View Full Version : Lese Majeste Catch 22
Swiss man faces prison for lese majeste
CHIANG MAI A Swiss man faces up to 75 years in prison after pleading guilty Monday to charges of insulting Thailand's king, a serious offence in a nation where the monarch is revered.
Oliver Jufer, 57, was arrested on December 5 for defacing several of the king's ubiquitous portraits with spray paint during a drunken spree through the northern city of Chiang Mai, 700 kilometres (400 miles) north of Bangkok.
He was charged with five counts of lese majeste - the crime of offending the dignity of a sovereign as well as lesser charges of destruction of public property.
If convicted he faces up to 75 years in prison, according to police, 15 for each of the counts of lese majeste.
"He pleaded guilty, and the court set a date for the verdict on March 29," one court official said.
Agence France-Presse
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/read.php?newsid=30029109
Also detailed in the IHT: Swiss man convicted of offending Thai king (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/12/news/thai.php).
Swiss man admits Thai king insult (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6440645.stm)
Oliver Jufer faces several years in prison, his lawyer says
A 57-year-old Swiss man has pleaded guilty in a court in Thailand to charges of insulting the king.
Oliver Jufer was arrested last December after drunkenly spray-painting several portraits of the monarch, King Bhumibol Adulyadej...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6440645.stm
Jail possible for Thai king insult (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/thailand.king.ap/)
March 12, 2007
CHIANG MAI, Thailand (AP) -- A Swiss man accused of insulting this nation's monarchy by spray-painting over several portraits of the revered king pleaded guilty Monday and faces a maximum 75-year prison sentence.
Oliver Rudolf Jufer, 57, was caught by surveillance cameras on December 5 spray-painting black paint over several portraits of King Bhumibol Adulyadej in the northern city of Chiang Mai, police said. His lawyer said he was intoxicated during the act.
The vandalism coincided with Bhumibol's 79th birthday, which was celebrated across Thailand with fireworks and prayers. The king is the world's longest-serving monarch...
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/thailand.king.ap/
Baton Rouge
20-03-07, 03:52 PM
And will no one rid us of this dreadful law? Thaksin should be taken to court on genuine charges.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/03/20/headlines/headlines_30029765.php
SIX MONTHS AFTER COUP
Police probe six cases of lese majeste against ousted premier
Police are investigating on six cases of lese majeste against deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, one of which was his interview with CNN in Singapore early this year, Police Chief Pol Gen Seripisut Temiyavej said Tuesday.
Three of the cases were already put forward for consideration to the public prosecutors.
First was when Thaksin talked to a group of taxi drivers on December 5, 2005, second was when he said in his weekly radio talk and when flags with "Long Live the King" were used to receive his visit.
Public prosecutors have asked police to collect and provide more evidences on the cases.
Police still investigated other cases, one of which was Thaksin's interview with CNN in Singapore early this year, Seripisut said.
The police chief was speaking in a press conference to report police's works during six months after the military junta seized the power from Thaksin.
The Nation
Sulak fails to show
Well-known social critic Sulak Sivaraksa did not turn up at Chana Songkhram Police Station yesterday to face charges of lese majeste - which he has denied.
The latest lese majeste case lodged against Sulak is based on an article he wrote in English two years ago that still has not been translated into Thai.
Sulak, who was expected to turn himself in after being issued a summons, could not be reached for comment yesterday.
The charges were filed by police officers whom Sulak alleged were acting on behalf of former prime minister PM Thaksin Shinawatra, whom he has been critical of over the past few years.
The social critic has fought against three lese majeste charges in the past and was acquitted on every count. Sulak said the government had been inactive about the matter, which he claimed was orchestrated by Thaksin's supporters, despite three letters written to Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont and one to acting police chief Seripisut Temiyavej.
The Nation
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/03/23/national/national_30030047.php
A strong contender for a Royal Pardon or a surrepticious backdoor exit one suspects:
Swiss man jailed for insulting the King
(BangkokPost.com from reports) - A Swiss man was sentenced to 10 years in prison on Thursday for spray-painting graffiti over images of His Majesty the King. It was the first conviction of a foreigner in a lese majeste case in at least a decade.
Oliver Jufer, 57, had pleaded guilty to five counts of lese majeste for spraying black paint over five posters of His Majesty in Chiang Mai, where he lived, last Dec 5 - the king's birthday. He was captured by surveillance cameras.
His lawyer said he was intoxicated during the act.
He faced up to 75 years in prison, but the court sentenced him to 20 years and then halved the term because he had confessed, according to Judge Phitsanu Tanbukalee.
Jufer reportedly said nothing after he heard the verdict. He has a month to appeal.
According to the national database of the Criminal Court, no foreigner had been convicted of lese majeste charges in at least 10 years. Although some of the foreigners have faced similar charges, most were deported to their home countries eventually.
Link may expire:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=117743
Hmm! Patience rather than pressure probably is the key:
Switzerland accepts jail term for man who insulted Thai king
GENEVA - Switzerland said Thursday it would not seek the release of a Swiss man jailed for 10 years in Thailand for insulting the Thai king.
"We note that the Thai legislation on the basis of which our compatriot was tried is applied with great rigour," Swiss foreign ministry spokesman Jean Philippe Jeannerat told AFP after the sentencing of Oliver Jufer, 57.
Jeannerat said the jail term had been applied according to Thai law and would not comment on the length of the jail term. Swiss authorities would not ask the Thai government to free Jufer, he said, highlighting that Jufer has one month to appeal.
"The Swiss government does not intervene with authorities in cases where the procedure followed conformed to basic judicial principles," said the spokesman.
"Our compatriot was arrested on the basis of clearly established legislation. He knows why he was arrested, he had the assistance of a defence lawyer and he has the possibility to appeal," Jeannerat said.
Agence France-Presse
H.M. the King pardons Swiss man
His Majesty the King Bhumibol Adulyadej has pardoned a Swiss man who was sentenced to 10 years in prison last month for defacing portraits of the monarch, prosecutors said Thursday.
Oliver Jufer, 57, had been sentenced to 10 years in prison on March 29 after pleading guilty to five counts of lese majeste - after he defaced several portraits of the king with spray paint while drunk in Chiang Mai last December.
The Swiss man will be deported from Thailand after his release, Panu Kwanyuen, the provincial attorney general of Chiang Mai said.
- The Nation
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/read.php?newsid=30031763
Published earlier this week is all I know:
BANGKOK POST
Focus: Is it time to discuss lese majeste law?
By David Streckfuss
With the current political turmoil spawning a spate of lese majeste charges, what can be done to prevent the law from being abused?
[David Streckfuss has a Ph.D. in Southeast Asian History from University of Wisconsin-Madison. His Ph.D. thesis examines the issue of lese majeste and defamation in Thailand.]
Has the time come for the lese majeste law in Thailand to be reconsidered? The question is worth asking especially in times of political turmoil like this that inevitably spawns a spate of lese majeste accusations. The question deserves a thoughtful and serious response.
Like many laws, the Thai lese majeste law, as written, may have outlived its original purpose and its use has simply devolved into insensibility. Rather than protecting the prestige of the monarchy, the invoking of the lese majeste law has become a tawdry and naked attempt to use the institution to suppress views that one side or another does not like.
The lese majeste law, as it now stands, is anachronistic. The punishment has steadily climbed throughout the twentieth century; its last infusion made by the coup d'etat government following the bloody suppression of Oct 6, 1976, which increased the punishment to a minimum of three and a maximum of 15 year's imprisonment.
