Nyheter fra Thailand - levert av Prachatai
My RSS Feed
- Parliament passes new crown property billParliament passes new crown property billeng editor 1
The House of Representatives on Wednesday (28 May) passed in three consecutive readings the new Crown Property bill, which renames the Crown Property Bureau as the “Privy Purse Bureau,” and to transfer the related offices in the Bureau of the Royal Household to the renamed Office.
The bill states that the objective of the name change is to maintain a connection with ancient tradition because the Privy Purse is the organization originally responsible for handling the King’s property before it was replaced by the Crown Property Bureau.
According to the consultation report, no public consultation was conducted because the bill “does not affect the public.” Only the Office of the Prime Minister was consulted.
The bill was proposed by the Cabinet, which requested that the House pass three readings in the same session by appointing the entire House as an ad-hoc committee. People’s Party leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut objected to the process, saying that the bill should go through the normal legislative process because a bill relating to the monarchy should be considered thoroughly and parliament must be careful not to cause doubt among the people.
Natthaphong did not object to the bill itself, however. He said that the structural changes were already completed in previous amendments, and that there is no objection to the name change.
Royal property was previously separated under the 1936 Crown Property Act into three categories: the King’s private property, public property, and crown property. In 2017 and 2018, the Act was amended to combine the three categories into ‘crown property,’ to be administered at the King’s pleasure.
The Democracy Restoration Group (DRG), a group of pro-democracy activists, released a statement following the vote, saying that they oppose the bill because the Privy Purse Bureau is a name used during the absolute monarchy and does not reflect the fact that the people hold sovereign power. They also said that they objected because no public consultation was conducted, and because the bill is a result of the 2014 military coup.
DRG said in the statement that the monarch is a state institution as the head of state. The use of royal property is therefore tied to the public and national budget, and the monarchy’s spending should be transparent. The House of Representatives should be checking such spending, said the statement, not giving the monarchy more power.
On Thursday (29 May), the Senate also passed three consecutive readings of the bill. It is now awaiting royal assent.
The Privy Purse Bureau was originally founded by King Chulalongkorn, who reigned from 1868 – 1910, to handle his private property. Originally a department in the Ministry of Finance, it became a bureau under the control of the Prime Minister after the 1932 Siamese Revolution, which marked the change from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy.
In 1936, the Crown Property Act was enacted, aiming to separate crown property from the King’s private property. Following an amendment to the Act in 1948, the Privy Purse Bureau was replaced by the Crown Property Bureau.
30 May 30 202511417 at http://prachataienglish.com - “Resigned Activism”: Over Three Decades of Pak Mun Villagers’ Struggle for Compensation“Resigned Activism”: Over Three Decades of Pak Mun Villagers’ Struggle for Compensationeng editor 1
Major demands for justice or political change in the world often begin with loud protests, large crowds, and open expression. The initial movement of the Pak Mun villagers followed this same pattern. However, over more than three decades, the nature of their struggle has significantly evolved.
In the past decade, the movement of the Pak Mun villagers has no longer involved sudden uprisings like those during the early years after the dam was built and put into operation. Rather, it has become a slow form of civil disobedience—through continued existence, adaptation, and insistence on their way of life under oppressive power structures.
Pak Mun Dam with its gates open (Photo by Kanokwan Manorom)
This form of movement reflects the power of “enduring silence.”
It is nonviolent resistance that is deep-rooted, protracted, and powerful. This method of resistance can be described as a response to the “slow violence” inflicted by the Pak Mun Dam. Its impacts did not appear suddenly but have seeped in and accumulated over time.It has quietly and continuously affected the lives, resources, and security of local people for decades.
In recent years, the author has observed that the negotiation efforts of the Pak Mun villagers have become more quiet yet resolute. They show flexibility on certain issues while steadfastly holding on to core principles. They primarily rely on academic and scientific information as tools to advance their demands.
