Uwazi

The activist group Thalufah have held a protest against the government’s mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic and calling for the resignation of Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha for the third consecutive day, despite previous protests being forcibly dispersed by crowd control police.

The group gathered on 18 August at the Democracy Monument, where they brought effigies representing those who died from Covid-19 and the government’s failure to manage the pandemic. The effigies were piled up in front of the Monument, as well as hung from the model of the palm-leaf manuscript representing the Constitution.

At 18.00, after a series of speeches, protesters held up the three-finger ‘Hunger Games’ salute while the National Anthem played, followed by a minute of silence in memory of those who died from Covid-19.

This was then followed by an open mic session where protesters are invited to speak and express their discontent about the government.

At 19.20, the protesters burned effigies of the cabinet as a symbolic act of protest against the failures of the Prayut administration, and then danced around the bonfire. The protest concluded at around 19.30.

Following the conclusion of the protest, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported that activist Thanadet Srisongkhram, a leader of the vocational school student network Gear of Democracy: Vocational Protection of the People for Democracy, was arrested and detained at the Nang Loeng intersection after he spoke at the protest calling for vocational school students joining protests not to use violence.

TLHR said it is likely that Thanadet was arrested on charges relating to violation of the Emergency Decree, but it is unclear about the incident for which he was charged.

The activist group Thalufah returned in a third protest march to demand the resignation of Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha, which ended again with police violence.

Protesters gathered at the Victory Monument on Monday (16 August) for a protest against the government’s mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic and to demand that Gen Prayut resign unconditionally. The group previously planned to march to the 1st Infantry Regiment headquarters, where Gen Prayut lives in free army housing despite having retired, but later changed their destination to Government House after Soi Paholyothin 2, part of the route they planned to take to the 1st Infantry Regiment headquarters, was blocked with a row of containers.

Before the march, police officers carrying a search warrant from the Dusit Municipal Court searched the residence of a Thalufah group member. The warrant stated that the police are looking for equipment “related to a violation of the Emergency Decree” and that they are searching for a black Isuzu pickup truck and sound amplifiers.

The group told the officers that they can only search the house once their lawyer arrived, so the officers said that they would wait outside but those inside the house must stay together and not wander around. The group later took the vehicle to Din Daeng Police Station to be searched.

Thalufah also posted on their Facebook page that a GPS device was found attached to one of their vehicles, which was confiscated by the police and taken to Thung Song Hong Police Station following the protest on 2 August 2021.

The GPS device appeared to be of the same model as the one former Future Forward MP Pannika Wanich said was found under her car last week.

At around 16.20, protesters gathered at the Victory Monument to burn effigies representing those who died from Covid-19, before starting their march to Government House.

They arrived at the Nang Loeng intersection at around 17.00 and found Phitsanulok Road blocked by a barrier of razor wire and containers, as well as a unit of crowd control police and a water cannon truck.

The protesters’ speaker truck stopped in front of the barrier, while a speaker asked the participants not to break down the barriers or throw objects other than plastic bags containing paint at the officers.

At 17.45, several protesters attempted to remove the razor wire. The police issued a warning for them not to do so, before firing water cannon at the protesters. Several protesters then threw firecrackers across the razor wire barrier, as the organisers called for the protesters to back away from the barrier.

At 17.50, Thalufah announced the conclusion of the protest, while the police continued to fire water cannon and tear gas at the protesters, some of whom were throwing firecrackers and other objects at the police.

The 17 August 2021 march to the Government House was the third protest organized by the Thalufah group. The group previously organized 2 marches to the 1st Infantry Regiment headquarters, both of which were forcibly dispersed by crowd control police.

The 11 August 2021 protest was dispersed before the protesters left their starting point at the Victory Monument, while the 13 August 2021 protest was blocked at the Din Daeng intersection. 13 arrested, 2 shot during clash at Din Daeng intersection

After the protest at the Nang Loeng intersection was dispersed, some protesters left for the Din Daeng intersection, where they once again clashed with crowd control police. Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported that 13 people were arrested and charged with violating the Emergency Decree by being out after curfew and taking part in activities risking the spread of Covid-19. Some were also charged with carrying a weapon in public.

TLHR also said that two of those arrested were pizza delivery riders who were not participating in the protest. Another detainee was also a delivery worker living in a flat behind Din Daeng Police Station and was driving home after work. He was waiting until the situation died down before returning home at around 22.00, but was searched and arrested. He was charged with carrying a weapon in public after the police found a pocket knife in his car.

Five of those arrested were under 18 years old. They were released at around 3.15 after the inquiry officer made a record of their arrest. The remaining 8 people were taken to the Bangkok North Municipal Court for a temporary detention request earlier today (17 August).

The Court approved of the temporary detention request, but granted them bail without requiring security. The Court also set the condition that they do not repeat their offense.

Meanwhile, the 5 minors went to the Central Juvenile and Family Court, where the inquiry officer asked the court to detain them. However, the Court released them without requiring security. They also have to report to the Bangna Juvenile Detention Centre on 24 August 2021.

Two teenagers were also reported to have been shot with live rounds near Din Daeng Police Station. One person was shot in the neck and was taken to Rajavithi Hospital. The hospital issued a statement earlier today (17 August) that he suffered gunshot wounds with one bullet remaining in his brain, and that his cervical vertebrae were fractured. He is currently in the intensive care unit and is in a coma.

The protester was previously reported to be 20 years old. However, his mother told Voice TV that he is only 15 years old. She said that her son told her he was bringing clothes to his friends, and that it was his first time participating in a protest.

Another 14-year-old protester was shot in the shoulder and was taken to Chulalongkorn Hospital. He said that he was shot while riding a motorcycle past Din Daeng Police Station and did not see the person who shot him.

A video clip was circulated showing a person in Din Daeng Police Station shooting at protesters. The superintendent of Din Daeng Police Station claimed that no live rounds were used during the police operation. Protester returns after being shot with rubber bullet

Waranya, one of the protesters at the 16 August protest, said she was shot with a rubber bullet when crowd control police forcibly dispersed the 11 August 2021 protest at the Victory Monument.

She said that she was shot from around 100 metres away, and that the crowd control police were shooting indiscriminately at the protesters and bystanders. She also said she saw the police shooting at a nearby bus stop, where mainly elderly people were waiting and had to hide behind the bus stop sign.

Waranya was shot in the stomach, and still had a large bruise.

“Why do Thai officers shoot people like this? I have been saying that I’ve never thought of hurting crowd control police. I understand that they are low-ranking officers doing their duty. My job is to try to stop the kids, stop our children, but why is the result like this?” Waranya said.

Nevertheless, Waranya said she is not afraid. She continues to return to the protests because she is worried about the young protesters, and said she would like people to know that the protesters were not hired but were there of their own will.

“Even if they’re not my children, but my future is in their hands, not an old man who is the military’s slave. It’s not right if you’re a police officer but you’re under the heel of a dictator. I wanted to say that we have nothing against the crowd control police. Our aim is to oust Prayut,” Waranya said. Covid-19 has left musicians without income, says drummer performing at Victory Monument

A drummer named Pae came to perform while the protesters are waiting at the Victory Monument, placing a sign saying “unemployed musician” in front of his drums.

Pae is taking a stand by performing at the protest to show that artists are suffering under this government, and said he wanted to entertain his fellow protesters.

He said that he used to perform at various nightlife establishments and was hired to perform at events, but the Covid-19 pandemic took away all of his income as there is nowhere for him to perform. He used to earn around 40,000 – 50,000 baht a month, and said that some musicians could earn up to 100,000 baht, but since the start of the pandemic in 2020, he earned nothing at all.

Pae said it has been difficult to access government aid schemes, vaccines, or even Covid-19 tests. He himself is not vaccinated as he has not been able to get a booking.

“The government can’t do anything. I understand that this government can’t do anything. This is how it is. Everyone knows that this is how it’s going to be. I’m just praying that if they can’t do it, then they should leave so that people who can do better come in and do it instead,” Pae said.

What promised to be a peaceful march to Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha’s house by the Talu Fa (Pierce the Sky) group made no more headway than other protests earlier this week. The protesters withdrew after police used force to keep them from reaching their destination.

Early in the afternoon, around 100 people gathered at Victory Monument to demand Prime Minister Prayut’s immediate resignation. The organisers emphasised that the protest was a peaceful effort to bring their demands to the attention of the public.

Meanwhile, at least 6 activists from Mok Luang Rim Nam group were arrested while trying to place wreaths in the Royal Palace and submit a letter to the Privy Council. They were taken to the Phra Ratchawang Police Station.

The group sought to pay respect to those who have died from Covid-19. They also want to inform the King that individuals calling for reform of the monarchy were facing a police crackdown and severe legal consequences.

According to group member Sopon Suraritthamrong, the police charged them with violating both the Emergency Decree and the Maintenance of Public Sanitary and Order Act as soon as they put their wreaths on the ground.

The activists were later told that they would only be charged for the latter offence and fined 2,000 baht person, provided they deleted photos and a Facebook live video of the police and the event. They agreed and were released after paying 10,000 baht provided by the Ratsadon Prasong Fund, which makes use of public donations to support individuals accused of crimes while exercising their political rights. Attempting to move peacefully

At 15.00, cars from the Talu Fa group arrived at the Victory Monument. One contained protest supplies - piles of longan and mangosteen to be dumped in protest of falling fruits prices and cloth sacks to help protect protesters from police tear gas.

A poster urging people to throw bags of coloured water, not bottles and fireworks, was spotted. The hope was to avoid any escalation which might trigger a police crackdown.

In an opening speech, a protester blamed government incompetence for rising unemployment and a deepening economic crisis, adding that when people came out to protest, the government responded with force.

Shortly afterward, longan and mangosteen were poured on the street and then burned to protest sharp price declines.

At 17.00, protesters arrived at Din Daeng Intersection where a container barricade awaited. Some firecrackers were lit, but organisers again urged people to throw bags of coloured water instead. When some of the protesters tried to tear down the container blockade, police responded with tear gas, affected many of those marching.

At this stage, a number of marchers began throwing firecrackers. A small fire was also set under the tollway.

At 17.25, with the situation deteriorating, the Talu Fa group announced that the protest was over. However, many protesters chose to remain at the Din Daeng Intersection amidst the sound of small explosions. The clash and chase went into the evening.

Deputy Metropolitan Police Bureau Chief Police Major General Piya Tawichai told the media that the protesters were trying to bring down the container barricade. He also reported that protesters were not only firing stones and glass at police with sling-shots but also throwing Molotov cocktails and smoke bombs as well, obliging officers on the ground to use force to restore public order at 18.30.

According to Major General Piya, 14 motorcycles were seized and 1 protester was arrested.

Activist and human rights lawyer Anon Nampa have been denied bail after he was arrested on a royal defamation charge due to his speech at the second Harry Potter protest on 3 August 2021 at the Bangkok Art and Culture Centre (BACC).

Anon went to Pathumwan Police Station on Monday (9 August) after hearing that an arrest warrant had been issued for him on charges relating to the 3 August protest. Once he arrived, the police presented an arrest warrant issued by the South Bangkok Criminal Court, signed by judge Somchai Prukchaikul.

Anon is charged with royal defamation under Section 112 of the Thai Criminal Code, violating the Emergency Decree, and using a sound amplifier without permission. The charges are a result of a complaint filed by Nopadol Prompasit, a member of the Thailand Help Centre for Cyberbullying Victims, an online royalist group whose members have filed numerous lèse majesté charges against many netizens, over the speech Anon gave at the 3 August protest calling for monarchy reform.

Lawyers are not being allowed to meet with activist Jatupat “Pai Dao Din” Boonpattararaksa, who has been detained since Monday (9 August), claiming Covid-19 quarantine measures prevent it.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) filed a request yesterday (11 August) to the Director of the Central Special Treatment Centre to meet with Jatupat, after prison officers refused to let their lawyer meet with Jatupat, claiming that the Centre does not allow lawyers to meet their clients who are in quarantine to prevent the spread of Covid-19.

The letter stated that lawyer Supanat Boonsod has been appointed Jatupat’s lawyer by court order and therefore has the legal right to meet and consult with his client, and so he is requesting to be allowed to meet with Jatupat as allowed by the Thai Criminal Procedure Code.

