but he is no longer universally revered, and there is a world of difference between these two positions.
Is this really the best argument anyone can offer against my arguments? It’s a little embarrassing. I stormed in, guns blazing, to find that pretty much everybody actually agrees with me already. Oh well.
Hi Andrew,
I have tried to stay out of this debate. Mostly also because for me making statements and all that is like throwing paperclips. My world is more the street… 😉
I have though a few thoughts on your view that change is to come from without. I see very little chance for that, on the opposite – i feel, based on many conversations with royalists and military on this subject over the past years that the more pressure – from both within *and* without – the more their position hardens. Pressure from without is usually viewed by those parts of Thai society as being increasingly entrenched by outsiders who do not understand the extend the monarchy is, in their view, at the core of Thai culture and its entire existence. I think years now of the state disregarding the many academics advocating to use western legal systems and practices as a way out of the Thai quagmire has proven that any hope for less harsh lese majeste laws is nothing but a pipedream.
And on the other side are now several growing groups who do express their discontent with these royalist views quite openly. Some are rational and moderate in the way how they express themselves, but many others are very emotion-based, and in speeches, songs and poetry go far beyond mere demands for changes in the 112 laws – and all that even on open stages.
This leaves me with a very uneasy feeling on the future. It seems to be quite clear by now that dissenting voices will not be cowed by harsh sentences such as against Somjos, and become even more outspoken in their criticism.
What will happen when the state realizes that it needs additional measures to protect the monarchy? What will those measures be? And how will foreign journalists fit in there, especially regarding safety issues when facing protesters that feel entrenched by the outside world?
I can’t offer any solution here, and i don’t don’t know what is the right or wrong thing to do here. When it comes over the differing views in today’s Thai society over the role of the monarchy i often don’t even know what and where the lines not to cross for us journalists still are.
Looking at it from the street angle it is quite confusing. What can i write, and what not? And there the 112 laws are for me really a minor issue – a more pressing issue is that i do not want to be the cause of someone’s arrest (or even worse) because i wrote or photographed something that i should have published if i would do my job impartially and objectively, which i have always tried to. But not publishing it would be an omission that is hardly compatible with the ethics of our profession.
What to do now? I don’t know. These are just thoughts i often ponder about, and so far found no comfortable answer, or anyone who could give me one.
In this situation it seems to me that whatever we do, or not do, is going to be wrong.
At times of crisis, Thais have traditionally looked to the widely revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej to heal divisions and halt a slide towards turmoil.Few would disagree that Thailand faces a crisis now. But this time, the king — regarded as semi-divine by many of Thailand’s 65 million people — has been silent. http://in.reuters.com/article/2008/12/05/idINIndia-36890720081205
And in 2009:
One unifying figure is King Bhumibol Adulyadej, widely respected by Thais whatever their political affiliation. But while the king is revered, the role of the monarchy in Thai politics is a deeply divisive issue. Royalists in the yellow camp support an interventionist monarchy, while many of Thaksin’s supporters resent the power of unelected Thai elites. http://nokorkhmer.blogspot.com.au/2009/04/is-there-escape-route-from-thailands.html
And again in 2009:
Thailand’s 81-year-old King Bhumibol Adulyadej has been hospitalised for fatigue and fever, but doctors say his health is improving. Bhumibol is widely revered in Thailand, but his son and presumed heir, Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn, does not command the same popular support as his father. Many Thais and political risk analysts fear a focus on succession amid an already inflamed political climate could be destabilising. http://in.reuters.com/article/2009/09/28/asia-risk-themes-idINSP43521520090928
As I made clear in my most recent blog post on the subject, the looming succession is another reason the foreign media need to establish clear principles now and defend them. If they have not done so by the time the ninth reign ends, what follows will be even more hazardous and difficult for journalists.
It is my feeling here that the Thai body politic is bracing itself quietly for a very big unknown that is imminent and that their emotional resources are bound to this right now. My sense is that most Thais, especially the ones politically conscious, are simply afraid because no one knows what this new Thailand is going to be. This fear is much deeper than criticizing 112.
The real action will begin soon enough after the transition. You can then press the foreign media to throw light on critical Thai voices speaking against the establishment.
