Nyheter fra Thailand - levert av Prachatai
My RSS Feed
- Appeal court sentences 27-year-old to prison for royal defamation over Facebook postAppeal court sentences 27-year-old to prison for royal defamation over Facebook posteng editor 3
A 27-year-old pro-democracy activist has been sentenced to two years in prison for royal defamation over a Facebook post made in 2022.
The Appeal Court on Monday(28 April) upheld an initial verdict sentencing a 27-year-old Pimchanok Jirataiyanon to prison for royal defamation based on her Facebook post on 17 February 2022, according to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights(TLHR).
The post in question said “The government is shit, the institution is shit”, which a complainant interpreted as intended to refer to the royal institution without mentioning it explicitly.
The activist was apprehended at her residence in Bangkok on 18 March 2022, without having received a prior summons.
She testified that she did not refer to the royal institution as accused, but rather an educational institution. In addition, she argued that the royal defamation law covers only the King, the Queen, the Heir Apparent, and the Regent, rather than the whole royal institution.
The court on 16 February 2023 sentenced her to prison, given that a day before the post, she was found live streaming near the route of Her Royal Princess Highness Chulabhorn’s motorcade in Chiang Mai. She also refused to leave the area when asked by the police.
According to a police officer’s testimony, she was involved in a political movement related to the monarchy and the royal defamation law. Pimchanok previously attended political activities, such as the “Stand Against Detention” movement, campaigning to repeal the royal defamation law. However, she had never been charged with royal defamation, but solely under the Emergency Decree.
The court found that, despite mentioning any specific monarch, the royal defamation law protects the monarchy as an institution. It ruled that it is understood that the King and the monarchy are inseparable and represent the same entity. The Queen, the Heir Apparent, and the Regent are also regarded as integral parts of the monarchy.
The defendant’s post was found to insult and undermine the King’s dignity. Accordingly, the court found Pimchanok guilty as charged and sentenced her to three years in prison. However, given her helpful testimony, the sentence was reduced to two years.
Pimchanok had been granted bail pending her appeal, but the Appeal Court sentenced her to prison. Pimchanok is currently filing an appeal with the Supreme Court.
TLHR reported that the Supreme Court would take around 2-3 days to consider the request, during which she will be under detention at the Chiang Mai Women Correctional Institution.
28 April 28 202511387 at http://prachataienglish.com - Cyberfraud in the Mekong reaches inflection point, UNODC revealsCyberfraud in the Mekong reaches inflection point, UNODC revealseng editor 1
Transnational organized crime groups in East and Southeast Asia are hedging beyond the region as pressure to crack them down increases, a new report by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) shows. Amidst heightened awareness and enforcement action, Asian crime syndicates are expanding operations deeper into many of the most remote, vulnerable, underprepared parts of the region — and beyond.
“We are seeing a global expansion of East and Southeast Asian organized crime groups,” said Benedikt Hofmann, UNODC Acting Regional Representative for Southeast Asia and the Pacific. “This reflects both a natural expansion as the industry grows and seeks new ways and places to do business, but also a hedging against future risks should disruption continue and intensify in Southeast Asia.”
The report, titled Inflection Point: Global Implications of Scam Centres, Underground Banking and Illicit Online Marketplaces in Southeast Asia, is part of a series of regional threat analyses and policy briefs produced by UNODC.
The infamous scam compounds dotted around special economic zones, or SEZs, and other border areas across the region, and especially in Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and the Philippines, are now being displaced as a response to mounting law enforcement pressure, leading to a spillover into other parts of the region. While crackdowns disrupt existing operations, these continuously reappear in other purpose-built business parks developed to house and service more online crime operations. The venues and businesses feature all of the conditions, infrastructure, and regulatory, legal, and fiscal covers required for sustained growth and expansion.
"It spreads like a cancer," Hofmann said. "Authorities treat it in one area, but the roots never disappear; they simply migrate. This has resulted in a situation in which the region has essentially become an interconnected ecosystem, driven by sophisticated syndicates freely exploiting vulnerabilities, jeopardizing state sovereignty, and distorting and corrupting policy-making processes and other government systems and institutions."
