Peerapong Manakit, chairman of the subcommittee on TV content and programming at the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC), said the commission’s broadcasting panel had decided to suspend Peace TV’s licence, but the order had not been implemented yet.

“The order should arrive at Peace TV and go into effect next week. The verdict by the Supreme Administrative Court on Wednesday was based on a previous case dating back to April 2015 and its ruling on the same case in May this year,” Peerapong stressed.

After the NBTC on Monday decided to suspend the channel, alleging that three of Peace TV’s programmes aired in March violated the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO)’s announcements No 97 and 103, red-shirt leader Weng Tojirakarn filed a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court. The complaint was filed in Weng’s capacity as a host at the TV station.

The Supreme Administrative Court on Wednesday ruled that the Peace TV station could continue broadcasting under an injunction of the lower administrative court’s order and that the NBTC’s latest order could not overrule the court ruling.

Weng alleged that the NBTC’s order violated the May 26 injunction order from the Central Administrative Court, which allows the station to stay on air until the court rules on the case filed against NBTC’s earlier order to revoke its licence.

He said the Supreme Administrative Court had decided that if the NBTC thought the TV station violated any condition of the injunction, it should ask the Central Administrative Court to revoke the injunction instead of issuing its own order to overrule the court ruling.

Peerapong said the NBTC always respected court decisions, though both cases were lodged at different times and the new ruling from the Administrative Court did not overrule its order.

The commissioner explained that his panel had been considering the three Peace TV shows that violated the NCPO’s orders for several months.

“Therefore, the latest decision to suspend Peace TV’s licence was not influenced by political motivation or the government,” he insisted.

He was speaking at a meeting with high-ranking Public Health Ministry officials which was broadcast live to public health offices across the country.

Meechai rejected rumours that the draft charter took away citizens’ right to free universal healthcare, which is also known as the “gold card”.

He said Article 258 (4) stipulated that the public healthcare security system would be adjusted so people can have equal access to quality healthcare. The charter drafters had also kept effective and efficient management of the national health security fund in mind when writing the law, he said.

Jon Ungphakorn, adviser of the group Health Conscious People, asked last month if the draft charter would give free universal healthcare only to the “less privileged”.

“If this is the case, then the universal health care system will become a health system for ‘the poor’ instead of belonging to every citizen. Plus, ‘the poor’ would only get the lowest or third-class service compared to other groups of people,” he said.

Nimit Thien-udom, director of Aids Access, said the draft charter’s coverage of health was “the worst” in the past 20 years, because drafters had ignored the concept of ensuring equality in healthcare.

“The draft only focuses on the poor and the less privileged for the healthcare system,” he said.

He said it appeared the drafters had given the powers-that-be blank cheques regarding healthcare.

“When they think the cost of healthcare is too high, then they can make people pay for the service. The future government does not have to commit to free universal healthcare, and can take it out of the public welfare system,” he said.

He added that the most worrisome thing is that the private sector and the public were being deprived of the right to participate in the healthcare system.

“The healthcare system does not just concern doctors and the Public Health Ministry. It is like this because the charter reform does not focus on ensuring equality,” he explained.

The groups led by Arthit Suriyawongkul and Amnesty International Thailand’s director Piyanut Kotsan put up signs with messages such as “Stop single gateway”, “Do not spy” and “Article 14 on libel should not be criminal offence” outside Parliament. They also submitted a petition signed by 40,000 people who joined an online campaign via change.org to the National Legislative Assembly (NLA)’s second vice president Peerasak Porjit.

The groups called on the NLA to suspend the amendment, which they claim causes security issues for Internet users and adversely affected people’s rights and liberties.

Arthit said the amendment to the Computer Crime Act was part of the “digital stability legislation”, which six civic organisations and over 22,000 people earlier demanded be reviewed. The government at the time promised to remove clauses that violated the rights and liberty of people, but reports later showed that the Information and Communications Ministry had come up with the “single gateway” concept, which would effectively allow the state to control all information from overseas.

