
The Thai cleaning lady facing prison for 'I see' - cronjobber
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36328865
======
kristianc
I was in Thailand in December, and the political situation there is really not
great at the moment.

The 90-year old King, whom Thais regard on the whole with a great deal of
respect, is dying. He is in hospital for much of the time, there are rumours
that he now barely speaks, and he is hardly seen in public at all anymore. The
military is nervous about what happens when the King dies, as his son is not
held in anywhere near the same high level of esteem with the public. The
King's popularity stems from being seen as a 'unifying force' through many of
Thailand's political crises. Fearing a constitutional crisis when he dies,
they're now clamping down heavily on any dissent.

Which makes the atmosphere on the street a little strange. I was there on the
King's birthday in December, and the whole country (people included) were
decked out in yellow, the King's colour. There are icons of the King every 300
yards or so in central Bangkok (less so out in CM). While I was there someone
was sentenced to several years in prison for a Facebook post about the King's
dog. The laws re: insulting the monarchy have been around for a while, but are
now being much more widely applied and strictly enforced.

It's very very hard to work out if the public affection for the King is for
real, and no Thai will speak openly about their feelings. I spoke to a taxi
driver on the way out of the country and said I'd been in the country for the
King's birthday. His response: 'Yes.'

I left the country fascinated by the experience of a population living under
authoritarian military rule, but really hope that for everyone's sake Thailand
is able to resolve its difficulties and get back to regular elections soon.

~~~
dave2000
> I left the country fascinated by the experience of a > population living
> under authoritarian military rule,

It's not as simple as that. They are a democracy, with regular elections.
They're just punctuated with military coups. There'll be tanks in the street
and the military will have to, after a few days, try and stop people from
dancing on/near the tanks. There'll be as many people in favour of the coup as
against it. The military situation has nothing to do with the respect for the
king; the coups don't happen without the king's blessing. Absent the monarchy
in Thailand I don't think the situation regarding democracy would be any
different at all.

~~~
kelnos
> They are a democracy, with regular elections.

That's almost laughable. The country has been under martial law for two years,
with its constitution revoked. If the article is to be believed, the military
prohibits campaigning against pieces of "legislation" they want passed -- like
the new constitution, which basically just confirms military rule as law. A
country with harsh (and enforced) laws on the book prohibiting criticizing the
head of state... yeah, not a democracy.

~~~
dreamfactory2
> the military prohibits campaigning against pieces of "legislation" they want
> passed -- like the new constitution

They prohibit campaigning either for or against

~~~
kelnos
Sure, except that the military "nudges" people toward voting in the direction
they want.

Regardless, even if they didn't, your argument is in no way in support of the
idea that they have a democracy. A democracy requires public discourse in
order to be healthy.

------
kingkawn
I was in Thailand in 2012, spent a day in Bangkok hanging out with my former
office assistant who had returned there to take care of family. While walking
through the park there was sudden music playing from the loud speakers.
Everyone stopped and stood perfectly still. My friend had gone into a public
bathroom and rushed back out to make sure I was standing as well. There was an
announcement from the king that lasted a few minutes. After it ended everyone
resumed their walking, sitting on the grass, and exercise routines. I found it
hard to imagine political intrusions like this in daily life, although it
seemed akin to being at a sports event that had obligatory random national
anthems in the middle of a game. Anyway it seemed indicative of a larger
political climate of intrusion, but it sounds as though it's gotten
exponentially worse.

~~~
dreamfactory2
this tradition happens twice a day - [http://tastythailand.com/standing-still-
for-thailands-nation...](http://tastythailand.com/standing-still-for-
thailands-national-anthem-every-day/)

------
curiousgal
There's an Arabic saying that goes

لا تسأل الطغاة لماذا طغوا , بل اسأل العبيد لماذا ركعوا

Do not ask the tyrants why they tyrannised, but ask the slaves why they knelt.

~~~
JadeNB
Maybe I'm misreading you, but this seems disrespectful—to victims of tyrants
in general, and to the victim of this possible prison sentence in
particular—and I can't see what it adds to the discussion.

~~~
Dove
You can't be made a slave without your permission. You can be made a fugitive,
a prisoner, or dead... but you can't be made a slave.