Jatupat was arrested after he surrendered himself at Thung Song Hong Police Station on Monday (9 August), along with Thawee Thiangwiset, another member of the activist group Thalufah. They were charged with violating the Emergency Decree, damaging public property, and taking part in an assembly of more than 10 people which caused a breach of public peace.

The charges are related to an incident on 3 August, in which activists splashed paint in front of Thung Song Hong Police Station following their release after spending a night in detention on charges relating to a protest at the Narcotics Suppression Bureau on 2 August to demand that the police return a speaker truck seized after the 1 August ‘car mob’ rally.

Thalufah member Songpol Sonthirak, who was at Khlong Ha Police Station to show support for another group of activists turning themselves in, was also arrested and taken to Thung Song Hong Police Station, while Nawapol Ton-ngam and Chitrin Plakangtong, two other members of the Thalufah group, were notified of the same charges while at Thung Song Hong Police Station to show support for their friends.

The inquiry officers did not detain Nawapol and Chitrin, but filed a request to temporarily detain Jatupat, Tawee, and Songpol, all of whom have arrest warrants.

The Criminal Court later granted bail to Tawee and Songpol with 35,000 baht as security, but denied bail to Jatupat on the grounds that he faces other charges for similar offenses, has broken his bail conditions which prohibit him from repeating these offenses, and is likely to flee or cause danger if he is released.

The order to deny bail for Jatupat is signed by judge Chanathip Muanpawong, who previously denied bail to several pro-democracy activists detained pending trial earlier this year. Chanathip also sentenced Ampon Tangnoppakul, or “Uncle SMS,” to 20 years in prison on a royal defamation charge under Section 112 in 2011, after Ampon was accused of sending messages to Somkiat Krongwattanasuk, who was at the time the secretary of then Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, which were deemed offensive to the King and Queen.

Anon went to Pathumwan Police Station on Monday (9 August) after hearing that an arrest warrant had been issued for him on charges relating to the 3 August protest. Once he arrived, the police presented an arrest warrant issued by the South Bangkok Criminal Court, signed by judge Somchai Prukchaikul.

Anon is charged with royal defamation under Section 112 of the Thai Criminal Code, violating the Emergency Decree, and using a sound amplifier without permission. The charges are a result of a complaint filed by Nopadol Prompasit, a member of the Thailand Help Centre for Cyberbullying Victims, an online royalist group whose members have filed numerous lèse majesté charges against many netizens, over the speech Anon gave at the 3 August protest calling for monarchy reform.

Nopadol previously filed a complaint against activist Parit Chiwarak for Facebook posts he made about King Vajiralongkorn’s divorce from his ex-wife Sujarinee Vivacharawongse, and the use of Sanam Luang for funerals. He has also filed complaints against activists Piyarat Chongthep and Chonticha Jaengrew.

Anon spent 2 nights in police custody before being taken to court for a temporary detention hearing this morning (11 August). The court approved the temporary detention request and denied him bail on the ground that he was accused of committing a serious offense and had breached his previous bail conditions, and that the inquiry officers objected to bail as they believe he is likely to commit further offences.

Anon is now facing 13 counts of charges under Section 112. According to TLHR, at least 116 people are now facing charges under Section 112 in 115 cases, 58 of which are a result of complaints filed by members of the public, many of whom are members of royalist groups.

Jatupat was arrested after he surrendered himself at Thung Song Hong Police Station on Monday (9 August), along with Thawee Thiangwiset, another member of the activist group Thalufah. They were charged with violating the Emergency Decree, damaging public property, and taking part in an assembly of more than 10 people which caused a breach of public peace.

The charges are related to an incident on 3 August, in which activists splashed paint in front of Thung Song Hong Police Station following their release after spending a night in detention on charges relating to a protest at the Narcotics Suppression Bureau on 2 August to demand that the police return a speaker truck seized after the 1 August ‘car mob’ rally.

Thalufah member Songpol Sonthirak, who was at Khlong Ha Police Station to show support for another group of activists turning themselves in, was also arrested and taken to Thung Song Hong Police Station, while Nawapol Ton-ngam and Chitrin Plakangtong, two other members of the Thalufah group, were notified of the same charges while at Thung Song Hong Police Station to show support for their friends.

The inquiry officers did not detain Nawapol and Chitrin, but filed a request to temporarily detain Jatupat, Tawee, and Songpol, all of whom have arrest warrants.

The Criminal Court later granted bail to Tawee and Songpol with 35,000 baht as security, but denied bail to Jatupat on the grounds that he faces other charges for similar offenses, has broken his bail conditions which prohibit him from repeating these offenses, and is likely to flee or cause danger if he is released.

The order to deny bail for Jatupat is signed by judge Chanathip Muanpawong, who previously denied bail to several pro-democracy activists detained pending trial earlier this year. Chanathip also sentenced Ampon Tangnoppakul, or “Uncle SMS,” to 20 years in prison on a royal defamation charge under Section 112 in 2011, after Ampon was accused of sending messages to Somkiat Krongwattanasuk, who was at the time the secretary of then Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, which were deemed offensive to the King and Queen.

The Criminal Court has revoked bail for activist Parit “Penguin” Chiwarak on charges relating to the 19 September 2020 protest, while the Thanyaburi Provincial Court denied him and 8 other activists bail on charges relating to the 2 August 2021 protest.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported last night (9 August) that the Criminal Court issued an order to revoke bail for Parit following a request from the public prosecutor.

Meanwhile, the Thanyaburi Provincial Court denied bail for Parit and 8 other activists arrested on charges relating to the 2 August 2021 protest at the Border Patrol Police Region 1 headquarters to demand the release of 32 detained activists. They were then taken to Rangsit Temporary Prison to complete a 14-day Covid-19 quarantine period, after which they will be detained at Thanyaburi Prison.

Parit was previously granted bail after he was detained pending trial on charges relating to his participation in the protest on 19 September 2020. He was in detention for 92 days.

Parit's bail revocation came a day before the "Car Mob" protest planned by the student activist group United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration (UFTD), which took place today at the Ratchaprasong Intersection.

Voice TV reported that Parit was likely assaulted while being forced into a detention truck last night (9 August), after the 9 activists refused to be taken to prison, and that he was heard shouting "I can't breathe" and "help me." A voice shouting "People's revolution" was also heard from the truck.

When his lawyer visited him today (10 August), Parit was found to have bruises and scratches on his body.

A protest march organized by the activist group Thalufah was dispersed by crowd control police armed with tear gas and rubber bullets even before they left their starting point at the Victory Monument.

The group planned to march to the Infantry Regiment headquarters, where Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha lives in free army housing despite being retired, to protest against the government’s mishandling of the pandemic, the use of violence against dissenters, arbitrary arrest, and the unfair judicial process.

Several speakers took turn giving speeches as the crowd began gathering at the Victory Monument ahead of the march at 16.00. During the speeches, they repeated that the protest will be nonviolent and that they will use only symbolic actions.

At 15.45, the protesters gathered on the street to burn spirit houses, the Thai word for which is the same as the word for ‘court,’ as well as an effigy of judge Chanathip Muanpawong, who previously denied bail to several pro-democracy activists detained pending trial earlier this year.

Chanathip also sentenced Ampon Tangnoppakul, or “Uncle SMS,” to 20 years in prison on a royal defamation charge under Section 112 in 2011, after Ampon was accused of sending messages to Somkiat Krongwattanasuk, who was at the time the secretary of then Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, which were deemed offensive to the King and Queen.

Around five minutes later, crowd control police lined up and moved towards the protesters, who linked arms and flashed the three-finger ‘Hunger Games’ salute as they faced the police. Several people also threw paint at the officers.

Another unit of crowd control police then surrounded the protesters and chased them onto the footpath next to the roundabout. Tear gas and rubber bullets were also used.

At 15.55, Thalufah announced on their Facebook page that they had called off the march due to police violence. In another post, they asked protesters to leave the area through the street next to the Center One Shopping Mall.

A protester told Voice TV on their live broadcast that she had been shot in the stomach with a rubber bullet. She was seen showing her injuries and the bullet casing to nearby reporters. More rubber bullet casings were also found around the Victory Monument.

Meanwhile, independent photographer Laila Tahe said that a crowd control officer hit her with a baton while she is photographing them as they walk past to arrest protesters who ran into a nearby alley. The baton hit her camera, breaking her lens filter. The end of the baton also hit her shoulder, but Laila said she was not injured. She also said that the officer gave no warning before hitting her.

Laila continued photographing the clash despite damages to her camera. She said that she felt she needed to continue photographing the clash as crowd control police are still arresting the protesters, and that the broken lens filter was not that much of an obstacle.

She also said that there was a moment when she got too close to the officers, and was told to stop taking pictures. As an independent photographer, Laila is not wearing a press armband, but she noted that another reporter who was wearing a press armband was also told not to photograph the officers.

Nevertheless, Laila said she is not afraid and will continue to photograph protests.

After the protesters at the Victory Monument were dispersed, groups of protesters still headed to Vibhavadi Rangsit Road. However, they found that the Din Daeng intersection was blocked with rows of containers while crowd control police were stationed on the Din Daeng Highway.

iLaw reported that protesters were burning car tires under the highway and smoke was floating up to the highway where the crowd control police were deployed. A police truck was also seen burning under the highway.

Tear gas and rubber bullets were continuously fired at the protesters gathered on the street amidst heavy rain until around 19.00 when the protesters retreated towards the Victory Monument, where crowd control police deployed tear gas and water cannon trucks against them.

The clashes ended at around 20.00. Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported that at least 17 people have been arrested, including Worawan “Aunty Pao” Sae-aung, an elderly fruit vendor known at protests for her outspokenness and sharp tongue. TLHR also said that 1 of the arrested protesters is a minor.

The protesters are currently being detained at the Narcotics Suppression Bureau. TLHR said that it is likely that they will have to spend 2 nights in police custody before being taken to court on Friday (13 August), as Thursday (12 August) is a public holiday.

On 28 July 2021, the admin of the Facebook page “Thonburi Citizens” was visited by 7 plain-clothed police officers at his house in Samut Sakhon to force him to cancel the Car Mob event scheduled to take place in the evening of the same day. The officers remained to monitor him at his house until late to prevent the Facebook page admin from joining the activity.

In Kanchanabhri on 29 and 30 July 2021, leaders of the “Free Kanchanaburi for Democracy” group who had announced the “Mueang Kan Tour” activity on 1 August 2021 received visits by more than 30 officers in total from the police, army, ISOC, and administrative sector at their houses and were asked to refrain from organizing the said event due to the spread of Covid-19.

Nine activists have been arrested on charges relating to a protest in front of the Border Patrol Police Region 1 headquarters on 2 August 2021 to demand the release of 32 detained activists.

Parit Chiwarak, Nutchanon Pairoj, Sirichai Natueng, and Phromsorn Weerathamjaree were arrested at the police headquarters on Sunday (8 August) on charges relating to the 2 August protest.

Parit announced on Saturday night (7 August) that, since he heard that the police were preparing to press charges against him for his participation in the 2 August protest, and as he noticed police officers following him, he would be going to the police headquarters on Sunday (8 August), and if the police would like to arrest him, they could do so there.

He then went to the police headquarters along with Nutchanon and Sirichai to show that they do not intend to flee or tamper with evidence, and were arrested. They were charged with violating the Emergency Decree, the Communicable Diseases Act, and the Sound Amplifier Act.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported they were taken to Khlong Ha Police Station, and then to the Border Patrol Police Region 1 headquarters.

The activist group United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration (UFTD) said that the entrance to the Border Patrol Police Region 1 headquarters was blocked with razor wire and a unit of crowd control police, as a crowd gathered to demand their release.

TLHR said that Parit, Sirichai, and Phromsorn requested to have a trusted person with them while they are questioned, but the police denied their request, so the three activists refused to take part in the inquiry process.

Thatchapong Kaedam and Panupong Jadnok also went to Khlong Ha Police Station and were taken into custody. Panupong said that he was not surrendering himself, but came to meet the police after he heard that the police would be issuing arrest warrants against the leaders of the 2 August protest, so he went to meet the police to show that he has no intention to flee.