Many such coup orders made by dictators have been brought forward for amendment or revocation. This remnant of dictatorship, unfortunately, has not enjoyed the same fate. Who dares even suggest that it be revised or abolished without fear of being charged with lese majeste? What politician dare enter the legal morass of voting for such a measure?
Adjudication of defamation cases is tricky enough as it is. Defamation cases don't involve "evidence" and "facts" in a normal way. Separating the line between fact and metaphor, assessing intention and the impact of words - and assessing criminality from such - is not something police, prosecutors, or courts are well trained in. In Thailand in the last decade or so, the number of defamation cases has tripled. It has become standard practice for those in power to respond to criticism with a defamation charge.
Lese majeste cases are many times worse. The accusation of the lese majeste laws sets in motion an inexorable mechanism that compels the police to make charges, prosecutors to prosecute and courts to hand down decisions. These parties failing to act can lead to the lese majeste charge being levelled at them. Because of the complex role the monarchy plays in society, and because many Thais have become trigger-happy in making the charge, what constitutes normal debate in other constitutional monarchies is increasingly difficult in Thai society.
Somehow, Thai society has dead-ended itself, unable to go forward or back, unable to even address the extremely problematic nature of this law. Thai society has narrowed its options, leaving a single unavoidable logic of suppression: the law protects the monarchy. Anyone who questions the law must not care about protecting the monarchy. Such a person must be disloyal to the monarchy, and must be suppressed.
But there are other options out there, and here a bit of comparison makes sense.
Japan's abolition of the lese majeste law after World War II resulted in no harm to the institution. A certain amount of debate about various aspects of the monarchy has emerged. But it is always polite.
The Norwegian constitution, promulgated in the early nineteenth century, holds that the "King's person is sacred; he cannot be censured or accused." The Thai 1997 constitution says that the "King shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated. No person shall expose the King to any sort of accusation or action."
Defaming the King of Norway is a criminal offence, like in Thailand, with a maximum of five year's imprisonment. But when was the last lese majeste case in Norway? Or in Great Britain? Does this mean that Norwegians don't "love" their King as much? Does this mean that the British monarchy doesn't have its detractors like www.abolishthemonarchy.co.uk?
No, obviously it doesn't. But the rationale for such British republicans is not defamatory to the queen herself. In the meantime, most British surveyed want to keep their monarchy. Democracy thrives.
So with similar laws, why has the interpretation of such measures in Thailand become so insensible, as it appeared to the legal scholar Jitti Tingsapat in the 1980s? Why did a personal secretary of the King himself predict about the same time that use of lese majeste law would decrease until it was finally abolished? In other words, at a period when, through the sacrifice of many, democracy has made great strides in Thailand, why does this law continue to be evoked?
One need only look at the interview of Sulak Sivaraksa that caused the editor, Thanapol Eawsakul, to be charged with lese majeste. From a "normal" perspective, Mr Sulak is suggesting in the interview that all institutions be held accountable, including the monarchy - a normal condition of democratic governance. What's defamatory to the King himself in that? Where has this hyper-sensitivity to any reference to the monarchy at all become the norm? What's the way out? Various parties can accuse others of lese majeste with impunity. Some interpret the law to mean that there should be no reference to the monarchy at all. Some interpret it to mean that there should be no discussion about what constitutional monarchy should mean.
Whatever the case, there seem to be no real guidelines in place to help guide the police, prosecutors, or courts in determining a possible violation or how to adjudicate a case. Meanwhile, everyone seems to understand that the law tends to be used as a political tool in silencing various groups of individuals in society.
Fortunately, the King has provided part of the answer himself. His December 2005 speech is instructive. Most observers interpreted the King's words to mean that the use of the lese majeste law was troubling to him. Speaking to his subjects, the King said that people saying that "the King can do no wrong is very much an insult to the King, because why can the King do no wrong, why cannot the King do wrong, because this shows that they regard that the King is not human."
The King further reasons: "Suppose if I speak wrongly, because I am not aware, that is another case, but do wrong without realising, and realising that it is wrong. It is not good to do wrong with full awareness but sometimes you do not realise, you must apologise. If you speak without awareness, lack of awareness is not careful, afterwards you will regret."
The King points out that the accusation of lese majeste impacts the monarchy directly. Talking to Thai society as a whole, the King says, "If you rule out all criticism as a violation, the damage is done to the King."
The King goes on to indicate that when people are jailed for lese majeste, he is "in trouble" and has to pardon them.
It is difficult to fathom exactly how anyone could make the charge of lese majeste after the King made his position this clear. And yet the accusations fly. In the present political environment, there are those who would attempt to make even a reasonable discussion of the issue - such as laid out in this article - a case of lese majeste. When will this end?
Lese majeste as it manifests itself in Thai political society represents a serious threat to the freedom of expression as guaranteed in Section 39 of the 1997 constitution. It inevitably becomes a political tool aimed at suppression of criticism.
As the King suggests, it also tarnishes the reputation of the monarchy when unscrupulous parties - or maybe even anyone - decide to level the charge. And yet even to talk about lese majeste impugns the patriotism of the speaker. How can this measure, fortified in the days of dictatorship, be reined in?
A rather simple solution suggests itself. Within Sections 101 and 102 of the Norwegian law code is the standard lese majeste formula: "Any person who defames the King or the Regent shall be liable to detention or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years." But Section 103 adds the intriguing sentence: "Prosecution of any defamation pursuant to sections 101 and 102 shall be initiated only by order of the King or with his consent."
If abolition of the lese majeste law in Thailand seems unimaginable; if the police and prosecutors feel compelled to pursue charges; if Thai society itself cannot show restraint in making the charge despite the apparent displeasure of the King, then maybe the addition of this single clause may set things right. The King has done three remarkable things since December 2005. He has come out as an advocate for freedom of expression in Thailand by opposing the use of lese majeste law. He has invited criticism. And while others called for the King to intervene and fix the political impasse, the King instead pointed out that a more democratic option is available: the courts. What a marvellous addition to the King's contribution.
With the worldwide attention on the King as the longest serving monarch, what a wonderful gift it would be for Thai society to give him or the Privy Council the discretion to take the appropriate measures needed to defend the reputation of the monarchy. Amend Section 112 of the Thai penal code by adding the clause that makes the use of the lese majeste possible "only by order of the King or with his consent."
Otherwise, the lese majeste law in Thailand will ever be ready at hand to serve as a weapon in the political arena, always to a detriment to the institution the law intends to protect.
And will no one rid us of this dreadful law? Thaksin should be taken to court on genuine charges.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/03/20/headlines/headlines_30029765.php
The Nation, 10/04/07:
Deposed prime minister will not face charges of lese majeste : prosecutor
Public prosecutors decided on Tuesday not to press charges of lese majeste against deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
Sermkiet Woradit, director general of criminal litigation department, office of the Attorney General, said that after considering police's reports, his office decided not to pursue three charges against Thaksin.
Firstly the case when Thaksin spoke to taxi driver in 2005, secondly the case when Thaksin addressed in his weekly radio programme in 2006 and the case a crowd used flags with "Long live the King" sign to greet him in 2006.
