At the dawn of 2009, many sighed with relief that, for whatever reason, a big political hurdle has been overcome.  The new Administration led by Mr. Abhisit Vejjajiva, however, has pledged to prioritize suppression of any offence related to defamation of the monarch. 

Many political dissidents have been entangled in lèse majesté litigation in the past year.  Some have been granted bail, including Sondhi Limthongkul, Sulak Sivaraksa, and Veera Musikpong, while others ran away, including Chucheep Cheevasuth, and Suchart Nagabangsai.  This dubious charge was also laid against persons such as Jitra Kotchadet, a union leader, and Chotisak On-soong, a student. A charge against Jonathan Head, BBC correspondent, also raised many eyebrows, whereas others were arrested and quietly held in custody including “Phraya Pichai” and “Thonchan”, the two infamous web bloggers. 

But some have already spent part of their lives behind bars including Ms. Daranee Chancherngsilpakul, aka “Dar Torpedo”, and Ms. Boonyuen Prasertying, two stars at the Sanam Luang rallies. 

This does not yet include Harry Nicolaides, an Aussie writer.  Pending trial, these three alleged offenders have been languishing in jail for months.  None of the Thai media has paid the slightest attention to their plight.  Unlike many others, they have been denied bail.  It could be said that their cases have already been decided by society. 

‘Dar Torpedo’: An unknown destiny

There was some public outcry at the beginning against the charge pressed against Daranee.  Her words were echoed by Sondhi Limthongkul, a key People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) leader, in front of PAD demonstrators and, as a result, he was charged with lèse majesté first, followed by Daranee, who originally utter the words to the crowd at a small Sanam Luang rally.

She was arrested at home the night of 22 July 2008 and then held in custody at the Female Central Prison.  A bail attempt was made by Suthachai Yimprasert, a history lecturer from Chulalongkorn University, who dared to come out against dictatorship.  Using his academic position as a guarantee, he made three or four attempts to bail Daranee, but they were all refused by the Court.

Daranee denied all the charges.  Her detention has been extended for the maximum course of 84 days, and the inquiry report was sent to the public prosecutors.  Later, public prosecutors from Department of Special Litigation 7, Office of the Attorney General, brought a case against her accusing her of insulting or threatening the King, Queen, and Heir Apparent, which carries three to fifteen years imprisonment.  Meanwhile, the Democrat-led coalition has declared its intention to increase the penalties for lèse majesté to five to twenty five years imprisonment and a fine of from 500,000 to one million baht. 

The latest attorney: Mr. Prawase Prabhanukul

Daranee is an avid speaker against the coup and bureaucratic polity for groups including the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD).  Independent and self-determined, she is said to hardly listen to people’s warnings.  A bookworm, she has completed her postgraduate education.

While languishing in jail, there was only her old brother to tend to her.  He rides the bus from Phuket to visit and buy things for her every week and to help to coordinate with the lawyer. 

Six months in jail affected her frail health. She can barely open her mouth now due to a jaw inflammation.  She had the complaint since before being sent to jail and had an appointment with her doctor for an operation.  In the past few months, she has lost 18 kilograms.  Medical personnel in the prison have simply prescribed her some painkillers. 

Many people came to visit her at the beginning including elderly members of the red-shirt movement at Sanam Luang and university students. 

15-minute visits are allowed intermittently and through these brief opportunities, Daranee has expressed her hopelessness for the political struggle, particularly for freedom of expression which is praised so highly by democratic fighters.  She has done much for the cause of democracy, but very few people have lent a hand to help her.  She grumbles about how Thai society can be so forgetful and compromise with all forms of power.  Of course, she did not fail to mention Thaksin Shinawatra, who, according to her, has both good and bad qualities, but who was the politician who delivered more to the poor than other politicians had.  In her view, the poverty and disadvantage of the rural poor is the number one problem for Thailand. 

She even mentioned prison reform since the institution is now full of young girls who have been incarcerated for petty crimes, like drug-related charges.  It is a waste of resources to keep them there.  She complained about the prison having no interesting book, other than Dhamma books, and how it is so unreasonable to prohibit an inmate from using more than ten scoops of water to bathe.  The number of scoops during winter is reduced to only five.  Crowded conditions in prison which force 40-80 people to share a tiny cell are another of her complaints. 

She has tried to console herself by recalling how the father of Thailand’s democracy, Mr. Pridi Bhanomyong, had to endure all the difficulties and an even worse destiny.  She always shows immense respect toward him.