Three other people were also arrested on charges relating to the same protest. According to TLHR, Thanapat (last name withheld) and Panadda (last name withheld), members of the activist group Thalufah went to Khlong Ha Police Station with Thatchapong and Panupong. Meanwhile, Sam Samat, a stateless man who was previously arrested for joining the 28 February 2021 protest and allegedly pretending to urinate onto crowd control police gathering below the containers used to block protesters, was also arrested on 7 August.

At 21.00 last night (9 August), the Thanyaburi Provincial Court approved the temporary detention request for the 9 activists, and later denied them bail on the ground that the activists act without fearing the law and without considering the society's safety, peace, and order during the Covid-19 outbreaks.

The Court also said that the activists are facing other charges and that they are likely to commit other offenses if they are released. The inquiry officer also object to granting them bail.

TLHR reported that the 9 activists were taken to the Rangsit Temporary Prison for a 14-day quarantine period, after which they will be detained at the Thanyaburi Prison.

There are also reports that the 9 activists refused last night (9 August) to be taken into a detention truck and were then forced onto the truck by police officers. TLHR also said that officers were taking pictures of the activists' family members.

Voice TV also reported that Parit was likely assaulted while being forced into the detention truck, and that he was heard shouting "I can't breathe" and "help me." A voice shouting "People's revolution" was also heard from the truck.

Protesters were arrested at the Narcotics Suppression Bureau on 2 August after they took back a truck seized by the police. The court set 100,000 baht bail for each protester and disallowed the use of the MPs’ positions as security, saying that it was irrelevant to the arrested.

According to Thai Lawyers of Human Rights (TLHR), the Central Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct Cases granted bail on Tuesday to 31 protestors charged with using force against officials on duty and violation of the Emergency Decree by gathering in public.

In rejecting the use of MPs’ positions as security, court officials stated that only persons related to a detainee can qualify, such as family members, employees, employers or MP for the detainee’s constituency.

The 3,100,000 baht bail was provided by the Ratsadorn Prasong (People's Will) Fund, established by public donations to assist people charged in political cases.

The mass arrest took place as protesters led by the Talu Fa group (Pierce the Sky) confronted crowd control police standing guard at the Narcotics Suppression Bureau on Monday. After the protesters splashed and sprayed police shields with paint, the police suddenly moved in and broke up the protest.

In total, 31 members of Talu Fah and 1 from the United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration were transferred to the Border Patrol Police Region 1 headquarters for detention.

2 women fainted due to the police use of force and were sent to hospital. A 17-year-old youth was also arrested but later released with no bail.

Talu Fa Facebook page shows the detention room defaced by detainees. Walls and windows are covered with graffiti in paint and coffee water.

The incident came after the Car Mob rally in Bangkok on Sunday. The police seized the vehicle used to carry sound equipment after the event was over and arrested 3 crew. The police also seized their phones, so that lawyers took about 5 hours to confirm their whereabouts.

8 other people arrested on Sunday before the event started and released after it was over.

Kanchanaburi police, a district chief and officers from the Internal Security Operations Command visited the house of an organizer of the Car Mob in Kanchanaburi. They tried to pressure the organizer not to hold the event. When asked what law would be violated by traveling in a group of vehicles, the officer replied that he did not know and would go back to find more information.

A protest on Saturday (7 August) against the government’s mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic was met with water cannon trucks and crowd control police armed with rubber bullets and tear gas, despite the target location being switched.

The protest was organized by the activist group Free Youth and partner organizations, who have made three demands: the resignation of Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha, the reallocation of the budget for the monarchy and military to Covid-19 assistance, and replacement of the Sinovac Covid-19 vaccine with mRNA vaccines.

Free Youth previously organized a protest on 18 July 2021 with the same three demands, which was also blocked by armed crowd control police.

Saturday’s protest began at the Democracy Monument with a plan to march to the Grand Palace. By 12.00, 2 hours ahead of the scheduled start time at 14.00, around a hundred protesters had begun gathering at the Democracy Monument but were faced by lines of crowd control police blocking Ratchadamneon Avenue.

At 12.25, the police ordered the protesters to end their gathering and crowd control police began to advance on the protesters. There were reports that rubber bullets were used and that 2 protesters were arrested.

A firecracker-like sound was heard at the scene. Protesters were also reportedly shooting slingshots and throwing glass bottles and rocks at the crowd control police marching towards the Democracy Monument.

Activist Thatchapong Kaedam then announced that the target of the march had changed to Government House. By 12.40, crowd control police had taken over Ratchadamneon Avenue, as protesters began marching towards Government House. Officers were seen wearing bulletproof vests and carrying cable ties, batons, and shields. Some are also carrying rubber bullet firearms.

The protesters arrived at the Nang Leong intersection at around 13.00 and found the road blocked with a row of containers. The organisers switched the target to the Victory Monument. Free Youth also announced on their Telegram channel for the protesters to meet at the Victory Monument before marching to the 1st Infantry Regiment headquarters.

At 13.45, protesters at the Nang Leong Intersection began marching to the Victory Monument and from there to the 1st Infantry Regiment headquarters, where PM Prayut lives in free army housing.

However, they once again found the Asok-Din Daeng Road closed by crowd control police between the Din Daeng intersection and the 1st Infantry Regiment headquarters, which the police declared a no-entry zone. The police ordered the protesters back to the Victory Monument.

During the clash, an order was heard that the officers were allowed to use rubber bullets if protesters approached the police lines.

The clash continued for another two hours, during which rubber bullets and tear gas were continuously fired at the protesters. At around 17.20, water cannon were also used.

The protesters were forced to retreat to the Victory Monument, while tear gas continued to be fired near Rajavithi Hospital. The organisers announced the end of the protest at 17.35.

However, clashes continued at the Victory Monument, as crowd control police continued to fire tear gas at remaining protesters. There were also reports that tear gas was fired from the skywalk above the monument, while water cannon blasts were reported as crowd control police moved into the roundabout. Clashes continued until around 21.00.

Meanwhile, at the Din Daeng intersection, crowd control police were still firing rubber bullets at remaining protesters at around 21.00.

Several National Human Rights Commissioners were observing the protest both from the protesters’ side and the police side. Commissioner Wasan Paileeklee said that the National Human Rights Commission wanted to see whether the event was orderly and whether police operations followed the proper guidelines. Regarding violations of the right to freedom of expression, Wasan said that even though there might be a legal framework supporting the police’s operation, their actions must be proportional. Activists harassed by officers ahead of protest

Police officers searched several activists’ homes ahead of the protest. Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported on Saturday morning (7 August) that 3 plainclothes officers and 1 uniformed officer searched activist Chukiat “Justin” Sangwong’s apartment at 7.30 on Saturday. Chukiat said that the officers also asked to see his computer, but he refused, and he was told that he would be charged if he shared images of the search warrant.

TLHR said that 3 plainclothes officers and 1 uniformed officer also searched the home of a Thammasat University student in Pathum Thani.

Activist Piyarat Chongthep said that at least 2 members of the We Volunteer protest guard group were followed by police officers who tried to search their houses ahead of this afternoon's protest. Officers also came to We Volunteer’s headquarters, and Piyarat later told TLHR that around 10 officers were stationed in front of the building and that he could be arrested if he leave to join the protest.

Piyarat also said that 2 members of the We Volunteer protest guard group had been arrested at a friend's house in Nonthaburi on Friday night (6 August). The house was also searched and the 2 detainees were later released after nothing illegal was found.

TLHR reported that over 15 police officers also raided the residence of a We Volunteer member on Saturday morning (7 August), claiming that they had received a report of illegal activities. They took them at least 3 people to the police station and confiscated their car and mobile phones. Police also tried to confiscate a styrofoam box containing palm fruit with syrup brought by one of the detainees for sale. No search warrant was presented.

Activist Parit Chiwarak also said on Friday night (6 August) that police officers were stationed in front of his house and did not seem to be leaving, therefore he might not be able to leave for the protest. Protest march route blocked with oil tankers

Shopping containers and oil tankers were placed across Sanam Luang on Saturday morning to block the original route of the march to the Grand Palace. A banner saying “The king’s soldiers and the police of the (good) people have joined forces, ready to protect Wat Phra Kaew and the Grand Palace” was hung from the containers. Rachini Road and Ratchadamnoen Klang Road were also closed.

TLHR later published a letter from Assistant Police Commissioner Pol Lt Gen Kraiboon Suadsong to the State Railway of Thailand requesting the use of decommissioned train cars and oil tankers to prevent activities risking the spread of Covid-19.

The State Railway Workers’ Union of Thailand (SRUT) then issued a statement calling for decommissioned rolling stock not to be used as barriers, and for an investigation to be launched into how the train cars were taken. They also expressed their disagreement with the use of the train cars, as the right to peaceful assembly is enshrined in the Constitution and international human rights law.

The SRUT said that there is a risk that dangerous objects could be placed in the cars and oil tankers, potentially causing harm. The SRUT also expressed concern that the use of the rolling stock would lead the public to believe that the SRUT and the State Railway was complying with orders from politicians or acting voluntarily, causing conflict with those in opposition to the government.

The statement said that considering the history of popular movements, barriers would not be able to hold the tide of the uprising, and therefore the government should not try to cause more conflict, and that the government should try to resolve the situation by solving the issues which are the root cause of the protests. At least 18 people arrested

TLHR reported that at least 18 people were arrested before and during Saturday’s protest. 14 people were taken to the Metropolitan Police Headquarters, 4 to the Border Patrol Police Region 1 headquarters and 1 to the Khlong Ha Police Station.

TLHR also said that 2 protesters arrested at the Democracy Monument were taken to the Metropolitan Police headquarters. Their hands were tied with cable ties, and one of them has signs of being assaulted while in detention.

TLHR later reported that police officers also arrested the driver of a van carrying 4 speakers after the protest, pushing him to the ground before taking him to Provincial Police Region 1 headquarters. TLHR was later informed that the driver was not at the Provincial Police Region 1 and it is not known where he or the van is.

The van was also reported to belong to the We Volunteer protest guard group, who said that they lost contact with the driver since 18.45.

TLHR lawyers later found the driver detained at the Border Patrol Police Region 1 headquarters along with 2 other people.

At 23.20, TLHR reported that they have been notified that officers from Wang Thong Lang Police Station arrested the driver of a truck, along with 4 other people, who were returning from the protest.

Another person was also arrested around the Din Daeng Highway while driving past the protest site and was taken to Din Daeng Police Station. They were later taken to the Metropolitan Police headquarters along with 2 other people. As of 00.35, 14 people are being detained at the Metropolitan Police headquarters.

8 We Volunteer members arrested before the protest were charged with being members of a secret society under Sections 209 and 210 of the Thai Criminal Code, while the remaining 10 people were charged with violating the Emergency Decree.

The inquiry officer will be filing a temporary detention request via video conference today (9 August).

Five people, including an Amnesty International staff member, have been summoned by the authorities to appear at a Bangkok police station today at 1pm and pay a fine.

The penalty was issued under the Road Traffic Act and the Act on the Maintenance of Cleanliness and Order as an administrative fine in response to their involvement at an in-person panel discussion on 4 July focusing on the enforced disappearances of Thai activists, including reportedly abducted Thai activist Wanchelearm Satsaksit.

The other four individuals are a panel moderator and three other panelist speakers: a protestor, an 18-year-old student, and a lawyer who was friends with an individual who was forcibly disappeared.

Wanchalearm Satsaksit is a Thai activist who was forcibly disappeared from Phnom Penh on 4 June 2020. His enforced disappearance corresponds to a deeply alarming pattern of abductions and killings since June 2016 of at least nine Thai activists in exile by unknown persons in neighbouring countries, namely Laos and Viet Nam.

The decision to fine an Amnesty International staff member along with four other human rights activists arrives amid ongoing efforts by the Thai authorities to silence criticism and repress freedom of expression.

On 29 July 2021, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha introduced a ban on the distribution of "fake news", which includes anyone sharing reports online that spur public unrest or fear, harm national security, or shed doubt on the state’s response to the coronavirus crisis, even if the information shared is factually accurate and in the interest of public health.