Sure, Dan, how about my book-length study #thaistory, which cost me a comfortable senior job at Reuters and my ability to travel to Thailand? It is newly available as an e-book on Amazon Kindle, you will be delighted to hear: http://www.amazon.com/thaistory-ebook/dp/B00B7P96FC
If you are trying to imply that I don’t practice what I preach, good luck with that… It’s an even less promising strategy than claiming that my reporting on Thailand is extremist anti-royal activism.
Dear Andrew MacGregor Marshall, I would be very interested to read some of your own articles shedding light on the monarchy’s role in the Thai political crisis and/or your views on LM expressed while you were living and working in Thailand. I think you were based here before, right? Do you have some links? That might provide some useful context given your strong criticism of foreign media here. Thanks
If David really does not know what to say about these issues any longer, I wonder what he will say on the AAS panel. 🙂
ROUNDTABLE: The Monarchy in Post-
Bhumibol Thailand
Chaired by Pavin Chachavalpongpun, Kyoto
University
Discussant(s):
Charnvit Kasetsiri, Thammasat University
Andrew Walker, Australian National University
David Streckfuss, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Aim Sinpeng, University of British Columbia
Maybe, the panel organizers could, on short notice, invite the secretary general of the King Prajadhipok Institute, Borwornsak Uwanno, to explain his position, given that KPI will hold its annual conference on the theme, “Royal Good Governance: from Absolutist Royal Good Governance to Democratic Royal Good Governance.”
Having thought long and hard about the answer to this question too, my conclusion is that if some sanity is to be restored to how Article 112 is applied, change has to be driven by foreign media coverage (and foreign academic work) on Thailand.
Change will not come from within, certainly not before some time after the succession. Until that time, no sensible Thai politician will want to touch the issue, and obviously it would be entirely unrealistic to expect impetus from below to drive change, however many Thais are privately uneasy about what is happening to freedom of speech in their country.
So change has to come from without, driven by foreign academics and journalists.
The obvious objection to this assertion is that it is not the job of foreign journalists and academics to drive legislative change in Thailand and tell Thais how to run their country. There some truth in that, although as journalists and academics we need to stand up for academic and journalistic freedom, and so of course I welcome the unequivocal statements above from David Streckfuss, Michael Connors, Andrew Brown, Kevin Hewison and others, and I was very disappointed by the failure of the FCCT to issue a statement. Frankly I think issuing unequivocal statements like these is the least we should do – it may have limited impact but failing to issue a statement is itself a statement, and sets a very unhelpful message.
But the key thing foreign academics and journalists could and should do is just do their jobs. If academic studies and journalistic reportage routinely and unflinchingly discuss the reality of the monarchy’s central place in Thailand’s unfolding political upheavals, it will become harder and harder for Thai judges to routinely state when handing down draconian sentences that the palace is above politics, the monarchy is universally adored, and that anyone who says otherwise is a threat to national security. Change will not happen overnight, of course, but over time the dissonance between the consensus informed view of Thailand and the fairytale version the royalists are trying to prop up would become too glaring to sustain (unless Thailand is determined to continue down the disastrous path of North Korea style indoctrination and hermetically seal its people from exposure to foreign media).
In my opinion, foreign academics (including those who have contributed to the above discussion) have fulfilled their professional obligations. You will not find a credible recent study of Thailand by a respected international academic that fails to acknowledge the difficult issue of the monarchy when appropriate.
The same cannot be said of the vast majority of the foreign media, in the years since Paul Handley’s massive contribution. Some of them (especially many of the old timers) repeat the same old fairytales that the monarchy is universally revered and the king cannily keeps out of politics. Others just do their best not to mention the monarchy at all, and in doing so perpetuate the myth that the palace is not political and not a factor in the current crisis. The story of Thaksin’s rise and fall and current struggle to return cannot be properly told without reference to the monarchy: Thai politics are just incomprehensible otherwise.
So this is the reason I believe the foreign media are failing Thailand. By knowingly self-censoring themselves to a degree not seen anywhere else on the planet, and by failing to be honest about their self-censorship, they are colluding in the state of denial being enforced by the Thai establishment.
So while Andrew Walker has a point that my original article was aggressively polemical (it was written in anger in the immediate aftermath of the FCCT’s refusal to condemn Somyot’s sentence) I continue to believe that the basic arguments I made were well founded.
But I also recognize that not everybody journalist can resign from their job and become an exile from Thailand. This is why I have proposed, as a compromise, that journalists who do not feel able to report on Thailand accurately include an explicit disclaimer in their reports. This in itself would play a useful role in persuading the Thai authorities to take a more reasonable approach to Article 112.
