Nyheter fra Thailand - levert av Prachatai
My RSS Feed
- Constitutional Court: the ultimate arbiter of Thai politicsConstitutional Court: the ultimate arbiter of Thai politicseng editor 1
Thai politics is coming to another turning point. On 1 July, the Constitutional Court suspended Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra after it accepted a petition filed by Senate President Mongkol Surasajja seeking Paetongtarn’s removal for a breach of ethics over the leaked call between Paetongtarn and Cambodian Senate President Hun Sen.
Although the Prime Minister was only suspended while the petition is considered, the Court’s order was a blow to the government and the Pheu Thai Party. And this is not the first time something like this has happened. Over the past two decades, the Constitutional Court has ruled on cases that led to several political turning points for the government, political parties, even for the democratic form of government itself.
Let’s take a look back at the Constitutional Court’s role as the ultimate arbiter in Thai politics.
2006 – 2007: The beginning of judicial activism
The 2005 landslide win for the Thai Rak Thai Party led by Thaksin Shinawatra was a turning point which led to the use of judicial power by conservative forces against majority rule in the democratic regime.
The Constitutional Court’s role expanded during the conflict between the Thaksin administration and the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), which accused the government of being a ‘parliamentary dictatorship’ and using its power for personal gain, as well as ignoring the rule of law and violating human rights.
On 24 February 2006, Thaksin dissolved parliament, but the opposition, led by the Democrat Party, boycotted the 2 April 2006 election because they believed the government was trying to avoid investigation. The boycott disrupted the election in several constituencies, where there was only one candidate running unopposed and voter turnout did not reach the required minimum. There were also accusations that Thai Rak Thai paid smaller parties to run candidates to give the appearance of an opposition.
The Constitutional Court declared the 2 April 2006 election invalid ostensibly on the grounds that the polls were scheduled only 37 days after dissolution of the House, making a fair election impossible. The Court also said that the arrangement of voting booths prevented a secret ballot as required by the Constitution. The ruling came after a speech made by the late King Bhumibol to Administrative and Supreme Court judges inviting them to solve the political impasse.
The Court mandated a new election but before this could be held, a military junta, the Council for Democratic Reform, later renamed the Council for National Security (CNS), staged a military coup on 19 September 2006.
After the coup, the CNS passed an interim constitution which replaced the Constitutional Court with a Constitutional Tribunal, hand-picked by the military, which ruled to dissolve the Thai Rak Thai Party for paying people to run in the election and to disqualify its 111 executive board members from taking any political role for 5 years. However, it was later reported that a false witness was hired. Since the offence occurred before the law was passed, the ruling was also criticized for retroactive application.
The Constitutional Court invalidation of the election, followed by the coup and the dissolution of the Thai Rak Thai Party, changed Thailand’s political landscape. This also led to a new wave of conflict, splitting society into the ‘Yellow Shirts’, an anti-Thai Rak Thai government movement led by the PAD, and the ‘Red Shirts,’ led by the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship, which opposed the coup and supported the Thaksin government.
2008 – 2010: Removal of 2 prime ministers, changing coalitions
After the 2006 military coup, the CNS drafted and passed the 2007 Constitution and organized a general election. The People’s Power Party, based on the remnants of Thai Rak Thai, won the most seats as people continued to be drawn to the populist policies from the Thaksin era such as debt suspension for farmers, village development funds, the One Tambon One Product (OTOP) project, and the 30-baht healthcare scheme. As a result, Samak Sundaravej became Prime Minister.
However, less than a year after taking office, the Constitutional Court dismissed Samak on the grounds that he had been paid for hosting a cooking show and therefore qualified as an employee, which disqualified him from being a Minister or Prime Minister under the 2007 Constitution. The ruling was criticized for broadening the interpretation of the law for political purposes, in order to remove Samak who was seen as a nominee of Thai Rak Thai/Thaksin.
To replace Samak, the government coalition nominated Somchai Wongsawat, Thaksin’s brother-in-law, but he managed to stay in office for only 75 days while PAD protesters occupied Government House and blocked airports. The Constitutional Court later dissolved the People’s Power Party after finding one of its deputy leaders guilty of vote-buying. Somchai and all party executives were banned from politics.
The Constitutional Court ruling created a turning point that changed the governing coalition. Abhisit Vejjajiva, leader of the main opposition Democrat Party, was named Prime Minister with support from a group known as “Friends of Newin,” former members of the People’s Power Party who would go on to form the Bhumjaithai Party. Meanwhile, rumours were circulated that the Army engineered the formation of the new coalition.
The dissolution of a major party and disqualification of elected politicians led to strong opposition against the Abhisit government. The Red Shirt protests began in 2009 to demand dissolution of the House and a new election. Their demands were met with the violent crackdown of 2010, which killed at least 94 people – an event which became a large wound in Thailand’s history of political conflict.
2012 – 2014: Judicial activism takes over the law, overthrows an election, paves the way for a coup
Abhisit dissolved the House and a new election was held in 2011. The Pheu Thai Party, led by Thaksin’s sister Yingluck Shinawatra and containing the remnants of the PPP minus the Bhumjaithai faction, won the election. Her government, however, faced judicial activism at the hands of the Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court twice blocked attempts to amend the Constitution. The first time was when the government attempted to amend the Constitution so that it could form an elected Constitutional Drafting Assembly, which would lead to a new Constitution. The Court ruled that a referendum must first be conducted before the Constitution can be amended in this manner.
The second time was when the Constitutional Court blocked an attempt to amend the Constitution to create an entirely elected Senate, ruling that this was treason because the government was trying to obtain the power to rule the country through unconstitutional means.
The Constitutional Court also blocked a bill allowing the Ministry of Finance to take out a 2-trillion-baht loan to develop transportation infrastructure. It ruled that the bill was unconstitutional on the grounds that it allowed the government to spend money outside of the national budget, the issue was not urgent, and not in line with fiscal discipline. The ruling was heavily criticized, especially after some judges showed bias through personal opinions regarding the urgency of the issue, such as “Wait until there are no more dirt roads in Thailand.”
The passing of a “blanket amnesty” bill sparked protests by the People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC), a coalition of yellow shirt groups. Yingluck decided to dissolve the House and scheduled an election on 2 February 2014. The Democrat Party once again boycotted the election, while the PDRC, which included a number of prominent former Democrat Party members, disrupted the registration process and blocked polling stations, so that in some constituencies polling could not take place.
The Ombudsman submitted a petition to the Constitutional Court to rule whether the election was constitutional. The Court ruled that the part of the Royal Decree calling for an election was unconstitutional because the election could not be completed on the same day throughout the country. The Court did not consider the reasons why voting was made impossible.
The ruling created a political vacuum. Since the Court did not rule that the entire Royal Decree was invalid, it was unclear whether the government could issue a new decree, while the Election Commission could not hold new elections in disrupted constituencies.