In April 2020, the Thai authorities proposed a draft law to regulate non-profit groups as part of efforts to pass repressive legislation that further muzzle civil society groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In the latest iteration, the bill would give the government the power to arbitrarily ban groups, invade organizations’ privacy and infringe on the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.

In response to the tens of thousands of Thais taking to the streets to demand democratic reforms throughout 2020 and into 2021 in Bangkok, the capital, and in provinces across Thailand, police have used excessive and unnecessary force to disperse peaceful protesters and arrested hundreds of demonstrators.

According to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, from July 2020 to June 2021, at least 695 individuals (44 of them children) have faced criminal charges – including sedition, royal defamation, computer-related crime, violation of the Public Assembly – in 374 lawsuits for joining peaceful protests.

Furthermore, according to regulation no. 27, which came into force on 12 July under an Emergency Decree, violators of Thailand’s Covid-19 prevention protocols could face a maximum jail term of two years or a fine of up to 40,000 baht.

The UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted by the UN General Assembly with the consensus of Thailand and all other States, guarantees the rights of individuals to form, join and participate in civil society organizations, associations or groups to promote or defend human rights.

The Thai authorities must respect this accord. Issuing fines in response to rights workers and activists peacefully taking part in a panel discussion clearly violates the right to freedom of expression.

The third ‘Car Mob’ has been held in at least 30 places around Thailand demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha. A variety of campaigns joined the protest.

The car protest was originally organized by veteran activist Sombat Boonngarmanong but this time more groups joined the movement, like the United People for Thailand, a group that campaigns for monarchy reform like Ratsadorn, the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship or the red shirts, and Seri Toey Plus campaigning on gender diversity issues.

Similar activities were held this weekend in Ubon Ratchathani, Sakon Nakhon, Khon Kaen, Nakhon Ratchasima, Chiang Mai, Lampang, Chiang Rai, Phrae, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Trang, Surat Thani, Kanchanaburi, Saraburi, Rayong, Chonburi, and elsewhere.

In Bangkok, different activist groups started from 5 main points: Don Muang Airport, Silom Soi 2, Ratchaprasong intersection, Democracy Monument and Ram Intra Road. All vehicles headed to Vibhavadi Rangsit Road to express their message.

The main communication channel for this movement was the Clubhouse application, where the organizers and coordinators usually urge vehicles to form up, not to honk while passing hospitals or field hospitals and to leave lanes open for emergency vehicles.

Student activist Parit Chiwarak a gave a speech criticizing the Prayut-led government’s incompetence which has resulted in the country’s misfortune. While the government was taking care of the elite, it ignored the people.

“Prayut is only interested in capitalists such as Tycoon Charoen (owner of ThaiBev) and Tycoon Thanin (CP). He’s only interested in being a dog and how to flatter his owner.

“Prayut is not here because the people, but because of the dog owner who looks after him. The people are left to their fate. The sick are lying down, waiting for death at home. Those who are not sick are lying down, thinking whether to be vaccinated.

“The tyrannical regime government with Prayut as PM and the King as Head of State must all take responsibility. Whether Prayut, Prawit, Anupong, Anutin, Jurin, they must take responsibility by giving up power, by not taking any position and by leaving the country,” said Parit.

Leading red shirt Nattawut Saikeur gave a speech before his group left the rally point at Ratchaprasong intersection, underlining the government’s failure in handling the Covid-19 pandemic which has caused many to die and brought many dissidents onto the street.

He also urged Gen Prayut, who was part of the Centre for Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES) that took part in killing red shirt protesters in 2010, to resign from the Prime Ministership.

“Red buffaloes, the uneducated, the hired mob, those who were shot to death on the street more than 10 years ago, today have come back to tell Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha and his cronies who were in CRES and who were in power during the crackdown on the people, to get out now, for the survival of the Thai people countrywide in the Covid-19 crisis,” said Nattawut.

Human rights lawyer Anon Nampa gave a speech opposing the idea of having a ‘royally endorsed PM’ to replace Gen Prayut. He said the change must be made to the root cause. The next leader must be democratically elected from the people. He urged the movement to progress with civil disobedience.

“Peaceful means is not sitting down and letting the police use their batons to hit you on the head. Peaceful means are all kinds of action that make the government and those in power so worried and agitated and uneasy that they cannot stay.

“Things that you have never seen, citizens will do them. It will happen in the heart of Bangkok. And what have you been worshipping, have been enchanted with, after this will not be there for you to see,” said Anon before promoting the next protest on 7 August. Arrests, clashes and commotion

Fully equipped riot control police were spotted at many places that the protesters intended to pass, like Ratchadamnoen Nok Avenue, Sutthisan intersection and behind the Veterans General Hospital on Vibhavadi Rangsit Road.

A container blockade was set up on Vibhavadi Rangsit outbound, blocking the entrance to Gen Prayut's house in the 1st Royal Infantry Regiment.

At 18.00, the police dispersed the remaining protesters on Vibhavadi Rangsit Road, using tear gas, rubber bullets and force. The protesters could be seen retreating and retaliating by throwing fireworks and unidentified objects that caused fires.

At 12.30, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported that 8 protesters had been arrested at Rattanathibet, Nonthaburi. They had been taken to Rattanathibet Police Station and charged with violating the Emergency Decree, causing a noise in public without proper reason and the use of unauthorized voice amplifiers before being taken to the Border Patrol Police (BPP) Region 1 Headquarters for detention. They were released at 18.30.

The BPP Region 1 Headquarters in Pathum Thani has been used to detain protesters during the State of Emergency declared in 2020. Although there is no legal provision allowing the police to investigate and detain people there, people have been sent to this distant office from time to time.

Clashes reportedly took place at Ratchadamnoen Nok Avenue and Nang Loeng at 15.30. About 8 people were seen throwing objects. 2 rubber bullets were reportedly fired. Fireworks were reportedly thrown at the front of 1st Regiment Infantry barracks by unidentified protesters according to communications on Clubhouse.

The public prosecutor decided yesterday (22 July) to indict 13 protesters facing lèse majesté and sedition charges for their involvement in the 26 October 2020 protest in front of the German Embassy in Bangkok.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported that 12 of the protesters reported to the Office of the Attorney General (Southern Bangkok office) yesterday morning (22 July) and were informed that the public prosecutor had decided to file a case against the protesters.

The remaining protester, activist Nawat Liangwattana, will be reporting to the public prosecutor today (23 July).

The lawyers requested bail using the positions of 7 academics and 3 MPs from the Move Forward Party (MFP) as security. The Bangkok South Criminal Court granted them bail with the condition that they must not commit another offense relating to the monarchy. They must also come to every court appointment and may not leave the country without permission.

The decision to indict the protesters came after the public prosecutor postponed their hearing 3 times. According to TLHR, this is the 33rd lèse majesté case in which the public prosecutor has ordered an indictment.

TLHR also reported that at least 111 people are now facing lèse majesté charges after the law began once again to be used against protesters involved in the pro-democracy demonstrations in November 2020.

The 13 protesters indicted are Ann (pseudonym), Nawat Liangwattana, Benja Apan, Athapol Buapat, Patsaravalee Tanakitvibulpon, Cholathit Chotsawat, Chanin Wongsri, Watcharakorn Chaikaew, Ravisara Eksgool, Suthini Jangpipatnawakit, Akkarapon Teeptaisong, Joseph (pseudonym), and Korakot Saengyenpan.

They face lèse majesté and sedition charges under Sections 112 and 116 of the Thai Criminal Code, as well as using a sound amplifier without permission under the Controlling Public Advertisement by Sound Amplifier Act for either reading a statement or giving speeches during the protest in front of the German Embassy in Bangkok on 26 October 2020, in which they submitted a petition calling for the German authorities to investigate King Vajiralongkorn’s use of power during his time in Germany.

Activist Shinawat Chankrajang and another protester were arrested in front of the Ministry of Public Health on Friday (16 July) during a protest over the Covid-19 vaccination programme, while two other protesters and one police officer were injured.

On Friday afternoon (16 July), people gathered near the Ministry of Public Health to demand an explanation of the Covid-19 vaccination programme and to demand that the government provide the public with mRNA vaccines. They called on Public Health Minister Anutin Charnvirakul to respond by 17.00.

During the protest, police officers lined up in front of the entrance to the Ministry and told the protesters that their gathering as an offence under the Emergency Decree and the Communicable Diseases Act. In response, Shinawat asked whether it is also illegal that Anutin is negligent and allowing Thai people to die every day, and demanded that Anutin answer whether the government will be able to supply the public with mRNA vaccines.

At around 15.10, Shinawat announced that they would be staying until 17.00, and the officers must bring them Anutin’s explanation about the vaccines in a voice clip or any other form of recording. The protesters also put up body-like figures on a table in front of the police line, while activist Thanadet Srisongkhram announced that the people need the Pfizer vaccine, not the Sinovac vaccine, which is ineffective. He also said that people are not lab rats and that they want vaccines they can choose.

At 17.00, the protesters marched up to the Ministry gates which were blocked by policewho announced that anyone breaking into the Ministry would be taken to the police station , and that if they do not comply, the police may use force. Officers began to surround the protesters, who were pushing and kicking the officers’ shields.

Police officers then tried to arrest Thanadet, so protesters tried to pull him away. During the clash, one of the plainclothes officers arresting Thanadet fell to the ground. After the clash, Thanadet was found to have an injury to his head. The officer was also reportedly injured

It was later reported that Shinawat was also arrested. He was taken inside the Ministry, so the protesters were not able to follow him. Another protester was also reported to be injured and was taken to an emergency room.

Shinawat and one other protester who was arrested were taken to the Khlong Ha Police Station in Pathum Thani. Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported that they were charged with sedition, holding a gathering of more than 10 people and causing a breach of peace, violating the Emergency Decree, assaulting an officer, and obstructing by force an official in the execution of their duty.

Both denied all charges. On Saturday morning (17 July), they were taken to the Nonthaburi Provincial Court for a temporary detention request. The Court approved the request, but granted them bail without requiring a security.

Police officers also confiscated the keys to the protesters’ speaker truck and refused to give them back despite demands from the remaining protesters, who pushed the truck to the gates. An officer then came to negotiate with the truck’s owner, who asked for his truck key back as his house key was attached to the truck key and he had to use the truck that night.

By 19.20, crowd control police joined the officers in front of the Ministry, while protesters were still gathering in the area to wait for the truck keys to be returned. The police said they wanted to search the truck, but the owner consulted a lawyer and was told not to let the police search the truck.

At 19.45, with the 21.00 curfew approaching, the police still had not returned the truck key and had brought a tow truck from inside the Ministry, so the protesters lay down in front of the truck and demanded that the police wait for a lawyer to arrive.

At around 20.20, following negotiations with the lawyer, the truck was towed away. TLHR later reported that the truck’s owner received a fine of 100 baht under the Sound Amplifier Act before he was released. His hand was also injured when an officer reached into the truck to pull the keys out.

Police officers searched a van belonging to We Volunteer, which was delivering equipment for the protest, including effigies, and bottles of fermented fish . They also checked We Volunteer member Rattaphum Lertpaijit’s ID card.

The officers wanted to take picture of Rattaphum’s ID card, claiming that they have to check whether he has an outstanding arrest warrant. They asked to search the car, but were refused. No one at the scene was found to have an arrest warrant, and the police did not present a search warrant.

The officers claimed that they had to check whether there was anything illegal in the van, and asked for the identity of the owner of the content. During the search, an officer asked whether the fermented fish was for throwing at the officers.

Piyarat said that because the officers opened the packages of bottled fermented fish, they had to buy the entire lot. He also claimed that the officers told them that they wouldn’t let them go if they didn’t sell them the fish.

Sunday’s protest took place at the Democracy Monument at 14.00 and was organized by Free Youth and its partner groups. The protesters planned to march to Government House to demand the resignation of Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha, a reduction in the budget for the monarchy and military to increase Covid-19 assistance, and replacement of the Sinovac vaccine with mRNA vaccines. However, they were blocked from reaching the Government House by crowd control police armed with rubber bullets, tear gas, and water cannon trucks.