David,
You pose the question of what to do now?
As an historian you will find your answer in history itself. Every struggle for freedoms within a society needs to come from within. Every tool of reppression can only be beaten by the people themselves. Outside condemnations are very useful in publicising the case against LM in Thailand as well as other countries. Ultimately the struggle will be won in Thailand itself. It is upto reporters and their organisations to support this struggle by honestly reporting the facts of every case.For the last 2 years I have seen a ground swell of people wearing T shirts, demonstrating in public and voicing their concerns against LM. The campaign to free Somyot and all other political prisoners will not go away. Eventually this govt will be forced to compromise and change the law.I just hope they have the vision to scrap 112 and computer laws instead of just tinkering with it.I live in hope as always.
Rights groups say the disappearance of a Lao activist highlights Southeast Asia’s worsening rights record.
The “forced disappearance” of Lao activist Sombath Somphone is a blow to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), rights groups said Tuesday, as members of parliament across Asia and Europe urged the Laotian Prime minister to order an “urgent” investigation into his case.
…Saksinee Emasiri, a coordinator for the Human Rights and Peaceful Studies Institute at Thailand’s Mahidol University who was also present at Tuesday’s seminar, told RFA that Sombath’s disappearance was a sign that the state of human rights in the ASEAN bloc of nations–which includes Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam–were regressing.
I would like to follow up on comments by Kevin, Micheal, and AMM. As an academic, as a human, I am distressed as the lese majeste machine continues to grind through defendant after defendant with no end in sight and worse, with seeminly very limited debate about the law within Thai society. Thailand has long gotten a pass on this issue—from embassies, from academics, from journalists. I am looking into the evolution of Japan’s lm law and it never seemed to quite reach the absurd levels as it has in Thailand, even in wartime. There is simply no rational or humane defense of the law. But I think everyone is largely on the same page on this account.
The real question is what to do about it. I am really stuck on this. The Campaign for the Reform of Article 112 has been quiet for half a year now. As Kevin and Michael knows, numerous letters have been signed and sent to the Thai government on the issue. I actually don’t know what to do or say any more about it. The EU delegation in Thailand has done its bit. Embassies have spoken out. External pressure is useful and morally necessary. But what to do now?
I join all those who oppose the abuse of human rights in Thailand, regardless of which pole is in power. Somyot’s continued imprisonment reflects contempt towards human beings who seek to live with dignity. Devoid of empathy and indifferently extravagant with punishment, may those who continue the political deployment of lese majeste one day face the imprisoned in more equal circumstances. Will they recognise themselves in the face of the returned?
Kevin Hewison (#10.1) calls on other academics to express their views about the inhumane treatment meted out to Somyot Prueksakasemsuk and all the others who have been prosecuted and imprisoned for their supposed violations of the lèse majesté law in Thailand. I support Hewison’s condemnation of the treatment, conviction, and sentencing of all Thai citizens who have dared to voice alternative views about how their nation’s politics might be organised and conducted. The use of an archaic law to stifle democratic debate about Thailand’s future is reprehensible. History will also undoubtedly show that if the law continues to be employed, it will only have hastened the destruction of the political project that ostensibly it was meant to serve. I call on the Thai government to release all those who have been convicted under Article 112 of the Thai Criminal Code and, in so doing, lay the foundation for the building of genuine political dialogue between the nation’s competing social forces and interests.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Tolerating intolerance
I think Dan is interested to see articles you wrote, while you were a journalist in Thailand that would meet the demands you are now making of other journalists who are still working in Thailand. I would be interested to see them too. From my search of the archives what you published as a working journalist is pretty much the same as what other journalists, who you now condemn, are writing.
Tolerating intolerance
Nick, I fully understand your predicament, and your fears.
I would suggest that the best thing foreign journalists can do is to make the effort to understand 21st century Thailand, and not be brainwashed by old fairytale conceptions of Thai society.
If all foreign journalists did what you do – approach every situation with an open mind and a hunger for knowledge – then we would not be in this predicament.
Tolerating intolerance
If I understand you correctly, “Dan”, not only are you using a fake name that corresponds (I’m sure accidentally) to a friend of mine who I used to regularly disagree with, and who tragically died last year, but you are also suggesting that because I was not based in Thailand when I published #thaistory, my geographical location at the time I wrote it makes it somehow suspect.