The decision will then forward to Police chief Pol Gen Seripisut Temiyavej. If he did not agree with the decision, he could ask the Attorney General to make a final decision.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/read.php?newsid=30031584
Lese majeste alleged against Prem
(BangkokPost.com) - PTV executive Jakrapob Penkair lodged lese majeste complaints against Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanonda and two judges on Wednesday for acting against His Majesty the King's will.
Mr Jakrapob, also Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship, accused Gen Prem; Virat Chinvinijkul, former Supreme Court secretary and Supreme Court judge Pairote Navanuch of profanity against a royal decree directing the Oct 15 election by lobbying the Election Commission to quit.
The royal decree had been endorsed by His Majesty the King, but Gen Prem stepped in and engineered the coup, which automatically terminated the planned election, Mr Jakrapob said.
The allegation was based on a taped conversation, which was claimed to be between Mr Virat and Mr Pairote.
According to Mr Jakrapob, the conversation suggested that Gen Prem was behind the conviction of the former Election Commission led by Wasana Permlarp.
Mr Jakrapob denied to reveal the name of the person who gave him the tape, saying the person will be a witness. He also insisted that the tape was not tapped by phone, but just a record of a conversation
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=119738
the conviction of the former Election Commission led by Wasana PermlarpBy the way..... whatever became of these guys? Anyone heard anything? Serving time in jail or not?
doseiai
08-07-07, 03:17 PM
Watch and see, it's not the King who invokes lese majeste...its used as a political tool against political opponents. Why throw away a good tool, unless the most powerful are the ones wrapped up in it?
Hackers give ICT ministry a surprise (http://nationmultimedia.com/search/page.news.php?clid=3&id=30041646) - The Nation, 20 July 2007
Hackers broke into the Information and Communications Technology Ministry's website yesterday, plastering on the opening page a moving image of a smiling Thaksin Shinawatra, the ousted prime minister, confronting his nemesis, coup-maker General Sonthi Boonyaratglin.
The animation against a black background showed Thaksin grinning and waving his hand, with the message "take back your dictatorship and return our Thailand" next to it. :D It was displayed at about 11:50am for about 10 minutes until the page was removed. The site was taken offline until 2pm. It was not clear whether the defacement had been supported or paid for by pro-Thaksin supporters.
The website - www.mict.go.th - was back up by evening but said nothing about whether anything had been deleted. ICT Minister Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom said the skills of the hackers made him "glad", but he deplored the misuse of their talents. "The ministry will take action against those behind the attack, to make them pay for what they did," he said, adding that he had set a deadline for their arrest. [And as we all know, setting a deadline will always help in such cases. See the "War on Drugs". You can be sure someone will be arrested.... I mean, anyone.]
The ministry and Cat Telecom initiated a joint investigation soon after the website was restored. Ministry spokesman Wissanu Meeyoo said the simultaneous intrusions came from three locations, but he declined to specify whether they were in Thailand or elsewhere. He said logs and other records would be used as evidence against the hackers, who could face a five-year prison term and/or a Bt100,000 fine.
A ministry source described the vandalism as "a slap in the face", as it came only one day after the Computer-related Crimes Act became effective. "If they can penetrate into the ICT Ministry's own website, can the websites of other ministries be safe for long from now on?" the source said.
Hackers of the ICT are possibly Thais in Germany : DSI (http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/07/20/headlines/headlines_30041729.php) - The Nation, 21 July 2007
It is believed that hackers who broke into the Information and Communications Technology Ministry's website on Thursday may be Thais in Germany, a Department of Special Investigation police said Friday. "Our investigation showed that the hackers are staying in Europe. At this stage, we believed they may be Thais living in Germany," Pol Col Yannaphon Yangyuen, chief of DSI's technology and information section said.
The hackers plastered the opening page of the ICT website with a moving image of a smiling Thaksin Shinawatra, the ousted prime minister, confronting his nemesis, coup-maker General Sonthi Boonyaratglin. The animation against a black background showed Thaksin grinning and waving his hand, with the message "take back your dictatorship and return our Thailand" next to it.
It was displayed at about 11:50am for about 10 minutes until the page was removed. The site was taken offline until 2pm. Yannaphon said that the ICT did not ask the DSI to find the hackers. His statement that the hackers were possibly Thais in Germany was from his own investigation.
[hmmmmmmmmmmmm..........................??? :confused:]
The ICT meanwhile filed a complaint with police over the hackers.
[tough, aren't they? filed a complaint! :cool:]
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=117
CPMR
24 July 2007
On 18 July 2007, the Computer Crime Act B.E.2550 (2007) came into force. It took 9 years from the initial draft to the successful passage by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), appointed by the Council for National Security(CNS). An unofficial translation of the Computer Crime Act follows.
Computer Crime Act
B.E 2550 (2007)
_____________
Bhumibol Adulyadej, Rex.
Given on this 10th day of June B.E. 2550 (2007)
Being the 62nd year if the present reign.
His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej has been pleasantly pleased to proclaim that as it is deemed appropriate to enact a law governing the commission of a computer-related offence.
His Majesty, therefore, granted His Royal assent for the promulgation of the Computer Crime Act in accord with the recommendation and consent of the National Legislative Assembly as follows:
Section 1 This Act shall be called the "Computer Crime Act B.E 2550 (2007)".
Section 2 This Act will come into force 30 days following the date of its publication in the Government Gazette.
Section 3 In this Act,
"Computer System" means a piece of equipment or sets of equipment units, whose function is integrated together, for which sets of instructions and working principles enable it or them to perform the duty of processing data automatically.
"Computer Data" means data, statements, or sets of instructions contained in a computer system, the output of which may be processed by a computer system including electronic data, according to the Law of Electronic Transactions.
"Computer Traffic Data" means data related to computer system-based communications showing sources of origin, starting points, destinations, routes, time, dates, volumes, time periods, types of services or others related to that computer system's communications.
"Service Provider" shall mean:
(1) A person who provides service to the public with respect to access to the Internet or other mutual communication via a computer system, whether on their own behalf, or in the name of, or for the benefit of, another person
(2) A person who provides services with respect to the storage of computer data for the benefit of the other person
"Service User" means a person who uses the services provided by a service provider, with or without fee
"Competent Official" means a person appointed by a Minister to perform duties under this Act.
"Minister" means a Minister who has responsibility and control for the execution of this Act.
Section 4. The Minister of Information and Communications Technology shall have responsibility and control for the execution of this Act and shall have the authority to issue a Ministerial Rule for the purpose of the execution of this Act.
A Ministerial Rule shall be enforceable upon its publication in the Government Gazette.
Chapter 1
Computer-Related Offences
Section 5. Any person illegally accessing a computer system for which a specific access prevention measure that is not intended for their own use is available shall be subject to imprisonment for no longer than six months or a fine of not more than ten thousand baht or both.
Section 6. If any person knowing of a measure to prevent access to a computer system specifically created by a third party illegally discloses that measure in a manner that is likely to cause damage to the third party, then they shall be subject to imprisonment for no longer than one year or a fine of not more than twenty thousand baht or both.
Section 7. If any person illegally accesses computer data, for which there is a specific access prevention measure not intended for their own use available, then he or she shall be subject to imprisonment for no longer than two years or a fine of not more than forty thousand baht or both.
Section 8. Any person who illegally commits any act by electronic means to eavesdrop a third party's computer data in process of being sent in a computer system and not intended for the public interest or general people's use shall be subject to imprisonment for no longer than three years or a fine of not more than sixty thousand baht or both.