On 18 July 2021 prior to the #18July rally at the Democracy Monument, authorities confiscated “straw dolls”, protest items by the #WeVolunteer group at a dormitory in Nontaburi province. The dormitory owner was also seized for allowing the dolls to be stored for interrogation at the Plaibang Police Station. Police claimed that they had been notified of hidden drugs there. When the police asked the dormitory owner how she got the items, she said she had been asked to keep them. The interrogation took around 2 hours without the presence of any lawyers and trusted persons.

Three reporters were injured during the protest on Sunday (18 July), after being hit with rubber bullets, despite wearing visible press armbands and ID cards.

Thanapong Kengpaiboon from the online magazine Plus Seven was hit in the hip with a rubber bullet while covering the clash between protesters and crowd control police at the Phan Fa Lilat intersection at around 15.50.

Thanapong said that he was taking pictures of protesters trying to remove the razor wire used as blockade. He said that the police issued no warning before firing 3 – 4 rounds of rubber bullets into the area where he was standing, and that they announced only that they would be firing water containing dye.

He also said that was standing next to a wall with a group of other reporters, and that he was wearing the press armband issued by the Thai Journalists Association (TJA), which has been used to identify field reporters covering protests since 2020, as well as a press ID card.

Thanapong said he was lucky that he was wearing thick jeans, but there was still bruising where he was shot. He has been covering the protests since 2020 and has previously been hit with tear gas and water cannon blasts.

“I don’t know if it’s bad that I feel like I’m used to it, but I’m tired of it. Without notice, they fire into a group that they should know are reporters, because it wasn’t just me who was a reporter and was standing there, and they fired without any warning,” Thanapong said, adding that he wants to press charges against the officers and is looking for a way to do so.

Matichon TV photographer Peerapong Pongnak was also shot with a rubber bullet in his left arm. Matichon reported that Peerapong was shot at the Phan Fa Lilat Bridge, while he was covering the march to the Government House via Ratchadamneon Avenue, which was blocked by crowd control police and water cannon trucks.

Peerapong said that the police began firing water cannon blasts at the protesters and announced that they would be escalating their operation, but he did not hear the police announce that they were going to use rubber bullets.

A photographer from The Matter was also shot with a rubber bullet in the left arm and was taken to a hospital for treatment. The Matter later posted a picture showing the bruise on the photographer’s arm and stated that they were visibly wearing a press armband when they were covering the protest.

At the protest at Sanam Luang on 20 March 2021, during which crowd control police deployed rubber bullets, tear gas, and water cannon indiscriminately against the crowd, Prachatai reporter Sarayut Tangprasert was shot in the back by a rubber bullet while livestreaming from the Kok Wua Intersection. He was also wearing the TJA’s press armband. Journalists from Channel 8 and Khaosod were also injured by rubber bullets during the same protest.

Sarayut later filed a lawsuit with the Civil Court against the Royal Thai Police and Police Chief Pol Gen Suwat Jangyodsuk for unlawful dispersal of the protest by firing rubber bullets, blocking the route to the nearest hospital and using excessive force on working journalists. He also asked the court for an emergency inquiry for an injunction. However, the court dismissed the case on the ground that they cannot issue an order controlling the police’s action at future protests, while the investigation into the officers involved is under the authority of the police headquarters.

The protest on Sunday started at the Democracy Monument, before marching to Government House to demand the resignation of Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha, the reduction of the budget for the monarchy and military to increase Covid-19 assistance, and replacement of the Sinovac vaccine with mRNA vaccines. However, protesters were met with crowd control police armed with rubber bullets, tear gas, and water cannon trucks. They were blocked from reaching Government House and gathered at the Nang Loeng intersection to burn mock body bags and a figure of Gen Prayut before announcing the conclusion of the protest.

Saharat Sukkhamla, a novice monk who has often attended protests, has received a summons from Pathumwan Police Station on a royal defamation charge relating to a speech he gave at a protest on 21 November 2020.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported on Monday (5 July) that Saharat received a summons on a royal defamation charge under Section 112 of the Thai Criminal Code. The summons states that the complaint against him was filed by Ratthanaphak Suwannarat, and that Saharat must report to Pathumwan Police Station on 12 July at 10.00.

TLHR said that the charge was related to a speech Saharat gave at a protest organized by the students’ rights group Bad Student on 21 November 2020.

Voice TV reported that on 25 February 2021, special branch police officers tried to disrobe Saharat, claiming a consensus of the Sangha Supreme Council of Thailand, the main governing body of the Buddhist order in Thailand, and an announcement from the National Office of Buddhism. The officers claimed that Saharat’s actions insulted the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand, who is the head of the order of Buddhist monks, and that he caused conflict within the order.

According to Voice TV, special branch police officers and a representative from the National Office of Buddhism were waiting for Saharat in front of his residence, and left after they were unable to find him.

At least 103 people have been charged under Section 112 in 100 cases since November 2020, 8 of whom are under 18 years old. According to TLHR, 46 of the cases resulted from complaints filed by members of the public. Saharat is apparently the first monk charged under Section 112.

Court sentenced “Bright Shinnawat” to four months’ imprisonment for Contempt of Court for delivering a speech in front of the Criminal Court on 29 April 2021 without revoking his bail for the 19 September Rally case

8 June 2021 – the Ratchada Criminal Court scheduled an examination hearing for the case against Shinnawat “Bright” Chankrajang, a young activist from Nonthaburi province. He was charged with Contempt of Court for participating in the protest on 29 April 2021, demanding the Court to uphold the right to bail for Ratsadon Group leaders detained while awaiting trial for alleged violations of Article 112 of the Criminal Code (lèse-majesté).

Chawannat Thongsom, director of the Administrative Office of the Criminal Court, was the accuser in this case. The accusation report explains that on 29 April 2021, around 300 members of the United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration joined an activity in which they submitted the letter of “royal injustice” to the Court and staged a public reading of the poem “Judicial Activism” on the staircase of the Criminal Court. During the event, they occasionally used an amplifier to shout out “Release our friends” among other phrases, thereby causing a disturbance inside the Criminal Court.

Shinnawat participated in the said demonstration and delivered a speech through the amplifier. In summary, he said that he would no longer respect the Court because Thai courts are murderers who fail to serve justice for democracy supporters. He further cursed those involved in incarcerating his fellow activists. Directly addressing the President of the Supreme Court, he stated that she must serve as the national guarantor of justice with the responsibility to ensure that the monarch governs Thailand’s democratic rule as the head of state within the remit defined by the constitution. The Court must recognize people’s rights and liberties and grant bail at the initial stage rather than authorize detention or postpone the consideration of bail requests. He questioned how the Court could be regarded as fair when those who carried out public activism for protecting national interests are put into jail, whereas those engaged in blatant corruption are still on the loose.

Meanwhile, the accused had filed a petition to the Court, denying all charges. The defense argued that Shinnawat only delivered the speech and participated in the rally at the Criminal Court’s staircase near the police’s fence. He did not use any force nor caused harm to the lives, liberties, or properties of the Court or anyone else. Moreover, his act of delivering the speech constituted a legitimate exercise of his freedom of expression; he merely criticized the use of judiciary powers that contradict the legal principle concerning temporary release in good faith. He was only arguing that the refusal of bail shall only occur for reasons laid out in Section 108/1 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Moreover, the demonstration was not organized in a manner that intends to delay the Court’s proceedings. On the contrary, the activity’s objective was to call for the Court to approve the bail requests from defendants in the case against activists involved in the “19 September: Return Power to the People” demonstration. On that day, there was no court trial either. The accused’s actions, therefore, did not constitute Contempt of Court.

Shinnawat further testified that he was also facing another charge of “insulting the Court” at the Central Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct for the same action. Like the case against him currently examined by the Criminal Court, this charge could result in criminal punishments. As the Central Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct has not yet delivered its decision, it could be said that the accused is facing double jeopardy.

Notes from the examination for the “Contempt of Court case” in Trial Room No. 805 At 10:00 am, Shinnawat and his lawyer arrived at Trial Room No. 805. The young activist was wearing a t-shirt screen-printed with the number “112” crossed out. The Court began the trial at 10:16 am by examining the accused and showing the videos capturing the demonstration to the accused. Then two witnesses were asked to take the stand, including Chawannat Thongsom, director of the Administrative Office of the Criminal Court (The accuser), and Shinnawat “Bright” Chankrajang (The accused).

The Court asked the accused if he had seen the videos of the demonstration recorded in the CDs submitted as evidence. Further, the Court inquired whether the videos were edited to distort the accused’s actions. Shinnawat admitted that he was the man in the videos and that they were not edited. However, they only captured some parts of what happened, not the entire activity.

The Court requested to confirm whether the videos recorded what really happened. Therefore, Shinnawat reiterated that the videos captured only some specific parts of what happened. Many other relevant activities were not present in the CD.

Then the Court inquired whether Shinnawat went on stage to give a speech or not. Shinnawat admitted that he really delivered the speech. His words quoted in the accusation report were also accurate. However, they were not all that he said on that day. The Court responded to Shinnawat, “The Court only cares about your insults, so the accusation report did not quote the entire speech.”

Shinnawat asked the Court back, “I would like your honor to ask about my feelings and motives driving me to say those things.” The Court replied that if Shinnawat disagreed with the ruling, he could file for an appeal at the Appeal Court or Supreme Court. Later, the Court showed Shinnawat the videos and turned on a high volume to help him identify the parts that were not his speech.

After watching the video, Shinnawat told the Court that the video only captured some sections of the activity. The Court then interrupted his statement and said Shinnawat should find a recording of the entire activity to show the Court his side of the story. Shinnawat then noted that even if the existing videos showed the actual occurrences, the Court should still be fair with him and incorporate complete footage into the list of evidence for this case.

The Court answered that the case is only concerned with insults and actions against the Court. However, if the accused wanted to object to the accusation, he must find evidence to show to the Court by himself. The accused’s failure to provide such proof prevents the Court from carrying out its duty as requested, and the Court would not allow the postponement of the trial on that day. The Court asserted that the examination must be carried out on that day only and the accused needed to secure evidence that demonstrates what happened. The Court’s only responsibility is to assess and rule whether the accused committed Contempt of Court while disorder took place in the Court’s premise.

Upon consultation with the accused, the defense lawyer affirmed the Court that the accused’s behavior did not constitute Contempt of Court. The Court then responded that the accused could exercise his full right to defend himself in court. Still, the Court would continue carrying out the examination to determine whether disorder took place in court. Meanwhile, Shinnawat attempted to request the Court to examine the motive behind his actions, not just the facts about what he did.

The defense lawyer also asked the Court for an opportunity for the accused to clarify his motive because he could face criminal punishment if found guilty. The Court, however, insisted that the accused needed to find his own evidence to demonstrate his sides of the story about what happened on that day. Then the Court of Justice’s Director-General will provide their opinions about the next steps and potential punishment for the accused. Finally, the Court compared the Director-General to a house owner and the judge to a homemaker. It further revealed that the director of the Administrative Office of the Criminal Court was the one who filed an incident report about the demonstration to the Director-General of the Criminal Court.

First witness: Chawannat Thongsom, Director of the Administrative Office of the Criminal Court, (The accuser) At 11:04 am, the Court began examining Chawannat Thongsom, Director of the Administrative Office of the Criminal Court, as the first witness. Chawanat stated that the incident took place during the day on 29 April 2021. On that day, the bail applications were filed for defendants charged for alleged violations of Article 112 (Black Criminal Case No. Aor 287/64), including Parit “Penguin” Chiwarak, Panassaya “Rung” Sitthijirawattanakul, and Chai-amorn “Ammy” Kaewwiboonpan. The United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration posted on their social media accounts about this event and invited the followers come to the Court to give the three activists moral support. They planned on hosting activity to submit the letter of “royal injustice” to the Director-General of the Criminal Court and staged a public reading of the poem called “Judicial Activism.”

At around noon, a group of approximately 300 people gathered in the zone adjacent to the Criminal Court’s ground floor. Later, they started to use an amplifier to create deafening noises. As a result, Pol. Lt. Col. Sakchai Kraiweeradechachai, Deputy Superintendent for Crime Suppression at Pahon Yothin Police Station, intervened and informed the protestors about the current situation of the COVID-19 outbreak and legal requirements under the Emergency Decree. However, the protestors refused to listen to the authorities.