~~~
jandrese
It seems pretty dickish to blame the slave because they could have chosen to
be killed instead. That's the kind of justification tyrants tell to themselves
in those rare instances where their concious tingles. "It's their fault for
being oppressed, they are a bunch of weak sheep, if they were real men they
would have chosen to be tortured to death instead."

------
wueiued
German comedian faces prison for mocking Turkish leader [1]

In Canada men went to jail for disagreeing with feminist. He was latter
released on bail, but could not use computer and electronic devices for 4
years. Father of five is graphic designer...[2]

[1]
[http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/ger...](http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/german-
erdogan-insult-case/478437/)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott)

~~~
drdeca
I believe that the way you phrased that second thing is potentially
misleading.

Not being allowed to use twitter or "have a smartphone or use a computer with
Internet access" (direct quote from wikipedia because I'm not sure whether the
internet access part applies to the smartphone part.) was part of the bail.
The 4 years were between the time which he was charged (Nov 2012) , and the
time that all charges were dismissed (Jan 2016. So, really, closer to 3 years,
but that difference doesn't matter all that much).

I believe that someone who did not read what you linked might assume that you
meant that it was part of a sentencing for something he was charged with, as
opposed to part of the bail.

Indeed, I initially misunderstood your comment in that way.

So, I would like to clarify this potential confusion for anyone else reading
your comment, and also let you know that people may be lead to make inaccurate
assumptions if you phrase things like that.

In addition, I think your phrase "for disagreeing with feminist" is probably
suboptimal / unclear. It is true of course that the things that happened to
him were a result of things he said to and about the person(s) in question,
but that isn't how a typical person would understand "went to jail for
disagreeing with an <X>".

I believe that a typical native English speaker would typically interpret
"They were sent to jail for disagreeing with a <X>." to mean that the person
was jailed for the opinion that they held or expressed, not for the way they
allegedly expressed their disagreement with the <X> in question.

Am I saying that what happened to the person was right? No, that's not what
I'm saying.

I'm only saying that I think that the way you said the things, while perhaps
technically true in a sense, has a high risk of people misinterpreting it as
saying something that is not true.

~~~
wueiued
What is inaccurate? He was in jail and he could not use computer for couple of
years. Whatever he was found guilty is just technicality. The damage was done:

> _Elliott was released on bail on the condition that he did not tweet or
> access Twitter, have a smartphone or use a computer with Internet access._

> _when it was discovered that the tweets were actually made by an account
> impersonating Elliott._

... and it took 3.3 years to discover that.

Anyway I find your tone threatens my opinion. Please send me your name and
address...

~~~
drdeca
I did not say that you said anything inaccurate. (Well, the unimportant 4 vs
3, but that is unimportant.)

I said that the way you said some of it was prone to being misinterpreted as
meaning some other things which are not accurate.

Now, perhaps my initial misunderstanding was just due to me being
exceptionally stupid, but I think that there is a fairly high chance of
misinterpreting the things in question.

As such, I thought it would useful for it to be expressed in way which would
be less prone to misinterpretation, because you don't want people thinking you
mean something other than what you do mean, especially when what you mean is
true, and the misunderstanding of what you mean is false.

I'm under the impression that he was forbidden from using a computer connected
to the internet, not from using a computer in general, but I only read the
Wikipedia article, so I could be wrong about that. ( Also, that distinction
might not be very important.)

Indeed, that he was found not guilty does not reduce the harms he suffered.

But, as far as what is indicated about the legal system, I think it IS
relevant. I don't know much anything about Canadian law, but I would figure
that the purpose of the forbidding is rather different than what it would be
it it were part of sentencing. Was it not meant by the authorities as a
(rather too extreme) means to prevent more of what they suspected might be
harm, until they could determine whether what was being done constituted harm?
Or something like that?

Again, this of course does not make things better for the person. But as for
the implications about what the law is, I think it is extremely relevant.

Regarding the impersonator, uh, I thought the things said by the impersonator
only came up near the end of the case. Did I misunderstand this?

I thought it was kind of an addendum?

> Anyway I find your tone threatens my opinion. Please send me your name and
> address...

Haha, very funny.

___

Has any of what I said been false or unclear?