At present, Daranee is really skinny with rounded shoulders and a bent back.  Her only hope is to be released temporarily to fight the case from outside prison and to spend her life quietly far away from politics.

At the police level, her attorney applied for bail, but it was denied both by the Court of First Instance and the Appeal Court on the grounds that the offence is extremely severe, and the words she was accused of uttering can impair the reputation of the Monarchy which commands highest respect among the loyal populace.  For the Court, the case against her is very severe and they fear that by releasing her, she may commit the same offence again. 

During the arraignment, the Court of First Instance also denied her motion for temporary release.  The attorney argued in the Appeal Court that an order to deny temporary release, according to Section 108 (1), can be made only provided that the alleged offender/defendant attempts to escape, abscond or tamper with the evidence, commits any other dangerous act, or commits other harm or injury; or the person requesting bail is not credible; or the release may cause jeopardy to the investigation.  It is obvious that this suspect will not tamper with the evidence since the inquiry report has been made.  As for evasion, it was simply a groundless assumption and there are no credible reasons for the alleged offender to run away.  In addition, the opinion expressed by the Court of Lower Instance that the charge is extremely severe is irrelevant and is breach of Sections 39 (2) and (3) of the 2007 Constitution concerning presumed innocence. 

The motion for temporary release further states that denial of temporary release affects the ability of the defendant to present a case at the trial since it makes compilation of information and facts difficult.  This may be considered unfair when compared to those accused of premeditated murder, who are granted temporary release.  Even in cases involving famous personalities such as Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra and his wife, the Court granted bail at arraignment. Also, the bail was granted at the police level despite police opposition. 

Around middle of December, the Appeal Court, for the same reasons, confirmed the denial of bail by the Court of First Instance.

Apart from the lèse majesté charge, she is also held for leading a crowd to lay siege to the office of Thaiday Dot Com Co., Ltd., Phra Arthit Road, and expressing slanderous words against Sondhi Limthongkul on 1 June 1008.

 Witness examinations are scheduled for June-July this year.

It should be noted that on the day she was brought to the Court to hear the witness examination schedule announced by the Court, she was clad in a brown suit with red strips on the sleeves.  This uniform is only used for alleged offenders on serious charges such as selling more than 10,000 methamphetamine pills. 

Boonyuen, an unknown convict

The case of Ms. Boonyuen is entirely different. 

A middle-aged woman, Ms. Boonyuen Prasertying was the breadwinner for her family and earned her living from a recycling business in a suburb of Bangkok. Some said she was also a fortune teller.  Without the knowledge of other family members, she was involved in demonstrations at Sanam Luang to protest against the coup. 

A mundane person with low education, she declared a fervent support for democracy. A few people knew her background, but they felt awed by her blunt rally speeches. 

Boonyuen turned herself in instantly to the police on 15 August 2008 after being informed of the charge, fearing it might tarnish her family’s reputation. She was then brought for incarceration in the same prison zone as Daranee, though the two of them were barred from speaking to each other. 

Out of fear, she decided to confess to the charges on the advice of some well-intentioned persons and prison officers.  She did not appoint any legal representative, though she felt uneasy with the contents of the inquiry report prepared by the police.

On 6 November 2008, she was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for defaming the Heir Apparent, with the penalty reduced to six years due to her confession. 

With tears on her face, she told her story and expressed her confidence with the decision to confess to the charge.  In her view, to steadfastly fight  the charge like Daranee simply leads to higher penalties. And she would continue to be loathed by officials.

As the breadwinner of the family, having to spend many months in jail has cost her her house and car since she failed to pay the instalments.  She is at her wits end about how to support her youngest child who is still studying. 

Out of her frustration, her fear, her dire need for help, or whatever, she quickly explained through the glass in the visiting room, without waiting for the question, that she did not utter any word to threaten the Heir Apparent.  She said that in her rally speech, she simply pointed to the disloyalty of an army general who was part of the Council for Democratic Reform, the 2006 coup makers. 

The case was wrapped up so quietly and the Court has not allowed anyone who is not related to the case to make a copy of the verdict. 

At the advice of officials, she is attempting to write an appeal for a reduction of sentence, hoping to get a suspended three-year sentence plus an order to do community service. She hopes the results will be known in the next five or six months. 

Translated by Pipob Udomittipong