Later, Pol Col Prasopchok Iampinij, Superintendent of Pahon Yothin Police Station, made another announcement, asking the protestors to maintain order and only exercised their freedom within the scope of the Court’s permission. Still, the protestors denied cooperation with the authorities and continued their demonstration using the amplifier to give political speeches.

After a series of disorderly events took place, the inquiry team of Pahon Yothin Police Station carried out an investigation and remarked in their inquiry report that the perpetrators violating the laws on that day included Benja Apan, Shinnawat Chankrajang, and Natchanon Pairoj.

The Court asked the witness about what each of the accused did. The witness said that Benja threw pamphlets on the Court’s floor, ran up and down the Court’s staircase, and delivered a speech recorded in the videos and the police’s inquiry report.

The witness stated further that Shinnawat was one of the accused persons in this case. He was standing among the crowd of protestors in front of the Criminal Court, using a loudspeaker to say vulgar words, according to the inquiry report of Pahon Yothin Police Station, as well as the existing video recordings. The Court asked what Shinnawat said about the Court on that day. The witness then referred to Shinnawat’s statement documented in the accusation report, which writes, “On 30 April 2021, I will visit this Criminal Court and will no longer have any respect for the Court.” She added that he insulted the Court by calling it a “murderer,” according to the inquiry report of Pahon Yothin Police Station and the video recordings.

After receiving the report from Pahon Yothin Police Station, the witness informed and showed to the Director-General of the Criminal Court some photographs and two CDs with video recordings of this incident: one with a video recorded by Pahon Yothin Police Station and the other with another clip from the Criminal Court. Then the Director-General of the Criminal Court issued an order to call for an investigation into this case and initiate Contempt of Court charges.

The witness asserted that she had an obligation to inform the Director-General of the Criminal Court about this incident. After examining the inquiry report of Pahon Yothin Police Station, together with recordings inside the two CDs, she concluded that the accused caused a disturbance for the Court. She is directly responsible for taking care of this matter; therefore, she reported to the Director-General about what happened. She also noted she pressed Contempt of Court charges against six people involved in this rally. The examination hearings for some of the accused have been postponed. At the time, none of the hearings for Contempt of Court cases linked to the demonstration on that day has finished.

In response to the defense’s cross-examination, the witness acknowledged that the video recordings showed that the accused remained outside the Court’s premise while delivering the speech because an iron fence was guarding the venue. However, she argued that he was standing next to the iron fence near the Court’s pillars without walking up the staircase. Furthermore, according to the video recordings inside the CDs and the police’s inquiry report, the accused used vulgar language in his speech and stood with a group of around 300 protestors. Furthermore, even if the bail requests were not considered in trial on that day, the Court was administering other trials at the time of the rally.

The witness admitted to the defense lawyer that the United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration came to the Court to submit its letter with a list of signatures to request the Court to grant bail for Parit and Panussaya. She also heard news reports about Parit’s symptoms that his stomach began to digest his body tissue due to his decision to go on hunger strike to call for the Court to grant bail for pro-democracy activists. However, she said she did not know whether the reports were accurate.

When the lawyer asked of the United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration’s letter to the Court, which states that Parit might pass away if the Court continues to deny bail, the witness responded that she had not seen the letter. She further remarked that she did not know what the letter said because the Court did not send any representative to accept the letter. Later, the lawyer showed her the United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration’s letter of “royal injustice” and a list of signatures to ask her if it was the document that Ms. Benja was throwing or not. Again, the witness said she did not know because the documents were not attached in the inquiry report, and she was not present at the incident.

The defense lawyer asked whether it was true that Parit’s mother went up to the fence and was told by court officials that she had to tell other protestors to leave the Court’s front area. Otherwise, the Court would not read its verdict. The witness said she was unsure whether the court officials received an order to do so because she did not speak with the Director-General about this matter. The lawyer followed up, asking whether Parit’s mother was requested to negotiate with the protestors. The witness said the authorities made such a request because of the disorder that took place at the time.

On the evening of that day, the witness added that she was not in the court area because she was working from home. Therefore, she did not know that there was any turmoil. However, there are video recordings in the CDs that could confirm that. When she arrived at the Court at 4:00 pm, the situation in front of the Court had de-escalated and become calm. The protestors were only waiting to hear whether the Court would grant bail. Meanwhile, some were still using the amplifier to deliver speeches outside the fenced area of the Court. Thus, she asked Parit’s mother to negotiate with them. According to her, once Parit’s mother did so, these protestors stopped their activity, and the peace was restored.

The witness informed the defense lawyer she did not notice whether Shinnawat was outside the fence when she arrived at the Court. She was doing work at her desk and did not walk to the front area of the Court. Therefore, she could not see what was going on in the rally. However, she saw his speech from the videos taken by Pahon Yothin Police Station and the Criminal Court.

The lawyer asked why the witness charge him in two separate cases with Contempt of Court and insulting the court for the same action. As the director of the criminal court’s office, the witness said that she has no power to initiate a Contempt of Court charge. Her only responsibility was to report to the Director-General. It was the Director-General’s decision to order the Court to press this charge.

Upon examining case documents, the lawyer shared that the defense found that Pahon Yothin Police Station submitted its inquiry report to the Office of the Court of Justice. Therefore, the witness was asked whether the police submitted the report with the intention to prosecute those involved in the incident with Contempt of Court. The witness admitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Pahon Yothin Police Station submitted an inquiry report to the Office of the Court of Justice. However, the witness said she was unsure whether the Office of the Court of Justice had previously filed a Contempt of Court charge to Pahon Yothin Police Station or not because it was not within her realm of responsibility.

Witness No. 2: Shinnawat Chankrajang (The accused) Before the accused begin testifying, the defense lawyer requested the Court to examine two witnesses, including Shinnawat (the accused) and Sureerat Chiwarak, Parit’s mother. Nonetheless, the Court denied the request and asserted that it only wanted to examine Witness No. 2 about the facts of what happened on that day. The Court only wanted to assess whether there was a disturbance of peace and report back to the Director-General, who would decide whether the defendant was guilty. The Court has no actual authority to rule on this case.

The Court asked Shinnawat if he was the person captured on camera in the videos on the CD and if he delivered a speech on that day. If so, the Court also wanted to know why he took those actions. Shinnawat admitted that he was in the incident, and the recordings were real. However, what appears in the videos on the CD does not capture the entire event. They lacked many factual elements that could have explained how the event unfolded. Before the witness began using vulgar language to curse at the Court, several incidents stirred the frustrations and anger of the protestors. Still, they were missing from the videos.

The witness further contended that the Court should have sent a representative to come down from the office and accept the United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration’s letter. That hypothetical decision could have prevented the crowd from using insults against the Court or engaging in disturbance of the peace. He claimed that he used vulgar language because he did not want anyone to weaponize the Court. He would like the Court to uphold its gracious independence. When the witness spoke of the Court, he would often say that the Court need not take his side. The Court only should serve justice and carry out the legal proceedings properly.

When the witness was standing with other protestors on that day, they remained outside the Court and did not break into the fenced area. The amplifier used on that day was a small, portable one. Their size was not big. The witness did not know that it was prohibited to deliver political speeches and stage an assembly outside the Criminal Court. Therefore, he did not anticipate that his speech delivery outside the court building would constitute Contempt of Court.

He continued explaining that he got angry because he saw Judge Chanatip Muanpawong walked down to the ground floor of the Criminal Court. The judge also got into arguments with the protestors, thus escalating tension and leading to turmoil during the demonstration. The lack of clarity on whether the three activists would receive bail led to even greater disorder.

Judge Chanatip had an infamous record of denying bail requests and arguing with protestors. Therefore, the witness viewed his appearance as an attempt to escalate the situation and disturb the peaceful demonstration. The witness said he yelled out, “Murderer Court” because he saw a recent news report about Parit’s health conditions before attending the rally. Reportedly, Parit had fallen sick because of his hunger strike that caused his stomach to digest his own body tissue, leading to rectal bleeding. There were also news reports about the spread of COVID-19 in prison. The witness was concerned that if Parit did not receive bail, he might die in prison.

The witness asked the Court to examine the video clips thoroughly, and the Court would realize that his speech was well-intended. He insisted that he did not want the Court to receive more negative criticisms.

The witness answered the lawyer that he arrived at the Court at around 1:30 pm. At that time, the Court’s gate on the Ratchada Road side did not have any fence, and the authorities did not block anyone from entering the building. Around 100 people were waiting inside the Court, not 300 people as claimed by the accuser during her testimony. When he arrived at the Criminal Court, some protestors were already using the amplifier. He did not know to whom it belonged.

The witness spoke about the causes of the turmoil during the demonstration. He told the defense lawyer the protestors were not simply angered by Chanatip’s presence in front of the Criminal Court. There was another incident taking place simultaneously. At around 2:00 or 3:00 pm, a court official approached and told the protestors that the Court would not deliver its ruling if they did not leave the area. This order angered the crowd deeply.

Normally, the Court would send a representative to accept any petition letters from external parties. Thus, the defense lawyer asked the witness whether it was true that no one agreed to receive the United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration’s letter. The witness said that he heard that a representative would come down from their office to receive an external letter to the Court in other cases. However, this time, nobody agreed to do so.

In response to the lawyer’s question about the charge of insulting the Court from the same incident, the witness said that this case remains in the remand stage, and he has denied all charges.

Lastly, the witness said that he knew Parit’s mother and saw her exiting the Criminal Court on the evening of that day. When the crowd got smaller, she told the protestors to leave the area in front of the Court, move outside the Court’s, and return home. The protestors agreed to follow the request from Parit’s mother.

At 12:30 pm, the Court finished examining both witnesses and scheduled for delivering the verdict at 2:00 pm.

Court sentenced the defendant to four months’ imprisonment without any suspension, stating that his references to the Court were vulgar and showed defiance of the law At around 2:20 pm, at Trial Room No. 805, Shinnawat was waiting to hear the Court’s verdict. Somyot Pruksakasemsuk also observed the trial in that afternoon because he was also one of the defendants charged with Contempt of Court from the same demonstration. Therefore, he would like to know how the procedures were. The trial room officials requested all observers to sit apart from one another as part of the Court’s social distancing measures.

Later, at 2:40 pm, the Court delivered its ruling, which indicated that the defendant used vulgar language to express contempt against the Court, and his actions showed defiance of the law. Therefore, the Court found him guilty of Sections 30 – 33 of the Criminal Procedure Code and sentenced him to four months’ imprisonment without any suspension.

The Court asked the Department of Corrections to immediately prepare to detain the defendant before bringing him to Trial Room No. 703 to consider whether to revoke his bail for another case.

Court decided not to revoke the defendant’s bail for the “19 September: Return Power to the People Demonstration” case, citing no impact from his conviction on the factual elements of the other case. However, a bail condition was added to prohibit him from participating in activities causing public disorder

At Trial Room No. 703, the Court only permitted Shinnawat’s family members, including his wife and toddler son, lawyer, and other observers, to attend the trial. Inside the room, there were four court police officers and one security guard. The Court began the trial at 3:23 pm. The lawyer started by informing the Court that the defense will appeal the Court’s decision to sentence Shinnawat to four months’ imprisonment for Contempt of Court, mainly because the defendant is facing double jeopardy from another case in which he was charged with insulting the Court. Moreover, the defendant said that he did not violate any bail conditions for the “19 September: Return Power to the People Demonstration” case because he had already paid the surety of 35,000 THB without agreeing to any additional requirements. This case also has nothing to do with the Contempt of Court case.

Later, the Court decided not to revoke Shinnawat’s bail for the 19 September 2021 case. It assessed that even though the defendant was found guilty of Contempt of Court, the decision to revoke bail must follow the rationales laid out in Section 108/1 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Notably, the defendant’s commission of Contempt of Court is not related to the judicial proceedings in the other case, therefore not impeding its trial. The offenses in both cases are also different, so it could be determined that the defendant may cause another danger of a similar nature. For these reasons, the Court decided not to revoke his bail.