Your view seems to be that because after publishing #thaistory I can no longer return to Thailand (even when my wife and son visit their country) I should not be taken seriously.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the offensiveness of your remarks, so I’d like to give you one more opportunity to state your argument more clearly.
Of course whatever issues I face pale into insignificance compared to what Somyot and his family are facing. So I am reluctant to get annoyed by your deliberately provocative remarks until you clarify them.
Cheers
Tolerating intolerance
Thanks Andrew. Yes I know of your study thaistory which is a commendable work. But I asked about things you wrote while you were living in Thailand?
Tolerating intolerance
Not Reuters
The King is widely revered and widely respected in Thailand. Many Thais do think of him and look to him as a unifying force. These are factual statements that are needed to set a context in any story about the monarchy and politics in Thailand.
The difference, for me, compared with 5 or 6 years ago is that journalist no longer automatically write “universally revered” as they used to.
Tolerating intolerance
In case anyone was wondering, these articles were by me. And if anyone can spot anything I said that is wrong, please let me know.
The key point is, of course, that the king may still be widely revered, but he is no longer universally revered, and there is a world of difference between these two positions.
Is this really the best argument anyone can offer against my arguments? It’s a little embarrassing. I stormed in, guns blazing, to find that pretty much everybody actually agrees with me already. Oh well.
Tolerating intolerance
Hi Andrew,
I have tried to stay out of this debate. Mostly also because for me making statements and all that is like throwing paperclips. My world is more the street… 😉
I have though a few thoughts on your view that change is to come from without. I see very little chance for that, on the opposite – i feel, based on many conversations with royalists and military on this subject over the past years that the more pressure – from both within *and* without – the more their position hardens. Pressure from without is usually viewed by those parts of Thai society as being increasingly entrenched by outsiders who do not understand the extend the monarchy is, in their view, at the core of Thai culture and its entire existence. I think years now of the state disregarding the many academics advocating to use western legal systems and practices as a way out of the Thai quagmire has proven that any hope for less harsh lese majeste laws is nothing but a pipedream.
And on the other side are now several growing groups who do express their discontent with these royalist views quite openly. Some are rational and moderate in the way how they express themselves, but many others are very emotion-based, and in speeches, songs and poetry go far beyond mere demands for changes in the 112 laws – and all that even on open stages.
This leaves me with a very uneasy feeling on the future. It seems to be quite clear by now that dissenting voices will not be cowed by harsh sentences such as against Somjos, and become even more outspoken in their criticism.
What will happen when the state realizes that it needs additional measures to protect the monarchy? What will those measures be? And how will foreign journalists fit in there, especially regarding safety issues when facing protesters that feel entrenched by the outside world?
I can’t offer any solution here, and i don’t don’t know what is the right or wrong thing to do here. When it comes over the differing views in today’s Thai society over the role of the monarchy i often don’t even know what and where the lines not to cross for us journalists still are.
Looking at it from the street angle it is quite confusing. What can i write, and what not? And there the 112 laws are for me really a minor issue – a more pressing issue is that i do not want to be the cause of someone’s arrest (or even worse) because i wrote or photographed something that i should have published if i would do my job impartially and objectively, which i have always tried to. But not publishing it would be an omission that is hardly compatible with the ethics of our profession.
What to do now? I don’t know. These are just thoughts i often ponder about, and so far found no comfortable answer, or anyone who could give me one.
In this situation it seems to me that whatever we do, or not do, is going to be wrong.
Tolerating intolerance
One foreign journalist on the king in 2008:
And in 2009:
And again in 2009:
Guess who????????
Tolerating intolerance
Mark Moran #46
As I made clear in my most recent blog post on the subject, the looming succession is another reason the foreign media need to establish clear principles now and defend them. If they have not done so by the time the ninth reign ends, what follows will be even more hazardous and difficult for journalists.
Tolerating intolerance
AMM,
It is my feeling here that the Thai body politic is bracing itself quietly for a very big unknown that is imminent and that their emotional resources are bound to this right now. My sense is that most Thais, especially the ones politically conscious, are simply afraid because no one knows what this new Thailand is going to be. This fear is much deeper than criticizing 112.
The real action will begin soon enough after the transition. You can then press the foreign media to throw light on critical Thai voices speaking against the establishment.
