Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
Recently a New Mandala reader named Aladdin (welcome back!) made an important comment. I have, in the interests of drawing it to the attention of a wider audience, quoted it here:
In the July – September 2009 issue of Fa Dio Kan (Year 7, No. 3) the journal published the official judgment in the Daranee Chanchoengsilapakul (“Da Torpedo”) lese majeste case which was handed down on 28 August 2009.
As is well known, because of the nature of the offense it was difficult for the media to openly report on what it was that Da Torpedo is alleged to have actually said that violated the lese majeste law.
For those who have not read this issue of Fa Dio Kan I have briefly summarized below parts of the judgment that outlined the statements that Da Torpedo (hereafter DT) made which were deemed to have violated the lese majeste law and led to her arrest and subsequent 18-year jail sentence (the full version of the judgment that was published in Fa Dio Kan runs to 32 pages).
p. 201: In a speech at Sanam Luang on 7 June 2008 DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King and Queen of Thailand were behind the PAD demonstrations, with the intention of overthrowing the government.
p. 202: In a speech on 13 June 2008 DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King had interfered in Thailand’s judicial process.
p. 203: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King was behind, or gave his support to, the 19 September 2006 coup d’etat, and he might carry out another coup in the future. Also, DT used the term “р╣Др╕нр╣Йр╕Хр╕▓р╣Бр╕Бр╣И” (“that old bastard”), which was understood as implying the King.
p. 204: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King had ordered the military to carry out the coup.
p. 205: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King and the Queen had ordered the military to carry out the coup.
pp. 206-7: In a speech on 18-19 July 2008 DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King had some knowledge about (р╕кр╣Ир╕зр╕Щр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щ) the shooting death of his brother in 1946, which was why the killer had not been caught.
pp. 207-8: In the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the then Chairperson of the Board of the Bangkok Bank, Kanlaya Sophonphanit and Gen. Prem Tinasulanonda, Chairman of the Privy Council as well as Chairman of the Bangkok Bank, had supported the PAD demonstrations, and questioned why the King had not dismissed Gen. Prem for such actions.
p. 208: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King was behind the September 19 2006 coup.
p. 208: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King and the Queen were behind the PAD’s campaign to overthrow the government.
p. 211: In a speech on 18 July 2008 DT is judged as spoken words leading to the understanding that the King carried out his duties improperly by signing his approval to 14 coup d’etats.
p. 212: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King was involved [р╣Ар╕Бр╕╡р╣Ир╕вр╕зр╕Вр╣Йр╕нр╕З] in the death of his elder brother, King Rama VIII, on 9 June 1946.
p. 213: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King was a “bad man” because of his association with Gen. Prem Tinasulalond who, DT alleged, was supporting the PAD.
pp. 213-214: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King and Queen supported Gen. Prem in carrying out the coup of 19 September 2006.
p. 214: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words (by comparing the Thai monarchy with monarchies in Russia, France and Nepal) leading to the understanding that monarchy was an unjust system of government which oppressed and exploited the people, and that the king and royal family ought to be guillotined or shot.
Change is coming!! We shall execute righteousness and judgement for all that are oppressed.
Needless to say that Da Torpedo is correct in every single point. Amazing that she understood all those actions way ahead us, even though we have been discussing about political events daily for months! Her analytical thinking is fantastic!
The United Nations Human Rights Commission has to get involve in this. It is against any human conscience to jail an innocent person. Where are ASEAN, the US, UK, Australia on this issue?
0
0
meh..
Her deliberately severe action has brought her back a severe reaction. Karma indeed.
0
0
p. 203: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King was behind, or gave his support to, the 19 September 2006 coup d’etat, and he might carry out another coup in the future. Also, DT used the term “р╣Др╕нр╣Йр╕Хр╕▓р╣Бр╕Бр╣И” (“that old bastard”), which was understood as implying the King.
I think the term “old fart” would be a more accurate translation of “р╣Др╕нр╣Йр╕Хр╕▓р╣Бр╕Б” into colloquial English. Furthermore, I think she was actually referring to Gen. Prem, and not the King.