Section 9. Any person who illegally damages, destroys, corrects, changes or amends a third party's computer data, either in whole or in part, shall be subject to imprisonment for no longer than five years or a fine of not more than one hundred thousand baht or both.
Section 10. Any person who illegally commits any act that causes the working of a third party's computer system to be suspended, delayed, hindered or disrupted to the extent that the computer system fails to operate normally shall be subject to imprisonment for no longer than five years or a fine of not more than one hundred thousand baht or both.
Section 11 Any person sending computer data or electronic mail to another person and covering up the source of such aforementioned data in a manner that disturbs the other person's normal operation of their computer system shall be subject to a fine of not more than one hundred thousand baht.
Section 12. The perpetration of an offence under Section 9 or Section 10 that:
(1) causes damage, whether it be immediate or subsequent and whether it be synchronous to the public shall be subject to imprisonment for no longer than ten years or a fine of not more than two hundred thousand baht.
(2) is an act that is likely to damage computer data or a computer system related to the country's security, public security and economic security or public services or is an act against computer data or a computer system available for public use shall be subject to imprisonment from three years up to fifteen years and a fine of sixty thousand baht up to three hundred thousand baht.
The commission of an offence under (2) that causes death to another person shall be subject to imprisonment from ten years up to twenty years.
Section 13. Any person who sells or disseminates sets of instructions developed as a tool used in committing an offence under Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8, Section 9, Section 10 and Section 11 shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than one year or a fine of not more than twenty thousand baht, or both.
Section 14. If any person commits any offence of the following acts shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine of not more than one hundred thousand baht or both:
(1) that involves import to a computer system of forged computer data, either in whole or in part, or false computer data, in a manner that is likely to cause damage to that third party or the public;
(2) that involves import to a computer system of false computer data in a manner that is likely to damage the country's security or cause a public panic;
(3) that involves import to a computer system of any computer data related with an offence against the Kingdom's security under the Criminal Code;
(4) that involves import to a computer system of any computer data of a pornographic nature that is publicly accessible;
(5) that involves the dissemination or forwarding of computer data already known to be computer data under (1) (2) (3) or (4);
Section 15. Any service provider intentionally supporting or consenting to an offence under Section 14 within a computer system under their control shall be subject to the same penalty as that imposed upon a person committing an offence under Section 14.
Section 16. Any person, who imports to a computer system that is publicly accessible, computer data where a third party's picture appears either created, edited, added or adapted by electronic means or otherwise in a manner that is likely to impair that third party's reputation or cause that third party to be isolated, disgusted or embarrassed, shall be subject to imprisonment for not longer than three years or a fine of not more than sixty thousand baht, or both.
If the commission under paragraph one is a trustworthy action the perpetrator is not guilty.
An offence under paragraph one shall be a compoundable offence.
If a party injured by an offence under paragraph one has died before filing a complaint, then their parents, spouse or children may file a complaint and shall be deemed to be the injured party.
Section 17. Any person committing an offence against this Act outside the Kingdom and;
(1) the offender is Thai and the government of the country where the offence has occurred or the injured party is required to be punished or;
(2) the offender is a non-citizen and the Thai government or Thai person who is an injured party or the injured party is required to be punished;
shall be penalized within the Kingdom.
Continued (Chapter 2) in next post
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=117
CPMR
24 July 2007
On 18 July 2007, the Computer Crime Act B.E.2550 (2007) came into force. It took 9 years from the initial draft to the successful passage by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), appointed by the Council for National Security(CNS). An unofficial translation of the Computer Crime Act follows.
Chapter 2
Competent Officials
Section 18. Within the power of Section 19 and for the benefit of an investigation, if there is reasonable cause to believe that there is the perpetration of an offence under this Act, then a relevant competent official shall have any of the following authorities only as necessary to identify a person who has committed an offence in order to:
(1) issue an inquiry letter to any person related to the commission of an offence under this Act or summon them to give statements, forward written explanations or any other documents, data or evidence in an understandable form.
(2) call for computer traffic data related to communications from a service user via a computer system or from other relevant persons.
(3) instruct a service provider to deliver to a relevant competent official service users-related data that must be stored under Section 26 or that is in the possession or under the control of a service provider;
(4) copy computer data, computer traffic data from a computer system, in which there is a reasonable cause to believe that offences under this Act have been committed if that computer is not yet in the possession of the competent official;
(5) instruct a person who possesses or controls computer data or computer data storage equipment to deliver to the relevant competent official the computer data or the equipment pieces;
(6) inspect or access a computer system, computer data, computer traffic data or computer data storage equipment belonging to any person that is evidence of, or may be used as evidence related to, the commission of an offence or used in identifying a person who has committed an offence, and instruct that person to send the relevant computer data to all necessary extent as well;
(7) decode any person's computer data or instruct any person related to the encryption of computer data to decode the computer data or cooperate with a relevant competent official in such decoding;
(8) seize or attach the suspect computer system for the purpose of obtaining details of an offence and the person who has committed an offence under this Act;
Section 19. The power of authority of the relevant competent official under Section 18 (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8), is given when that competent official files a petition to a court with jurisdiction for an instruction to allow the relevant competent official to take action. However, the petition must identify a reasonable ground to believe that the offender is committing or going to commit an offence under the Act as well as the reason of requesting the authority, including the characteristics of the alleged offense, a description of the equipment used to commit the alleged offensive action and details of the offender, as much as this can be identified. The court should adjudicate urgently such aforementioned petition.
When the court approves permission, and before taking any action according to the court's instruction, the relevant competent official shall submit a copy of the reasonable ground memorandum to show that an authorization under Section 18 (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8), must be employed against the owner or possessor of the computer system, as evidence thereof. If there is no owner of such computer thereby, the relevant competent official should submit a copy of said memorandum as soon as possible.
In order to take action under Section 18 (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8), the senior officer of the relevant competent official shall submit a copy of the memorandum about the description and rationale of the operation to a court with jurisdiction within forty eight (48) hours after the action has been taken as evidence thereof.
When copying computer data under Section 18 (4), and given that it may be done only when there is a reasonable ground to believe that there is an offence against the Act, such action must not excessively interfere or obstruct the business operation of the computer data's owner or possessor.
Regarding seizure or attachment under Section 18 (8), a relevant competent official must issue a letter of seizure or attachment to the person who owns or possesses that computer system as evidence. This is provided, however, that the seizure or attachment shall not last longer than thirty days. If seizure or attachment requires a longer time period, a petition shall be filed at a court with jurisdiction for the extension of the seizure or attachment time period. The court may allow only one or several time extensions, however altogether for no longer than sixty days. When that seizure or attachment is no longer necessary, or upon its expiry date, the competent official must immediately return the computer system that was seized or withdraw the attachment.
The letter of seizure or attachment under paragraph one shall be in accordance with a Ministerial Rule.
Section 20. If an offence under this Act is to disseminate computer data that might have an impact on the Kingdom's security as stipulated in Division 2 type 1 or type 1/1 of the Criminal Code, or that it might be contradictory to the peace and concord or good morals of the people, the competent official appointed by the Minister may file a petition together with the evidence to a court with jurisdiction to restrain the dissemination of such computer data.
If the court gives an instruction to restrain the dissemination of computer data according to paragraph one, the relevant competent official shall conduct the restraint either by himself or instruct the Service Provider to restrain the dissemination of such computer data.