Tolerating intolerance
Sure, Dan, how about my book-length study #thaistory, which cost me a comfortable senior job at Reuters and my ability to travel to Thailand? It is newly available as an e-book on Amazon Kindle, you will be delighted to hear: http://www.amazon.com/thaistory-ebook/dp/B00B7P96FC
If you are trying to imply that I don’t practice what I preach, good luck with that… It’s an even less promising strategy than claiming that my reporting on Thailand is extremist anti-royal activism.
Tolerating intolerance
Dear Andrew MacGregor Marshall, I would be very interested to read some of your own articles shedding light on the monarchy’s role in the Thai political crisis and/or your views on LM expressed while you were living and working in Thailand. I think you were based here before, right? Do you have some links? That might provide some useful context given your strong criticism of foreign media here. Thanks
Tolerating intolerance
“What is to be done?” Now there is a question that a) I’ve heard before and b) Answers itself once it is asked.
Tolerating intolerance
If David really does not know what to say about these issues any longer, I wonder what he will say on the AAS panel. 🙂
ROUNDTABLE: The Monarchy in Post-
Bhumibol Thailand
Chaired by Pavin Chachavalpongpun, Kyoto
University
Discussant(s):
Charnvit Kasetsiri, Thammasat University
Andrew Walker, Australian National University
David Streckfuss, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Aim Sinpeng, University of British Columbia
Maybe, the panel organizers could, on short notice, invite the secretary general of the King Prajadhipok Institute, Borwornsak Uwanno, to explain his position, given that KPI will hold its annual conference on the theme, “Royal Good Governance: from Absolutist Royal Good Governance to Democratic Royal Good Governance.”
In this context, one might read an article on a recently cremated king of a neighboring country at http://asiancorrespondent.com/96813/sihanouk-cambodias-last-true-king/
Tolerating intolerance
David Streckfuss #42.1 asks “But what to do now?”
Having thought long and hard about the answer to this question too, my conclusion is that if some sanity is to be restored to how Article 112 is applied, change has to be driven by foreign media coverage (and foreign academic work) on Thailand.
Change will not come from within, certainly not before some time after the succession. Until that time, no sensible Thai politician will want to touch the issue, and obviously it would be entirely unrealistic to expect impetus from below to drive change, however many Thais are privately uneasy about what is happening to freedom of speech in their country.
So change has to come from without, driven by foreign academics and journalists.
The obvious objection to this assertion is that it is not the job of foreign journalists and academics to drive legislative change in Thailand and tell Thais how to run their country. There some truth in that, although as journalists and academics we need to stand up for academic and journalistic freedom, and so of course I welcome the unequivocal statements above from David Streckfuss, Michael Connors, Andrew Brown, Kevin Hewison and others, and I was very disappointed by the failure of the FCCT to issue a statement. Frankly I think issuing unequivocal statements like these is the least we should do – it may have limited impact but failing to issue a statement is itself a statement, and sets a very unhelpful message.
But the key thing foreign academics and journalists could and should do is just do their jobs. If academic studies and journalistic reportage routinely and unflinchingly discuss the reality of the monarchy’s central place in Thailand’s unfolding political upheavals, it will become harder and harder for Thai judges to routinely state when handing down draconian sentences that the palace is above politics, the monarchy is universally adored, and that anyone who says otherwise is a threat to national security. Change will not happen overnight, of course, but over time the dissonance between the consensus informed view of Thailand and the fairytale version the royalists are trying to prop up would become too glaring to sustain (unless Thailand is determined to continue down the disastrous path of North Korea style indoctrination and hermetically seal its people from exposure to foreign media).
In my opinion, foreign academics (including those who have contributed to the above discussion) have fulfilled their professional obligations. You will not find a credible recent study of Thailand by a respected international academic that fails to acknowledge the difficult issue of the monarchy when appropriate.
The same cannot be said of the vast majority of the foreign media, in the years since Paul Handley’s massive contribution. Some of them (especially many of the old timers) repeat the same old fairytales that the monarchy is universally revered and the king cannily keeps out of politics. Others just do their best not to mention the monarchy at all, and in doing so perpetuate the myth that the palace is not political and not a factor in the current crisis. The story of Thaksin’s rise and fall and current struggle to return cannot be properly told without reference to the monarchy: Thai politics are just incomprehensible otherwise.