The amendment to the act was reviewed and forwarded for Cabinet approval on April 21. The Cabinet approved the legislation, and the NLA gave the amendment the green light in its first reading and set up a committee to scrutinise the bill.

Arthit said his group wanted the committee to amend Articles 14 and 15 and remove Article 20.

Piyanut said she was concerned that some of the articles blocked people’s freedom of expression via electronic media and also violated people’s privacy, which should be guaranteed by international human rights standards. She said the proposed legislation also restricted political and civil rights, which goes against international rules defined by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Thailand signed in 1996.

Peerasak said he would submit the petition to the panel scrutinising the bill on the second and third readings, and that the Citizens Network can meet the committee to explain its objections.

THE GROUP Internet Law Reform Dialogue (iLaw) and its allies filed a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court yesterday, asking it to consider revoking the Election Commission’s (EC) announcement on regulations over expressing opinion on the upcoming referendum.

It also asked the court to place an injunction on the implementation of the announcement as well as the EC’s TV programme disseminating information on the draft charter and its campaign on the plebiscite.

The petition for an injunction on the two actions taken by the EC is allowed under Article 66 of the Administrative Court and Procedure Act to help alleviate immediate issues when the trial process is ongoing.

The group, led by iLaw’s director, Jon Ungphakorn, said that with the August 7 referendum on the draft charter fast approaching, the court should consider suspending the announcement as well as the TV show immediately, so voters can receive information from different sources ahead of the poll.

The EC’s announcement provides guidelines on what is permitted and what is prohibited ahead of the referendum, including a ban on people wearing shirts, badges, pins, ribbons, flags or signs that may influence voters. The ban also covers the distribution of such items as could be construed as moves to incite violence.

The announcement supplements Article 61 of the Referendum Law, which the Constitutional Court found constitutional last week in response to a petition filed by the same group in May questioning its legality.

Yesterday the petitioners said the announcement was unlawful, as it comprises content that can be deemed as violating democratic principles and international obligations that Thailand has agreed to. Most importantly, they say, it affects the very essence of freedom of expression under a democratic regime. They also said that the announcement was unclear and the guidelines provided imposed tight restrictions that do not protect public interests.

They said that if the announcement were implemented, it would impede the referendum from fulfilling its true purpose, prompting the vote to lose its legitimacy and hence impact political stability and social order in the future.

As for the EC-sponsored TV programme, the group said that not enough opposition voices were featured, which allowed charter supporters to gain an advantage. Hence, they said, the show should be taken off the air until more opposition voices were given an equal chance to speak.

Apart from iLaw, the petition is supported by 12 other civil society groups, academics, and individuals, namely the Association of the People’s Rights and Freedom, pro-democracy law expert Ekachai Chainuvati, rights and peace advocate Sriprapa Petchmeesri, pro-democracy activist Chanoknan Ruamsap and political scientist Prapas Pintobtang.

Meanwhile, EC’s Somchai Srisuthiyakorn responded to iLaw by asking if the group would accept the court’s decision if it refuses to accept the case or rules against it. He added that the EC would willingly withdraw the announcement if ordered by court to do so.

“Will iLaw accept the ruling? Or will it continue resisting such as when the Constitutional Court ruled that Article 61 was not unconstitutional as they alleged?” Somchai asked. “Or do all courts have to rule in line with their preference for them to accept it?”

The commissioner also refuted the group’s allegations against the Referendum Law and the EC’s announcement, saying the agency did not prohibit the wearing of shirts, flags or brooches unless they carry messages that aim to incite violence.

As for EC’s allegedly biased TV show on the charter, Somchai said each TV station is free to have people with different stances to voice their opinions on the show, insisting that the commission was impartial.

Their lawyer, meanwhile, has vowed to file a petition calling on the Military Court not to try the case against the activists, claiming a civil case was not under its jurisdiction.