Their efforts are no longer limited to opposing the closing of the dam gates. They also demand sustainable remedies for their long-term livelihoods, such as land compensation. This is more than just physical property—it is a symbol of the community’s food sovereignty and cultural identity.
Pak Mun villagers (Assembly of the Poor) rallying on 24 August 2024 to demand the Electricity Authority open the Pak Mun Dam gates in accordance with the provincial committee’s order. (Photo by Kanokwan Manorom)
The form of struggle displayed by these villagers recalls the concept developed by Anna Lora-Wainwright, an environmental anthropologist from the University of Oxford. She developed the concept of “resigned activism" through her study of Chinese communities living with long-term pollution.
Lora-Wainwright describes the struggles of Chinese people within contexts of limited power. Where there are no clear options to change oppressive structures such as an unresponsive state or environmentally damaging corporations. Even with fading hope for change, people continue to resist quietly, through petitioning, negotiation, or informal forms of expression. All of this constitutes a struggle for rights and dignity in everyday life.
A resigned yet persistent protest by the Assembly of the Poor on 24 August 2024 demanding that the Electricity Authority open the Pak Mun Dam gates (Photo by Kanokwan Manorom)
The author had the opportunity to join a subcommittee meeting investigating the impacts on fisheries livelihoods and criteria for compensation for those affected by the Pak Mun Dam, organized by the Assembly of the Poor in May 2025.Having followed the villagers’ movement for over 20 years, it is clear that the Pak Mun case reflects a form of “resigned activism.”
Although their voices may have softened at times, the resistance has remained strong. Hundreds, even thousands, of families continue to demand river restoration, land compensation, and live along the Mun River, even though the ecosystem has drastically changed.
A symbolic banner by the Assembly of the Poor calling for the dam gates to be opened to restore the ecosystem and compensate for the impacts, 24 August 2024 (Photo by Kanokwan Manorom)
Pak Mun women, especially, clearly demonstrate “resigned activism.”
They do not appear as conventional activists but play crucial roles as mothers, wives, daughters, or cooks during protests. Many use silence, politeness, and caregiving as tools to negotiate with the state. They do not demand power but create power through roles often perceived as “weak,” turning care into strength the state cannot ignore. Participating in state forums—despite bureaucratic language or repeated petition rejections—is a way to affirm their presence in the system. Even if the system does not listen, these actions say: “My life has value” and “My story is not over.”
Mun River rapids revealed as the river levels dropped when the Pak Mun Dam was opened in 2024.
(Photo by Kanokwan Manorom)The idea of “resigned activism” does not reject policy change but emphasizes that true transformation begins with listening, seeing, and accepting that not everyone has an equal voice.
Some resist by staying; others by teaching their children to believe in the river.
Some resist by telling stories to younger generations, and some resist by never forgetting how the dam changed their lives. Ultimately, the “resigned activism” of Pak Mun villagers tells us that justice does not always come from sweeping reforms.
Sometimes it begins by listening to long-ignored quiet voices and realizing that even without much power, “not forgetting,” “remaining,” and “passing on hope” are deeply transformative acts.
For Pak Mun villagers, monetary compensation alone cannot truly address the loss caused by the dam, particularly when it directly affected the river’s ecosystem—the main source of food and income for households.
After the dam’s closure, fishing—a central daily activity—declined drastically, causing the community to lose both an essential protein source and income from selling fish.
Fish, once the lifeblood of household economies, vanished with nothing to fully replace them. Thus, villagers call for land-based compensation that can be used for farming and to restore their former way of life.
30 May 30 202511416 at http://prachataienglish.com - Attorney General drops royal defamation charge against US academic Paul ChambersAttorney General drops royal defamation charge against US academic Paul Chamberseng editor 3
Updated on 30 May
The Thai Attorney General has dropped a royal defamation charge against US academic Dr Paul Chambers, who was charged over a blurb on the ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute’s website promoting a webinar. However, despite this, the charge has already jeopardised his work as a lecturer at Naresuan University, with his employment now terminated.