The Court maintained its decision to allow for Shinnawat’s provisional release for the “19 September: Return Power to the People Demonstration” case. However, it added one condition prohibiting him from participating in any rallies that may cause public disorder.

For the Contempt of Court case, the defense lawyer filed for bail while the case remains pending appeal. Shortly after, at 4:00 pm, the Court granted bail for him upon providing the surety of 10,000 THB from the Ratsadonprasong Fund.

This is Shinnawat’s second Contempt of Court case. Previously, on 31 May 2021, the Court sentenced him and “Ford Red Path” Anurak Jentawanich to 15 days’ imprisonment and a 500-THB fine per person. Nonetheless, their sentences were suspended. In this case, their alleged violations occurred when they took photos of the courtroom while waiting for the judge to begin the indictment trial of the “19 September: Return Power to the People Demonstration” case on 8 March 2021.

According to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) ‘s documentation record, from the beginning of the Free Youth Group’s demonstration to May 2021, at least 13 people have been charged with Contempt of Court in 13 cases, and at least 20 people with insulting the Court in three cases. Among these cases, seven Contempt of Court cases stemmed from the demonstrations on 29 and 30 April 2021, which called for the right to bail for Ratsadon leaders held in pre-trial detention. Today, the Court finished the examination and delivered its ruling for only one case against Shinnawat.

The student activist group Bad Student staged a protest at the Ministry of Education to call for gender equality and LGBTQ rights in the school system. The protest took place at 15.45 on Friday (18 June) and was broadcast live on Bad Student’s Facebook page. The group staged a performance symbolizing discrimination against LGBTQ students in Thai schools, and wrapped a rainbow Pride flag around the statue of King Vajiravudh in front of the Ministry building.

Police officers stationed in the area then pulled down the flag and pushed the group and reporters covering the event off the lawn in front of the building. Voice Online reported that the participant who climbed up the base of the statue to wrap it with the Pride flag was detained by two officers, who tried to take them away. However, the rest of the group stopped the officers and told them that they must state the charges before they can arrest the participant. The officers were not able to state the charges, and the participant was released.

On Saturday (19 June), Ministry spokesperson Kesthip Supawanich said that the group’s action has angered many people, and that the Ministry has communicated with other relevant agencies and found that the participant who wrapped the flag around the statue was 22 years old and is therefore not a minor and no longer in the school system. Kesthip said that the Ministry will be proceeding with the next steps against the group, and said that the students will not be allowed to hold another event inside the Ministry grounds.

Bad Student then issued a statement on their Facebook page condemning police officers for using excessive force against the participants and the Ministry for caring more about a statue than school safety, as the event was held to demand that the Ministry solve the issue of gender-based discrimination and violations of human rights against LGBTQ students in Thai schools.

“Gender diversity is no harm to anyone. If the Ministry of Education does not understand this principle, and even sees that gender diversity as a threat, it means that the Ministry of Education does not support gender diversity. If even the Ministry of Education is like this, how could there be gender equality in schools?” said the group. The group faced some obstacles before the beginning of the event. After group representatives met in front of the Ministry at 15.45, Ministry security personnel closed the gates, preventing the rest of their team from entering the Ministry grounds. Around 15 minutes later, around 20 uniformed police officers from Dusit Police Station began lining up in front of the Ministry.

Dusit Police Station Superintendent Pol Col Jatuphon Phonphakdi came to negotiate with the group and asked them to take their activities outside, telling them that they have to ask for permission before organizing an event on Ministry grounds. A representative of the group said that they have already communicated with Education Minister Trinuch Thienthong, who allowed the gates to be open. However, a Ministry official said that the group is still not allowed to hold their event inside the Ministry. After the group refused to leave, Pol Col Jatuphon threatened them with legal prosecution. Meanwhile, plainclothes officers took pictures of the participants. They were finally allowed to stage their performance after they spoke to the Education Permanent Secretary, who allowed them to stay on the Ministry grounds until 18.30.

The event concluded at 18.45, while around 10 police officers were still surrounding King Vajiravudh’s statue.

Chaiamorn “Ammy” Kaewwiboonpan, lead singer of pop band The Bottom Blues, is facing another royal defamation charge for singing a modified version of his song “1 2 3 4 5 I love you” at a protest in front of the Thanyaburi Provincial Court in January 2021. Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported yesterday (7 June) that Chaiamorn and activist Phromsorn Weerathamjare face royal defamation charges under Section 112 of the Thai Criminal Code for their participation in the 14 January 2021 protest in front of the Thanyaburi Provincial Court to demand the release of student activist Sirichai Natueng, who was arrested in the middle of the night on 13 January 2021 on a royal defamation charge for spray-painting portraits of members of the royal family.

During the protest, Chaiamorn and Phromsong sang a modified version of Chaiamorn’s song “1 2 3 4 5 I love you,” which has become one of the songs most commonly used in protests, often with the “I love you” in the refrain replaced with “Fuck you Too [Prayut Chan-o-cha]” or “Free our friends.”

TLHR reported that according to the police, participants during the 14 January 2021 protest replaced “I love you” with “Fuck you […].” TLHR did not disclose what the final word was, but said the police deemed that the modified lyrics were insulting to the king.

Phromsorn reported to Thanyaburi Police Station yesterday (7 June) and denied all charges, while Chaiamorn said he was unavailable and instead reported to the police today (8 June).

TLHR reported later today (8 June) that the public prosecutor has filed a case against the two activists. This is the 17th royal defamation case in which the public prosecutor has ordered an indictment since the law began to be used against pro-democracy protesters in November 2020.

The Thanyaburi Provincian Court granted bail for Promsorn and Chaiamorn with a security of 300,000 baht each. The court also required them to sign a letter promising not to run or tamper with evidence.

Chaiamorn posted on his band’s Facebook page yesterday (7 June) that this is “the first pop song to be charged under Section 112” and that he was notified of the charges while he was still being detained pending trial in another royal defamation charge at the Thanyaburi Remand Prison. He was in detention for 69 days before he was released on 11 May 2021 on condition that he does not participate in activities which are damaging to the monarchy – the same condition imposed on several activists charged under Section 112 and released on bail.

Phromsorn is facing a total of 3 counts of royal defamation relating to political expression, while Chaiamorn is facing 2.

Three journalists from the Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB) were sentenced to seven months in jail and fined for entering Thailand illegally on May 28. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) urges Thai authorities to not deport the journalists and to support their efforts for political asylum.

The Democratic Voice of Burma was one of the first news organisations to be shut down by the military coup in March, following the military coup in Myanmar on February 1. The three journalists fled the country, but were consequently arrested during a police search in the northern city of Chiang Mai on May 9.

The three DVB journalists, along with their two other associates, were sentenced to seven months imprisonment and a 4,000 baht (USD 128) fine each.

Nadthasiri Bergman, a lawyer with the Human Rights Development Foundation (HRDF), told AFP that "By law, they can be deported within 72 hours." However, Bergman quickly added that because of the appeal letter the HRDF sent, immigration authorities could not deport them immediately.

On April 24, an ASEAN Summit on Myanmar took place, where the leaders of eight Southeast nations congregated to discuss the Myanmar political crisis but Thailand’s Prime Minister, Prayut Chan-O-Cha, was not in attendance. News reports suggested this was linked to the Royal Thai Army’s close relations with the military establishment in Myanmar.

ASEAN has continued in its principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of its members. Thailand is not a signatory to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and thus there is no legislation governing the treatment of refugees.

Since the February 1 coup, more than 80 journalists are among the more than 5,500 people arrested or detained by Myanmar’s security forces. Many remain in detention, amongst widespread accounts of torture and extrajudicial killings.

Student activist Parit Chiwarak is now facing 20 counts under the lèse majesté law, after complaints were filed against him for Facebook posts he made about King Vajiralongkorn’s divorce from his ex-wife Sujarinee Vivacharawongse, and the use of Sanam Luang for funerals. Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported that Parit went to the Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD) on Tuesday (15 June) to hear the charges, after complaints were filed against him by Nopadol Prompasit, a member of the Thailand Help Center for Cyberbullying Victims, an online royalist group whose members have filed numerous lèse majesté charges against many netizens, claiming in one post that they have filed complaints with the TCSD against 90 people for posts made on Queen Suthida’s birthday which they see as insulting against the Queen.

The complaints against Parit were filed on 11 January 2021 and are related to two Facebook posts he made in December 2020. The first was on 8 December 2020 about King Vajiralongkorn’s divorce from his ex-wife Sujarinee Vivacharawongse, who now lives in the United States in exile with her four sons.

He also called for Princess Sirivannavari, the King's younger daughter, not to use taxpayer’s money to promote her fashion brand, and included in the post a link to a voice clip rumoured to be that of the king saying “I know I’m bad.”

The second post was on 31 December 2020 and mentioned how funerals are allowed to be held at Sanam Luang but people are not allowed to sell shrimp, referring to the shrimp sale organized by the volunteer protest guard group We Volunteer on 31 December 2020 which was dispersed by police.

Since the reign of King Rama I, which began in 1782, the area now known as Sanam Luang has been used as cremation sites for the funerals of kings, queens, and high-ranking members of the royal family.

Parit faces charges under the lèse majesté law, or Section 112 of the Thai Criminal Code, and the Computer Crimes Act. He denied all charges and requested that Sujarinee and her sons be brought in as witnesses and to have them testify on why they had to leave the country, who is involved in their exile, and whether they wish to return to Thailand.

This is Parit’s 20th count under the lèse majesté law. According to TLHR, at least 100 people are now facing lèse majesté charges since November 2020, 8 of whom are less than 18 years old.

Thai authorities should immediately and unconditionally drop insulting the monarchy and other politically motivated charges against children who peacefully express their opinions, Human Rights Watch said today.

On May 24, 2021, the Central Juvenile and Family Court informed 17-year-old Thanakorn Phiraban that he has been indicted on lese majeste (insulting the monarchy) charges related to his speech at a pro-democracy rally on December 6, 2020, in Bangkok. Under Thailand’s draconian article 112 of the Criminal Code, Thanakorn faces 3 to 15 years in prison if found guilty.

“By punishing outspoken children with lese majeste charges, the Thai authorities are seeking to intimidate peaceful critics by demonstrating that they will all be harshly punished regardless of their age,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “These senseless, rights-abusing charges should immediately be dropped against Thanakorn and all others peacefully expressing their views.”

The number of lese majeste cases in Thailand has significantly increased in the past year. After almost a three-year hiatus in which lese majeste prosecutions were not brought before the courts, in November 2020 Prime Minister Gen. Prayut Chan-ocha ordered the authorities to resume lese majeste prosecutions because of growing criticisms of the monarchy. Since then, officials have charged at least 82 people with lese majeste crimes in relation to various activities at pro-democracy rallies or comments on social media. Six of them are children, under age 18.

In a February 8 statement on the situation in Thailand, United Nations human rights experts said that lese majeste laws have “no place in a democratic country.” They also expressed serious concerns about the growing number of lese majeste prosecutions and harsh prison sentences the courts in Thailand have meted out to some defendants.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Thailand has ratified, protects the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. General Comment 34 of the Human Rights Committee, the international expert body that monitors compliance with the covenant, specifically states that laws such as those for lese majeste “should not provide for more severe penalties solely on the basis of the identity of the person that may have been impugned” and that governments “should not prohibit criticism of institutions.”

Children from middle school and high school have become commonplace at most pro-democracy rallies across Thailand, even giving speeches onstage. Groups such as the Bad Students have held their own rallies on school grounds and occasionally conducted street protests. But despite concerns publicly raised by the United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) and human rights groups, the Thai authorities continue to punish children for expressing views, participating in peaceful public rallies, and otherwise taking part in activities to demand democratic reforms.

The Thai Lawyers for Human Rights has reported that at least 41 children have been charged for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and assembly since the youth-led pro-democracy rallies started in July 2020. Many other children have faced various forms of intimidation by the authorities to try to stop them from taking part in political activity or making critical comments about the government and the monarchy. The government’s actions violate Thailand’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which ensures children’s rights to participate in peaceful protests and to express their opinions.

“Thai authorities should not be suppressing the voices of Thailand’s children expressing their views and demanding democratic reforms,” Adams said. “Instead of responding to children’s appeals with prosecutions, the authorities should listen to their views, and protect their rights to express their opinions without fear or intimidation.”