~~~
wueiued
> _Has any of what I said been false or unclear?_

Not really.

> _especially when what you mean is true, and the misunderstanding of what you
> mean is false_

He was punished for disagreeing. Jail, lost job, a few years without a
computer and money spend on defense. Guilt is irrelevant if trial takes years
and does not postpone punishment.

Computer without internet is useless today. Would you employ graphic designer
who can not use computer connected to internet?

Also guilt is irrelevant, if false accuse is left unpunished. His accusers
should be forbidden to use internet, and should go to prison for harassing him

------
LouisSayers
Yes, first rule when you go to Thailand - don't say anything about the king.

It's strange when they talk about the military presence over there. I was over
there for two months at the start of the year, (3rd visit in the past 2
years), and as usual didn't notice any military except for when I was close to
the Burmese border (they were checking everyone for papers), and around the
Kings palace.

------
Bromskloss
Explanation of the title:

> So what did Patnaree do to get charged? According to her lawyer, the only
> evidence the police have produced is an exchange on Facebook between her and
> a political activist, in which she responded to comments the police say are
> defamatory with the Thai word "ja", which translates as "I see", or "ok".

~~~
ra1n85
"Ja" is the informal rural equivalent of "Ka", which is used here as an
acknowledgement. "Ja" may have been interpreted as improper in this context,
as it is not formal.

Language is something different to Thais - the West does not really have an
equivalent, which probably makes this confusing to some. For instance, royalty
in Thailand have a whole unique language that they, and their servants,
converse in (Ra-cha sap). The only thing I can think of that's even close is
the use of Latin in Catholic churches.

~~~
JBReefer
Can you source that? It sounds really interesting, but Google turns up nothing

~~~
exthaicitizen
[https://thaitranslation.wordpress.com/tag/thai-royal-
languag...](https://thaitranslation.wordpress.com/tag/thai-royal-language/)

------
jewbacca
Related from earlier this week:

Thai government plans to MITM all internet communications

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11801325](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11801325)

------
ck2
WTF 56 years?

This makes China and Saudi Arabia look almost sane.

First sign of weak rulers is when they make insulting them a prison term (same
goes for religions).

~~~
kordless
> She responded to comments the police say are defamatory with the Thai word
> "ja", which translates as "I see", or "ok". The police say she should have
> condemned the comments.

The definition of a dictatorship is they dictate what you _should_ say. That's
how they keep control.

~~~
hackerboos
These laws have been on the books well before the junta seized power.

It's a criminal offense to criticize monarchs both living and dead in
Thailand. A lot of people found guilty are pardoned, but a lot are not.

~~~
powera
Except this isn't "criticizing the monarch". This is making a case out of
basically nothing against the mother of a "student activist".

~~~
JadeNB
I think that this point is easy to miss, since it's practically a throwaway
remark in the article: this does _not_ appear to be in any direct sense about
the woman's Facebook comment; rather, it is an intentionally overzealous
application of a law to a situation where it applies only tenuously at best,
in order to silence someone _else_ 's dissenting voice.

~~~
sheepleherd
oh the rich rich irony of your comment here, you silencer of dissenting
opinions you.

------
contingencies
Check out the posters threatening jail for 'like' or 'share' put up publicly
around Bangkok during the beginning of this round of unrest back in 2014:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Thailan...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Thailand#Aftermath_of_2014_coup_d.27etat)

------
pizza
That's so awful.

~~~
xufi
It is. All she did was acknowledge something. I've seen another instance where
a Thai man liked a photo on Facebook.
[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/10/thai-man-
arrest...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/10/thai-man-arrested-
facebook-like-photo-king)

Pretty sad this is becoming more widespread in Thailand

------
hackerboos
Thailand's technically a constitutional monarchy but the royalty is much more
than just a figurehead like those in Western Europe.

The actively interfere in elections and are on record supporting the various
coups that have happened over the decades.

Cables leaked more recently had the King backing the army during the massacre
in Thammasat University.

People should really read "The King Never Smiles" to get an idea of how this
came to be.

~~~
ra1n85
Excellent book. Also banned in Thailand.

------
CommanderNyx
I lived in Thailand in the 90s. Sad to see it's become (or was it always?) so
draconian with speech perceived to be against the monarchy. :\