The dispersal of these sophisticated criminal networks within areas of weakest governance has attracted new players, benefited from and fueled corruption, and enabled the illicit industry to continue to scale and consolidate, culminating in hundreds of industrial-scale scam centres generating just under US $40 billion in annual profits, according to latest UNODC estimates.
Criminal groups' continued success is fueled by their capacity to launder money through cryptocurrencies and underground banking, amassing massive amounts of criminal proceeds that infiltrate banking systems globally. As illicit actors from the region and beyond become leaders in cyber-enabled fraud, money laundering and underground banking in global markets, the repercussions are felt worldwide.
Global footprint
The trend to hedge beyond the region has been consistent with continued reports of crackdowns targeting Asian-led scam centres that have been found operating in Africa, South Asia, the Middle East, and select Pacific islands, as well as related money laundering, trafficking in persons, and recruitment services discovered to go as far as Europe, North America, and South America.
Many of these groups have managed to take on industrial proportions by reinvesting their profits and leveraging vast multi-lingual workforces comprised of hundreds of thousands of trafficked victims and complicit individuals — the results of which could be seen during the first few months of the year in Myanmar’s Myawaddy, where thousands of people were stranded after being released from scam centers operating in the border areas.
Involvement of criminal groups from other parts of the world is also growing, the new study shows, revealing not only an expansion and acceleration of cyberfraud operations, but also new interlinkages between illicit actors, service providers and innovators within and beyond the region.
Cyber-enabled fraud, underground banking and technological innovation
Shifting threats associated with this expansion is the way criminal groups are evolving into wider cyberthreat actors. New online markets, money laundering networks, stolen data products, malware, AI, and deepfake technologies, among others, are laying the ground for the rise of crime-as-a-service. The phenomenon is fueled by new illicit online marketplaces where actors can freely convene and conduct their businesses online, adopting sophisticated technological innovations that allow them to adapt to crackdowns.
“The convergence between the acceleration and professionalization of these operations on the one hand and their geographical expansion into new parts of the region and beyond on the other translates into a new intensity in the industry — one that governments need to be prepared to respond to,” Hofmann said.
What next?
The report includes recommendations for governments in Southeast Asia and beyond to shape response strategies. These go from intensifying financial disruption measures, enhancing coordination on financial intelligence, all the way to scaling financial investigations and asset recovery through regional and international collaboration.
This latest report is part of a growing body of threat analyses conducted by UNODC on transnational organized crime in Southeast Asia. Findings of these reports have been presented to policymakers, law enforcement agencies, international partners, academics, and other experts, with the objective of fostering dialogue and advancing efforts to address organized crime more effectively.28 April 28 202511386 at http://prachataienglish.com - Cartoon by Stephff: Red Bull Scandal28 April 28 202511385 at http://prachataienglish.com
- Justice System ‘Useless’ in Handling Royal Defamation Cases, Says Veteran WitnessJustice System ‘Useless’ in Handling Royal Defamation Cases, Says Veteran Witnesseng editor 1
Twenty-five years into the 21st century, Thailand’s relentless legal machine continues to crush political dissent.
Since the 2020 pro-democracy protests, at least 309 royal defamation cases have been brought against 277 individuals under Section 112 of the Criminal Code, according to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights.
In these trials, Associate Professor Somchai Preechasilpakul, a legal scholar at Chiang Mai University, has testified as an expert witness in as many as 10 cases. Calling him a “veteran witness” would not be an exaggeration.
Somchai has travelled to give testimony in various courts, including Chiang Mai Court, Phukiao Provincial Court in Chaiyaphum, the Ratchada Criminal Court, Bangkok South Criminal Court and Dusit District Court, in multiple cases at some courts, and only one at others.