After the Supreme Administrative Court ordered Yingluck to reverse her transfer of the Secretary General of the National Security Council, a military-appointed Senator petitioned the Court to remove Yingluck from office. The Court ruled that the transfer involved nepotism and removed Yingluck from her position as caretaker PM, together with 9 cabinet ministers who had supported the transfer. The ruling came only one day after Yingluck had given her arguments to the court and while the Court was under tight security. In a similar case involving Abhisit 3 months earlier, the Court had given the opposite ruling.
These rulings, along with prolonged and sometimes volent protests by the PDRC, led to the military coup of 22 May 2014 by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO).
The coup triggered widespread protests, leading to violations of people’s rights and freedoms. At least 929 people were summoned by the NCPO and held in military camps. At least 245 people were charged for joining protests, while 169 were charged with sedition, all for protesting the coup.
2014 – 2019: The NCPO-era Constitutional Court and the protection of power transfer
The Constitutional Court continued to function after the 2014 coup. The NCPO had interfered with the process of appointing judges by using Section 44 of the Interim Constitution that they had written to extend judges’ terms, and by using the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), whose members were appointed by the NCPO, to approve Constitutional Court judges.
The Constitutional Court was criticized at this time for protecting the junta government and supporting the transfer of its power. It ruled that the controversial 2016 Referendum Act did not contradict the Constitution. The Act was criticized for its broad limitations on freedom of expression, making the referendum on the new Constitution neither free nor fair, but the Court did not find it unconstitutional for people who campaigned against the Constitution drafted by the NCPO to be prosecuted.
The Court also dismissed a petition requesting a ruling on whether the Head of the NCPO Order 3/2558 prohibiting political gatherings of more than 5 people violated the right to freedom of assembly. The petition was dismissed on the technical argument that the petitioners could not directly petition the Court but had go through the Ombudsman or other courts.
It also ruled that Section 185 of the Organic Act on Anti-Corruption, which allowed the NLA-appointed President and national anti-corruption commissioners to stay in office until the end of their terms, did not contradict the Constitution. Members of other independent organizations not approved by the NLA and the NCPO were not allowed this privilege.
2019 – 2023: Dissolution of opposition parties and continuation of the Prayut government
The Constitutional Court was behind several changes to the Thai political landscape after the 2017 Constitution came into effect.
In 2019, it dissolved the Thai Raksa Chart Party for nominating former Princess Ubolratana Mahidol as a candidate for Prime Minister. The party was seen as a spin-off from Pheu Thai in a strategic move to circumvent the Mixed Members Apportionment (MMA) voting system, which was designed to reduce the number of party-list seats that larger parties could obtain in favour of mid-sized parties.
The Court ruled that the nomination of the former princess was not in conformity with the constitutional monarchy, although questions were raised whether the ECT should have been able to forestall the nomination. The dissolution meant that Thai Raksa Chart could no longer run in the 2019 election after Pheu Thai had decided not have candidates in every constituency. This had the effect of reducing the Pheu Thai seats.
In 2020, the Constitutional Court dissolved the Future Forward Party for taking a 191-million-baht loan from its leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, ruling that it was an unlawful donation. The ruling was criticized on the grounds that a loan was not the same as a donation, and that the elements of the offense was not complete. The Court’s interpretation of the law reduced the number of opposition MPs and strengthened the government of Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha, whose multi-party coalition had a thin majority in parliament.
Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court was seen as shielding Gen Prayut, leader of the NCPO who was named Prime Minister after the 2019 election. In 2020, it ruled that Gen Prayut had not broken the law by staying in army housing rent-free after retirement from active service because it was in line with army regulations and it would be beneficial for security.
In 2022, it ruled that Gen Prayut could stay as Prime Minister because his term in office was to be counted from when the 2017 Constitution came into effect, although he became Prime Minister in August 2014. He therefore had not exceeded the 8-year term limit for a Prime Minister.
After the 2019 general election, several parties proposed that the Constitution should be amended by a Constitutional Drafting Assembly. The proposal was made by the Democrat Party, which was in the government coalition at the time, and the opposition Pheu Thai and Future Forward parties. However, the process was disrupted after NCPO-appointed senators filed a petition with the Constitutional Court, claiming that parliament did not have the authority to write a new Constitution.
It is clear that the Constitutional Court had expanded its role from dealing with politicians and political parties to taking control of the politics of both the executive branch and the legislative branch. In March 2021, the Court issued Ruling 4/2564, stating that it is within parliament’s power to write a new Constitution, but a referendum must be held first to determine whether the people want a new Constitution. Another referendum must then be held after a draft has been completed. However, since the ruling was unclear about how many referendums were needed, it was used by the Senate as an excuse to dismiss a bill proposing constitutional amendments in 2021. Interpretation of the 4/2564 ruling continues to be contentious.
2023 – 2025: Suspending and dismissing Prime Ministers, dissolving the Move Forward Party
In the 14 May 2023 general election, the Move Forward Party won the highest number of seats. Its leader, Pita Limjaroenrat, became the target of lawfare. A complaint was filed against him for holding shares in the defunct media company ITV. He was suspended, but later cleared of the accusation. And although the evidence was unclear and questions have been raised of the political nature of the complaint, it rattled the Party and made Pita appear a less legitimate candidate for Prime Minister. This led to a change of coalition parties, under the strong influence of the NCPO-appointed Senate.
The Move Forward Party was then accused of treason for campaigning to change the royal defamation law and moving an amendment in parliament. The Constitutional Court ruled that the campaign was indeed treasonous, although the amendment of laws is a basic constitutional function of the legislative branch. Judicial power had now encroached onto the territory of parliament, affecting future policy-making.
Soon after, the Constitutional Court ruled to dismiss then-Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin for breaching ethical standards by appointing to his Cabinet someone who had been sentenced to prison. Questions have been raised whether this should have been an issue for the qualifications of the person appointed. And just this week, the Court suspended Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra after she was also accused of a serious ethics breach.
These incidents show that the law and the judicial system are being used to get rid of political opponents rather than protect democracy. The law used in these cases often depends on interpretations by those in power, lacks clarity, and is part of a mechanism to interfere with the democratic process, within both the executive and legislative branches.
11 July 11 202511467 at http://prachataienglish.com - Parliament abruptly adjourns during amnesty bill debateParliament abruptly adjourns during amnesty bill debateeng editor 1
Debate began on Wednesday (9 July) in parliament on five proposed amnesty bills for prosecutions deemed political crimes. However, the House Speaker abruptly adjourned the session before parliament could finish the debate and vote on the bills.
Three of the bills were proposed by the People’s Party, the United Thai Nation Party, and a Thai Teachers for the Peoples Party MP who has since joined the Klatham Party. The Bhumjaithai Party proposed a fourth but its version had yet to be added to the agenda. It was going to be debated after receiving permission from the House Speaker.