According to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, the Attorney General on Thursday (29 May) concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Dr Chambers was responsible for posting the blurb or writing the article.
The website in question is hosted and operated outside the country. At the time the blurb was published, Dr Chambers had not participated in the seminar, as indicated in the blurb.
His name and image in the blurb alone were not sufficient to conclude that he created or published it. As such, the Attorney General dropped both charges under the royal defamation law (Section 112) and the Computer Crime Act.
Chambers was charged with royal defamation and violation of the Computer Crimes Act after a complaint was filed against him over a blurb on the ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute’s website promoting a webinar, which Chambers said he did not write or publish because he is not an admin for the site.
The complaint against Dr Chambers was filed by Maj Gen Chaidaen Kritsanasuwan, Deputy Director of ISOC Region 3, on behalf of the Director.
Chambers reported to the police at Muang Phitsanulok Police Station on 8 April after learning that an arrest warrant had been issued for him. He was subsequently denied bail and had his visa revoked. He was detained for a night before being released on provisional bail.
Public Prosecutor Region 6’s Director General on 1 May decided not to indict US academic Dr Paul Chambers on charges of royal defamation and violation of the Computer Crimes Act. However, the case was subsequently forwarded to the Attorney General for a final decision due to contradictory opinions between the public prosecutor and Police Region 6.
It was reported that the University terminated Chambers’ employment as a university lecturer, effective 9 April – the same day Dr Chambers’s visa was revoked.
Dr Chambers later appealed the university’s decision, arguing that a university employee may only be dismissed for clear reasons with solid evidence, such as lacking required qualifications or committing a disciplinary offence. In addition, he had no chance to challenge his dismissal or clarify the circumstances.
Even though the criminal case is now concluded, its consequences linger. Dr Chambers was detained for one day and was required to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet for 21 days. Most significantly, he lost his job at the University.
It is not clear whether the revocation of his visa has been cancelled. If not, he will not be allowed to stay in the country.
Several news outlets reported that Dr Chambers left the country immediately after the ruling. An appeal of the revocation of Chambers’ Thai visa, and another contesting his firing by Naresuan University are still pending.
An American political scientist, Chambers’ research focuses on civil-military relations in Southeast Asia, particularly the role and influence of the military in Thailand. He has also written on the relationship between the military and the monarchy. He now serves as a lecturer at the Center of ASEAN Community Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Naresuan University. His notable works include “Praetorian Kingdom: A History of Military Ascendancy in Thailand” and “Khaki Capital: The Political Economy of the Military in Southeast Asia”.
29 May 29 202511415 at http://prachataienglish.com - Cartoon by Stephff: Thaksin flu29 May 29 202511414 at http://prachataienglish.com
- Court urged to remove Anon’s leg shackles during trialCourt urged to remove Anon’s leg shackles during trialeng editor 3
Thai historian Thongchai Winichakul joined with representatives from the Cross Cultural Foundation and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights to submit a petition to the Criminal Court requesting the removal of leg shackles from detained human rights lawyer Anon Nampa during his royal defamation trial. The petition argues that the shackles violate Anon’s human dignity.
The petition, filed on Wednesday (28 May), was submitted after Anon Nampa was seen with both legs shackled while being transferred from the Bangkok Remand Prison to the Ratchada Criminal Court to attend his royal defamation trial.
According to Thongchai, requiring detainees to wear a prison uniform or shackles during trial is a violation of human rights and dignity which contradicts the principle of presumed innocence.
In his statement, Thongchai stressed that the inappropriate use of shackles is an often-overlooked issue in the justice system and the Department of Corrections.
He noted that the 2017 Corrections Act stipulates that shackles only be used with high-risk prisoners or those who have attempted escape in the past, not detainees like Anon, a prominent figure in the international community who has been widely and repeatedly recognised for his work to protect human rights. His royal defamation cases have drawn global attention and Thongchai argues that images of him shackled in court undermine the credibility of Thailand’s judicial system.