Somchai Preechasilpakul
His testimony has played a role in the cases against high-profile activists, including Anon Nampa, Jatupat ‘Pai’ Boonpattararaksa, Sopon ‘Get’ Surariddhidhamrong and Supakchaya ‘Nurat’ Chaokuwiang. He has also been listed as a witness in the case of Panusaya ‘Rung’ Sithijirawattanakul, though he has yet to testify in court, as the defendant fled into exile before proceedings could begin.
In an interview with Prachatai, Associate Professor Somchai Preechasilpakul described the justice system as "useless," while urging judicial officers to return to professional principles when handling royal defamation cases. Doing so, Somchai argued, would not only reduce the difficulties Thailand is facing, but also help restore public trust in the judicial system.
Having testified in numerous cases across various courts, what insights have you gained into how Thai courts handle Section 112 trials?
In most of the cases where I was a witness, the defendants or the accused generally acknowledge that they carried out the actions they were accused of, such as expressing opinions on vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic or expressing opinions on the management of royal assets. Most defendants admit that they did say it and express their opinions.
The point that must be contested is whether expressing those opinions, as alleged by the police and prosecutors, constitutes an offense and whether it violates Section 6 of the Constitution.
Section 6 of the Constitution refers to the inviolable status of the King. No person shall expose the King to any accusation or action.
In terms of overall content, most complaints in the cases where I was a witness would begin along the lines that Thailand has a democratic regime with a monarch as head of state, followed by the violation of Section 6 of the Constitution and contravening Section 112 of the Criminal Code. Meanwhile, the defendants would contest that their actions constitute the exercise of their right to freedom of expression, which in a sense is equally a right to freedom according to the Constitution, so it should not constitute a violation of Section 6 or Section 112.
In the cases where I was a witness, most defendants did not use rude language and did not use threatening language but expressed opinions. So I think that a number of cases are open to debate whether they are violations of Section 112 or the exercise of freedom of expression. Some cases may also be violations of the Public Assembly Act or other crimes, but at the core of the most of the issues is Section 112 of the Criminal Code and Section 6 of the Constitution.
In terms of the overall judicial process for Section 112 cases, there are two types of courts. The first type, in the process of investigating witnesses and examining witnesses, a number of courts will allow the opportunity for full examination and discussion. All witnesses and evidence can be brought in for presentation. In the second type, investigating witnesses and examining witnesses in court has many restrictions. For instance, sometimes there are restrictions on audience, denying access to the hearing room. Or in testimony, sometimes witness statements are cut by the court claiming that it is a legal matter that the court already knows – no need for examination.
In one way, it seems that the courts are quite 'cautious' when it comes to allowing the public to attend or discussing evidence. Some evidence is cut, for whatever reason. As a witness, I see inconsistencies. I think that court proceedings should have a standard that at least comes close to what is required for the defendants to fight their cases fully, because the principles of court proceedings are that the accused must be given the opportunity to be able to present as much evidence as possible. And in the cases where I was a witness, it is not like they called 1000 witnesses—they call 5 in all, or no more than 10.
In Section 112 cases, the courts should provide the defendants with the opportunity to fight their cases fully under the same standard, and this should take place in the judicial process in all courts.
Are courts in provinces more open than those in Bangkok?
I think that’s not certain. It can’t be concluded that courts in the provinces are more open than those in Bangkok, because at Chiang Mai Provincial Court, there were initially problems with allowing the public to attend witness examinations in Anon Nampa’s case, before adjustments were later made to better align with the principles by allowing greater public access. In Bangkok, some cases remain under orders for secret trials, which makes it still unclear whether courts in the provinces or in Bangkok are more open.
In Section 112 cases, defendants include protest leaders, celebrities, and ordinary people. Can you see any differences in how the courts handle these cases?
Mostly, I was a witness in cases involving protest leaders, such as those of Anon, Get, and Pai. These are likely conclusions from the Section 112 cases which concern the hearings for protest leaders.
Is there a shortage of expert witnesses at Thai Lawyers for Human Rights.? Why have you been selected to testify in so many Section 112 cases?