A fifth bill backed by 36,723 voters was proposed by the Network for People’s Amnesty, a civil society group. This latter bill is often referred to as the “People’s Amnesty” bill.
The bills were previously scheduled to go before parliament on 9 April, but the debate was postponed as parliament was discussing the US tariff increase and did not have enough time.
Amnesty for people charged with royal defamation remained a point of contention ahead of and during yesterday’s debate. Of the five bills, only the version explicitly proposing amnesty for the charge was the People’s Amnesty bill.
Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) lawyer Poonsuk Poonsukcharoen spoke in parliament as a representative of the voters who backed the bill. She said that the Network considered royal defamation a political prosecution, noting that of the 51 political prisoners remaining in detention, 32 were charged with it. She also raised issues with how the law is enforced. People accused of royal defamation often have difficulties obtaining bail and while not explicitly ordering defendants to be tried in secret, courts often refuse to summon evidence and prohibit the release of information about trials.
“Let’s say this parliament says that every defendant will be eligible for amnesty except [those charged with royal defamation] … of the 51 people in prison, 32 - 62% - will remain in prison. You’d be granting amnesty to a minority,” Poonsuk said.
Drafts proposed by United Thai Nation, Klatham, and Bhumjaithai all do not grant amnesty to those charged with royal defamation. United Thai Nation MP Thanakorn Wangboonkongchana explained that amnesty should not be granted because the law exists to protect the monarchy and national security, and the Constitutional Court has ruled that amending it is treasonous. He also said that pro-monarchy people might protest if amnesty is granted to people charged with royal defamation, and alleged that young people charged with royal defamation were being controlled by a ‘spiritual leader’ who should stop egging them on.
The People’s Party version does not specify which offences should be eligible for amnesty, proposing instead that all cases be subjected to review by a committee. People’s Party MP Rangsiman Rome said during the debate that the party wanted to cover all groups of people. He also said that the bill did not list specific offences because political prosecution takes many forms, from major criminal charges like royal defamation to minor offences like those under the Public Cleanliness Act or the Sound Amplifier Act. He hopes that using minimum requirements will assure that everyone is covered by the bill.
Noting the large number of people have been charged with royal defamation, he said that the officers who prosecuted them often did not look at the facts and evidence in detail, or consider whether the accused was fairly treated. Because of this, he worries that new political conflicts will arise.
“If we frame [the law] too narrowly, how can we move forward? How can we be sure that every single citizen involved in these conflicts are granted amnesty?” Rangsiman asked.
Student activist Thanapat Kapeng spoke in parliament in support of the People’s Amnesty bill. He noted that he is facing three counts of royal defamation, one of which requires him to travel to Narathiwat to attend police and court appointments because complaints can be filed anywhere. Acknowledging that some see him as a radical and a threat to national security, he explained that he only wanted to exercise his civil rights to promote change.
Responding to comments made by some MPs that young activists had been brainwashed and manipulated, Thanapat said that people who took part in the protests were merely exercising their right to freedom of expression, believing that as citizens in a democratic regime, they had the right to express their views.
Thanapat also said that the royal defamation law has been used as a form of judicial harassment, and that granting amnesty without including those facing charges would leave contemporary political divisions unresolved. He feels that granting them amnesty and giving them equal rights as citizens would help to restore the country’s judicial system and democracy.
Activist Benja Apan, who is facing 8 counts of royal defamation, also spoke in parliament. Responding to a comment made by former Democrat Party leader Jurin Laksanawisit that no amnesty has ever been granted for royal defamation, Benja said that this was inaccurate. The 1978 Amnesty Act, which granted amnesty for those prosecuted for participating in the 4 - 6 October 1976 protest at Thammasat University, grant amnesty for all charges, including royal defamation.
Responding to a comment made by United Thai Nation MP Thanakorn Wangboonkongchana that people who went into political exile were privileged, Benja said that, of the 20 activists who have gone into exile since the pro-democracy protests, none came from a privileged background. It is not easy to live in a foreign country, she said, especially for people who have no money and don’t speak local languages.
“They are just people who don’t want to keep fighting in an unjust justice system,” she said, adding that it has been extremely difficult to get courts to summon evidence in royal defamation trials.
“People who are in jail, or who are about to be jailed, and the people who are in exile … it’s all because of [the royal defamation charge] … What kind of peace will it be if you don’t include [them]? Is it just going to be peace for you? If you say that you want to move on together and start over, why are you not giving young people a chance to move on with you?”
After Benja spoke, First Deputy House Speaker Pichet Chuamuangpan, acting as speaker during the session, adjourned the meeting. Debate is expected to continue next Wednesday (16 July).
11 July 11 202511466 at http://prachataienglish.com - UN experts urge Thailand to drop charges against pro-democracy rights defendersUN experts urge Thailand to drop charges against pro-democracy rights defenderseng editor 1
UN experts* today (11 July) expressed grave concern over ongoing judicial proceedings against Thai woman human rights defender Pimsiri Petchnamrob, calling on the Government to drop charges against her and other human rights defenders who participated in pro-democracy protests.
“Lèse-majesté laws, with their vague formulation and severe penalties, have no place in a democracy. Their widespread and punitive use to silence dissent, suppress public debate, and intimidate human rights defenders, political opponents, civil society activists, journalists, and ordinary citizens violates Thailand’s international human rights obligations,” the experts said. “We urge authorities to drop the charges against Petchnamrob and all others facing criminal prosecution on similar grounds immediately.”
In November 2021, Pimsiri Petchnamrob was indicted under a total of ten charges, including under Section 112 (lèse-majesté), Section 116 (sedition), and Section 215 (participation in an illegal assembly) of the Criminal Code, for delivering a speech during a peaceful pro-democracy protest in November 2020. Petchnamrob is among at least five human rights defenders who were indicted for delivering speeches at the same protest. Her trial, which began in June 2025, is ongoing before the Criminal Court on Ratchadaphisek Road, with two additional hearings scheduled in August, followed by the delivery of a judgment.
The experts cited findings from a recent country visit report by the Working Group on discrimination against women and girls. The report noted that at least 470 women human rights defenders have been arrested and prosecuted under Sections 112 and 116 since 2020. “These punitive charges often result in financial hardship, deteriorating health and significant challenges around family care,” they said.
“We reiterate our call to the Government of Thailand to revise and repeal lèse-majesté laws, which have a broad chilling effect on the exercise of rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, leading to a climate of fear and self-censorship,” the experts said. “Public figures, including the highest political authorities, are legitimately subject to criticism.”
“Thailand must stop criminalising individuals who carry out the critical work of defending civic space and human rights,” they said.
The experts have been in contact with the Government of Thailand on these matters, including to express concerns about prosecutions under Section 112 of the Criminal Code.
