- Important case
Somyot: Editor of Voice of Taksin Magazine
Defendant
Case Status
Case Started
Complainant / Plaintiff
Table of Content
Defendant Background
Somyot Preuksakasemsuk is an editor of Voice of Taksin/Red Power magazine and a prominent labour activist. He is known for his tirelessly active involvement in the work of supporting the empowerment of the workers movement and the establishment of democratic trade unionism in Thailand. He, in 2007, began to edit the "Voice of Taksin" magazine, a political publication opposed to the Abhisit Vejajiva’s government.
Somyot is also the chair of Union of Democratic Labour Alliance, the leader of 24th June democracy group. He has active role in red shirts movement in the campaign to repeal the lese majeste law.
Somyot was earlier detained in May – June 2010 under the Emergency Decree on the Public Administration in Emergency Situations for 19 days as an editor of the Voice of Taksin magazine. After he was released, he changed the name of the magazine to Red Power.
Offense
Allegation
Mr. Somyot Prueksakasemsuk is indicted as editor of Voice of Taksin magazine which published two articles deemed an offence to Penal Code’s Article 112 (lèse majesté).
Somyot was accused of committing the offence in two counts including;
Count One: Publicizing an article in Voice of Taksin No. 15 (exhibit no. J24), latter half of February 2010. The article ‘Bloody Plan, Shooting Over the Head of the Seniors” (“แผนนองเลือด ยิงข้ามรุ่น”) was published in ‘Khom Kwam Kid’ column under the byline ‘Jitra Ponchan’. In essence, it goes that the ‘insane old man’ plotted an assassination plan against Pol Lt Col Thaksin Shinawatra, former Prime Minister of Thailand. The entire clan of his is the same. They have been groomed by their master, and once they got the chance they wanted to kill their own master. They accused their master of being insane, stuffed him into a red drum and killed him cold-bloodedly.”
Count Two: Publicizing an article in Voice of Taksin No. 16 (exhibit no. J25), first half of February 2010. The article ‘The 6th October Event of 2010’ (“6 ตุลา แห่งพ.ศ. 2553”) was published in ‘Khom Kwam Kid’ column under the byline ‘Jitra Ponchan’. In essence, it goes that ‘one character “Luang Naruban of Ghost Hotel
” has been dictating Thai politics since the time Field Marshall Sarit Thanarat was Prime Minister until the 6th October 1976.’
Circumstance of Arrest
30 April 2011
Somyot was taken into the custody by the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) at the border in Aranyaprathet, in the eastern province of Sa Kaeo, as he was trying to cross into Cambodia. The DSI alleged that Mr.Somyot was attempting to escape but Mr.Somyot said that this is a part of his regular activities to raise fund supporting the 24th June Democracy group, a network of political activists, which he is a leader. When he was arrested, it was already the fourth time for him to cross Thai-Cambodia border to hold similar activities.
After the arrest, he was investigated at the DSI office and detained at the Bangkok Remand Prison.
Trial Observation
Points presented to the Court by the prosecution
1. The phrases are deemed defamatory, insulting, or threatening to the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent, or the Regent.
It was presented to the Court that the article in VoT no. 15 was an attempt to accuse HM the King of relating to the massacre of people after the Court ruled to have assets owned by Pol Lt Col Thaksin Shinawatra forfeited. The phrase that could be interpreted as a referral to HM the King includes the mentioning of the ‘clan’ that used to stuff their own master in a red drill and have him killed cruelly. The prosecutors claimed it refers to the history of Siam during the transition from Dhonburi to Rattanakosin Eras.
The article in VoT no. 16 features a character named ““Luang Naruban” of “Ghost Hotel” who has had different roles in Thailand’s political history. The phrase that could be interpreted as a referral to HM the King is the one about the law invoked to establish “Personal Property Bureau”, which the prosecutors claimed the author in fact wanted to refer to the “Crown Property Bureau”.
2. Somyot should be found guilty for being an editor and he was supposed to review the articles before getting them published.
It was presented to the Court by the prosecution that in both issues of VoT, Mr. Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, the defendant, was declared as editor. Therefore, Somyot should have checked the content of the articles prior to printing and should be held liable for the published content. As the magazine carried articles deemed defamatory, insulting, or threatening to the King, the defendant should be found guilty for violating Article 112.