0
0
seems the judges “judged” that she raised most of the significant controversial issues of the day (and the historical one as well)
I wonder what she really said and whether the judges have correctly paraphrased the meanings?
in any case 18 years in gaol shows just how nervous Prem (and his military mates) are about any discussions of their behaviour
and I suppose we will only ever have glimpses of much the King and/or other members of his family actually initiate or just sign off on these things….
does Thailand have any formal archiving of documents or will Prem order it all burnt in his funeral pyre?
0
0
LSS:
Out-of-context: Has your paper on Thai socio-pedagogy taken shape?
0
0
[…] Summary of the court decision against Khun Da Torpedo New Mandala has recently posted a short summary of the major points of the court decision against Khun Da Torpedo, which was reproduced in full in the most recent edition of р╕Яр╣Йр╕▓р╣Ар╕Фр╕╡р╕вр╕зр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щ. We recommend reading this useful post: 20 January 2010, “On the judgment against Da Torpedo” […]
0
0
Everything is fine except the last one… “to be guillotined or shot”
Even in a western world that you may express your political idea freely but you still can’t say to the public that some people must be killed. So, in my opinion, this very last words may constitute an offense.
However, the punishment should not be decade-long jail term. If I were a judge, I would only fine her a few hundred thousand Baht.
0
0
[…] Torpedo: Update New Mandala has posted a summary of the court decision against Da Torpedo here worth a read and some of the comments are very […]
0
0
According to my understanding, and that comes from a PAD chief I interviewed who was part of the seizure of Government House, Da Torpedo on stage (perhaps 7 June) related the missing Blue Diamond to the Queen of Thailand.
And according to the hierarchy of the PAD, the UDD used as background, at Sanam Luang, shortly after, a picture of a dragon wearing a blue diamond. After that we had indeed the well publicized , pictures from the UDD stage of the monarch and the queen and Aphisit.
0
0
And, it is, according to one of the PAD chiefs, that Da Torpedo having mentioned the Blue Diamond and the Queen together resorted the “elites” having to take action.
0
0
To LSS: I was wondering on what basis you think that DT was referring to Prem and not the King when she used the term р╣Др╕нр╣Йр╕Хр╕▓р╣Бр╕Бр╣И
In the text of the judgment it is unequivocal that she was understood as using the term to refer to the King.
Were you at the rally in which she used that term? I was not, so I can not be sure what she said or the context in which she said it.
But her alleged use of the term appears consistent with her views on the King and the monarchy as outlined in the judgment. And opponents of the Thai monarchy privately refer to the King with much harsher language, as we know.
To Thai Tax Payer: on this point it would be best to read the original version of the judgment in Fa Dio Kan.
The judgment concluded that what DT allegedly said “made the listener understand that they should (р╕кр╕бр╕Др╕зр╕г) be guillotined or shot”.
But in the actual text of the speech that DT allegedly made, part of which is quoted in the judgment, she appears to be rhetorically asking the King/royal family to choose whether they want to be a monarchy like in Japan or England, OR like those in Russia, France or Nepal – where [in the case of Russia] the whole royal family were shot (“puh puh”), or [as in the case of France] their heads were chopped off, or [as in the case of Nepal] there was a popular uprising and the whole family were shot (“puh puh”) – on the latter DT seems mixed up, if the speech is genuine.
I suppose this is splitting hairs, but the judgment appears not quite consistent with what DT said, according to the text of the speech quoted in the judgment.
The funny thing, though, is that by making the judgment that DT had threatened the Thai monarchy with guillotining or being shot, the judge seems to have decided himself that the Thai monarchy is most comparable to the despotic monarchies of Russia, France and Nepal, rather than the “good ruling class” (DT’s words – presumably because their monarchies appear more apolitical) of Japan and England!
***
The important point is that if this is what one woman allegedly said to large rallies of Red Shirts and pro-Thaksin supporters in Bangkok, one wonders what much larger numbers of people think about the King and the monarchy privately. Of course, this can not empirically be known, simply because uttering such views in public would result in one suffering the same fate as DT.
Hence the on-going reproduction of the discourse of the “widely revered Thai King” which apparently must accompany every news story about the Thai monarchy – apparently on the basis of people following certain dress colour ordinances, showing up to rallies, and the royal propaganda industry.
So in this sense, the more lese majeste trials, and the more published judgments, the better, if we are to gain a better insight into the thinking of opponents of the monarchy.