*The experts: Laura Nyirinkindi (Chair), Claudia Flores (Vice-Chair), Dorothy Estrada Tanck, Ivana Krstić, and Haina Lu, Working Group on discrimination against women and girls; Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Gina Romero, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; Mary Lawlor, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders11 July 11 202511465 at http://prachataienglish.com - Thai military overreach in the Thai-Cambodian conflict: a chronologyThai military overreach in the Thai-Cambodian conflict: a chronologyeng editor 1
Amid simmering tensions over a border dispute with Cambodia, a leaked audio clip captures Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra referring to Cambodian Senate President Hun Sen as “Uncle” while offering him concessions in an effort to ease tensions over the closure of border checkpoints.
Because of the clip, Paetongtarn has been suspended from office by the Constitutional Court and now faces possible disqualification for alleged dishonesty and ethical breaches. Protests have also been staged by Sonthi Limthongkul, her father’s longtime political foe and Jatuporn Prompan, his former loyalist-turned-opponent. Speculation is rife about the PM’s resignation, parliamentary dissolution, and a military coup, casting doubt on the government's ability to complete its full term.
In her phone call with Hun Sen, Paetongtarn characterised Thailand’s Second Army Area Commander Lt Gen Boonsin ‘Kung’ Padklang as her political opponent, a remark she later explained was a negotiation tactic. According to Prachatai’s chronology of the crisis, the military clearly defied the government’s de-escalation efforts and actively disseminated militaristic rhetoric through a public relations campaign, however.
As pressure mounted, the civilian government was obliged to acquiesce to the military after the National Security Council (NSC), under martial law, authorised it to assume control over border checkpoints in seven provinces—including Trat, Chanthaburi, Sa Kaeo, Ubon Ratchathani, Sisaket, Surin, and Buriram. Thereafter, the military prohibited the export of construction materials like cement and steel bars, as well as weaponry. It also banned Thai nationals from crossing to gamble in Cambodian casinos.
Cambodia reacted strongly to these measures, but Paetongtarn was unable to take action. In the audio clip, she admitted that she needed to consult with the military before making any decisions. As a result, Hun Sen accused Thailand of breaking its promises by keeping the border checkpoints closed, even after Cambodian forces were pulled back to ease tensions.
Passive response
The dispute began on 17 February when a rendition of the Cambodian national anthem sung by a Cambodian military officer and his troops sparked a clash at Prasat Ta Muen Thom. Then, on 1 March, a fire broke out at the Trimuk Pavilion and spread to nearby houses. Thai authorities determined it was an act of arson.
Eventually, a military clash occurred at Chong Bok on 28 May, resulting in the death of one Cambodian soldier. Although the situation warranted the deployment of F-5 fighter jets, former Defense Minister Phumtham Wechayachai, now the acting Prime Minister, only issued a brief statement, saying he was apprised of the situation.
The next day, the PM said that Thailand was ready to end the matter provided Cambodia did not reinforce its positions. Defense Minister Phumtham proposed that each side withdraw 400 meters from the point of the clash, expressed Thailand’s desire for peace, and took no further measures.
These efforts to de-escalate the conflict drew criticism that the government was being too passive, criticism which became more pronounced after various branches of the armed forces seemingly undercut civilian-led peace efforts by using social media to tout their combat readiness. The campaign included the Facebook posts of regular Thai soldiers.
Choice of map
The conflict may well have arisen because of the Thai military’s use of borders in areas that had yet to be formally demarcated through a bilateral process. During the period, Lt Gen Boonsin negotiated with his Cambodian counterparts and following the clash at Chong Bok, he admitted in an interview that the Thai side only recognised the 1:50,000-scale map produced by the Royal Thai Survey Department, not the 1:200,000-scale map that, according to a bilateral framework established under the 2000 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU43), was supposed to be used for purposes of official negotiations. The Joint Boundary Commission (JBC) has long been using this more detailed map and the understanding was that a new map would not be used unless accepted by both parties.
When Cambodia asserted that Thailand had already agreed to make use of the JBC map at a recent meeting, Lt Gen Boonsin reiterated that the Thai military only recognised the Survey Department’s version. On 16 June, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs seemingly backed this position by denying Cambodia’s claim and stating that the matter was not open for discussion.
Lt Gen Boonsin Phadklang, Second Army Area Commander (center right), and a Cambodian military officer (center left) at Ta Muen Thom temple, 21 February 2025.
Maj Gen Nutt Sri-in, Second Army Area Deputy Commander, also expressed his views on social media about what negotiating mechanisms should be used and whether Thailand should submit to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). He seemed calm and appeared ready to pursue negotiations but suggested that it might be better to do away with existing border agreements and resort to a military solution.
All of this suggests the extent of military overreach. In theory, the choice of map, negotiation mechanisms, allowing ICJ jurisdiction, and even the decision to go to war are matters for civilian government.
Maj Gen Nutt Sriin Second Army Area Deputy Commander in front of Trimuk Pavillion before the fire broke out.
Para bellum
On 5 June 2025, Phumtham met with Cambodia’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense to discuss troop withdrawals and restore the situation to its 2024 status. The effort was unsuccessful but showed Thailand’s commitment to bilateral discussions. Locally, Phumtham was unfairly criticised for traveling to Cambodia for negotiations that took place in Sa Kaeo, however.
The same evening, before Phumtham had a chance to make a statement, Army spokesman Maj Gen Winthai Suvaree also denied allegations that the Thai military fired first. He claimed instead that Cambodian forces used gunfire when Thailand deployed a reconnaissance unit to verify an intrusion.
In the face of ongoing negotiation between the two governments, the Royal Thai Army (RTA) continued to showcase its combat readiness by issuing an official statement that all units had been ordered to respond in accordance with the national defence plan and retaliate in cases where national sovereignty was violated.
On 6 June, when the National Security Council convened, the government rejected the jurisdiction of the ICJ but reaffirmed its commitment to peaceful resolution of the conflict using bilateral mechanisms. The military declared it would operate in line with government policy but maintained its control of the border checkpoints.
The parody posters by Royal Thai Air Force (left), the Royal Thai Army (middle), and the Royal Thai Navy (right)
It also continued to tout its readiness for a fight. Alluding to a popular Thai-language Netflix series about an express delivery startup, Mad Unicorn, the armed forces released parody posters on 6 June, a promotional day for e-commerce platforms, to emphasise their ability to rapidly deliver ordinance to the border.
Launched without governmental consultation, the campaign was highly inappropriate. However, amid growing frustration with the government's response, and lingering distrust of the ties between the Shinawatra and Hun families, public support for the military surged. Some voices even went so far as to suggest that it might be time for a coup.
On 7 June, the RTF began closing border checkpoints. While the closure was not absolute, prohibiting only the transport of military equipment and construction materials, and travel for gambling in Cambodian casinos, it still had a notable impact.