I understand that there are two levels to this. First, my involvement as a witness in many Section 112 cases is partly due to the research work I’ve done on the debates about the monarchy in Thailand’s constitutional drafting organizations, which relate to the arguments about the meaning of Section 6 of the Constitution. There are not many legal scholars who study the monarchy. Mostly it is political scientists and historians who study this.
The second point is that I understand that when it comes to Section 112, becoming a witness for the defence can, in a way, make the person who becomes a witness feel quite hesitant. This is understandable. When it involves Section 112, not matter in what way, it can unexpectedly lead to negative consequences. Take, for example, Prof Siripan Nogsuan Sawasdee. The big issue turned out to be that she was opposed [as a Constitutional Court candidate] because she had a political attitude which could be problematic. To put it simply, it was because Prof Siripan signed a petition to amend Section 112. People who get involved with Section 112 may simply encounter unimaginable consequences. The power of Section 112 right now can go in any direction unpredictably. Even though we may not be someone who directly expresses our opinions, if we become involved in an academic or any other way, we may still be impacted.
Going back to the witness examination in Anon’s latest case (contempt of court), where you were also a witness, why do you call it the ‘match of the year’?
There are things we can talk about and things we can’t talk about.
In the case where Anon was accused of contempt of court for removing his shirt in protest in court, it was because Anon challenged the judge’s refusal to issue a summons for documents related to the monarchy in a Section 112 case. The court claimed that the summons would violate Section 6 of the Constitution, but Anon argued that it did not violate Section 6 and protested against the court by removing his shirt, leading to the charge of contempt of court.
On that day, Anon and his lawyer mentioned two key pieces of evidence: the court’s CCTV footage and the court official in front of the bench who was present throughout the event. These should have been included in the hearings, but it turns out they were not included at all. On the day I was there, I saw at least three cameras in court. In the end, the footage shown to the defendant and the lawyer was from a camera worn by an official. The question is, why didn’t they use the court’s cameras?
The second key piece of evidence was the court official in front of the bench who was present at the scene from the beginning. Generally, this is considered to carry great weight. It turned out that the court official wasn’t called to testify. This court official works at that court. Why couldn’t they call the court officer to testify? To this day, I am still confused.
The evidence in the accusation that Anon committed contempt of court falls within the scope and authority that the court can control. But why did the court not call for those pieces of evidence? Why didn’t they do it?
As far as I can say, I think this raises our suspicion that there is a problem with the court proceedings. The parties to the case cannot access the evidence, even though it is in the hands of state officials. Present it so we can see it clearly. If Anon supposedly used insulting language against the court, then we will see. If Anon took off his shirt, yelled, and jumped onto the bench—then punish Anon. Teach him a lesson. So why didn’t the court present the evidence from the camera and the court officer? What happened?
On that day, Anon and his lawyer told the court that they would give testimony only if the witnesses who were present at the scene and the court’s evidence were entered into the court proceedings. Anon was willing to testify, and I was also willing to travel again to be a witness at the Ratchada Criminal Court, as long as the court was straightforward. But on that day, everything ended with the court stating that the defence did not provide testimony, and that the court would conclude and schedule the ruling of the case.
In cases like this, I think it creates the impropriety that the justice process seems mysterious and complicated. If they made it straightforward, it would be better and would make people feel more confident in the justice system. I think that the court can’t build trust among the public. It is a problem. In this case, the court could, in fact, build trust—but why didn’t they?
Actually, there were several complaints from the judge during the trial, but I cannot speak about them because I can't confirm them. However, if anyone who was present during the proceedings heard all the judge's complaints in the case, they would be fully aware that this case contains hidden complexities.
What do you think the court's attempts to make Section 112 trials seem stealthy reflect?
I think this is not just an issue with the court alone, but a problem with the justice system as a whole. The officials within the justice system are not performing their duties as straightforwardly as they should.
Let me give the example of Nurat, who was accused of dressing similarly to HRH Princess Chulabhorn and was charged under Section 112. If you ask me, under Section 112, the people who are protected include only the King, the Queen, the Heir Apparent, or the Regent. Any lawyer, no matter how he reads it, will know that Princess Chulabhorn is not included in this category. The question is, how could the police file a charge? The prosecutor also issued a prosecution order. Fortunately, in this case, the court ruled that HRH Princess Chulabhorn is not the Heir Apparent.