0
0
LOL @Sus(z)ie Wong – You can’t even make up your mind how your name is spelling and you expect us to listen to you. Funny indeed.
And if you fully believe that Da Torpido is so right in every point, why don’t you go to Thailand and bring up the same topics. Maybe you can be her best jail mate to your beloved idol.
Change will never come to people like you! .. Remember Karma, thinking, speaking, acting negatively toward other people, it will come back and haunt you one day. soonish..
0
0
[…] New Mandala has posted a summary of the court decision against Da Torpedo Here […]
0
0
This had me scratching my head.
It seems like DT told pretty much:
1. the truth.
2. What just about everyone with more than a single lonely neuron in Thailand knows full well.
3. What everyone in Thailand and Saudi Arabia already knows or believes they already know in respect of the blue diamond.
4. Correctly identified Prem as a dubious old …. who should probably wander off in a field somewhere … – if he had any self-respect.
So, where’s the beef?
0
0
DT seems to have spoken out the truth (maybe a bit too loudly and aggressively). The opponents seem unable to argue with what she said. So they put her in jail instead.
PS – do you guys wonder why Taro is so dumb?
0
0
There’s an earlier comment on this by, I think, Susie/Suzie Wong – where she argues Thailand should adopt direct Presidential elections, a la Indonesia. (Please excuse me – I’m using an extremely small Eee PC screen).
It needs to be pointed out that even in Indonesia there is a law punishing “insults to the President”, which was often used under the repressive Suharto, but to the best of my knowledge has not been used since.
Anyhow, even this Indonesian law is nowhere near as draconian as Thailand’s LM. In Indonesia, if I remember correctly, the maximum penalty is only three years.
One wonders why the Thai elite persists with this law, which in
current form is very damaging, and increasingly so – not merely to Thailand’s overseas image (and it can not be long now before a campaign takes off to boycott banks funelling elite funds out of Thailand). It is also increasingly damaging internally.
Da Torpedo is being made into a martyr.
Her sentence means there will be 18 years of publicity and campaigning over her sentence ! How stupid is that ? Or if she dies in prison, then she’s even more of a martyr.
She should apologise – but the Royalist elite should come to their senses. And wake up to the modern world.
0
0
I don’t see how Darunee’s case is damaging to the elites. Abhisit gets to answer about it once a year and he can always say “we formed a panel already”, and he/they have learned to live with and largely ignore internet activism on sites like NM or Prachatai.
0
0
As I said – her case will become damaging to the elite as exposure of their funelling assets out of Thailand becomes exposed and campaigned against.
0
0
What assets are you talking about, Chris?
Is there a huge story on Darunee exposing elites and getting jailed for is lurking somewhere?
0
0
StanG says of Abhisit and his people: “he/they have learned to live with and largely ignore internet activism on sites like NM or Prachatai.” Yes, that’s why they have banned/blocked thousands and have made internet snooping and blocking THE major concern for thousands of civil servants and the military.
0
0
Yes, and now that they have done it, it doesn’t bother them very much. It’s been contained.
And they can always shut down some more sites and bring more site owners for questioning to keep the lid on.
0
0
Thanks StanG,
Just quickly: I have the opposite impression of Thai government efforts to “contain” the critical, subversive web. Without any data to back up this intuition, I reckon that there is a proliferation of subversive content — on a scale that would have been hard to imagine 18 months ago. The battle between censor and censored continues, and there are constant outbreaks of new “rebellion”. The authorities are probably getting better at targeting and disrupting the most radical stuff. But at the same time they seem to struggle in certain key regards.
For all the money spent on trying to influence international opinion it is remarkable just how little traction the official line gets with non-Thai, non-resident journalists, diplomats, academics, and others. At the end of the reign the censors have their work cut out for them.
If anybody out there wants to write a New Mandala post on this topic we would be keen to consider it for publication…
Best wishes to all,
Nich
0
0
I don’t think they bother with “international opinion” very much either, and a lot of it simply lacks credibility in their eyes.
After the coup and PAD and Songkran this is really minor stuff to explain away. As I said, Abhisit gets to answer this question only once a year.
0
0
The highest institution in Thailand? Revered and loved….or else!