On 8 June, both sides began reducing troop strength and filled in trenches to ease tensions. However, Thailand’s policy of keeping border checkpoints closed remained in effect, frustrating the Cambodian leadership.
At a JBC meeting, both sides agreed to continue demarcating the border through bilateral mechanisms. The four contentious areas at Ta Muen Thom, Ta Muen Tot, Ta Kwai temples, and the Emerald Triangle, were not included, as Cambodia wanted to bring the matter before the ICJ, however.
On 16 June, the Prime Minister reaffirmed the Thai government’s commitment to the bilateral mechanism and, in response to a warning from Hun Sen about potential retaliatory measures for the border closure, clarified that Thailand had merely adjusted checkpoint operating hours to ensure the safety of people on both sides. She also criticised the Cambodian leader’s use of social media as “unprofessional”, a remark that would come back to haunt her just two days later.
The knock out blow
On 18 June, after the audio clip was leaked, calls for the PM’s removal began to circulate.
She issued an apology and explained that her misunderstanding with Lt Gen Boonsin had already been resolved.
Lt Gen Boonsin affirmed that he was not upset and understood. Nonetheless, the military seized the moment to launch another public relations campaign. At 7:55 p.m. on the same day, the RTF’s official Facebook page published a statement:
“No matter the situation, the Royal Thai Army is ready to stand firm to defend our sovereignty to the best of its ability. #SoldiersExistToProtectSovereignty #Save2ndArmyAreaCommander #RoyalThaiArmy"
Eighty minutes later, the hashtag #Save2ndArmyAreaCommander was removed from the post. The Facebook page of the Second Army Area continued to display the hashtag, however.
Maximising damage
Beyond the official social media statements of the military branches and high-ranking officers, other military-linked information sources also reinforced the impression that military leaders were not marching in step with the government.
Following the audio clip leak, the Military News [ข่าวทหาร] (formerly known as Military News, Royal Thai Army Radio and Television, Channel 5) Facebook page posted that “Uncle Pom [Gen Prawit Wongsuwan, the leader of Phalang Pracharat Party]’ has issued a statement ... criticising the Prime Minister for being incompetent in resolving border issues, causing the nation to be at a disadvantage. ”
The page also shared a post from Atthawit Suwanphakdee, a former Democrat MP and long-time critic of the Shinawatra family, which read: “War is war! Cambodia intentionally intruded into Thailand’s clearly defined territory!”
On the morning of 19 June, the page also posted an excerpt from the royal address of the late King Bhumibol, highlighting the phrase “…let good people govern the country…”, a reference familiar to political observers.
The Military News' post with a quote from King Bhumibol
The notion that the country should be entrusted to “good people” - not “bad politicians” - has been employed by right-wing groups to justify the military coups of 2006 and 2014.
The page has over 270,000 followers and has frequently been tagged and cited as a source on various other pages, including the Public Relations Center of the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC), the 4215th Ranger Forces Company, the 1st Infantry Battalion, and 3rd Infantry Regiment.
The Facebook page Soldiers Are Lovable [ทหารเป็นตาฮัก], which has 470,000 followers and was previously reported by Prachatai to have links with the 3rd Infantry Division, has also posted various criticisms of the civilian government since the clash at Chong Bok:
- “Stupid people shouldn’t be leaders.” (6 June 2025)
- “Naive leader. Go home and eat ginkgo nuts. It would be far more useful.” (13 June 2025)
- “This is not a children’s playground.” (16 June 2025)
- “Our leader is Commander Kung. #Save2ndArmyAreaCommander” (18 June 2025)
Political commentaries by the military page. Source: Soldiers Are Lovable
The page also shared several video clips featuring Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha, a former junta leader who remains a candidate for prime minister. The videos attracted many viewers, with many expressing nostalgia for Gen Prayut, and some even calling for a coup. Among them:
- A montage of Gen Prayut in military uniform — 69,000 views (2 June 2025)
- A clip of Gen Prayut, during his tenure as Prime Minister, addressing Parliament in 2019 to defend the need for military conscription — 1 million views (3 June 2025)
- A clip from the 2011 Preah Vihear conflict, showing Gen Prayut saying that fighting is not difficult, only an order needs to be given. — 600,000 views (6 June 2025)
Gen Prayut saying that fighting is not difficult, only an order needs to be given. Source: Soldiers Are Lovable
The Thai Army Ranger Club [ชมรมทหารพรานกองทัพบก] Facebook page responded to the leaked audio clip by posting a video of the song Scum of the Earth on the evening of 18 June 2025. The song was circulated at the height of the Cold War, prior to the student massacre at Thammasat University on 6 October 1976.
The post from the Thai Army Ranger Club
Winding down
On 19 June, Gen Natthaphon Narkphanit, a Deputy Minister of Defence from United Thai Nation Party, and a close aide of Gen Prayut, released a statement on behalf of Team Thailand, a nickname of the Ad Hoc Center for the Thailand-Cambodia Border Situation:
“The (release of the clip) was not accidental but a part of a complex plan … to achieve diplomatic gains … it was 'one shot fired to bring down the whole flock.' And we will not allow them to succeed under any circumstances.”
In the face of right wing groups calling for a coup, the RTF Facebook page also posted a message from Army Commander-in-Chief Gen Pana Klaewplodthuk stating that the army had no ulterior motives and was “ready …to defend the nation's sovereignty to the best of its ability using existing mechanisms.”
Tensions remained but the military’s public relations campaign wound down. The Bhumjaithai Party withdrew from the ruling coalition and the Prime Minister was suspended. As a result of a leaked audio clip, the military appears to have improved its public standing.
11 July 11 202511464 at http://prachataienglish.com - “Stupid people shouldn’t be leaders.” (6 June 2025)
- Cartoon by Stephff: Invisible hand is backCartoon by Stephff: Invisible hand is backeng editor 1
Cartoon by Stephff: Invisible hand is back
11 July 11 202511463 at http://prachataienglish.com - Anon Nampa now faces over 29 years in prisonAnon Nampa now faces over 29 years in prisoneng editor 1
Human rights lawyer and activist Anon Nampa has been sentenced to 2 years and 4 months in prison on charges of royal defamation and sedition, bringing his total prison sentence to 29 years and 1 month.
He was charged with royal defamation, sedition, participating in a gathering of more than 10 persons and causing a breach of peace, as well as violations of the Emergency Decree, the Communicable Diseases Act, and the Public Assembly Act for participating in the 17 November 2020 protest in front of parliament to demand constitutional amendments.
Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported that the Court found Anon guilty of royal defamation because it believed that, when he mentioned selfies and putting on an act in his speech, he was referring to King Vajiralongkorn’s visit to Udon Thani, in which he greeted supporters, and Princess Sirivannavari’s selfies with members of the public. Although Anon did not mention the King and the Princess by name, the Court said the speech was defamatory because it believes he was calling them fake.