Chapter 2 continued in next post
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=117
CPMR
24 July 2007
On 18 July 2007, the Computer Crime Act B.E.2550 (2007) came into force. It took 9 years from the initial draft to the successful passage by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), appointed by the Council for National Security(CNS). An unofficial translation of the Computer Crime Act follows.
Section 21. If a relevant competent official found that any computer data contains undesirable sets of instructions, a relevant competent official with the authority to prohibit the sale or dissemination of such, may instruct the person who owns or possesses the computer data to suspend the use of, destroy or correct the computer data therein, or to impose a condition with respect to the use, possession or dissemination of the undesirable sets of instructions.
The undesirable sets of instructions under paragraph one shall mean to include sets of instructions that cause computer data, a computer system or other instruction sets to be damaged, destroyed, corrected, changed, added, interrupted or, fail to perform according to pre-determined instructions or otherwise as required by a relevant Ministerial Rule, with the exception of sets of instructions aimed at preventing or correcting the foregoing sets of instructions as required by a Minister and published in the Government Gazette.
Section 22. A relevant competent official shall not disclose or deliver computer data, computer traffic data or service users' data acquired under Section 18 to any person.
The provisions under paragraph one shall not apply to any actions performed for the benefit of lodging a lawsuit against a person who has committed an offence under this Act or for the benefit of lodging a lawsuit against a relevant competent official on the grounds of their abuse of authority or for action taken according to a court's instruction or permission.
Any competent official who violates paragraph one must be subject to imprisonment for no longer than three years or a fine of not more than sixty thousand baht, or both.
Section 23. Any competent official who commits an act of negligence that causes a third party to know of computer data, computer traffic data or a service user's data acquired under Section 18 must be subject to imprisonment for no more than one year or a fine of not more than twenty thousand baht, or both.
Section 24. Any person knowing of computer data, computer traffic data or a service user's data acquired by a relevant competent official under Section 18 and disclosing it to any person shall be subject to imprisonment for no longer than two years or a fine of not more than forty thousand baht, or both.
Section 25. Data, computer data or computer traffic data that the competent official acquired under this Act shall be admissible as evidence under the provision of the Criminal Procedure Code or other relevant law related to the investigation, however, it must not be in the way of influencing, promising, deceiving or other wrongful ways.
Section 26. A service provider must store computer traffic data for at least ninety days from the date on which the data is input into a computer system. However, if necessary, a relevant competent official may instruct a service provider to store data for a period of longer than ninety days but not exceeding one year on a special case by case basis or on a temporary basis.
The service provider must keep the necessary information of the service user in order to be able to identify the service user from the beginning of the service provision, and such information must be kept for a further period not exceeding ninety days after the service agreement has been terminated.
The types of service provider to whom the provisions under paragraph one shall apply and the timing of this application shall be established by a Minister and published in the Government Gazette.
A service provider who fails to comply with this Section must be subject to a fine of not more than five hundred thousand baht.
Section 27. If any person fails to comply with the instructions of court or relevant competent official under Section 18 or Section 20 or fails to comply with the court's instruction under Section 21 shall be subject to a fine of not more than two hundred thousand baht and a further daily fine of not more than five thousand baht until the relevant corrective action has been taken.
Section 28. Regarding the appointment of a competent official under this Act, the Minister shall appoint persons with knowledge of, and expertise in, computer systems and having the qualifications as required by the Minister.
Section 29. In performance of the duties under this Act, the competent official appointed by the Minister shall be an administrative officer or a senior police officer under the Criminal Procedure Code competent to receive a petition or accusation and be authorized to investigate only on an offence under this Act.
In arresting, controlling, searching, investigating, and filing a lawsuit against a person who commits an offence under this Act, and for what is within the authority of an administrative officer or a senior police officer, such competent officer shall coordinate with the relevant investigating officer in charge to take action within their authorized duties.
The Prime Minister is in charge of the Royal Thai Police Headquarters and with a Minister shall have a joint authority to establish a regulation with respect to the means and action-related procedures under paragraph two.
Section 30. In the performance of duties, a relevant competent official must produce an identity card to a relevant person.
The identity card shall be as per the form required by a Minister and published in the Government Gazette.
Countersigned
General Surayud Chulanont
Prime Minister
Net surfers seek truth on cyber crime arrest
The Nation
06 September 2007
Net surfers have sought a Thai government explanation over a report in the Financial Times about the arrest of two Thais for alleged offensive comments about the monarchy on an Internet chat room.
They afraid that a webmaster going missing under suspicious circumstances might be one of the victims.
The webmaster, known as Phraya Phichai, who runs http://www.propaganda.forumotion.com/, which discusses the monarchy had been active on the Internet up until late last month. But the site had been blocked by the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) since then.
Phraya Pichai is well known in the Internet community as he actively participates in web board discussions about the monarchy on many sites.
Net surfers are worried about Phraya Phichai as no one has been able to contact him since late last month when a rumour spread that he had been arrested. Many posted comments on http://www.prachatai.com/, a site for alternative news, doubting that he might be one of the two people arrested under the new
Computer Crime Act as reported by the Financial Times
In its weekend edition, the paper reported on its front page that Thai authorities had used the new law to arrest two Thais, now in custody, for offensive comments about the monarchy made on Internet chat rooms. However, the ICT Minister Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom denied knowledge of any arrests.
Pol Maj Gen Wisut Wanitchbutr, commander of the Economic and Cyber Crime division, also said his division had not arrested the two Thais.
"Lese majeste is a state crime that police from every division can make arrests for, not only my division," he said in a telephone interview. He added that he had no idea which police division arrested the two Thais as reported by the Financial Times.
The unclear information about the arrests and the disappearance of Phraya Phichai has created an uneasy atmosphere. Some net surfers were worried about being lured by police to post offensive comments against the monarchy, and some said Phraya Phichai was on line again recently.
"So who chatted with me last night? Don't tell me that someone had hacked into his computer," said a comment posted on the Prachatai web board by a net surfer identifying himself as Kampol.
On Tuesday, Fah Diew Kan ("Same Sky") Publishing house, the publisher of a radical political magazine under the same name, issued a statement demanding that all agencies related to the issue, particularly the ICT Ministry and the Royal Thai Police, explain all facts related to the Financial Times' report.
"If someone was arrested, the government and all agencies concerned with the issue must respect that person's human rights and entitlement to justice," said the statement.
The Nation
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=196
Notorious website owner released
Published on September 7, 2007
'Phraya Phichai' bailed, then slips quietly away
A 37-year old man detained for two weeks at Bangkok Remand Prison on charges under the new Computer Crime Act was released on bail yesterday, a source said.
The source confirmed that the man was the webmaster for www.propaganda.forumotion.com, which mainly discusses the monarchy. The webmaster, widely known in the cyber community as Phraya Phichai, was quietly arrested two weeks ago and public access to his website has been denied since then.
Phraya Phichai, a pseudonym, became the first victim of the new Computer Crime Act, which went into effect on July 18.
Though he was arrested on August 24 by Crime Suppression police, he was first seen by his family on Wednesday. During his two weeks in custody, Phraya Phichai never consulted with a lawyer, the source said.
According to the source, Phraya Phichai was charged under Article 14 (1) and (2), which prescribes punishment of a maximum five years imprisonment or a Bt100,000 fine for posting false content on the Internet to hurt others and public security.
It was the first time that police exercised their power under the new law and the story was first reported by the Financial Times weekend edition.
