Recently a New Mandala reader named Aladdin (welcome back!) made an important comment. I have, in the interests of drawing it to the attention of a wider audience, quoted it here:

In the July – September 2009 issue of Fa Dio Kan (Year 7, No. 3) the journal published the official judgment in the Daranee Chanchoengsilapakul (“Da Torpedo”) lese majeste case which was handed down on 28 August 2009.

As is well known, because of the nature of the offense it was difficult for the media to openly report on what it was that Da Torpedo is alleged to have actually said that violated the lese majeste law.

For those who have not read this issue of Fa Dio Kan I have briefly summarized below parts of the judgment that outlined the statements that Da Torpedo (hereafter DT) made which were deemed to have violated the lese majeste law and led to her arrest and subsequent 18-year jail sentence (the full version of the judgment that was published in Fa Dio Kan runs to 32 pages).

p. 201: In a speech at Sanam Luang on 7 June 2008 DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King and Queen of Thailand were behind the PAD demonstrations, with the intention of overthrowing the government.

p. 202: In a speech on 13 June 2008 DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King had interfered in Thailand’s judicial process.

p. 203: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King was behind, or gave his support to, the 19 September 2006 coup d’etat, and he might carry out another coup in the future. Also, DT used the term “р╣Др╕нр╣Йр╕Хр╕▓р╣Бр╕Бр╣И” (“that old bastard”), which was understood as implying the King.

p. 204: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King had ordered the military to carry out the coup.

p. 205: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King and the Queen had ordered the military to carry out the coup.

pp. 206-7: In a speech on 18-19 July 2008 DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King had some knowledge about (р╕кр╣Ир╕зр╕Щр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щ) the shooting death of his brother in 1946, which was why the killer had not been caught.

pp. 207-8: In the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the then Chairperson of the Board of the Bangkok Bank, Kanlaya Sophonphanit and Gen. Prem Tinasulanonda, Chairman of the Privy Council as well as Chairman of the Bangkok Bank, had supported the PAD demonstrations, and questioned why the King had not dismissed Gen. Prem for such actions.

p. 208: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King was behind the September 19 2006 coup.

p. 208: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King and the Queen were behind the PAD’s campaign to overthrow the government.

p. 211: In a speech on 18 July 2008 DT is judged as spoken words leading to the understanding that the King carried out his duties improperly by signing his approval to 14 coup d’etats.

p. 212: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King was involved [р╣Ар╕Бр╕╡р╣Ир╕вр╕зр╕Вр╣Йр╕нр╕З] in the death of his elder brother, King Rama VIII, on 9 June 1946.

p. 213: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King was a “bad man” because of his association with Gen. Prem Tinasulalond who, DT alleged, was supporting the PAD.

pp. 213-214: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words leading to the understanding that the King and Queen supported Gen. Prem in carrying out the coup of 19 September 2006.

p. 214: In another part of the same speech DT is judged as having spoken words (by comparing the Thai monarchy with monarchies in Russia, France and Nepal) leading to the understanding that monarchy was an unjust system of government which oppressed and exploited the people, and that the king and royal family ought to be guillotined or shot.