Points presented to the Court by the defence
1. The articles made no mentioning of the monarchy
The articles should be read as a critique against the “Ammart System” (bureaucratic polity) with an emphasis on Gen. Prem Tinnasulanond, Privy Councilor, not HM the King. Illustrations made in the article include pictures of various people involved in the Ammart System. It would not occur to any person who read the article including the defendant that the articles were an attempt to slight HM the King.
2. The defendant was neither the author nor the owner of the publication and an editor cannot be held liable as per applicable law.
In his defence, the defendant claimed that he was not the magazine’s owner, but succeeded Mr. Prasaeng Mongkholsiri as editor, and thus was an employee of the magazine. The defendant did not write the articles indicted and was not the ‘Khom Kwam Kid’ columnist. ‘Jitra Ponchan’ was the alias used by Mr. Chakkaphob Penkhae who had been writing 12 pieces successively since before the defendant took the helm of editorship. Given the reputation of the author, the editor trusted him and respected him, and did not cut or alter any parts of his articles. In addition, the Printing Act (amended in 2007) does not hold editors responsible for content being published. It reflects the spirit of the current printing laws.
3. The defendant was accused since he was a dissident to the incumbent government
The defendant was charged simply because he was part of the opposition against the government. The arrest was made during the highly volatile political atmosphere. The defendant was known to express opinions opposite to the then government and he was accused of being part of the plan to topple the monarchy, the case of which was later dropped as the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) found there was no enough evidence to pursue it.
4. The People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), a group opposing the defendant, often claims their allegiance and loyalty to the monarchy and often invokes Article 112 to unjustly suppress their opponents. It has simply tainted the monarchy’s credibility. In addition, Article 112 carries disproportionately severe penalties and is deemed to infringe on people’s rights and liberties and an exemption should be made given that the criticisms are made with genuine interest.
Summary of trial observation
At least 22 witnesses were called to the bench by the prosecution (iLAW failed to attend certain witness examination hearings) including former staff of Voice of Taksin magazine, security officers from Internal Security Operating Command (ISOC) and the Royal Thai Army, former internees at DSI, the National Library of Thailand as registrar of magazine title, the printing house, academics and staff from Revenue Department.
Seven witnesses were covered in defence witness examination including the defendant, general public, academics on social science, law and history as well as a member of the National Human Rights Commission.
Witness examinations took place in five provinces including Srakaew, Petchaboon, Nakhon Sawan, Songkhla, and Bangkok as the prosecutors claimed the witnesses live in different provinces. In addition, Mr. Somyot has been held in custody at the Bangkok Remand Prison since 30 April 2010. Prior to each upcountry witness examination, Somyot would have been driven to different provinces in advance. Though a request for witness examinations to take place in Bangkok was submitted to the Court, it was denied. The first witness examination took place in Songkhla province as the prosecution witness claimed he found it not convenient to travel to Bangkok for the hearings.
Black Case
Court
Additional Info
11 January 2013
Amnesty International send a message to their member s all over the world to raise thier concern on Somyot Prueksakasemsuk's case. Amnesty International called their member to send letters to Thai government calling for charges against him to be dropped, and for him to be immediately released, as follow.
EDITOR AT RISK OF UNJUST SENTENCE IN THAILAND: SOMYOT PRUEKSAKASEMSUK
Reference
Constitutional Court's rulings on Somyot's and Ekachai's petitions, Prachatai English 11 Octorber 2012 ( reference on 11 April 2013)
Somyot held the press conference about the campaign to abolish lese majeste law.
The defendant filed a petition to the Constitutional Court asking the Constitutional Court to examine whether Section 112 of the Penal Code is contrary to Section 3 paragraph two and Section 20 of the Constitution or not.
The court dilivered a verdict of this case. The Court ruled that the Defendant is guilty according to Article 112 of the Criminal Code with separate acts. Each act shall be punished as one count under Article 91 of the Criminal Code. Therefore, the Defendant is hereby sentenced to imprisonment of five years per count and altogether ten years for two counts. The prison term of one year under the Decided Case No.Or 1078/2552 of the Criminal Court shall be combined resulting in the total prison term of eleven years.