Quoting a senior Thai official, the London-based paper said authorities have used the law to arrest two Thais for "what were deemed particularly offensive comments about the monarchy on Internet chatrooms".
Throughout the past two weeks, Netizens have been worrying about the arrest and disappearance of Phraya Phichai. They have sought an explanation from the Thai government about the Financial Times' report.
Assuming that Phraya Phichai was one of the two victims cited in the report, a Net surfer has started a weblog called Free Phichai, criticising the arrest and demanding the release of the webmaster.
On Tuesday, Fah Diew Kan (Same Sky) Publishing house, the publisher of a radical political magazine under the same name, issued a statement demanding that all agencies related to the issue, particularly the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Ministry and police, explain all facts related to the Financial Times' report.
"If someone was arrested, the government and all agencies concerned with the issue must respect that person's human rights and entitlement to justice," said the statement.
The Computer Crime Act, proposed by the ICT Ministry, has been mired in controversy since it was drafted due to the excessive power of police, who are allowed to seize computers of people suspected of disseminating "insulting or pornographic" content.
The law raised concerns among both local and international human rights organisations such as Reporters Without Borders, which said it might result in an increasingly restrictive policy towards free expression online.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/09/07/national/national_30048078.php
See previous post for information on the first person arrested under the new cybercrime legislation:
Second person detained under Cyber Crime Act is found
Prachatai
07 September 2007
The second person reported to have been arrested under the new Computer Crime Act has been found detained at Bangkok Remand Prison, the same place where a 36-year-old programmer was held.
The unnamed woman was reportedly arrested on Aug 24 around noon. Officials possibly from the Information and Communications Technology Ministry and police raided her house by breaking the locks and seized a computer without producing a search warrant.
A source said that the detainee is suffering from health problems. Prachatai was told her family is aware of the detention, and is struggling to post bail due to financial constraints. A civil rights organization has been in contact.
This case marks the second detention under the Computer Crime Act. A report in the Financial Times on Sept 1-2 on the arrest of two Thais had been dismissed by both the ICT Minister Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom and Commander of the Economic and Cyber Crime Division Pol Maj Gen Wisut Wanitchbutr.
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=198
Original Report:
http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/page2.php?mod=mod_ptcms&ContentID=9496&SystemModuleKey=HilightNews&System_Session_Language=Thai
See following links for background:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/09/02/national/national_30047406.php
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/09/06/national/national_30047943.php
.....
The Computer Crime Act, first proposed by the ICT Ministry, has been the subject of heated controversy due to the extreme powers it gives police, who are now able to seize the computers of people they suspect of disseminating insulting or pornographic content. The law has raised concerns by humanrights organisations that are afraid it could result in an even more restrictive policy towards free expression online.
Reporters Without Borders, an organisaton that fights for press freedom, on Wednesday issued a statement to voice its concern over the arrests and the law.
"It confirms our fears about the dangers of a law that is supposed to combat pornography but turns out to be a way of restricting and controlling press freedom," said the statement.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/09/07/national/national_30048186.php
One released on bail, one still detained; authorities know nothing
Prachatai
08 September 2007
One webmaster and other user names dropped out of the Thai internet community at about the same time a rumour began to spread on Aug 24 that some web-board members had been arrested. The Financial Times newspaper reported in its Sept 1-2 weekend edition that two Thais had been arrested for posting offensive comments about the monarchy.
However, Information and Communications Technology Minister Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom denied knowledge of the arrests to the Nation newspaper on Sept 2. And in the Nation again on Sept 6, the police commander of the Economic and Cyber Crime Division also denied any involvement in the arrests, but neither denied nor confirmed that the arrests did take place.
A few user names have been missing from political web-boards. including Praya Pichai. Reliable sources confirmed that Praya Pichai, the alias of a 36-year-old programmer, was detained in Bangkok Remand Prison. He was eventually bailed on the evening of Sept 6.
Praya Pichai was an active member in the Prachatai discussion forum and others, and in late June opened his own web-board at http://propaganda.forumotion.com/ which openly discussed the issue of the monarchy, a taboo topic in Thailand. The ICT ministry immediately blocked access to the entire website from inside the country. However, it is still accessible through applications using proxies. The number of registered members reaches almost 800.
Since the rumour, Praya Pichai seems to have disappeared from all web-boards. Strangely, some members in the Propaganda Forum are still trying to convince other members, who had begun to notice his absence, that Praya Pichai was still around and would come back on line soon. Some members said they had been contacted by him through the MSN chatroom. But he has not appeared on any web-board since.
Mystery hung over the underground web-board community with almost everyone accusing one another of being infiltrators, while a few members still kept on insisting that the webmaster was fine, and persuading others to keep posting.
Some members were suspicious that the web-board had already been usurped by a group of people who had yet to figure out Phraya Pichai's password to log on to post in his screen name, but might have seized his computer and used his MSN which is set to log in automatically.
Some groups and individuals have started to call public attention to this case. Fah Deaw Kan (Same Sky) publishing house, an alternative book and magazine publisher, has issued a statement calling on the government to clarify the issue. Some individuals have put up a blog specifically to launch a campaign "Free Pichai" ( http://freepichai.blogspot.com/). A campaign slide show consisting only of texts calling for justice for Pichai has been put on the Youtube website. And many members of Prachatai discussion forum have begun to post comments about the arrest.
Immediately after Prachatai reported that the man had been bailed on the evening of Sept 6, the Propaganda website suddenly changed its line into one condemning and cursing people who are not loyal to the monarchy, and all previous posts were deleted.
However, some Propaganda members have put up another forum http://propaganda2.forumotion.com/.[Mod: Already blocked!]
On Sept 7, Prachatai was informed about a second detainee, a woman who was arrested on the same day.
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=199
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=213
Second cyber crime detainee gets bail
Prachatai
17 September 2007
A woman detained under the Computer Crime Act was released after her family members bailed her out at the Criminal Court.
She was arrested on Aug 24. The police believed she used the alias ‘Ton Chan' in posting comments offensive to the monarchy on several political internet discussion forums. She was first detained at the Crime Suppression Division, and then transferred to Bangkok Remand Prison. She reportedly suffered poor health.
Her family previously had difficulty in finding 100,000 baht to bail her out, and several web-board members and human rights advocates were starting to raise funds for her. Finally her family managed to collect the money, and the court ordered her released this evening (Sept 17).
On Sept 19 afternoon, the Campaign for Popular Media Reform and Freedom Against Censorship Thailand will submit a letter to the Prime Minister at Government House to ask for clarification of proceedings in this case.
Translated by Ponglert Pongwanan
Update on the arrests under Cyber Crime Act
Prachatai
17 September 2007
A well-known anti-coup activist confirmed that he met arrested webmaster Praya Pichai while detained at the same cell in prison. Fellow members of the cyber community and human rights and free speech advocates are raising fund to bail the second woman who is still detained.
A climate of fear and confusion among cyber posters in political discussion forums in Thailand including Prachatai has been looming for the past few weeks, after a rumor and later a news report in the Financial Times in early September.
Sombat Bun-ngam-anong, the anti-coup activist, was detained at Bangkok Remand Prison, after he refused bail in a libel suit filed against him by junta leaders Gen Sonthi Bunyaratkalin and Gen Saprang Galayanamitr. (see http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=186)
Prachatai visited him in prison on Sept 3, and he reported the presence of the detainee who the police believed was Praya Pichai. He said that the man was visibly frightened and had not been permitted to contact family members and lawyers.