The Section 112 case of Ms. Nurat and many other cases reflect that the Thai justice system lacks independence, starting from the police stage, the prosecution stage, and in some cases, even up to the court. There are certain forces or powers at the helm that prevent those within the justice system from being able to carry out their duties straightforwardly. This is a major issue.
Section 112 has dragged the Thai justice system into a mess like never before. Section 112 is a law that makes the Thai justice process look really useless. Many of the issues I testified about were not complex. But it turned out that the police put together a case, the prosecutor ordered the charges, and in some cases, the court delivered decisions that left us bewildered. To be fair, it’s not just the courts but the entire justice system has hidden problems.
After your deep experience as a witness in Section 112 cases, do you have anything to say to those in the justice system?
When my students pass the exams to become police officers, prosecutors, or judges, I never congratulate them, because merely obtaining a position is not something to celebrate. It would only be worth celebrating when those who become police officers, prosecutors, or judges carry out their duties straightforwardly, in line with professional principles, and with knowledge. The circumstances of Thai society have deteriorated today partly because the personnel in the justice system have not stood firm.
There’s no need to side with the youth or anyone who comes out to protest, but we must adhere to professional principles.
The demand I make for the personnel in the justice system is not much at all. I just ask them to ‘stick to professional principles’. At the very least, they should address issues with professional principles and knowledge. This will significantly reduce the difficulties we are facing in Thai society right now. A great number of cases do not need to go to court. It’s not just about saying, when something happens, let us prove it in court. Some people lose their time, or they are not granted bail and end up in jail. I just ask those who study law to act in line with the knowledge and professional principles they have learned. Just by doing this, the problem of political conflicts will be significantly reduced, and a great number of people won’t have to waste time going to court, worrying what the outcome will be.
25 April 25 202511384 at http://prachataienglish.com - CMU lecturers and student acquitted over Art Centre occupation caseCMU lecturers and student acquitted over Art Centre occupation caseeng editor 3
Two lecturers and a former student of Chiang Mai University have been acquitted of charges relating to an incident in October 2021, when students took over the University Art Centre after the Faculty of Fine Arts and the university administration prohibited them from showing their final theses.
Thai Lawyers for Human Rights reported that the Chiang Mai Provincial Court on Tuesday (22 April) dismissed charges against Faculty of Fine Arts lecturers Sorayut Aiemueayut and Thasnai Sethaseree, and Faculty of Fine Arts graduate Yotsunthorn Ruttapradid, who were charged with trespassing and destruction of property.
The Court concluded that the defendants had reasonable grounds to take such action due to the Art Centre committee’s delay in reviewing the request to use the space. The Court accordingly ruled to dismiss the case.
In 2021, students from the Media Arts and Design Department, along with lecturers, occupied the Chiang Mai University Art Centre after 4th year students were prohibited from exhibiting their final theses in the Art Centre because some pieces addressed social and political themes.
After the students filed a request to use the University Art Centre to organise a thesis exhibition, the university administration repeatedly asked them for additional information and documents. Students were also required to submit information about every piece that was to be exhibited, and were told that some pieces would not be allowed, as the Faculty felt that they were politically inappropriate and unfit for public exhibition.
Several days before the exhibition, students found that electricity and water at the Media Arts and Design department building had been cut, allegedly on orders from the Faculty Dean. All exits from the building grounds were also locked with chains. The next day, students and lecturers cut the chains and occupied the University Art Centre to set up their exhibition.
After the exhibition, students filed a petition with the Chiang Mai University Council, the House Committee on Legal Affairs, Justice, and Human Rights, and the House Committee on Education to have Asawinee Wanjing, then Dean of the Faculty of Fine Arts, and then-university President Dr Niwet Nantajit removed from office for attempting to prohibit students from exhibiting their theses and violating their academic freedom.