A 14-year-old girl (name withheld) has been summonsed by the police in Phitsanulok on a royal defamation charge under Section 112 of the Criminal Code.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported last Friday (28 May) that the girl received a summons from Mueang Phitsanulok Police Station on a Section 112 charge and is required to report to the police on 1 June.

The complaint was filed against her by former Action Coalition for Thailand (ACT) MP candidate Nangnoi Assawakittikorn, who has previously filed complaints under Section 112 against activists Panusaya Sithijirawattanakul, Anon Nampa, Panupong Jadnok, and Parit Chiwarak. She has also filed a libel complaint against a Facebook user for calling her a “slave of the dictator”.

The girl told Voice Online that a police officer delivered the summons to her house and it was received by her father. She said she does not know why the complaint was filed and does not know Nangnoi personally.

She also said that during the protests in Phitsanulok in 2020, she made comments about the royalist groups who were against the protests. One of her friends then commented about Nangnoi, who saw the comment. Even though she said the comment was not directly to do with Nangnoi, the girl was told by Nangnoi to meet at the police station.

Police officers then contacted her and told her that a Section 112 complaint had been filed against her, but did not show her an arrest warrant or a summons, so she decided not to speak to the officers until she received the summons last Friday (28 May).

Special Branch police also contacted the girl’s mother on 23 February, asking to discuss with her about sharing Facebook posts about the monarchy. The officers wanted the girl to delete the posts, saying that she would face no charges if she did so.

The girl said that she is surprised that an adult would press a politically motivated charge against a minor, and even use Section 112. However, she said that she will enter the judicial process and has already contacted a lawyer. She is likely to ask to postpone her appointment with the police, as her lawyer is unavailable on that day.

Accord to TLHR, the girl is the 7th person under the age of 18 to face charges under Section 112.

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha's lawyer has filed a report with the police against Suthipongse 'Heart' Thatphithakkul under the lèse majesté law and the Computer Crime Act. Suthipongse, a famous Thai singer with a political profile, is one among many who have been charged for speaking out against the government's vaccine policy.

Seksakon Atthawong, also known as Rambo Isan, assistant to the Minister of the Office of the Prime Minister, threatened on 15 May that the matter could be withdrawn if Suthipongse truly loves the monarchy and wants to help the country.

According to the Thai legal system, a criminal charge cannot be withdrawn unless a suspect is proven innocent. Suthipongse’s case was reported on 13 May at Nang Loeng Police Station, together with evidence of his Facebook post criticizing the government's Covid-19vaccine policy.

“The medicine of the boss is not selling. The stock is not moving. The lackeys have to come out to help with the marketing (I copied this from someone else) #vaccine monopoly, unless you are really ruthless, cannot be done," said one of the Facebook posts which made him a suspect under the lèse majesté law and the Computer Crime Act.

Apiwat Kantong, the Prime Minister’s lawyer, said that the term “boss” might refer to the monarchy and even if it was copied from someone else it might still constitute disinformation and lèse majesté.

After Suthipongse was reported to the police, he posted on Facebook asking ”how come that the Prime Minister sues the people?”

In a separate Facebook post, Suthipongse asked the government to drop the charges because he ran out of money to hire lawyers. Suthipongse also said that he was not interested in entering politics and the government may even get his help if it talks to him nicely.

Who is Heart? Suthipongse ‘Heart’ Thatphithakkul was a famous singer in Thailand. After he earned a Bachelor of Economics from the University of California at Los Angeles, and a Master of Economics from the University of Southern California, he returned to Thailand not only as a singer, but also as an economic analyst and famous TV host on many channels and programmes.

Suthipongse entered politics briefly in June 1997 when he became an executive committee member of the Prachakorn Thai Party under Samak Sundaravej as the party leader. However, he was disqualified from the party only 6 months later.

At the time, Prachakorn Thai was an important player in the Thai political landscape. After Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh resigned from the premiership because of the financial crisis in 1997, Prachakorn Thai defected from Chavalit’s New Aspiration Party coalition and forged a new government led by the Democrat Party with Chuan Leekpai as the Prime Minister.

In 2015 (one year after the military coup by Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha), Suthipongse invited Anutin Charnvirakul to sing a song in his show “Byrd & Heart” which he made with his old colleague Kulpong “Byrd” Bunnag. Anutin became Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Health in the current government after the election in 2019.

In 2018, Suthipongse revealed that he had 3 wives and 7 children.

When the protests erupted in Thailand, he became more vocal against Prayut Chan-o-cha’s government. In 2019, Narisroj Fuangrabil, former Thai ambassador to Argentina who posted on Facebook against the pro-democracy protesters, filed a report with police against Suthipongse for defamation after Suthipongse criticized him in a comment on the Facebook page of political exile Pavin Chachavalpongpun.

Suthipongse gave Narisroj flowers and apologized so the case was withdrawn.

Not the only one Suthipongse is not the only one to criticize the government’s vaccine policy who now faces legal charges.

On 18 January, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit of the Progressive Movement went Live on Facebook with a presentation on “The Royal Vaccine: Whose benefit, Whose loss?” Thanathorn was charged with violating the lèse majesté law and the Computer Crime Act on 21 January by the Prime Minister’s lawyer Apiwat.

On Facebook Live, Thanathorn said that although there were many vaccine providers, the Thai government bought only from AstraZeneca and Sinovac and in insufficient quantities because the government wanted to support Siam Bioscience Co. Ltd. Nikkei Asia reports that King Vajiralongkorn owns all but 2 of the company’s shares.

On 25 January, student protesters led by Benja Apan and Parit Chiwarak held an activity at the Srijulsup Building, where Siam Bioscience’s registered office is located, to publicize the problems surrounding the government’s vaccine policy. They too face 4 charges under the lèse majesté law, the Emergency Decree, the Communicable Diseases Act, and the Advertisement by Using Sound Amplifiers Control Act.

On 25 January, 5 students and citizens in Lampang Province were also served with summons as suspects under the lèse majesté law for displaying a banner which said “Budget for monarchy > Covid-19 vaccines.” The suspects were named as Phinit Thongkham, Wannaphon Hutakowit, Phattharakan Khaengkhan, Yupadee Kulkittanon), and Wan (alias).

In February 2021, a female student from Rajabhat University, Chiang Rai, and an admin of the page “Free Youth - CEI” was arrested under the lèse majesté law and the Computer Crime Act for sharing the “budget for monarchy > Covid-19 vaccines” banner on Facebook. Police believe that she was involved in hanging the banner near to King Vajiralongkorn’s portrait.

On 3 March, Piyarat Chongthep, a leading activist of the We Volunteer group, was detained in Kalasin Remand Prison on charges under the lèse majesté law and the Computer Crime Act for 7 protest signs against the government’s vaccine policy and for his social media posts of the protest signs. After 33 days in detention, he was allowed bail with a security of 200,000 baht.

The mother of student activist Panusaya Sithijirawattanakul has received a police summons on a charge under the Emergency Decree, after she joined a protest demanding her daughter’s release

Panusaya posted a picture of the summons on her Facebook page yesterday (19 May). The summons states that her mother violated the Emergency Decree by organizing an unauthorised gathering of more than 20 people at risk of the spread of disease, after she joined the “Stand Against Detention” protest in front of the Supreme Court on Ratchadamnoen Avenue on 28 April 2021 to demand the release of Panusaya and other activists who were detained at the time.

The “Stand Against Detention” protests were organised by the activist group Resistant Citizens to demand the release of activists being detained pending trial on charges relating to the recent pro-democracy protests and have been held continuously since 22 March 2021 at various locations across Bangkok. Similar events have also been held in other provinces.

According to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), no other participants in the “Stand Against Detention” protest have so far been charged with violating the Emergency Decree.

However, TLHR reported today (20 May) that two other people have received a police summons for participating in one of the “Stand Against Detention” protests: activist Punsak Srithep, a member of Resistant Citizen and whose son Samapan was killed during the the military crackdown on red shirt protesters in May 2010; and another protester named Napatsorn Boonrey.

Panusaya said in her post that participants in the protest kept a distance from each other. Resistant Citizen also required registration for each protest and only 20 participants were allowed.

Panusaya was granted bail and released on 6 May, after she had been in detention for 74 days. 7 people are currently still detained pending trial on charges relating to political expression.

Thai authorities should immediately investigate the killing of Somsak Onchuenjit, a lawyer and land rights activist, in Trang province in southern Thailand, Human Rights Watch said today. Successive Thai governments have failed to prevent or adequately respond to attacks against human rights defenders who represent landless farmers.

On May 4, 2021, at about 7:40 a.m., an unidentified gunman fatally shot Somsak, 54, while he was working in a rubber plantation near his home in Trang province’s Wangviset district. Somsak had recently told his family that he had been followed and was receiving death threats. But local authorities had neither investigated the threats nor arranged any measures to protect him.

“Thai authorities should not just stand by while grassroots activists in southern provinces are being murdered for standing up for their communities,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The Thai government should urgently conduct a credible and impartial investigation and bring those responsible for Somsak’s death to justice.”

Somsak had led a campaign for the right to agricultural land for poor villagers in his district. Over the past five months, conflicts in the area have intensified between local villagers who occupied oil palm plantations that no longer have valid leases with government agencies and private companies backed by local politicians. Community members told Human Rights Watch that police investigations into Somsak’s murder so far appear half-hearted and ineffectual.

During the past decade, at least five land rights activists in southern Thailand have been killed. All were leaders in campaigns seeking community ownership of agricultural land used by palm oil companies in which the lease with the government for the land had expired. The police have not made any serious progress in any of these cases. Meanwhile, the remaining activists constantly face harassment, physical intimidation, and a barrage of lawsuits filed by palm oil companies.

The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders calls on governments to take all necessary measures to protect human rights defenders against violence, threats, retaliation, and other abuses because of their work. International law recognizes government accountability for failing to protect people from rights abuses and violence by private actors. According to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, governments must not only protect people from violations of rights by government officials but “also against acts committed by private persons or entities that would impair the enjoyment” of their rights. A government may be violating human rights by “permitting or failing to take appropriate measures or to exercise due diligence to prevent, punish, investigate or redress the harm caused by such acts by private persons or entities.”

“The Thai government is failing in its obligation to seriously and effectively investigate deadly attacks against human rights advocates and hold those responsible to account,” Adams said. “With each new killing, Thailand slides further into lawlessness, and the government’s frequent claims to be protecting rights defenders ring hollow.”

a public prosecutor decided to charge Ms. Chonthicha “Lookkate” Jangreaw for violating Emergency Decree following her involvement in two pro-democracy protests on 18 and 21 October 2020 in Bangkok. The court later granted bail with a total of 40,000 Baht security for two alleged cases. The court set 9 August 2021 as the next hearing schedule.

ที่ศาลแขวงดุสิต พนักงานอัยการพิเศษฝ่ายคดีศาลแขวง 3 ได้มีคำสั่งฟ้องคดีของ “ลูกเกด” ชลธิชา แจ้งเร็ว ด้วยข้อหา ฝ่าฝืนประกาศสถานการณ์ฉุกเฉินที่มีความร้ายแรง ตาม พ.ร.ก.ฉุกเฉินฯ ใน 2 คดี ได้แก่ คดีจากการชุมนุม #ม็อบ18ตุลาไปอนุสาวรีย์ชัย ที่บริเวณอนุสาวรีย์ชัย และ คดีจากการชุมนุม #21ตุลาไปอนุสาวรีย์ชัย ซึ่งมีการเดินขบวนจากอนุสาวรีย์ชัยไปที่บริเวณหน้าทำเนียบรัฐบาล

หลังศาลรับฟ้อง ทนายจำเลยได้ยื่นประกันตัวระหว่างพิจารณา ศาลให้ประกันโดยวางหลักประกันเงินสดคดีละ 20,000 บาท รวมเป็น 40,000 บาท โดยเป็นหลักทรัพย์จากกองทุนราษฎรประสงค์ และกำหนดวันนัดพร้อมเพื่อสอบคำให้การทั้งสองคดีในวันที่ 9 ส.ค. 64 เวลา 09.00 น.