Of the seven pro-democracy activists, six were freed yesterday. The remaining one, Korakot Saengyenpan, was taken before the military court’s prosecutor on a separate charge before being freed on bail of Bt20,000, said lawyer Arnont Nampa.

Korakot had been charged separately with breaching the junta’s political gathering ban following his involvement in a trip to probe fraud allegations at Rajabhakti Park.

The seven were released following the court’s decision on Tuesday to dismiss a second round of 12-day detention requested by the police.

Along with six other activists released earlier on bail, they were accused of violating the ban on political gatherings and alleged campaigning against the draft after they handed out leaflets about the draft on June 23.

The seven activists were set free yesterday morning. They were received with cheers by a crowd who offered them roses and garlands when they first appeared in front of the prison’s main entrance. The activists and their supporters sang a song together for freedom.

The activists, led by Rangsiman Rome, declared they stood firm to fight against dictatorship for democracy’s sake, before dispersing.

Meanwhile, the police took Korakot to the court prosecutor to consider whether or not he would be charged and put on trial. Eventually, the prosecutor decided he should be, and he was freed on bail.

Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan suggested that Corrections officials use clear judgement before chaining detainees on the way to court. There was criticism when the seven activists were found in shackles while travelling to court on Tuesday.

However, Justice Minister Paiboon Koomchaya said officials had to perform their duties at best to ensure detainees under their supervision would not try to escape. The officials had to stick to legal procedures, he said, urging human rights activists to consider the officials’ side, and not blow up the issue too much.

 

A UN office statement released yesterday said Eliasson had met on June 29 with Vice Foreign Minister Virasakdi Futrakul who reported to him on the country’s situation and referendum procedures.

The statement said Eliasson expressed concern about restrictions on rights and liberties and stressed the importance of the rule of law in supporting reconciliation and democracy.

The report said the UN was ready to help Thailand in achieving reconciliation and sustained democracy via open and inclusive dialogues.

National Legislative Assembly president Pornpetch Wichitcholchai defended the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO)’s rejection of a proposal from the National Steering Reform Assembly to relax the ban on political gatherings and meetings.

Pornpetch said the NCPO wanted to maintain peace and order before the people cast their ballots in the referendum.

“Political parties do not need to do anything, as the results of the referendum would go according to the decision of the people,” he said.

Thammasat University deputy rector Prinya Thaewanarumitkul said at a charter content seminar held at Rangsit University yesterday he believed that even if the charter draft passed the referendum, there will be questions about its legitimacy because the government did not allow freedom of expression before people cast their ballots.

He said if the voter turnout was less than half, the draft would have a problem of legitimacy.

“If the charter draft is rejected in the referendum, the public may call for a general election immediately and this might lead to political turmoil,” he said.

He urged the NCPO to make it clear what were the consequences if the draft were to be rejected. “Do not let the people choose between evil or darkness,” he said.

Pairoj Polpet, adviser to the Peoples Council for National Reform, expressed concern that if the draft passed the referendum there could be a confrontation and a new round of conflict.

“The problems facing the country would not be solved during the five-year period that is indicated in the draft,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Interior Ministry permanent secretary’s order issued on June 28 to every provincial governor instructed on the setting-up of a provincial centre and district centres to keep peace and order during the run-up to the referendum. The centre has become the subject of a controversy following the revelation this week by the government. Critics fear that it would tighten the government’s grip on freedom of expression ahead of the referendum.

The provincial centre would be headed by the governor and the district centres would be led by district chiefs. The centre would carry out management, intelligence and prepare measures against public gatherings.

The intelligence report must be submitted in three periods, from July 1 to August 6, during the referendum date, and afterwards from August 8-10.

The centres would have to draw up contingency plans in case of different scenarios and evaluate risk areas and monitoring situations. They must cooperate with other state sectors to keep peace and order, step up security by ensuring security officials work throughout shifts, check security cameras, ensure officials at checkpoints carry out their duty, and patrolling. The centres have to keep heads of the centre informed every day.