The Court also noted that Anon often expressed his disagreement with the monarchy. Although he said he did not want to overthrow the monarchy in criticizing it but wants it to co-exist with democracy with dignity, the Court said that he should have found other, more appropriate ways of doing so.
Activist Parit Chiwarak also faced the same charges. However, he was found not guilty of royal defamation because his speech criticized the parliament building and its design, although he used it as a metaphor about the structure of society and the monarchy.
The Court found Anon and Parit not guilty of participating in a gathering and causing a breach of peace and violations of the Emergency Decree, the Communicable Diseases Act, and the Public Assembly Act because the protest was held in an open space at a time when disease control measures declared during the Covid-19 pandemic were already being relaxed. The prosecution could not prove that they organized the protest, and so he was not responsible for notifying the authorities of the protest or keeping it peaceful. Sharing the Facebook post announcing the protest does not mean that they organized it.
The Court ruled that the protest was peaceful, and that the right to protest is enshrined in the Constitution and international laws and so could not be limited by the police. Anon and Parit also told the protesters to stay peaceful and did not try to incite unrest. The Court also noted that most of those injured by tear gas and water cannons were pro-democracy protesters, and so they were not the cause of violence. Anon and Parit also were not threatening Parliament into passing constitutional amendment bills in their speeches.
Nevertheless, the Court found Anon and Parit guilty of sedition because they announced the end of the protest and called for another protest the next day at the police headquarters.
Anon was sentenced to 3 years in prison for royal defamation, reduced to 2 years because the witness examination provided useful information. He was sentenced to 6 months for sedition, reduced to 4 months for the same reason, bringing his total prison sentence in this case to 2 years and 4 months.
Anon has so far been found guilty of 10 counts of royal defamation, 1 count of sedition, 1 count of violating the Emergency Decree, and 1 count of contempt of court. The latest verdict brought the total prison sentence he is facing for his activism to 26 years, 37 months, and 20 days, or around 29 years and 1 month. He has been detained pending appeal at the Bangkok Remand Prison since 26 September 2023.
Parit, meanwhile, was sentenced to 6 months in prison for sedition, later reduced to 4 months.
The 17 November protest took place at the same time as a special parliamentary session, during which senators and MPs discussed 7 proposals for constitutional amendments, including the so-called “people’s draft,” proposed by iLaw, a legal watchdog NGO, and endorsed by 98,041 voters. None of the drafts were passed.
The protest was met with blockades and riot police. Tear gas and water mixed with chemical irritants from water cannons were fired at protesters occupying Samsen Road and Kiak Kai intersection. There were reports of more than 10 waves of tear gas being used on protesters both in canister form and from the water cannon, as well as some clashes between pro-monarchy protesters and pro-democracy protest guards.
9 July 09 202511462 at http://prachataienglish.com - Not a Burden, But a Bond — Let This Border Be a Bridge of Shared Hope and HumanityNot a Burden, But a Bond — Let This Border Be a Bridge of Shared Hope and Humanityeng editor 1
Police check to the motorcyclists in Mae Sot (Photo from El Kylo Mhu)
A Shared Town in a Time of Crisis
Mae Sot has long been more than just a border town. It is a place where Thai and Burmese lives have intersected for generations—through trade, culture, kinship, and, in recent years, shared hardship. Since the attempted military coup in Myanmar on 1 February 2021, Mae Sot has seen a significant influx of Burmese people fleeing violence, persecution, and political collapse.
Among them are students, teachers, artists, and professionals who left behind their homes, careers, and possessions to seek temporary safety. Many live with a quiet gratitude toward Thailand for allowing them the sanctuary, but in recent months, that sense of safety has started to fray. Crackdowns on undocumented migrants have intensified, while online rhetoric increasingly paints Burmese people as threats and accuses them of stealing jobs, overwhelming public services, or competing with local businesses.
Yet behind each Burmese face is not a threat, but a story of survival, dignity, and deep respect for their host. This is not a crisis of invasion. It is a test of compassion, coexistence, and our shared humanity.
Workers of the Border: Carrying the Town’s Weight
After COVID-19 emptied Mae Sot’s streets, it was Burmese migrants who brought the town back to life. They returned to farms, reopened factories, and revitalized homes, markets, and shops. Without them, many local businesses would have closed.
Nilar, a 27-year-old mother from Bago, now works at a outsource garment factory. She earns just 200 baht a day—way below the legal minimum wage—but says “It’s still better than bombs.” Her husband was shot during a protest in Myanmar. With her toddler strapped to her back, she irons shirts under sweltering heat, dreaming of a day her son can safely attend school.
Like Nilar, many migrants take on what are called the “3D jobs”—dirty, dangerous, and difficult. These roles are often left vacant by Thai citizens. They clean, cook, harvest, build, and produce. They pay rent, buy food, and support local trade. And they do so while living on the edge of legality, with few protections and even fewer rights.
Healthcare and Hard Choices
Social media claims that Burmese people overburden Thai hospitals and receive free care. But the truth is far more nuanced.
Many migrants pay their own way. Some are covered by the M-Fund, a non-profit health insurance scheme supported by international donors. Others pay out of pocket. For those without either option, hospitals often request a deposit before treatment, sometimes up to 10,000 or 20,000 baht. For families who fled with nothing, such costs are simply out of reach.
Moe Thidar, a 19-year-old student from Mandalay, lost her father to a treatable heart condition. “We had no documents. The hospital asked for 15,000 baht. We only had 3,000,” she said. “They told us they couldn’t admit him.”
In some cases, compassionate doctors have waived fees. But this is not guaranteed. These are not people exploiting the system—they are people surviving within it, grateful for every kindness shown and devastated when help is out of reach.
The Unexpected Talent Flow
Unlike previous generations of migrant workers, many recent arrivals in Mae Sot come from Myanmar’s middle class. They include doctors, professors, engineers, entrepreneurs, and artists who escaped targeted persecution. More than 40 university lecturers and dozens of medical professionals and many other professionals now live quietly in the town. But their skills often go unused, as Thailand’s policies prevent them from working in their professions.
Dr. Tun Min, once a professor at a top university in Yangon, now lives in a one-room apartment with his wife and two children. He teaches math informally to migrant kids on weekends. “I never imagined I’d end up sweeping floors in a warehouse,” he says, “but at least I can still teach.”
Some Burmese artists have begun offering free lessons at local Thai schools, introducing Thai students to new styles of music and painting. Others help community clinics or support border learning centers. In this way, many Burmese refugees give back to Mae Sot in quiet, meaningful ways.
Misguided Crackdown and Its Consequences
Recent crackdowns in Mae Sot have left many Burmese migrants and refugees living in fear. Following a series of high-profile visits and increased public scrutiny, immigration raids intensified. Even those with proper documentation—such as pink work permit cards or passports—were stopped, questioned, and in some cases fined or detained over minor technical issues like a mismatched address.
