Story by Sicha Rungrojtanakul
Cover illustration by Kittiya On-in

Four years after the beginning of the student-led pro-democracy protests in 2020, many activists and protesters are still facing charge resulting from their participations in the protests, especially royal defamation charges. Some are still imprisoned, while some have fled overseas.

The most recent wave of Thai political asylum seekers consists of 30 people, both protest leaders and protesters, the youngest of whom is 18 years old.

Almost all of them are facing a royal defamation charge – a charge for which people are often denied bail and at least 15 people are now held in detention pending trial or appeal.

Prison or exile

The 18 July 2020 protest at the Democracy Monument was the first in a series of mass protests which followed between 2020 - 2022. The initial demands of the movement were for the authorities to stop harassing people, for parliament to be dissolved, and a new Constitution.

According to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), at least 276 people have been charged with royal defamation in 308 cases since November 2020, after then-Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha said in a press release that the government will use every law, every section, to press charges against protesters. The charge came back into use after a 2-year hiatus, which Gen Prayut claimed was due to King Vajiralongkorn’s royal benevolence.

Poonsuk Poonsukcharoen, a TLHR lawyer, said that many people chose to flee for two reasons: the level of state threats and prosecution, and the denial of bail.

Poonsuk observed that, although the state’s measures were intense during the height of the protests in 2020, protest leaders and protesters facing charges were still being granted bail. However, no bail was granted in the more recent cases, which she believes is the reason more people are choosing to flee.

The waning public support for the movement could also be a factor, but Poonsuk said it might not have an effect on all. She noted that public support began to decline after the peak period of protests, and at that time, even though some protest leaders were granted bail, some continued with their activism, which was used by the state as the reason for denying bail.

As the protests die down, protest leaders continue to have their bail revoked and imprisoned, Poonsuk said, while others are denied bail and held in pre-trial detention. The attention of the public when leaders were arrested weakened as people get used to the situation.

Even after a civilian government was elected following the May 2023 general election, the situation for political prisoners did not seem to improve. Those detained under the previous government have not been granted bail, while the number of people held in pre-trial detention continue to rise.

Poonsuk noted that, since 2023, the courts tend to deny bail even if there was no reason for them to believe that the defendants would tamper with evidence, commit other harmful acts, or obstruct the investigation, and even if there is a lawful cause for denying bail, the courts should also consider whether the defendant is a flight risk.

Some people are unlikely to flee but are still denied bail. Poonsuk said that there is no legal reasons to believe that political prisoners like student activist Sirapob Phumpheungphut and human rights lawyer Anon Nampa are a flight risk. On the contrary, there is evidence suggesting that they are unlikely to flee.

“When we follow legal reasoning, there must be an existing fact first, that says this fact leads to the interpretation of flight risk. But in many cases, the court claims that since there is a verdict and the punishment is heavy, they fear that the defendant will flee. That kind of reason is not one that can be used as a real reason,” Pooksuk said.

“This is because if we say that we fear flight due to the severe punishment, that means for 100% of cases you must not allow bail at all in this type of case. It means that in murder cases or any other case with a heavier sentence, there would be no bail at all, since the sentence is heavier. This reason can be used as a reason, but not as the main reason.”

The situation appears to have become less intense after the death of monarchy reform advocate Netiporn Sanesangkhom, who died in detention following a long hunger strike to demand judicial reform and an end to the detention of political dissidents.

2 activists were released after Netiporn’s death: Tantawan Tuatulanon and Nutanon Chaimahabut, who were imprisoned around the same time as Netiporn but on a sedition charge. However, only a few others have been granted bail since.

Trend toward jail sentences

Poonsuk said that defendants in most political cases are found guilty and handed a prison sentence. Meanwhile, getting bail remains difficult.

TLHR said it filed a total of 109 bail requests for political prisoners between January – July 2024, 85 of which were for people charged with royal defamation or sedition. Of these requests, only 5 were granted.

Nevertheless, Poonsuk said that one needs to be fair to the current government, since these charges were filed under the previous administration but the trials are only taking place now.

