<p>Both in print and on television, I have warned that the (great) mass (of the people) has already been born in Thailand, and that the mass politics of the people could take two different paths. One path was the expansion of the democratic apparatus and political participation, if the apparatus and various institutions were prepared to adapt. Or the other possible path was the emergence of totalitarian politics. Without a (great) mass (of the people), totalitarian dictatorship cannot be born.</p> <p></p>

<div>The eyewitness account of&nbsp;Sittiporn Jorradol, former producer at Nation TV, who witnessed the violent incident near Ramkhamhaeng University last Saturday where five people were killed by gunshots.&nbsp;</div> <div> </div>

<p>I was more than 800 kilometers away from Kok Wua and Ratchaprasong during April-May 2010. None of my relatives, not even one, were among those who protested in accordance with the law. But I was anguished by the armed siege on the protests, the seize that caused nearly 100 people to lose their lives and more than 2,000 to be injured.&nbsp; And I was anguished by the unjust use (abuse) of the law against another 1,000 people after the protests.</p> <p></p>

<p>Comments offered by law scholars Nitirat (the Enlightened Jurists) on the&nbsp;Draft Amnesty for Those Who Committed Offences as a Result of the Political Protests and Political Expression of the People B.E…..</p> <p></p>

<div><span>Next week, the witness hearings in the case of Yutthapoom (last name withheld) will begin in the Criminal Court on Ratchadaphisek Road in Bangkok. Yutthapoom was accused of violating Article 112 while watching television and writing an insulting message on a CD. What makes his case different from many others that have passed through the courts in the years since the 2006 coup is that the alleged criminal acts took place in the private space of his home. The person who filed the complaint against Yutthapoom was his older brother. </span></div>

<div>On this past 10 April, Voice TV did something very interesting. They sent reporters to five neighborhoods in Bangkok, including Kok Wua, to ask 5 people in each area (my guess is that there may have been an unreported principle guiding the selection of people asked for information, for example, ask only those wearing flowered shirts) &nbsp;what happened on 10 April 2010? What were the causes? And what were their thoughts about what happened?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>It appeared that only 3 out of 25 people knew or still remembered what happened three years ago.</div> <p></p>

<p>In “Red Shirt Academic,” Yukti Mukdawijitra, Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Sociology and Anthropology at Thammasat University, tells his own story of growing involved in struggling for accountability, freedom and human rights in the years since the 19 September 2006 coup. &nbsp;Simultaneously, he tracks the discomfort this has caused among his colleagues and others in Thai society who would prefer that he and others were less active. They call him a “red shirt academic,” a title he comes to embrace.&nbsp;</p> <p></p>

<p>On 28 March 2013, <a href="http://www.prachatai.com/english/category/ekachai-hongkangwan">Ekachai Hongkangwan</a> was sentenced to three years and four months in prison for allegedly violating Article 112 by selling CDs which contained an ABC Australia documentary and copies of WikiLeaks documents. He requested bail while he appealed the case, but this request was denied and he is currently behind bars at the Bangkok Remand Prison.</p> <p></p>

<p>On 12 October 2012, the Constitutional Court released a comment in response to petitions submitted by Somyot Prueksakasemsuk and Ekachai Hongkangwan about the constitutionality of Article 112 of the Criminal Code, which mandates that "whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years. The comment addressed whether or not Article 112 was in contravention to Article 3 (2), Article 29, and Article 45 (1, 2) of the Constitution (The full comment can be read <a href="http://www.constitutionalcourt.or.th/index.php?option=com_docman&amp;task=doc_download&amp;gid=6908&amp;Itemid=94&amp;lang=th">here</a>). In response to concerns about each of these provisions, the Constitutional Court ruled that Article 112 did not stand in contravention and was therefore constitutional. Given an earlier commentary issued in response to a petition by Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul, in which the Court noted that <a href="http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/2668">a closed trial is compatible</a> with the exercise of the defendant’s rights and liberties, the sum total of the comment was not entirely surprising.</p>

<p>Regarding political conflict in Thailand, many years ago I proposed that the political system (relations of power) is unable to adapt and broaden itself to accept the expansion of a new group of people who I referred to as the lower middle-class. This group of people is vast and needs a space to politically negotiate within the system, because their lives, their worldviews, and their interests have changed.&nbsp;</p> <p></p>

<p>Ajarn Piyabutr Saengkanokkul made the observation that:</p> <p><em>"When we speak of French history, why is it that we only think about the French Revolution and the beheading and overthrow of the king? Really, there are many other interesting issues. Not every uprising in French history led to the overthrow of a king. It took a long time to set the system of political life in France.&nbsp; France had to deal with the king, and not until 1899 did it manage to bring him under control and move towards a progressive republic, after becoming a republic in 1870 and going through a gradual process and compromise with royalists.</em></p>

<p>Craig J. Reynolds, a historian of Southeast Asia at the Australian National University, reviews Tyrell Haberkorn's book <em>Revolution Interrupted: Farmers, Students, Law, and Violence in Northern Thailand</em>, which was launched in late 2011.</p> <p></p>