Thai censorship critic strikes back at snitch Web host

By Matthew Lasar

In May 2006, Anthony Chai, a naturalized United States citizen from Thailand, took a flight back to the land of his birth to catch up with relatives and friends. He visited his nieces and nephews and spent some time at the resort town of Hua Hin.

But according to a new lawsuit, when Chai tried to return to California via Bangkok airport, he was stopped by a quintet of security agents. Employed by Thailand's Department of Special Investigation, they informed him that they had a warrant for his arrest for committing an act of lèse majesté—a public statement that supposedly violates the "dignity" of a ruler.

Thailand's version of the law, which was deployed against YouTube in 2007, seems (relatively) narrow at first glance. "Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years," it stipulates, and punishes those found guilty of making these insults with long prison sentences. But human rights advocates say it is now used against anyone who utters a statement critical of the government.

The DPI officers took Chai to an interrogation center and allegedly deprived him of food, water, and sleep until 3:30am while barraging him with accusations and threats. "I know where your relatives live in Bangkok and California," Chai says that one policeman told him. "If you want them to live in peace, you must cooperate."

Bloodless coup

Anthony Chai made his visit back home during one of the most chaotic moments in Thailand's recent history. As he arrived, the country's beleaguered populist Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was fighting for his political (and actual) life. Opponents of his Thai Tak Thai party were boycotting his call for new elections, accusing Shinawatra of corruption. By September, amidst terrorist attacks and assassination attempts, the military removed him from political power and banned Thai Tak Thai from politics.

According to his lawsuit, at the beginning of his incarceration, Chai asked for a lawyer. Eventually he received an attorney who said nothing for most of the grilling besides advising him to answer all questions asked by the police. He endured two long periods of questioning, during which he was deprived of food, water, and sleep.

Meanwhile DSI authorities took his laptop and, according to the complaint and "forced" Chai to disclose his security passwords specific to that computer. Then "the officers forced him to provide them with all of his email addresses and passwords."

At one point during the interrogation, Chai was presented with a document that revealed the e-mail addresses that he and an associate had used to post comments to manusaya.com. Finally DSI officers forced him to compose a statement confessing that he had broken Thailand's lèse majesté laws, promising never to break them again, and praising the country's king.

At 5pm on May 10, 2006, Chai was released but warned that he could be arrested again upon return to Thailand. He contacted his family to let them know what had happened and returned to Long Beach, California, where he runs a computer sales and maintenance shop.

Time to surrender

But Chai's ordeal did not end there. The lawsuit says that the man who had supervised his interrogation, Police Colonel Yanaphon Youngyuen, began contacting him in the United States, asking him to send copies of any "pro-democracy or anti-monarchy materials he had in his possession."

Not only did Youngyuen allegedly contact him by e-mail, but in July 2006 actually visited Chai while in the United States to attend a policing course offered by the US government in Washington, DC. What happened next is described as follows:

49. Because Plaintiff continued to want to appear cooperative with the investigation, he agreed to meet Pol. Col. Youngyuen at LAX [airport].
50. During the telephone conversation, Pol. Col. Youngyuen told Plaintiff that he would like Plaintiff to bring iPods or some other similar items of value home for his children.
51. Plaintiff and Pol. Col. Youngyuen met for approximately thirty minutes at a McDonald's restaurant at LAX.
52. Plaintiff did not bring iPods to the meeting. He brought local Thai newspapers that he thought Pol. Col. Youngyuen could read back on the flight back to Thailand. Pol. Col. Youngyuen made it clear to Plaintiff that he was very disappointed that he did not bring any gifts of value.

Chai asked whether his computer would be returned to him, and was told that it would remain with the authorities as long as the investigation continued. Youngyuen subsequently wrote to the Plaintiff asking him to return to Thailand for further questioning.

"The time has come for you to officially surrender yourself to the investigators of this case," one explained. "[Y]ou are required to surrender to our bureau on August 24, 2006 at 10:00 AM..."

Criticism not welcome

Did Anthony Chai even make statements against the Thai monarchy? No. Using an anonymous e-mail address, he had posted comments critical of Thailand's lèse majesté law to the website www.manusaya.com, which has been publicly denounced by Thai officials as encouraging people "to lose faith and love of the monarchy, including each and every princess." The site was eventually shut down by its Canadian host, Netfirms, at the request the Thai government.

But Netfirms didn't just close the site, say Chai and his attorneys.

"Sometime before May 2006, also at the request of Thai officials, Netfirms.com provided Mr. Chai's IP address and the two e-mail addresses associated with that IP address," Chai's complaint charges, "without Mr. Chai's knowledge or consent." In addition, the Canadian company allegedly handed over this data without requesting a court order, subpoena, or warrant from Thai authorities, and without contacting the US State Department for guidance.

Now Chai, with the assistance of the World Organization for Human Rights, is suing Netfirms for $75,000 in restitution and punitive damages. His lawsuit, filed in a central California district court, charges Netfirms with violation of Canada's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), the privacy provisions in California's Business and Professions Code, and the Declaration of Rights contained in California's constitution.

We contacted Netfirms about this lawsuit. A representative told us that the company has no comment at this time.