PAID TO LIE FOR THE JUNTA AND MONARCHY Thai diplomats usually speak for their country and almost always put the best spin they can on that representation. Nothing remarkable in that. However, it gets more interesting when diplomats have to lie for their government. At the China Post theres a perfect example of this, where Kriangsak Kittichaisaree an executive director of Thailand Trade and Economic Office in Taipei (read diplomat) complained about an AFP article. In effect he did lie duty for king and country. Kriangsak wrote to the Editor-In-Chief of the China Post to complain and lie about an AFP article “Royal slur cases skyrocket post Thai Coup: Amnesty” which quoted Amnesty International that 14 Thais indicted under the controversial Lèse-majesté law in less than four months. This is a verifiable fact, but presumably Kriangsak was told to dispute it. He stated that the report provided inaccurate information on the current political situation in Thailand”. His lies then become layered: first, he claims that Thailand supports and highly values the freedom of expression.... This is a bogus claim. The lie is made in order to make the ridiculous assertion that Lèse-majesté is just like other laws; of course, it isnt. Kriangsak has this spin: there is a certain degree of restriction in order to protect the rights or repotations [sic., he means reputations] of others as well as upholding national security and order”. The national security bit is the giveaway for there are no others considered essential for national security”. He then adds another lie: The lese-majeste law ... gives protection to the rights or reputations of the King, the Queen, the Heir-Apparent, or a Regent in a similar way libel law does for commoners”. This lie has been exposed many times. The simple response to this blatant lie is to ask how many commoners go to jail for several years for libeling other commoners? Ask how many commoners are denied their constitutional rights (when there are any) and the right to bail for libeling other commoners? Ask how many millions of people must self-censor in order to avoid jail for libeling commoners? The answers to all these questions are all close to zero. Kriangsak adds another layer of lies when he says the Lèse-majesté law is not aimed at curbing peoples right to the freedom of expression or the legitimate exercise of academic freedom including debates about the monarchy as an institution”. Of course, Lèse-majesté is meant to do all these things. Unlike libel, Lèse-majesté is made a political crime that has a chilling impact on the whole population. Kriangsaks final brush with being economical with the truth is his assertion that Amnesty International failed to acknowledge that the higher number of Lèse-majesté arrests since 22 May 2014 merely represented old cases..., and that all cases result in a fair trial”. The claim that all are old cases is false - as just one example, see Apiwan Wiriyachais case. The idea that any Lèse-majesté victim gets a fair trial would be laughable if it wasnt such a tragic event for those accused, charged and imprisoned.
Posted on: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 03:34:49 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015