In 2024, as courts were scheduled to rule on royal defamation cases, a number of defendants did not appear in court, resulting in arrest warrants. Several protest leaders have announced their decision to seek asylum.

Panupong Chadnok, an activist facing 43 charges for participation in protests, 9 of which are royal defamation charges, posted on Facebook in September that he had decided to seek asylum.

Parit Chiwarak, a protest leader facing 25 counts of royal defamation, posted on Facebook in October that he had left the country to study overseas after receiving a full scholarship covering his Master’s degree and PhD studies. He is facing the highest count of royal defamation among the activists of 2020, and said he left without saying goodbye because of the amount of charges he face.

Both did not say when they left the country.

Several other protest leaders who emerged in the pro-democracy protests of 2020 had also fled during the Prayut government, including Tattep Ruangprapaikitseree, a founder of the activist group Free Youth; Supitcha Chailom and Benchamaphon Nivas, former members of the monarchy reform activist group Thalugwang; and Yanisa Vararaksapong, a student and Section 112 refugee in the USA.

Questions have been raised whether more people seeking asylum would make things more difficult for other defendants. Poonsuk said that, according to legal principles, one person fleeing should not affect the right to bail or the sentence in other cases facing the same charge. However, there may be a societal affects, and the young people who chose exile may face criticism.

“The fight still needs to be fought. I think everyone who comes out to fight, without any organization, the factors for each person are different. The ability to take on different issues are different. I think the people who were prosecuted have the right to choose. It’s not that you can expect that the fight must be like this or like that,” Poonsuk said.

Effects on bail fund

Protesters stood at the entrance to parliament during the 12 December 2024 protest demanding amnesty for those prosecuted for political participation, including those charged with royal defamation. (Photo by Ginger Cat)

Many activists facing charges received support from the Will of the People Fund, a crowdsourced bail fund for pro-democracy protesters, when a cash security is required for their bail. Since money in the Fund came from public donation, questions have been raised whether the choice to seek asylum would affect the Fund.

Ida Aroonwong, a writer and translator who co-founded the Will of the People Fund, said that asylum seekers directly affect the Fund because they are the first stakeholder because it is the Fund that signs the bail bond with the Court. Once the bond is broken, the Fund has no choice but to accept that the money will be confiscated.

Under these rules, Ida said, the guarantor has no responsibility or choice other than to keep their word. When the money is forfeited, less money returns to the Fund to help with other cases. Breaking bail bonds often may also impact the Fund’s reliability in helping others.

“But we don’t have anything else we need to cry about. We were the ones that decided to take on these rules ourselves, in past emergencies, in the hope that it would help everyone fully use the rights to fight their case. When we break the bond, we break the rules, but we don’t have anything to judge the defendants who flee. We’re only guarantors, not judges,” Ida said.

“There has never been a defendant who came to consult us or tell us why they were going to flee. We’re like the last to know, at the same time as the court, every time. Implicitly, we understand that everyone has their reasons, their considerations, and each of them knew in their hearts why they made their decision. It’s not an easy thing, and we don’t have anything to judge them by as a fellow human being. At least, it’s not like treating them all the same.”

Ida observed that the newer generation of asylum seekers usually decide to flee after the start of the court proceedings, which was different from asylum seekers at the time of the two earlier coups, who escaped to reject dictatorship from the start, as well as to escape unlawful arrest by dictatorship and the risk of enforced disappearance.

She noted that the Fund’s approach has somewhat charged. There are now fewer cases where they would be called to post bail in an emergency, but there are still the daily tasks of posting bail in cases where the court has reached a verdict and the Fund has to request bail in the next stage of court proceedings. There are also some cases recently dug up by the public prosecutor for indictment near the end of the statute of limitations. The court dates for these cases are often already set ahead of time, so the Fund can arrange its schedule to provide guarantor and bail money in time.

Another task which has expanded is providing support for detainees and their families, and covering travel costs for defendants summoned to court, where there are many cases every day. It involves a very large amount of background work which has increased in quantity to rival bail work, in terms of both labour and time.

