Font size: 
Giles Jai Ungpakorn, who holds dual British and Thai citizenship, had the temerity to suggest that Thailand’s law of lèse majesté – which makes it a crime to criticize the monarchy – be repealed. On top of that, after arriving in England, on Feb. 9 he issued the “Red Siam Manifesto,” a document that denounces ultra-royalist sentiment in his homeland. The manifesto was so controversial that it was not even carried on the normally liberal Prachatai website or by any other media in Thailand.
The question being raised by the case of this outspoken academic, now fled, is: Did he lack the courage of his convictions?
Ungpakorn is being lambasted by royal loyalists, not only for his anti-monarchy manifesto and call to repeal Article 112 of Thailand’s criminal code, which codifies lèse majesté, but also for not staying here and “taking it like a man.”
Ungpakorn was scheduled to appear before the police on Monday, Feb. 9, to respond to the charges of lèse majesté. But knowing that he would face immediate imprisonment – without being officially charged – for a standard 84-day stretch while the police investigation proceeded, he instead decided to remain free.
As an academic and advocate of freedom, one cannot argue with his decision. But as an advocate of the right to speak and to act, the issue of taking responsibility for one’s speech and actions arises, especially if one expects others to follow suit.
Ungpakorn was able to get over 1,000 people to sign a petition calling for the repeal of the country’s lèse majesté law. That list is now in the possession of the Thai police and the vanguard of yellow shirts, the People’s Alliance for Democracy. Of course, nearly all “good Thais” are denouncing the list and those who signed it. These are just a few of the Thai language comments appearing on the PAD Asia Satellite TV website:
“This country is ours, not yours.”
“We love the king from our minds, not because of laws.”
“What’s wrong with the lèse majesté law? Outdated in what way? Having it puts you guys in a tough spot or what? Or did someone hire you guys to criticize this law? Some of you go abroad and think you are better than the 60 million others of us. My family loves the king. My friends love the king. All 60 million plus of us love the king. We will defend him from attack with our lives. Maybe if you who signed the petition ask for pardon, we might forgive you.”
And finally, “Bastard mix of Chinese and British. You are not Thai. We want to know if you are going to keep on speaking like you have been…”
The nationalist emotion is vivid at best, fatally dangerous at worst. The interpretation of the sentiment expressed by many, who say, “We will fight with our lives,” really means, “We will sacrifice yours to ensure that what we believe in remains as we believe it should be.”
Washington hasn’t said too much about how the Royal Thai Army has been introduced into the equation to enforce social behavior, orchestrate loyalty and guard revered institutions. Various commercial and military deals with Thailand keep the United Sates from speaking freely about the situation.
There is also a legitimate aspect to clamping down on those who pose a real threat to national security. The question is, however, where do you draw the line, and who defines it? At this moment, the Thai army does.
A real tragedy in the current situation in Thailand is that national security has been elevated above common sense and is being used by those with vested interests to attack those who would demand equality and legitimate freedom of expression.
Foreigners are once again being threatened with the traditional xenophobic harpoon, and anyone expressing opposition against Article 112 is being identified as an enemy, a non-Thai, and someone who is destroying the nation’s highest institutions and therefore undeserving of a fair hearing.
Some time ago, this writer told one of the former U.S. ambassadors to Thailand that there is a significant anti-American – actually, anti-foreigner would have been more accurate – element in Thai society. The diplomat shot back, “It’s NOT significant.”
The current brouhaha over lèse majesté illustrates otherwise, however. Professed loyalists in Thailand and a minority of Thais abroad have seized the nation’s soul in portraying themselves as protectors rather than destroyers, as loyalists rather than traitors.
In doing so, they have totally missed the advice of another Thai social critic, Sulak Sivalak, who also advocates repealing Article 112. He has said that the survival of the monarchy depends on the ability to criticize it.
The type of monarchy he was addressing – tolerant, understanding, forgiving, ready to listen to criticism – might now be considered a thing of the past with the current flurry of accusations and trials, which some have compared to the Salem witch trials that took place in the United States.
Four years ago, on Feb. 12, 2005, this writer was accused of lèse majesté by a Thai royalist who used lies, incitement, xenophobia, racial epithets, public media and a personal smear campaign in the press and on the radio, with some Thai Army assistance, to try to destroy not just my life in Thailand, but that of my Thai wife and her family.
This vicious cycle, where hatred and ignorance beget one another, is again being played out, but this time on a much more obscene scale than before.
--
(Frank G. Anderson is the Thailand representative of American Citizens Abroad. He was a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer to Thailand from 1965-67, working in community development. A freelance writer and founder of northeast Thailand's first local English language newspaper, the Korat Post – www.thekoratpost.com – he has spent over eight years in Thailand "embedded" with the local media. He has an MBA in information management and an associate degree in construction technology. ©Copyright Frank G. Anderson.)
