In the latest conviction under Article 112 and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act, Mr. Amphon (last name withheld) or Ah Kong, age 61, has been convicted of the crime of lèse majesté and sentenced to  20 years in prison for allegedly sending 4 SMS messages. This case has not only generated widespread criticism about the evidence and reasoning used during the trial, it is also the latest incident that reflects the serious problems of Thailand’s judiciary system. These problems are as follows:     

Article 112 of Thailand’s Criminal Code, also known as the lèse majesté law and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act (CCA) have become tools used to create fear rather than justice in society. Those accused of violating these laws have tended to face increasingly harsh penalties, as if they are cold-blooded murders. Those who use these mechanisms in order to suppress people with different political stances must realize that these actions will not, in any way, help to secure the institution of the monarchy. Rather it will only further social division and intensify hatred in the society. In other words, their actions are actually destroying Thai society in the name of the monarchy.

The case of Mr. Amphon has led to doubts about the methods of examining cases in the Thai judicial process. However, people in the society cannot criticize judicial system in an open and straightforward manner. With the case of Amphon, we cannot criticize the fact that Mr. Amphon’s mobile phone number was different than the number used for sending the SMS messages in question. Nor can we criticize the fact that the IMEI number, which was the primary evidence on which the court ruling was based, can be easily changed and duplicated. Nor can we criticize the inattention to Mr. Amphon’s insistence that he was royal to the king and that he did not know how to send SMS messages via a mobile phone.   

We cannot criticize the court’s verdict which notes “even though the plaintiff was not able to bring witnesses to testify to prove that the defendant was the one who sent the alleged SMS to the mobile phone number of Mr. Somkiat,” yet decided that Mr. Amphon was guilty and had tried to hide his wrongdoing. We cannot question the rationality of such a verdict.

We cannot protest against the level of punishment faced by Mr. Amphon and other defendants in lèse majesté cases, which is often excessive when compared to other kind of offences especially those relating to privileged individuals or groups in politics.

Importantly, we cannot question whether or not it is right that the Thai judiciary is telling society that those with different political opinions can be dealt with without regard to humanity, mercy and fundamental human rights.
    
While the role and power of the judiciary remains powerful and significant, criticizing the court cannot be done in an open and straightforward manner. This is because there is a law about contempt of court. This law is a shield which protects the court from being monitored by society. But the question which Thai society should ask is this: while executive and legislative powers can be held accountable and under check and balance via different mechanisms, what mechanisms exist that can be used in order to control, monitor and punish those who abuse judicial power?  And whether or not the court dares to be held accountable for its actions? These questions are important because in any democratic society, all branches of power must always be held with check and balance at all times as to prevent them from becoming corrupt and affecting the rights, freedom, equality and justice of all the people in society.

All in all, we, as people who want to see the Thai judiciary being genuinely concerned with the principles of justice, humanity, democracy and basic rights, call for society to join to struggle in the service of the following points:

1. To release, or at the very least, grant bail to all defendants in lèse majesté cases;
2. It is time for Thai society to seriously review the untouchable status of Thailand’s judiciary and we must push to candidly review law and punishment regarding contempt of court;
3. All political parties and political groups must stop using the accusation of disloyalty to the institution of the monarchy to eliminate people who hold different political stances. The Pheu Thai government must also stop playing the ultra-royalist game. Instead it must show its courage by pushing for the legal reform and reforming the lèse majesté law and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act and bringing them in line with the principles of democracy, rights and liberty of the people without delay.

Finally, we urge all political groups to realize that radical political changes in many societies occur as a result of the following significant reasons: 1.) The  authorities refuse to listen to voices of the people who protest against injustice; and 2.)  Hatred among the people that is rooted so deeply that they no longer want to live together. This atmosphere is what Thai society is now facing, and it is prone to intensify at any moment.

Santhiprachatham Network

1.    Charnvit Kasetsiri         Former Rector of Thammasat University 
2.    Panat Tasneeyanond         Former Senator and Dean of Facalty of Law, Thammasat University
3.    Nidhi Eoseewong        Independent Academic
4.    Krittaya Achawanichakul    Institute of Population and Social Research, Mahidol University
5.    Ubonrat Siriyuvasak        Independent academic
6.    Thongchai Winichakul     University of Wisconsin, Madison
7.    Puangthong R. Pawakapan    Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University
8.    Viengrat Nethipo        Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University
9.    Jakkrit Sangkhamanee    Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University
10.    Kasem Penpinant        Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University
11.    Kwanravee Wangudom      Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies, Mahidol University
12.    Chuwat Rerksirisuk         Editor, Prachatai
13.    Ida Aroonwong        Editor, Aan (Read) journal
14.    Kham Paka                     Writer and media
15.    Mukhom Wongthes        Writer
16.    Chusak Pattarakulwanich    Faculty of Liberal Arts, Thammasat  University
17.    Prajak Kongkirati        Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat University
18.    Yukti Mukdawijitra        Faculty of Sociology and Anthropology, Thammasat University
19.    Anusorn Unno         Faculty of Sociology and Anthropology, Thammasat University
20.    Thanasak Saijampa        Ph.D candidate, Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat University
21.    Onanong Thippimol        Faculty of Liberal Arts, Thammasat University
22.    Sarayut  Tangprasert        Prachatai
23.    Pakkavadee V.        Writer and translator
24.    Chaiyan Rajchagool        Academic
25.    Pinkaew Luang-aramsri    Faculty of Social Science, Chiang Mai University
26.    Tyrell Haberkorn        The Australian National University
27.    Pruek Thaotawin        Faculty of Liberal Arts, Ubonratchathani University
28.    Chiranuch Premchaiporn     Prachatai
29.    Wanrug Suwanwattana    Faculty of Liberal Arts, Thammasat University
30.    Vichak Panich         Independent academic
31.    Thanet Aphornsuvan         Pridi Banomyong International College, Thammasat University
32.    Naruemon Thabchumpon    Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University

Facebook: Ah Kong, Victim of Art.112