So this is the reason I believe the foreign media are failing Thailand. By knowingly self-censoring themselves to a degree not seen anywhere else on the planet, and by failing to be honest about their self-censorship, they are colluding in the state of denial being enforced by the Thai establishment.
So while Andrew Walker has a point that my original article was aggressively polemical (it was written in anger in the immediate aftermath of the FCCT’s refusal to condemn Somyot’s sentence) I continue to believe that the basic arguments I made were well founded.
But I also recognize that not everybody journalist can resign from their job and become an exile from Thailand. This is why I have proposed, as a compromise, that journalists who do not feel able to report on Thailand accurately include an explicit disclaimer in their reports. This in itself would play a useful role in persuading the Thai authorities to take a more reasonable approach to Article 112.
Tolerating intolerance
David,
You pose the question of what to do now?
As an historian you will find your answer in history itself. Every struggle for freedoms within a society needs to come from within. Every tool of reppression can only be beaten by the people themselves. Outside condemnations are very useful in publicising the case against LM in Thailand as well as other countries. Ultimately the struggle will be won in Thailand itself. It is upto reporters and their organisations to support this struggle by honestly reporting the facts of every case.For the last 2 years I have seen a ground swell of people wearing T shirts, demonstrating in public and voicing their concerns against LM. The campaign to free Somyot and all other political prisoners will not go away. Eventually this govt will be forced to compromise and change the law.I just hope they have the vision to scrap 112 and computer laws instead of just tinkering with it.I live in hope as always.
Distressing developments in Laos
“Sombath Case a ‘Blow’ to ASEAN”
2013-02-06
Rights groups say the disappearance of a Lao activist highlights Southeast Asia’s worsening rights record.
The “forced disappearance” of Lao activist Sombath Somphone is a blow to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), rights groups said Tuesday, as members of parliament across Asia and Europe urged the Laotian Prime minister to order an “urgent” investigation into his case.
…Saksinee Emasiri, a coordinator for the Human Rights and Peaceful Studies Institute at Thailand’s Mahidol University who was also present at Tuesday’s seminar, told RFA that Sombath’s disappearance was a sign that the state of human rights in the ASEAN bloc of nations–which includes Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam–were regressing.
http://www.rfa.org/english/news/laos/sombath-02062013164521.html
Tolerating intolerance
I would like to follow up on comments by Kevin, Micheal, and AMM. As an academic, as a human, I am distressed as the lese majeste machine continues to grind through defendant after defendant with no end in sight and worse, with seeminly very limited debate about the law within Thai society. Thailand has long gotten a pass on this issue—from embassies, from academics, from journalists. I am looking into the evolution of Japan’s lm law and it never seemed to quite reach the absurd levels as it has in Thailand, even in wartime. There is simply no rational or humane defense of the law. But I think everyone is largely on the same page on this account.
The real question is what to do about it. I am really stuck on this. The Campaign for the Reform of Article 112 has been quiet for half a year now. As Kevin and Michael knows, numerous letters have been signed and sent to the Thai government on the issue. I actually don’t know what to do or say any more about it. The EU delegation in Thailand has done its bit. Embassies have spoken out. External pressure is useful and morally necessary. But what to do now?
Tolerating intolerance
I join all those who oppose the abuse of human rights in Thailand, regardless of which pole is in power. Somyot’s continued imprisonment reflects contempt towards human beings who seek to live with dignity. Devoid of empathy and indifferently extravagant with punishment, may those who continue the political deployment of lese majeste one day face the imprisoned in more equal circumstances. Will they recognise themselves in the face of the returned?
Tolerating intolerance
Kevin Hewison (#10.1) calls on other academics to express their views about the inhumane treatment meted out to Somyot Prueksakasemsuk and all the others who have been prosecuted and imprisoned for their supposed violations of the lèse majesté law in Thailand. I support Hewison’s condemnation of the treatment, conviction, and sentencing of all Thai citizens who have dared to voice alternative views about how their nation’s politics might be organised and conducted. The use of an archaic law to stifle democratic debate about Thailand’s future is reprehensible. History will also undoubtedly show that if the law continues to be employed, it will only have hastened the destruction of the political project that ostensibly it was meant to serve. I call on the Thai government to release all those who have been convicted under Article 112 of the Thai Criminal Code and, in so doing, lay the foundation for the building of genuine political dialogue between the nation’s competing social forces and interests.