The petition, filed to address Anon’s case, urges the Court to hold an inquiry with the officers responsible for Anon’s custody to consider whether the use of leg shackles is truly necessary. Although such petitions must be submitted on a case-by-case basis, Thongchai hopes that it will provide a standard legal procedure that can be used to help other detainees.
“If the call for Anon in this case is successful, it would return the practice to what it should be and prohibit the widespread use of shackles. If they are to be used, an inquiry must be conducted to justify an exception. Exceptions would remain exceptions and the general rule would respect and adhere to the spirit of the law as it should,” noted Thongchai.
Anon has been held in detention since 26 September 2023 for seven royal defamation convictions. The hearing on 28 May was his eighth and the Court sentenced him to an additional two years in prison. He now faces a cumulative prison sentence of 22 years, 25 months, and 20 days.
29 May 29 202511413 at http://prachataienglish.com - Anon Nampa now facing over 24 years in prison for royal defamationAnon Nampa now facing over 24 years in prison for royal defamationeng editor 3
Human rights lawyer Anon Nampa has been sentenced to two years in prison for royal defamation related to a speech he delivered during a 2020 protest. He is currently facing a total of 24 years for royal defamation.
The case stemmed from a speech he delivered at Bang Khen Police Station on 21 December 2020, which was held to show support for seven activists, including Anon, who had reported to the police regarding a protest on 29 November 2020.
In this case, three activists were charged with royal defamation: Anon Nampa, Parit Chiwarak, and Shinawat Chankrajang. The four others were charged under the Public Assembly Act.
In his speech, Anon called for royal reform, pointing out that the King was infringing the law by transferring the royal properties to himself and transferring army units to the direct command of the crown.
The human rights lawyer denied the royal defamation allegation, arguing that he was exercising freedom of expression. He intended to convey that the King did not adhere to the principle of "the King can do no wrong," and the expansion of royal powers did not align with democratic principles.
Anon also reiterated that his speech was constructive criticism, suggesting the monarchy adapt in this modern world where public reverence is the challenge facing the monarchy.
The Court on Wednesday (28 May) sentenced Anon to two years in prison. The court ordered that the courtroom proceedings not be disclosed to the public.
This is the eighth royal defamation verdict delivered against Anon, who has now been held in detention pending appeal since 26 September 2023. He now faces a cumulative prison sentence of 22 years, 25 months, and 20 days.
29 May 29 202511412 at http://prachataienglish.com - Thai court clarifies its ruling in former PM Yingluck’s rice pledging schemeThai court clarifies its ruling in former PM Yingluck’s rice pledging schemeeng editor 3
The Administrative Court has clarified its judgement over former Prime Minister Yingluck’s rice pledging scheme and explained why her liability was limited to 10 billion baht, instead of the 35 billion baht sought by the Finance Ministry.
The Administrative Court Office issued a statement on Monday (26 May) explaining that the Court did not have jurisdiction to order Yingluck to pay damages. The case is considered a dispute concerning an unlawful order by a state agency or a state official. In such cases, a state agency may issue an administrative order against a state official whose unlawful actions cause damage to the state, without the need to bring the case before a court. The Administrative Court’s role is solely to determine whether such an order is lawful or not.
The 2016 Finance Ministry ordered the former PM to pay 35 billion baht for alleged corruption in the rice pledging scheme. However, Yingluck filed a complaint against the Ministry with the Administrative Court seeking to annul the Ministry’s claim for damages of 35 billion baht on the grounds that the order was unlawful.
Although the Finance Ministry’s order remains in effect, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the disputed order was partially unlawful and consequently annulled the portion of order requiring the former PM to pay compensation more than 10 billion baht in compensation related to four fake government-to-government (G2G) rice export agreements, which were found to have caused around 20 billion baht damage to the state’s finances.
It was concluded that she was liable for only 10 billion baht, half of the total damage. The Supreme Administrative Court deliberated this case on 12 September 2023.
Meanwhile, incumbent Finance Minister Pichai Chunhavajira revealed on Tuesday (27 May) that the Ministry will discuss the case with the legal team before proceeding.