The defendant submitted an appeal.
| Pol.Snr.Sgt.Maj. |
Verdict
Act 2007 has resulted in the revocation of provisions in the Press Act 1941 whereby the Press Registration Act 2007 does not hold the editor responsible for any statement published in the publication he edits. Therefore, the accused cannot be held liable for such offence. But according to the Penal Code’s Article 2 second paragraph, it provides that "If, according to the law as provided afterwards, such act is no more an offence, the person doing such act shall be relieved from being an offender…" It should mean that the accused should only be relieved from being an offender against the Press Act 1941. But for the acts of the accused which are found culpable under the Penal Code’s Article 112, they shall not be aned by the effect of the law and thus the argument of the accused was not convincing. that the author wanted the readers to understand that the person he referred to was planning to kill someone. And it could be “the bombing of the Boeing 737 of the Thai Airways that Pol Lt Col Thank was about to board to Chiang Mai”, "someone ambushed from a tree in Lopburi”, “the car bomb in Bang Plad”, "assassination plans in the United Kingdom, Cambodia and Vietnam” as well as the massacre of the students and people during the 6 October 1976 event, particularly the plan to use Mr. Sondhi Limthongkul to run a smear campaign against Pol Lt Col Thaksin, just like what has been done to Mr. Pridi Banomyong, Dr. Puay Ungphakorn, Kruba Srivajaya, Dr. Boonsanong Boonyothayan, Phra Pimiltham, etc. and the brutal crackdown and massacre of prodemocracy movements. ”, which was a fictional character, but the way it was written meant to relate to the actual events in the past. It prompted readers to think about various events and based on those events, it could hint to the readers as to who the Lord Naruban was. When viewing that the author attempted to link Lord Naruban to the events in 1948 during which it was alleged that the law was promulgated for the establishment of the Private Property Bureau, which should be known that it did not warrant a law for the establishment of the Private Property Bureau. But the author simply wanted to make the readers refer to the Crown Property Bureau, since it was the only Crown Property Bureau which has been established by the promulgation of law including the Crown Property Act, B.E. 2479 (1936), which was amended in 1941 and 1948, respectively. That the author wrote about the events in 1958 that Lord Naruban used his power through Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat “to kill the left leaning persons since he feared being dismantled” showed that Lord Naruban was the person behind the scene who held the power over Field Marshal Sarit. The author also wrote about events in 1973 that “Lord Naruban felt his lapdogs including Field Marshal Thanom Kittikachorn, Field Marshal Praphas Charusathien and Col. Narong Kittikachorn, had made too much of a fuss. Thus, Lord Naruban decided to topple them. He hid behind the rise of the people and used Gen. Krit Siwala to topple Thanom and his role in the Royal Thai Army, after which he would install his two men to form the two governments successively.” It showed that Lord Naruban had more power than Field Marshal Thanom, Field Marshal Praphas, and Col. Narong, who were viewed as the supreme leaders then. But they could not satisfy him, so he used Ge. Krit to topple them. By linking up all these events, one could understand how Lord Naruban must be the real supreme leader for a long time and was living in the same period as those characters. In addition, the author led the readers to believe that Lord Naruban was the person who pulled the string behind the formation of the government related to the event including the installation of Mr. Sanya Thammasak as the Prime Minister. Even after the elections, he held the power over the governments of Mom Rajawongse Seni Pramoj and Mom Rajawongse Kukrit Pramoj, the two former Prime Ministers. The author wrote the story to show how Lord Naruban used the rightists to kill the leftists and how he carried out the most heinous killing of the young compatriots at Lan Poh in Thammasat University. He had pulled the string behind successive governments and kept dismantling the forces of democracy power preventing it from ascending to power through the 6 October plot, the formation of the ultra-right wing nationalists, monarchists and pro-religious persons, the use of media to discredit his opponents, the triggering of events to use as a pretext for the use of violence. He hid himself behind the formation of the government and interim government in 1976 and the drafting of the Constitution to revive his power, the skillful use of his dictatorial power during 1976, the revocation of the Constitution B.E.2517 (1974) and replace it with the Constitution B.E. 2521 (1978) and then the installation of the Prem government which dominated Thai politics for another decade, all of which are unfounded information. Act 2007 has resulted in the revocation of the Press 1941, and as a result, it has waived the editor form being held responsible, but the Court deems that the acts of the accused have been committed as an offence against the King, and it was not his liability as an editor.