Ko Aung, a 21-year-old who fled Myanmar to avoid forced military conscription, was among those affected. Though he held a valid pink card, he was stopped on his way to the market. “I thought I was safe here,” he said softly. “Now I’m afraid to go outside.”
These are not criminals, but survivors. They are workers, students, mothers, fathers—people who have fled unimaginable violence and hardship. They are here not to cause harm, but to survive. And while they remain deeply grateful to Thailand for providing refuge, many now live in silence and fear, unsure of when safety might become vulnerable again.
What they hope for is not sympathy, but understanding—that their presence is not a threat, but a reflection of the crisis they are escaping. They are not here forever. They are simply waiting for peace, and doing their best to live with dignity until they can return home.
Such crackdowns don’t just harm the undocumented but sow fear across an entire community. The raids felt less like routine enforcement and more like a warning. Migrants go into hiding. Children stop attending school. Sick people avoid hospitals. The atmosphere of fear helps no one, and it makes everyone less safe.
A Burmese musician teaching violin at Mae Ku High School. (Photo from Joy House)
Children Learning, Not Loitering
Thousands of Burmese children in Mae Sot attend Migrant Learning Centers (MLCs)—informal schools run by the community, not funded by Thai taxpayers. These are supported by international NGOs and donors. They offer basic education, Thai language, and health awareness. They keep children off the streets and prepare them for reintegration when they return to Myanmar.
To support these schools is not to “carry a burden.” It is to invest in hope.
A Call for Compassionate Leadership
Thailand now stands at a crossroads. It can double down on fear and punishment, or it can lead with humanity and vision.
The Burmese people living in Mae Sot are not asking to stay forever. It took a long time to return home. But while they are here, they want to contribute, follow the rules, and live with dignity.
There are small, practical steps that could make a big difference:
- Expand accessible, affordable documentation pathways.
- Engage directly with migrant communities in border policy planning.
- Allow skilled refugees to contribute in education, health, and arts.
- Protect learning centers for migrant children without politicization.
- Support accurate public information that reflects lived realities, not fear.
This isn’t just a matter of migrant welfare. It is about Thailand’s future, too. Safer, documented, and integrated communities are easier to govern, healthier, and more productive. The relationship between Thailand and Myanmar is long and deep. Right now, it needs care, not suspicion.
Not a Burden, But a Bond
Mae Sot does not need more walls. It needs bridges.
The Burmese people in this town are not a burden. They are a bond—a living connection to a future of peace, cooperation, and shared prosperity. Most of us are just trying to survive until we can return home. In the meantime, we are ready to be part of Thailand’s solution.
Please see us not as problems, but as neighbors. Not as criminals, but as people.
7 July 07 202511461 at http://prachataienglish.com - Refugees and Thai agencies address Hun Sen’s leaked audio on dissident crackdown in ThailandRefugees and Thai agencies address Hun Sen’s leaked audio on dissident crackdown in Thailandeng editor 3
During a meeting of the House Committee on National Security, relevant stakeholders discussed a leaked audio clip linked to Hun Sen’s order to target Cambodian refugees in Thailand. Two Cambodian refugees said they were pursued after fleeing to Thailand, while the National Security Council acknowledged the existence of intelligence operations, but could not confirm whether they involved state-to-state collaboration.
On Thursday (3 July), the House Committee on National Security, Border Affairs, National Strategy and National Reform summoned two Cambodian refugees and relevant agencies to discuss two leaked audio clips linked to Cambodian Senate President Hun Sen and Thailand.
MP Rangsiman Rome, Chair of the Committee, remarked that both audio clips had a significant impact on Thailand’s national security and its relations with Cambodia.
The first leaked audio clip involved Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra and Hun Sen while in the second, released by Al Jazeera, Hun Sen instructed his close associate Khliang Huot to coordinate with Thai police in hunting down and capturing or killing Cambodian dissidents, particularly Phan Phana, a Cambodian political dissident. Khliang Huot was the person who interpreted the conversation between the Thai PM and Hun Sen in the first clip.
The latest clip could serve as evidence implicating the Thai authorities in Cambodia’s crackdown on political dissidents, particularly in light of the recent shooting in Bangkok in broad daylight of Lim Kimya, a former Cambodian opposition politician.
Phan Phana, who is currently residing in the US, said via a video link that after fleeing to Thailand, he was pursued by Hun Sen’s people who attempted to capture him, but he narrowly escaped. In addition, before an official visit to Thailand by Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet in February 2024, Phan and his family were arrested and handed over to immigration authorities, who put them in detention.
Meanwhile, ChamRoeun Suon, a Cambodian refugee now living in New Zealand, also testified via a video link that he fled Cambodia’s crackdown and entered Thailand on 11 September 2019. Later that year he was stopped at a convenience store by two Cambodian men who used a stun device and attempted to force him into a van, but Suon managed to escape. He said he reported the incident to the Din Daeng Police Station, but there has been no progress since then.
Sitanun Satsaksit, a human rights defender and sister of missing Wanchalearm Satsaksit, added that the Suon incident resembled the case of her brother, who was abducted in Cambodia.
Prakaidao Pruksakasemsuk, a human rights defender and Wanchalearm’s former close associate, asserted that Huot was known among Thai activists who fled to Cambodia and provided them with shelter and financial support. Prakaidao also said Huot was familiar with political movements in Thailand and frequently travelled to his residence in Thailand. She believes there have indeed been secret operations involving Thailand and Cambodia, especially under the National Council for Peace and Order, the military junta that ruled Thailand from 2014 to 2019.
A representative from the National Security Council (NSC) acknowledged the existence of intelligence operations targeting Cambodian nationals on Thai soil operations. However, the NSC could not confirm whether such operations were part of a state-to-state collaboration between Cambodia and Thailand, as it could not fully access sufficient information.
Regarding the leaked clip between the Thai PM and Hun Sen, Benjamin Sukanjanajtee, Director-General of the Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, stated that Hun Sen appears to be seeking influence over Thailand’s internal political development, asserting that his actions violated the charters of both the United Nations and ASEAN. The Ministry had summoned the Cambodian ambassador to explain that this was against diplomatic norms.
As for the Al Jazeera clip, Benjamin said that according to international law, there must be an investigation as to whether Hun Sen’s action was considered an act on behalf of Cambodia. He remarked that the Ministry has already launched a diplomatic protest while notifying ASEAN.
Pol Maj Gen Wiraphat Siwaphaet, representing the Royal Thai Police, said cooperation between the Thai police and foreign police forces is standard practice. In the case of Cambodian nationals, the Thai police have no information on who might be political dissidents. In principle, anyone entering the country illegally must be deported. He also noted that the police have never received orders to cooperate in any secret operations.