Yingluck has been in exile since 2017. However, many have recently predicted her return to Thailand after her brother, former PM Thaksin Shinawatra, returned home in August 2023 after over 15 years in self-exile, and despite being found guilty, he has not served any time in prison.
When asked whether the case would be a stumbling block to Yingluck’s return to Thailand, her brother, former PM Thaksin Shinawatra, said on Tuesday (27 May) “Let’s wait until everything settles down. Someone is stirring up a storm right now, but it will soon pass. I do not know who is stirring up the storm. It’s blowing but it will all be over soon. It’s nothing”.
27 May 27 202511411 at http://prachataienglish.com - Lawyers Council launches probe into alleged torture of Myanmar nationalLawyers Council launches probe into alleged torture of Myanmar nationaleng editor 1
The Lawyers Council of Thailand under the Royal Patronage formally established a working group of lawyers to investigate the torture and killing of Aung Ko Ko, a 37-year-old Myanmar national, Fortify Rights said on 23 May. The move follows a public complaint submitted by Fortify Rights detailing evidence of torture by Thai soldiers near the Thailand-Myanmar border.
“There is reason to be concerned about a high-level cover-up in this case, and the Lawyers Council may be the only hope for justice,” said Matthew Smith, Chief Executive Officer at Fortify Rights. “This is a critical test of the rule of law in Thailand—whether it applies equally to all, regardless of rank, uniform, or nationality, when serious crimes are committed.”
On 13 February 2025, Fortify Rights filed a detailed complaint with the President of the Lawyers Council of Thailand, Wichien Chubthaisong, providing evidence that Thai soldiers fatally tortured Aung Ko Ko in Mae Sot District, Tak Province. At a public hearing at the Lawyers Council, attended by the media and members of the diplomatic community, Fortify Rights also raised concerns over the conviction of Sirachuch, a 24-year-old Myanmar national and eyewitness to the torture. He goes by one name and remains imprisoned in Thailand for the death of Aung Ko Ko.
On 7 November 2024, Fortify Rights Chief Executive Officer Matthew Smith provided in-person testimony about the fatal torture of Aung Ko Ko to Thailand’s Department of Special Investigations (DSI) in Bangkok and filed a complaint based on evidence collected by Fortify Rights. DSI is a law enforcement agency under the Ministry of Justice that handles complex and high-profile crimes, including corruption and alleged human rights violations by state security forces. At that meeting, Fortify Rights provided DSI with the evidence it had gathered on the death of Aung Ko Ko, including a forthcoming report in the Thai language.Regrettably, on 18 February 2025, DSI informed Fortify Rights in a letter that it would cease any investigation into the torture and death of Aung Ko Ko. DSI did not provide a detailed explanation of why it elected to effectively ignore this case. On 8 May 2025, Fortify Rights sent a follow-up letter to DSI seeking clarification and reconsideration of its decision not to investigate the fatal torture of Aung Ko Ko.
Last month, on 8 April, the U.N. publicly released a joint communication from three U.N. Special Rapporteurs to the Thai government expressing grave concern over Aung Ko Ko’s torture and death. The Special Rapporteurs — on Myanmar, extrajudicial executions, and torture — called on the Thai government to conduct an independent, impartial, and thorough investigation and emphasized the urgency of protecting Myanmar nationals at risk of violence by Thai security forces.
In their communication, the three U.N. Special Rapporteurs wrote that they “are extremely concerned about the alleged arbitrary deprivation of liberty, torture and killing of Aung Ko Ko by Royal Thai Army soldiers.” They added:
We are also concerned that the investigation into Aung Ko Ko’s torture and death does not appear to be thorough, effective or in line with international standards, and are concerned about possible violations of fair trial rights, leading to the ongoing lack of accountability for Royal Thai Army soldiers involved in his death.