In November 2022, Asawinee filed a complaint against Sarayut, Thasnai, and Yotsunthorn on behalf of the university administration, who issued a letter granting Asawinee the power of attorney to do so.
In March 2021, Asawinee, along with several other faculty personnel attempted to remove students’ art projects from the Media Arts and Design Department building without first informing the students, claiming that some items constituted a possible violation of the law. The move prompted protests from students and lecturers. Students whose projects were going to be removed also filed charges of theft and destruction of property against Asawinee and the faculty personnel involved, as their projects were damaged during the incident and some went missing.
22 April 22 202511383 at http://prachataienglish.com - Chinese shrine facing eviction wins architectural conservation awardChinese shrine facing eviction wins architectural conservation awardeng editor 1
The Saphan Lueang Mazu Shrine, a shrine dedicated to the Chinese goddess of the sea in Bangkok’s Sam Yan neighbourhood, has won an award from the Association of Siamese Architects (ASA) for architectural conservation.
Crowds of visitors filled the Saphan Lueang Mazu Shrine on Sunday (20 April), during the annual Deity Birthday Festival. The shrine has seen a larger number of worshippers recently as words spread on social media that the goddess grant wishes for students taking examination or those searching for a job.
The shrine has been at risk of demolition, as the Property Management office of Chulalongkorn University (PMCU), which owns the land on which it stands, is building a condominium on the site. When shrine caretaker Penprapa Ployseesuay refused to move out, PMCU brought a lawsuit against her, seeking the eviction of her family and 122 million baht in damages.
Activist Netiwit Chotiphatphaisal, who has been campaigning against the shrine’s demolition, believes that receiving the award means that the ASA, an association of professional architects, has recognized the shrine’s cultural values. This would put more pressure on PMCU, he said, if it wants to go ahead with its plan to remove the shrine.
Although he said that the university’s new management seems more open to compromise, concerns remain that Penprapa’s family might still be evicted. Netiwit explained that in the local Thai-Chinese culture, shrine caretakers live onsite, in part to prevent a fire as lanterns are kept burning at all times. He said he is concerned that the university management will not take the culture into account and may attempt to evict the Mazu Shrine’s caretakers regardless of whether it decides to demolish the building or not.
In August 2023, a court ruled in favour of PMCU for the shrine’s removal. The shrine caretaker has filed an appeal, but the Appeal Court has not ruled whether to accept the appeal request. Meanwhile, the Court of First Instance has ordered that PMCU and the shrine’s caretaker try to reach a settlement.
Matichon Weekly and The Standard reported that, according to an anonymous source, the university is maintaining its position that Penprapa, along with her dogs, must vacate the property as soon as possible. A mediation meeting was scheduled yesterday (21), but Penprapa was unable to attend due to a medical condition requiring urgent surgery. Although a letter and medical certificate was submitted to the court, concerns have been raised that further legal action might be taken against her if she does not move out of the shrine.
The eviction effort sparked a student movement to support the shrine’s preservation. The documentary, The Last Breath of Sam Yan, which features Penprapa and student activists protesting against the shrine’s eviction won a Suphannahong National Film Award for best documentary of 2023.
Visitors queuing in front of the shrine's entrance on Sunday (20 April), during the annual Deity Birthday Festival.
The Saphan Lueang Mazu Shrine is still standing, now surrounded by a construction site. It remains open to visitors and is seeing an increasingly larger group of worshippers as words spread online that the goddess, who is referred to as “A-ma,” or Grandmother in the local Teochew dialect, grant wishes for those seeking for a job or students taking examinations. Netiwit also said that it is becoming more well-known among Chulalongkorn University students and is seen as a source of spiritual support. During the annual Deity Birthday Festival, which took place on 19 - 21 April, the shrine reportedly saw thousands of visitors.
Over 52,000 people have now signed a petition against the shrine’s removal. Responding to the survey attached to the petition, over 2700 responders said they are current students at Chulalongkorn University, while 3200 said they are alumni. 51 lecturers and 120 university personnel also signed the petition.