0
0
I agree with Nich. There is a ton of stuff available and more each day. There’s no doubt it worries the authorities. This is not something done and finished. It is an on-going and expensive exercise that continues to be beefed up. Much of it appears, is blocked, reappears, is sent around by emails and so on. StanG thinks the govt doesn’t care/worry about international opinion. He’s wrong in my view. Look at the way Abhisit has been paraded before the international media. Indeed, one of Abhisit’s main positives is his ability to communicate internationally. Maybe StanG could, sometimes, suggest whyhe carries the beliefs and feelings he has?
0
0
Do we need to take the contextual knowledge of the death of Ananda Mahidol into consideration in our attempt to understand the imposition of the lese majeste law in Thailand under Phumipon?
With the absence of the impact of Ananda Mahidol’s factor in other countries constitutional monarchy, are we sure that we can make a comparison?
Even when you make a comparison with Spain, I think it’s still different. Spain takes divergent course toward a full democracy, while Thailand moves toward something like God King or the Fuhrer. So would it be fair to say the reason behind the death in Spanish case was different from the Thailand case.
We also need to remind ourselves that Phumipon was born in the U.S. and educated in Switzerland so it could not be about the lack of exposure to Western culture either. Also, in the recent Thai tradition and history, no Thai king had impose harsh measure on Thais like Phumipon did. Neither the Western nor the Thai culture could be the explanation.
Do we need to modify our analysis by exploring other set of issues and combining more levels of analysis (individual, domestic politics, and international politics) to our understanding of the harsh imposition of the lese majeste law in Thailand?
0
0
StanG – re. funelling assets overseas : it was amazing how quickly very detailed information about Marcos assets appeared, via Dr. Alfred McCoy, when there was change in the Philippines.
Suzie Wong – was n’t it General Sarit who introduced the tough LM law ?
And this was AFTER Sarit came to power in 1957 (from memory).
All of which would at least require modification of your theory, though you may be onto something.
0
0
money……
its easy for rich people to forget they are human….
0
0
StanG
Nicolaides was about sending a message to foreigners not to get involved.
DT is about sending a message to Thai activists.
Simple.
As for websites, blogs etc the REAL threat comes from the Thai language forums etc. Some of the stuff on there is truly incendiary, seems to be quite widespread and very well-informed.
The English-language blogs etc are often far far behind this (no offense to the good work of NM, BP etc)
0
0
Dudeist – if they’d just left it at Nicolaides, that probably would have been the end of much international interest.
But then PAD grabbed the airports – stranding 300,000-plus foreigners. :
from here on Thailand’s internal politics have become a matter of continuing international concern, now aggravated into regional concern re. the Cambodia dispute.
I used to think PAD were a worthy cause – at least as a watch-dog against corruption, and their Nation-Religion-King ideology is admirable (so admirable Cambodia has copied it!).
But what was their point seizing airports ?
To force Newin Chidchob with his King Power Duty free shops there, to change sides ?
0
0
Sarit imposed military martial law (articale 7) not lese majeste law. Sarit’s time was short 1957-1963. Sarit had nothing to do with lese majeste law.
0
0
I can’t speak for Thai language forums at any length, but when they arrested Prachatai owners it wasn’t for their English blog, and when they went after October rumors it wasn’t to impress farang audience either.
Proliferation of subversive content on itself does not say much, just like proliferation of spam e-mail. Are these ideas getting a wider footprint or just higher intensity from the same old sources? Who can answer that?
In the end it would balance itself, like the print media. People would read only what they want, after forming an opinion of alternatives.
Natural curiosity can’t last forever, and, personally, I don’t think people have formed positive opinions of this “subversive content”.
Also don’t forget that people who spend their time prodicing it naturally attach more importance to their efforts than the rest of the society.
0
0
StanG,
The hard thing to test is, crudely, the velocity with which the Internet allows this material to get around. In fact, question number 15 on my long list of questions for the study of mainland Southeast Asia tilts in that direction: “Is it possible to quantify the velocity of gossip about Thailand’s royal family?”
Spam e-mail is a spurious comparison. And whether or not the flow of subversive content currently gets a positive reception is, to an extent, beside the point. It may not appeal to your ideology but I don’t think anybody has even scratched the surface of the latent Thai (and, to a lesser degree, global) curiosity about a huge range of Thai political topics.