On 20 May 2025, Fortify Rights received confirmation from the U.N. Special Rapporteurs that they had received a response from the Permanent Mission of Thailand in Geneva acknowledging receipt of the joint communication and confirming that it had been forwarded to relevant agencies in Thailand for their consideration in March 2025. However, at the time of writing, there has been no further update or response indicating any action or progress from the Thai government.
Death at the Thai-Myanmar Border, a 44-page report released by Fortify Rights on 14 November 2024, includes multiple eyewitness testimonies explaining how, on 12 January 2024, four Thai soldiers detained Aung Ko Ko near a small wooden bridge located in the 70 Rai area. Eyewitnesses described how three of these soldiers severely beat Aung Ko Ko with a long wooden implement, causing injuries that killed him on the same day. Photographs and testimony collected by Fortify Rights show dark bruises on his entire back, forehead, around both cheekbones, and on his nose. Despite clear indications of torture and military involvement—also noted in police charge sheets and court testimonies documented by Fortify Rights—no Thai soldiers have been held accountable.On 21 May 2025, Fortify Rights received confirmation from the Lawyers Council that its Human Rights Committee had officially appointed a working group of five lawyers on 7 May to investigate the case, gather evidence, and explore legal avenues for justice. The Lawyers Council did not mention providing legal assistance to Sirachuch, whose case is under appeal.
The right to be free from torture is non-derogable under international law, meaning that it cannot be suspended or limited under any circumstances. Thailand’s domestic law—including the Thai Constitution, the Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act, the Criminal Code, and the Criminal Procedure Code—also guarantees the right to life and protection from extrajudicial killings as well as protection from torture and arbitrary arrest.
“As a sitting member of the U.N. Human Rights Council, Thailand has the opportunity and obligation to uphold the highest human rights standards,” said Matthew Smith. “Despite having anti-torture legislation on its books for more than two years now, Thailand is denying justice to Aung Ko Ko and his family. We’re hopeful the authorities will change course and ensure justice, accountability, and the rule of law.”
27 May 27 202511410 at http://prachataienglish.com - Appeal Court finds 32-year-old man guilty of royal defamation for throwing paint at King’s portraitAppeal Court finds 32-year-old man guilty of royal defamation for throwing paint at King’s portraiteng editor 3
The Appeal Court has overturned a lower court ruling and found a 32-year-old man guilty of royal defamation for throwing paint at a portrait of King Vajiralongkorn at an expressway entrance in Nonthaburi’s Pak Kret District.
Somphon, a former private company employee, was charged with royal defamation, destruction of public property, and violation of the Public Cleanliness Act for throwing red paint at a portrait of King Vajiralongkorn at an expressway entrance. The Nonthaburi Provincial Court had dismissed a royal defamation case against him on the grounds that he did not say anything or act in any way that is defamatory or a threat against the King. He was found guilty of destruction of public property and sentenced to 8 months in prison.
Thai Lawyers for Human Rights reported that on Friday 23 May, the Appeal Court ruled to overturn the Nonthaburi Provincial Court’s dismissal of the royal defamation case against Somphon. He was also found guilty under the Computer Crime Act for sending a photo of himself throwing paint at the portrait of King Vajiralongkorn to others via a social media application. The Appeal Court concluded that he intentionally undermined the King’s reputation.
Somphon was sentenced to 3 years for royal defamation and 3 years for violation of the Computer Crime Act. However, due to his helpful testimony, the term was reduced to 4 years in prison. The Appeal Court also dropped the charge related to the destruction of public property.
Somphon is facing charges in 5 cases in which he is accused of throwing paint at portraits of the King and one of spray-painting. The Courts of First Instance initially dismissed the royal defamation charge in all cases but sentenced him to prison for destruction of public property.
However, there are now 4 cases in which the Appeal Court has ruled to overturn the initial verdict and found him guilty of royal defamation. Somphon is now facing 15 years and 18 months imprisonment.
23 May 23 202511409 at http://prachataienglish.com - Cartoon by Stephff: The useful ghosts23 May 23 202511408 at http://prachataienglish.com