James Robson, Director of the Harvard-Yenching Institute and a Professor of East Asian Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University, sent a message to Penprapa congratulating her and others who work to protect the shrine for the ASA award.
"History and cultural heritage can be erased all too quickly with a bulldozer. Once such sites are destroyed and gone, there is no way to get them back," wrote Robson, who visited the shrine earlier this year. "Throughout history the multitude of heroes who have shown small acts of courage are rarely noted, which makes moments like this one even more important."
The ASA Architectural Conservation Awards are given annually by the Association of Siamese Architects under Royal Patronage in recognition of architectural conservation efforts by the public and private sector in Thailand. Other recipients for 2025 include the Doctor Prince Museum at the McCormick Hospital in Chiang Mai, Ruean Phraya in Bangkok, the Lanna-style dharma hall at the Chiang Mai Cultural Centre, and the Lanna Folklife Centre in Chiang Mai. An award ceremony takes place every 2 years, in which recipients are presented their awards by Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn.
22 April 22 202511382 at http://prachataienglish.com - Cartoon by Stephff: Back casino bill or elseCartoon by Stephff: Back casino bill or elseeng editor 1
Cartoon by Stephff: Back casino bill or else
18 April 18 202511381 at http://prachataienglish.com - A Laughing LamentA Laughing Lamenteng editor 1It has been 6 years since the body of Chatchan Bupphawan, or 'Comrade Phuchana', was found in the Mekong River in December 2018. Phuchana was one of the political exiles fleeing the country after the 2014 military coup.The trail has since gone cold. No progress has so far been made in the investigation into his death. But his family must go on living. To keep the fire burning, each December, Phuchana's family members and their friends gather at his home in Mukdahan to celebrate and heal, so that they can go on despite the fading hope of justice for political exiles and enforced disappearance victims.Prachatai presents "A Laughing Lament," a documentary by Burapat Chanpratad, filmed in December 2024 at the gathering for the 6th annivesary of Phuchana's death.17 April 17 202511380 at http://prachataienglish.com
- Thai prison population grows, overcrowding remains unaddressed, annual report findsThai prison population grows, overcrowding remains unaddressed, annual report findseng editor 1
Thailand’s prison system came under renewed international scrutiny amid the Thai authorities’ slow and insufficient efforts to adopt and implement alternative measures to incarceration in 2024, FIDH and the Union for Civil Liberty (UCL) said in their annual prison report.
The 59-page report, released on 27 March, found that no progress was made concerning the implementation of a regulation that would allow certain inmates to serve their sentences outside prisons. In addition, the adoption of measures that could allow a suspect or defendant to be detained in other locations besides prisons remained stalled.
In late 2024, two United Nations (UN) bodies, the Committee Against Torture and the Working Group on discrimination against women and girls, cited Thailand’s prison overcrowding among the key issues of concern pertinent to their respective mandates.
“Thai authorities are aware of the severe overcrowding that plagues the prison system but they have dragged their feet over the adoption of effective solutions. Tougher drug policies recently enacted may result in even more people being incarcerated. The Thai government must implement without delay alternative measures to incarceration in line with international standards and ensure its drug policies prioritize rehabilitation over punishment,” said FIDH Vice-President Fatia Maulidiyanti.
Thailand’s total prison population increased for the second consecutive year and the overall number of prisoners exceeded the official maximum capacity by 12%, with 102 (or 71%) of the 143 correctional facilities operating above their intended capacity. In addition, the number of prisoners under death sentence (364) increased for a second consecutive year and was the highest since 2020.
Despite a decline in the number of prisoners convicted for drug-related offenses for the third consecutive year, the number of inmates incarcerated for drug-related offenses continued to account for the vast majority (73%) of the total prison population. The Thai government’s move in June 2024 to lower the limits on possession of methamphetamines and amphetamines for personal use may reverse the decline in the number of convictions of drug-related offenses.