"He dreaded being inside the prison, and was denied all basic rights. He knew so little about the Computer Crime Act. I'm worried about his safety. Please contact his family as soon as possible," Sombat told Prachatai from behind bars.
He also said that the detainee was arrested on Aug 24, and detained at the Crime Suppression Division for 6 days before being transferred to the prison. There was no physical abuse, according to what the detainee told Sombat.
The next day, Sombat provided Prachatai with the detainee's real name and the addresses of people who he wanted to be contacted. Prachatai made contact with his family members, and he was eventually bailed out on Sept 6.
Sombat later wrote about this in his own web-board, www.nocoup.org, after he was released on bail.
"He approached me from behind, asking if I was a member of the anti-coup movement because I was wearing a red T-shirt with an anti-coup message. He was wary about talking. It took 3-4 days for us to learn about each other. Strangely, we were moved to the same cell, lying side by side."
Sombat was told that three policemen raided the man's room through the windows, and then opened the door for a couple of dozen more to come in. While in detention at the Crime Suppression Division, the police showed photographs of him taken when he was at anti-coup activities. He had been followed by the police for quite some time. The police tried to link him with some anti-coup groups, and establish a conspiracy theory to undermine the monarchy, but he denied it.
However, the police took hold of all the information in his notebook computer including screen names, email addresses, and passwords regarding his web-board, propaganda.forumotion.com, as well as MSN accounts and chat history.
On the same day, a woman was also arrested. Both were held and questioned at the same place. Currently, the woman is still detained at Bangkok Remand Prison.
Sombat believes that the authorities think that this must be an organized crime, and have been monitoring a certain group of internet surfers to find the masterminds. They failed, as these were individual efforts, Sombat said.
Prachatai talked to the first detainee in person, and was told that he did not want his case to be publicized, as the police had instructed him not to talk to reporters. Sombat said that, according to the detainee, the police had convinced him to confess and not to give interviews, in exchange for a minimal punishment of 4 months imprisonment.
"I don't buy that. It must be a trick to lead to more arrests," Sombat said.
With the ICT minister and a high-level police officer denying knowledge of the arrests, the detainee himself not wanting publicity, and only one English-language newspaper following the issue, it seemed to be impossible to verify the other arrest reported by the Financial Times. Maybe it was just a rumour as many cast suspected.
On Sept 7, the founder of Prachatai website, Jon Ungpakorn, got a phone call from an individual who claimed his daughter was being detained in prison.
Prachatai visited the 37-year-old woman who the police believed to have used the screen name ‘Ton Chan', and owned a blog, "giyotin".
Her father told Jon that the arrest took place on the morning of Aug 24 by about 20 policemen raiding the house and arresting his daughter while she was sleeping in her bedroom. Her notebook computer was seized.
Prachatai website manager Chiranuch Premchaiporn visited her and found her in good mental condition, but poor health. Her family could not afford the bail of 100,000 baht.
Now many individuals in the web-boards have suggested fund-raising to bail the second detainee, and provide her with some financial assistance in the court case. And human rights and free speech advocates both local and international are also discussing how to help both persons.
Translated by Ponglert Pongwanan
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=212
Special Branch bans Sulak book
Published on October 4, 2007
Well-known social critic Sulak Sivaraksa says he will petition both the United Nations and the National Human Rights Commission and file a case in the Administrative Court to challenge the police's decision to ban and confiscate one of his recent books, which touched on politics and the monarchy.
"I can assure you that all that I wrote was true," Sulak told The Nation.
"For three decades now, the authorities have not stopped harassing citizens and even [Prime Minister] Surayud [Chulanont] once remarked that police are like the mafia."
Sulak said he received a Special Branch police notice on Tuesday ordering him to stop printing, selling and disseminating the book "A Quarter of a Century of Thai Politics: A Thorn-filled Path", published by Song Siam publishing house.
He said the order claimed the book "may cause unrest and degrade good morals" in Thai society, a charge Sulak rejected.
"I don't know where and how many copies they have confiscated already."
He said the printing law cited in the police order dated from the dictatorial era of 1941.
"I also heard a rumour that they may come and arrest me," said Sulak, who has twice been tried and acquitted on lese majeste charges.
A source who asked not to be named said the whole affair was putting the Surayud administration in a negative light and may be part of a plan by some influential group seeking to undermine the interim government.
Pravit Rojanaphruk
The Nation
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/10/04/politics/politics_30051247.php
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/10/04/politics/politics_30051247.php
http://www.fringer.org/wp-content/uploads/books/sulaksa.jpg
[Photo: Prachatai]
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=279
Thai police ban, confiscate book on democracy, monarchy
Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA)
05 October 2007
Download part 1 of the book (34 pages of PDF file) (http://www.prachatai.com/05web/upload/HilightNews/document/sulaksa.pdf)
The Thai police have banned and confiscated copies of a book by a respected and well-known social critic, alleging that the material "may cause unrest and degrade good morals" in Thai society.
The book by Sulak Sivaraksa, called "A Quarter of a Century of Thai Politics: A Thorn-filled Path", concerns politics, democracy and the monarchy.
A Right Livelihood Award recipient, Sulak said a notice from the Special Branch Police on 2 October 2007 ordered him to stop printing, selling and disseminating the book, citing the 1941 Printing Law.
The law, created during the country's authoritarian past, gives the police the authority to censor and stop publications that are deemed a threat to peace, public safety or public morals.
Sulak, who has twice been tried and acquitted on lese majeste charges, has vowed to bring up the case for the consideration of the National Human Rights Commission and the Administrative Court.
When he was first charged with lese majeste in 1984, it created such international uproar that the government was forced to drop it. The second charge in 1991 arose from a talk he gave at Thammasat University about the repressed state of democracy in Thailand. He went into exile until the courts cleared him in 1995.
Thai police ban a book on democracy
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has expressed its concern after receiving reports that police have confiscated copies of a book about Thai politics, democracy and the monarchy, written by respected and well-known social critic, Sulak Sivaraksa.
The book, entitled A quarter of a century of Thai politics: a thorn-filled path, led to Sivaraksa receiving a notice from the Special Branch Police on October 2, 2007, which cited the out-of-date1941 Printing Law and ordered him to stop printing, selling and disseminating the book.
IFJ Asia-Pacific Director Jacqueline Park said, "Banning books and access to a variety of information sources is a clear breach of people's freedom and right to know, and reveals the kinds of restrictions imposed by the Thai government on writers and the media".
Thai police allege the material in the book "may cause unrest and degrade good morals" in Thai society. A new Printing Act does not allow police to seize books for this reason, but although the new law has been passed it is yet to be made effective.
However Sivaraksa stands by his book, and claimed, "...all I wrote was true... for three decades now, authorities have not stopped harassing citizens and even (Prime Minister) Surayud (Chulanont) once remarked that (Thai) police are like the mafia".
Sivaraksa said he will now petition the United Nations and the National Human Rights Commission and file a case in the Administrative Court to challenge the police's decision. He has had charges made against him in the past which subsequently dropped due to an international outcry.
"The IFJ supports Sivaraksa in challenging the decision to confiscate his book and calls upon Thai authorities to drop the ban and allow the book to be freely published and distributed," Park said.
"It is the role of the media to question governments and hold them accountable for their actions, and it's terrible that people like Sivaraksa are being persecuted for carrying out their professional duties."