The Fund is currently not actively fundraising, since it has enough money and there is also money still held in courts. The money just needs to be managed well, carefully and thoroughly. The goal is to pay for everything until there is nothing left rather than to look for more money, since this Fund was set up as a necessary ad-hoc mission, and will exist only until the mission is completed.

Obstacles at the destination

It has been 10 years since Jaran Ditapichai, a left-wing activist and former red-shirt leader who was among the first commissioners of the National Human Rights Commission, fled Thailand to France after the 2014 coup. Jaran still support political campaigns and, with the new wave of political asylum seekers, he supports these young people at their destination.

Jaran said that the situation for Thai political asylum seekers in other countries is still not difficult enough to warrant councern, but things are likely to become harder in the future as right-wing groups rise to power in many European countries. That means asylum seekers may be stuck longer in neighbouring countries and face more risks.

France and Germany are the two countries in Europe with the most Thai refugees. Even then, life there is not easy. Around 40,000 – 50,000 people request asylum in France each year, but only about 20% are accepted.

Asylum seekers in France also face a number of obstacles. For example, Jaran said, there is still no organisation providing support for Thai asylum seekers. He noted that, although there were some state-funded non-profit organisations in France helping asylum seekers, the support funds have now decreased.

Meanwhile, new asylum seekers often have problems finding a place to live during the initial period after they arrive due to high rents and long waiting lists for refugee shelters. There is also a lack of funds for settling down and other expenses while seeking refugee status, such as translations costs, or interpreter and lawyer fees in cases where the asylum seeker has to go to court for a judgement on whether France should help them.

Red-orange conflict

The polarization of political wings into “red” and “orange” has become the general atmosphere, especially in the online world. “Red” means supporters of the Pheu Thai Party, while “orange” means supporters of the Move Forward Party and the People’s Party, where Move Forward MPs moved to after the party was dissolved. These two groups often face off against each other online, whether the topic is about politics or not. The topics of asylum seekers and defendants in political trials are also drawn into the conversation where each side attacks the other.

Jaran is of the opinion that, during the era where “shirt colour politics” was intense, the yellow and red shirts also fought in the same way. The atmosphere among overseas Thais is also extremely polarized, and Jaran observed that the “red” and “orange” tend not to participate in protests organised by the other group.

But he believes that the “orange” and “red” should be united, “because the enemy is still strong.” His approach is to “say every word, do everything, for the sake of winning the fight,” so that no more division will arise in the movement.”

“When each side fights the other, the first thing destroyed is the truth. Both sides believe what they want to believe, then they go and find reasons and justifications. Each side wants to defeat the other, using a kind of ‘us-versus-them’ stance. They can’t differentiate between principles and individuals,” Jaran said.

Jaran also believed that, when it comes to the amnesty bills being proposed, the yellow shirts would benefit most if there is no amnesty for those charged with royal defamation.

Meanwhile, Poonsuk believes that it is part of people’s freedom of political expression to take sides and give wholehearted support to a party, but said that splitting into us-and-them may not be good for the pro-democracy movement where we still need to rely on alliances. When the next election comes, those without power will still need to join forces to fight again against those in power.

When asked about how activists or political refugees whose political positions are not in line with public expectation and whose situation is made worse by people in the movement, Poonsuk said that, for TLHR, it is still necessary to help anyone prosecuted for exercising their rights and freedoms regardless of political stance.

“But we would like to invite people to see that a change of political stance does not erase the fact that they are victims, and that they are actually sincere. Even if many people change their stance, they haven’t been completely freed from that issue. They still have to face it. It actually becomes an even bigger difficulty in their lives,” she said.

“We think that changing one’s political stance is a choice for their survival as well, no different from some who chose asylum. That’s also a choice for survival.”

Ida said that the orange-red rivalry has some effects on the Fund’s reputation. Misunderstandings were spread that the Fund supports a particular party. The Fund’s name has also been exploited for personal benefit. But for Ida, she still knows what she is doing, and is continuing to show people each week what the Fund has been doing. There has never been anything to indicate that the Fund support any party.

“We decided that for people who wants to learn the truth, they will no doubt see our work as proof. We won’t waste time joining in the drama. We don’t have the time,” Ida said.