Standing up for human rights in Thailand
Chiranuch Premchaiporn faces a jail-term of up to 50 years prison for “defaming, insulting, or threatening” Thailand’s royal family under the country’s ultra-strict “lese-majeste” laws.
She is a quiet, unprepossessing person, with a sensible haircut and a tranquil manner. Certainly, there seems little of the “dangerous radical” about her. When Chiranuch Premchaiporn turned up on the steps of Bangkok’s central criminal court this morning, nobody seemed to notice her in fact.
Yet Ms Chiranuch (say Cheer-a-nook) is the sole participant in a hugely significant trial. She faces a jail-term of up to 50 years prison for “defaming, insulting, or threatening” Thailand’s royal family under the country’s ultra-strict “lese-majeste” laws.
These laws were designed to “protect” the reputation of the Thai royals – but the way they have been used over the last few years has earned Thailand a voluminous foghorn of criticism from human rights campaigners. The rules are poorly defined – there are no concrete examples of what actually constitutes “lese-majeste” – and more worryingly, say critics, anyone – in any country – can file a complaint with Thai police.
According to Benjamin Zawacki, from Amnesty International, once a person is charged, the chances of acquittal are slim. “The conviction rate is well over 90 per cent, so once you are accused, it is virtually as if you are guilty until you are proven innocent.”
The overall effect of the law, argue campaigners, is to silence criticism and restrict freedom of speech in Thailand. The majority of those who have been charged – and there are about 500 cases of lese-majeste a year – tend to make confessions quickly in the hope that the king will offer a royal pardon.
The case of Ms Chiranuch (above) is different in two important respects however. First, she won’t apply for a pardon. “This is a quick solution for those who want that option, but I don’t think that is the right way to resolve the issue.” Instead, she’s been fighting this case since 2009. We gathered this morning at the criminal court to hear the final verdict – but it postponed the decision until the end of the month (30 May). The judge said she hadn’t had time to go through all the documentation.
You may be surprised by the other distinctive feature of Ms Chiranuch’s case. She didn’t actually write anything.
Ms Chiranuch works as an online journalist for the popular news website Pracithai. The colossal jail term she may have to serve stems from a number of comments that other, anonymous people posted on the website’s online forum. As the site’s message board manager, Ms Chiranuch has been accused of not removing them quickly enough.
If she is convicted, the case will set a worrying precedent. Individuals may find themselves being sued for not “stopping” insults against the royal family. People who post a link to an article – or “like” something on Facebook – that criticises the king may find themselves liable under Thai law to a lese-majeste offence. In this way, her conviction would represent a considerable narrowing of an individual’s right to express opinions and/or criticisms about state institutions like the monarchy in Thailand.
No doubt this is the reason why her case has attracted widespread international concern – but Ms Chiranuch seems to be bearing up. I spoke to her as she bit into a muffin this morning – “could be my last meal as a free woman,” she said with a smile. For this unlikely, mild-mannered human rights champion in the making, fighting for the principle of the thing is worth the weighty risk of spending the rest of her life behind bars.
Follow John Sparks on Twitter