Meanwhile, according to testimonies by inmates and former inmates, prison conditions remained poor, with reported challenges and human rights violations that included: overcrowded cells; forms of punishment and disciplinary sanctions that could amount to ill treatment and torture; differential treatment of inmates based on their socio-economic status; the lack of protection for transgender women; restrictions on the supply of water and insufficient provision of basic hygiene products; meals of poor quality and not sufficiently nutritious; the lack of quality physical and mental healthcare services; inadequate response to medical emergencies; unfair labor practices; strictly controlled access to news and external information; limited opportunities to engage in recreational and rehabilitative activities; and ineffective complaint mechanisms amid inmates’ fear of retaliation.
The consequences of the inadequate response to medical emergencies in prisons was illustrated by the death of detained woman human rights defender, Netiporn Sanesangkhom (aka Bung), on 14 May 2024.
Among the few positive developments in 2024 was the availability for female inmates of bras, underwear, and menstrual hygiene products, even if the frequency and quantity of the supply of sanitary pads varied greatly depending on the prison.
Now in its fourth edition, FIDH-UCL’s annual prison report is the only independent and comprehensive assessment of prison conditions in Thailand. The report makes numerous practical recommendations for the improvement of prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners in accordance with relevant international standards.
11 April 11 202511379 at http://prachataienglish.com - American academic facing royal defamation charge granted provisional bailAmerican academic facing royal defamation charge granted provisional baileng editor 3
American academic Dr Paul Chambers, a lecturer at Naresuan University’s Faculty of Social Sciences who was charged with royal defamation, has been granted provisional bail, with 600,000 baht as security. He was required to wear an electronic monitoring device.
According to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, 58-year-old US academic Dr Paul Chambers has also had his visa revoked. It was reported that the police requested a search warrant and searched Chambers’ office at Naresuan University. Chamber’s laptop was confiscated. The police report said it would take around five days to check before returning it to the Faculty.
Chambers was initially granted bail on Wednesday (9 April) with 300,000 baht as security after his lawyer appealed the Phitsanulok Provincial Court’s decision to deny him bail. He was released on the condition that he wear an electronic monitoring device and not travel abroad unless allowed by the court. He also had his passport confiscated.
However, as his visa had been revoked, he remained in detention at the immigration office while his lawyers appealed the visa revocation. His lawyer filed a bail request with the Immigration Bureau so that he could stay in Thailand.
The Immigration Bureau on Thursday (10 April) granted him a provisional bail with another 300,000 baht as security. Chambers is required to report to officials every 30 days.
Chambers reported to the police at Mueang Phitsanulok Police Station Tuesday (8 April) after learning last week that the 3rdArmy Area was pressing charges against him for royal defamation and violation of the Computer Crimes Act and that an arrest warrant was issued for him on 31 March.
It was previously reported that Chambers was being charged with importing into a computer system information that affects national security under Section 14(3) the Computer Crimes Act. However, the police instead formally charged him with importing into a computer system forged or false data that is likely to cause damage to a third party or the public under Section 14(1) of the Computer Crimes Act.
A TLHR lawyer said a military officer filed charges against Chambers on behalf of the 3rd Army Area over a blurb on the ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute’s website, which Chambers said he did not write or publish because he is not an admin for the site.
An American political scientist, Chambers’ research focuses on civil-military relations in Southeast Asia, particularly the role and influence of the military in Thailand. He has also written on the relationship between the military and the monarchy. He now serves as a lecturer at the Center of ASEAN Community Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Naresuan University. His notable works include “Praetorian Kingdom: A History of Military Ascendancy in Thailand” and “Khaki Capital: The Political Economy of the Military in Southeast Asia”.
The US Department of State spokesperson Tammy Bruce issued a statement on Wednesday (9 April) regarding the arrest of Chambers. The Department stated that it was “alarmed” by the arrest and detention.
"We continue to urge Thai authorities to respect freedom of expression and to ensure that laws are not used to stifle permitted expression. As a treaty ally of Thailand, we will closely monitor this issue and advocate for the fair treatment of Paul Chambers," said the statement.
10 April 10 202511378 at http://prachataienglish.com