Regarding the assassination of Lim Kimya, a former opposition MP with the Cambodia National Rescue Party, the police found no irregular activities from the Cambodian side in the financial transactions of Wang, who allegedly hired Ekalak Paenoi to carry out the killing. He also provided an update on the case, saying an Interpol Red Notice has now been issued for Wang.
The first leaked clip is now being handled by the Crime Suppression Division, which has received more than 11 complaints against the Thai PM. The second clip, released by Al Jazeera, is with the Metropolitan Police Bureau. Any potential link to the Lim Kimya case will be examined, and if a connection is found, the case will be forwarded to the Attorney General’s Office to determine whether it qualifies as an extraterritorial case.
According to the Thai Parliament Channel, Pannika Wanich, advisor to the House Committee, told the media after the meeting that it remained unclear whether there are more private audio recordings between the Thai PM and other foreign counterparts. If such recordings exist, the PM and relevant parties must inform the relevant agencies, as such leaks could impact international relations or the country’s national security.
Meanwhile, Chutiphong Pipoppinyo, Secretary of the House Committee, stated that the investigation into the case of Khliang Huot remains ongoing and has not reached a conclusion. Many speculate that he may hold Thai citizenship.
7 July 07 202511459 at http://prachataienglish.com - Parliament to debate amnesty billsParliament to debate amnesty billseng editor 1
Amid growing political turmoil, Parliament is expected on 9 July to debate five bills proposing amnesty for people facing political prosecution. The royal defamation law remains a point of contention as the Government Whip insisted that all draft legislation must not propose amnesty for those found guilty of violating it.
Pheu Thai MP Visuth Chainaroon, Chair of the Government Whip in the House of Representatives, said on 28 June that the agenda for the 9 July session will include the referendum bill previously proposed by the Pheu Thai Party but rejected by the Senate, and the United Thai Nation Party’s national harmony bill, which is essentially an amnesty bill. Four other amnesty bills will also be discussed, as amnesty is a priority for resolving conflict in the country. The bills will be debated in parliament, where everyone can freely express their views, Visuth said, before voting on whether to accept every bill or only a selected few. However, he insisted that all the bills must not include amnesty for those found guilty of royal defamation.
Of the five amnesty bills submitted to parliament, only the draft submitted by the Network for People's Amnesty, a network of civil society groups, proposes amnesty for people charged with royal defamation.
Drafts from the United Thai Nation Party, Thai Teachers for the Peoples Party, and New Palang Dharma Party state that amnesty should not be granted to those charged with royal defamation.
As for the People’s Party draft, it suggests establishing a committee for case-by-case consideration.
Amnesty for royal defamation charges has always been a contentious issue.
Towards the end of 2023, the Network for People's Amnesty called for the authorities to halt still pending legal actions against political protests as well as online and offline political expression. A petition in support of the People’s Amnesty Bill was launched in November 2023. It obtained 35,905 signatures and was submitted to Parliament on 14 February, 2024.
Instead of adopting any of the proposed bills, Parliament established a special Amnesty Committee in February 2024 to study the framework for an amnesty law. The Committee released a report in July 2024, proposing three options for 'sensitive cases' such as those under Section 112: no amnesty, unconditional amnesty, and conditional amnesty.
The report was acknowledged by a majority in the House, but the recommendations intended to guide the Cabinet in drafting future legislation were rejected because many party members expressed concerns that the proposal could reignite political conflicts by including sensitive cases.
Representatives of the People's Amnesty Network filed a petition with representatives of government whip
On 3 July, the People’s Amnesty Network went to parliament to submit a petition to government whip representatives, calling for sincerity and responsibility from the government and members of the House of Representative regarding their promise to foster political reconciliation. The call came after parliamentary debate on the amnesty bills was postponed at the end of the last session.
The network made three urgent demands:
- That civil society’s version of the bill be brought before parliament within the session’s 120-day timeframe, instead of being indefinitely postponed.
- That amnesty for royal defamation charges be considered in the second reading to resolve the ongoing political conflict, since the royal defamation law has been used against people who participated in symbolic action, criticism, or engaged in political activism.
- That amnesty be extended to all groups of people but exclude offences committed by state officials.
Pheu Thai MP Chanok Chanthathong, Deputy Chair of the government whip committee, said that she would bring the matter up during their meeting, which is expected to take place on Monday (7 July)
She also added that as the country has faced political hardships for over 20 years, the government would prioritise discussion of the bills, including the draft submitted by the People’s Network, on the meeting agenda.
On 3 July, opposition leaders met to discuss the way forward after Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra was suspended by the Constitutional Court over a breach of ethics for the leaked phone call with Cambodian Senate Presdient Hun Sen.
People’s Party leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut said that the opposition’s stance is to find a common ground on issues they can collectively push for, while remaining respectful of each party’s position. Among the issues discussed were the amnesty bills. He said that the opposition parties have different views on the matter and a working group will be set up to study approaches.
7 July 07 202511460 at http://prachataienglish.com - Appeal Court sentences 25-year-old to prison for royal defamation over protest speechAppeal Court sentences 25-year-old to prison for royal defamation over protest speecheng editor 3
The Appeal Court has sentenced a pro-democracy activist to prison for royal defamation over a speech delivered during a protest at the King Taksin the Great Monument on 6 December 2020. She was later released on bail.
According to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, 25-year-old Wanwalee Thammasattaya and Chukiat Saengwong, a protester well-known for wearing crop tops during protests, were charged with royal defamation after criticising the Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha administration for expanding royal powers.
The complaint was filed by Chakrapong Klinkaew, leader of the royalist group People Protecting the Institution.
In her speech, Wanwalee objected to the King’s constitutional designation as the Supreme Commander of the Royal Thai Armed Forces and spoke critically of royal involvement in ratifying coups d'état and influencing the work of the cabinet ministers.
On 27 June 2023, the Thonburi Criminal Court sentenced both activists to four years in prison, later reducing the term to two years and eight months because of their helpful testimony. Wanwalee was initially detained at the Thonburi Women Correctional Institution for 11 days before being granted bail with 300,000 baht as security pending appeal. Chukiat reportedly fled the country at the end of 2023.
On Friday (4 July), the Appeal Court upheld the initial verdict, sentencing Wanwalee to two years and eight months in prison. On the same day, she was granted bail with an additional 150,000 baht as security with the condition that she must not travel abroad without the permission of the Court.
Wanwalee initally faced four royal defamation charges, three of which, including this case, have already received verdicts from the Courts of First Instance. On 24 June 2021, she was sentenced to four years in prison for the case related to a protest at Pathumwan Skywalk, but was given a suspension.
She was also sentenced to two years and eight months in prison without suspension for posting a picture of a protest banner containing a message about the monarchy on her Facebook page on 21 November 2020.
The case awaiting a verdict involves a speech she gave at a protest in front of the Siam Commercial Bank headquarters on 25 November 2020.
6 July 06 202511458 at http://prachataienglish.com