*The IFJ represents over 600,000 journalists in 114 countries
Related Article: http://www.fringer.org/?p=285 (Thai)
Source: Thai police ban, confiscate book on democracy, monarchy (http://www.seapabkk.org/)
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=304
Special report: Legal amendment disturbs Privy Councilors
Prachatai
11 October 2007
News
Events in the last couple of days remind us of the words given by His Majesty the King on 4 December 2005, remembered as the "The King can do wrong" speech.
On 8 October 2007, it was reported that more than 60 members of National Legislative Assembly (NLA) led by Mr. Pornpetch Wichitchonchai signed a motion for amendments of two laws, and the motion was tabled for deliberation today (10 October).
In essence, an amendment was proposed to Section 112 of the Penal Code concerning the defaming, insulting or threatening of the King, Queen, Heir-apparent, or Regent. The proposed Section 112/2 would expand this protection to cover Privy Councillors and a breach of the law would result in a maximum imprisonment of five years and fine of one hundred thousand baht.
Another amendment proposed adding to Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code the clause: "Whilst holding an investigation, preliminary examination or trial concerning offences committed against the King, Queen, Heir-apparent, or Regent as per Chapter 1, Title 1, Book 2 of the Penal Code, if deemed appropriate, the investigating officer, public prosecutor or a party to the case may request the Court to order the prohibition of publication of facts, details, comments, criticisms or any opinions expressed in relation to the case, in whatsoever media." A violation of this Section results not just in the maximum imprisonment of three years and fine of sixty thousand baht, but is also considered a breach of a court order which shall be penalized according to the Civil Procedure Code.
Backing off
However on the afternoon of 9 October 2007, Mr. Pornpetch Wichitchonchai, the NLA member who proposed the amendments, told the press that he had decided to withdraw the motion abruptly. "I was informed that this news caused concern among some Privy Councillors. They had a meeting among them and informed me later that they felt concerned about this extra protection even though they knew this motion was proposed by the NLA in good faith. Therefore, I have informed the whip and withdrawn the motion", said the NLA member.
Even though the attempt to change the laws has stalled, the smoke is yet to clear. This recent move raises questions as to their ulterior motives to propose so many new laws and amendments and whether or not it is justified to plan to undertake this massive revision of the law.
Mr. Gothom Arya, an NLA member who did not sign in support of the amendment motion, traces this attempt to seek amendments of the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code to one of the four reasons cited by the Council for Democratic Reform (CDR) when they took power. They stated that their coup was made as there had been attempts to defame the monarch. Perhaps, some NLA members thought there had been no further action to follow up this matter, so they had to initiate one.
Normally, the Penal Code provides litigable grounds for libel cases.
A unique case is the defaming, insulting or threatening of the King, Queen, Heir-apparent, or Regent, which is a case that anyone can bring to the Court. And penalties in this Section are heavier than the law governing the slander of an ordinary person.
The extension of this extra protection to the Privy Councillors has been widely criticized.
Commenting on the issue, Mr. Gothom Arya said he holds that the laws should not be changed since this might contravene Section 5 of the 2007 Constitution: "The Thai people, irrespective of their origin, sex, or religion shall enjoy equal protection under the Constitution", and Section 30 in Chapter III "Rights and Liberties of Thai People": "All persons are equal before the law and shall enjoy equal protection under the law." The amendments would provide unequal protection of persons and those in certain ranks would enjoy special protection, even though all persons are supposed to be treated equally under the law.
Meanwhile, the Fah Deao Kan (Same Sky) Publishing Hose, which apart from featuring academic publications with bold opinions, also sports a website which is very popular for social and political debate, said in a statement issued prior to the withdrawal of the motion that such an amendment to the Penal Code would usher the Chairperson of the Privy Council and Privy Councillors "into a position of revered worship which shall not be violated", equal to the King.
This will not benefit democracy or the monarchy itself. Should the Chairperson of the Privy Council and Privy Councillors misbehave, i.e., by interfering in politics or misusing their positions for business interests, people would then be prohibited from investigating or criticizing their actions. This would happen as if any action committed by the Chairperson of the Privy Council (who used to be Honorary President of the Charoen Pokphand Group) and Privy Councillors were made on behalf of His Majesty.
Lèse Majesté, a political tool?
"Under the current climate, it is already easy for anyone to be accused of being disloyal. Any outspoken person can easily face the accusation and become a villain for public. Now, they even want to create more tools to abet the accusation. It is both unnecessary and useless" said Mr. Gothom Arya.
It has been known for a long time in legal and media circles that libel and lèse majesté suits have long been used as a tool of political manipulation.
Suthachai Yimprasert, a historian from the Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University, said in one interview with Prachatai that libel litigation has been used as a political tool, but in many instances, the case is launched by the plaintiff since he or she has been damaged.
But cases of defamation of the King, Queen, Heir-apparent, or Regent, the standing is different. The historian proposed that "we should look at the monarchy as an institution, and it is inappropriate that anyone can bring a lèse majesté case. If the Bureau of the Royal Household is the monarch's representative, it should then be authorized to launch lawsuits. And it is for them to consider whether or not a case is actionable. It's not the business of anyone else or the military. It's neither Sondhi Limthongkul's nor Thaksin Shinawatra's duty to judge if a case is actionable or not".
Mr. Pornpetch Wichitchonchai, who proposed the amendments, also said that one reason for this legal change is to provide for protection of the Privy Councillors since "some of them have become political victims".
On this issue, the Fah Deao Kan Publishing Hose commented that the statement indicates that the amendments were proposed in order to solve problems for General Prem Tinsulanonda. The retired General has been accused by both Thai and foreign media as having been involved in the 19 September 2006 coup. In the past year, he has been subject to heavy criticism from anti-coup groups.
Meanwhile, the Campaign for Popular Media Reform (CMPR) issued a statement accusing these amendments of impeding the right of freedom of expression of people and media and of being in breach of the 1996 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
CMPR reiterated that at present, the Thai media is already overcautious about reports concerning the monarchy and Privy Councillors. In addition, new laws have recently been enforced to curb freedom of expression including the 2007 Computer Related Crime Act, and other laws related to media and national security. There is no need at all to issue more laws that provide for heavier penalties to further control the media and freedom of expression.
Concerning the criticism that the amendments may contravene Section 45 of the 2007 Constitution, Mr. Gothom Arya commented that it cannot be precisely concluded since exceptional clauses are always there in the Constitution, i.e., restriction of liberty shall not be granted, except for the purpose of maintaining the security of the state or maintaining public order or good morals.
Translated by Pipob Udomittipong
Thai language source:
http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/page2.php?mod=mod_ptcms&ContentID=9869&SystemModuleKey=HilightNews&System_Session_Language=Thai
BBC statement on allegation of lèse majesté made against BBC correspondent
BBC
01 June 2008
News
Below is a statement from the BBC's Asia Bureau Editor Paul Danahar, to allegations of lèse majesté made against the BBC's South East Asia Correspondent Jonathan Head by Lieutenant Colonel Watanasak Mungkijakandee to the Crime Suppression Division of the Royal Thai Police on Friday 30 May 2008.
The BBC's Asia Bureau Editor Paul Danahar said "The allegations made against Jonathan Head are completely unfounded. The BBC understands that the police in Thailand are required to investigate all complaints of Lèse Majesté and will co-operate with that investigation. But it is very upsetting that his work should be incorrectly presented in this way and it has caused great distress to both him and his family." .
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=659
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.