Perhaps we should make a list…
Best wishes to all,
Nich
0
0
@StanG
Internet forums in Thailand only cystalize what people are saying anyway. And my anecdotal experience from working throughout Thailand and dealing with a whole range of people is that a groundswell of general dissatisfaction with every one (except the old guy) is very very tangible. They’ve had enough of the lackeys, the lickspittles, the minor figures and the generals. And these people are not UDD red shirts – most also expressed a loathing of Thaksin as well.
I was recently with two completely random Thai strangers as we were pulled over, made to stop, made to get out of our vehicles and then made to stand to attention as an entourage of members of the elite went past.
I asked these guys how they felt as they stood, pissed off and surly backs to the road in an obvious sign of disrespect.
“We hate this.”
If there is anyone guilty of attaching importance to their comments it is you StanG.
0
0
I guess any Thai who had been on the Internet long enough knows where to find “subversive content” and has seen the substance of it already. Some of it has surely registered in their minds, some probably got dismissed.
If English board like Thaivisa is anything to go by, the political topics are dominated and directed by very few individuals, vast majority being too lazy to keep up. For some users passions run high, others can’t force themselves to read through this shit, and everybody has got an opinion, no one is absolutely clueless.
And yes, regular “fighters” usually take themselves too seriously.
0
0
How about standing up to the King’s portrait and being forced to listen Thai anthem at the movie theaters in Thailand.
It always remind me of standing up to the Burmese pinion and rice-stalk flag and being forced to listen Burmese anthem back in the movie theaters of Burma.
So backward, so primitive, and so dictatorial!
0
0
I just read back to what Alladin wrote concerning what DT actually said. One of her damning LM speeches can be found on YouTube – ironically, only recently blocked in Thailand. Main LM parts are subtitle in English.
She also questions the taboo subject of the death of Ananda.
0
0
King addresses judges [see Matichon – http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1264428317&grpid=00&catid=%5D
One of the statements Da Torpedo allegedly made that was judged to have violated the lese majeste law was that the King had interfered in the judicial process.
Political scientists have referred more obliquely to this development as “tulakanphiwat”, or a “judicial revolution”; ie. the use of the judiciary as a political tool, since military force is no longer sufficient to win political battles.
The King has given several well-publicized addresses to audiences of judges at crucial periods during the current political crisis.
On 25 April 2006 , following Thai Rak Thai’s victory in the election boycotted by the Democrats the King summoned the judges of the country’s three highest courts, the Supreme Court, Supreme Administrative Court and the Constitution Court, to “sort out the mess” caused by the election. Within two weeks the Constitutional Court declared the April 2 election results null and void.
On 24th May 2007 in a televised address to a group of senior Administrative Court judges the King stressed the importance of the case involving the dissolution of the political parties, telling them that “he had already made up his mind” and encouraging them to make the “right” decision to stop the country from “collapsing”. The following week Thai Rak Thai was dissolved and the case against the Democrats dismissed.
The content of these speeches was vague but the motive was clear: to give royal authority to judicial decisions.
The timing of the King’s speech yesterday, just before next month’s decision on the Thaksin asset seizure case, is very ominous for the outcome of the case.
Needless to say, it goes against all democratic principle for the King to address the judiciary on any judicial case – especially political cases – without his speech being countersigned by a representatives of the democratically elected government.
The problem is that stating this publicly is likely to be considered an offense under lese majeste.
Nevertheless, one of the principles that pro-democracy campaigners ought to campaign on is that the King should be forbidden from speaking to the judiciary unless his speech has been approved by the government of the day.
0
0
[…] the post “On the judgment of Da Torpedo,” New Mandala posted an English-language summary of the segments of the court decision against […]
0
0
[…] the post “On the judgment of Da Torpedo,” New Mandala posted an English-language summary of the segments of the court decision against […]
0
0
[…] have been translated and disseminated by the blog New Mandala (see Aladdin, 20 January 2010, “On the Judgment of Da Torpedo” and Elizabeth Fitzgerald, 29 January 2010, “The Evidence of […]
0
0
[…] have been translated and disseminated by the blog New Mandala (see Aladdin, 20 January 2010, “On the Judgment of Da Torpedo” and Elizabeth Fitzgerald, 29 January 2010, “The Evidence of […]
0
0