1 week Ago
The royal defamation lawsuit against American academic Paul Chambers -- who initially had his bail requests denied twice -- has dealt a fresh blow to Thailand's already tarnished human rights record. Dr Chambers, a special adviser on international affairs at Phitsanulok-based Naresuan University, reported to police at Muang Station on April 8 to acknowledge a complaint filed by the Third Region Army. The complaint centred on promotional content for a webinar held last October, which was allegedly insulting to the monarch and in violation of the Computer Crime Act.
The academic, who could face up to 15 years in prison, has firmly denied any involvement in producing the content. After he reported to police, he was sent to court, which twice refused to grant him bail before finally releasing him yesterday on a 600,000-baht surety. The harsh move has alarmed the US government and human rights advocacy groups, who view the lawsuit as a serious threat to academic freedom and free speech in Thailand.
The prosecution comes at an especially inopportune moment: the Thai government has recently faced condemnation over the deportation of Uyghurs -- a move that has severely damaged its international image on human rights. Now, there are growing concerns that the Chambers case may negatively impact tariff negotiations with Washington. As with other Section 112 cases, the lawsuit has been marked by irregularities -- including the denial of bail and the severity of the charges.
In Dr Chambers' case, authorities issued an arrest warrant without a prior summons and later searched both his residence and his office at Naresuan University. To make matters worse, the Immigration Bureau revoked Dr Chambers' visa, despite the fact that he is married to a Thai academic and has lived in Thailand since 1993. A number of academics and public critics have expressed deep concern over the severity of the state's response -- a level of repression that is jarring for an elected government that regularly claims to champion democratic values.
The intensifying use of Section 112 was previously observed under former PM Prayut Chan-o-cha's administration in late 2020. Respected academic Surachart Bamrungsuk voiced his concern over the Dr Chambers lawsuit in an interview with Thai media yesterday, calling the case "extremely sensitive". He warned that it is no exaggeration to say the ham-fisted application of Section 112 ultimately causes more harm to the very institution it was designed to protect.
The "Paul Chambers effect" is also a stark reminder that about 30 Thais remain behind bars due to the same legislation. Many of them, too, have had their bail requests denied. Netiporn "Boong" Saneysangkhom died in May last year while being detained -- her death stemming from complications related to a hunger strike she undertook in a failed attempt to secure bail for those facing royal insult charges.
Her untimely death remains shrouded in mystery. There is also the case of Yuthapoom Mardnok, who was only acquitted after spending nearly a year in prison in 2013. These inconsistencies in how the courts handle Section 112 cases have reignited calls for justice reform.
Critics argue that in many instances, the penalties are grossly disproportionate to the alleged offences. The judiciary should, at the very least, reconsider its approach to granting bail -- a fundamental right to which all defendants are entitled..
