In Bangkok Pundit’s characteristically cautious style, there is hesitation to offer a comment on the recent Far Eastern Economic Review article by Colum Murphy. Murphy’s article examines the relationship between Thaksin and King Bhumipol.
The ambiguous, rarely enforced and, yet, much feared mechanisms associated with Thailand’s lese majeste laws leave many unwilling to venture their own analysis.
Personally, I would be delighted to read more forthright and informed (!!) pieces on Thailand’s supreme institution. Such analysis should not have to be mudslinging or gossip. I am certain Bangkok Pundit has something constructive and important to say.
We both know that anything even vaguely interesting that we do write will almost certainly not appear in books, magazines or newspapers that are published in Thailand. Foreign published books - such as The King Never Smiles - do sometimes illuminate some dark places. But such books are banned in Thailand.
To get a feel for the outrage felt by some about, for example, The King Never Smiles, the comments at the bottom of this Inside Higher Education article are instructive. One comment particularly took my fancy:
I do not have a copy of this book. Only read the review from some blogs. There is one thing that I am sure of is that NO westerners can truely understand Thai’s respect to our king. The author of this book sees Thais from his standpoint which is totally different from our standpoint. No wonder the author comes to this conclusion which extremely irritates Thais.
Ahh, my favourite playground argumentative device – the “I’m sure you don’t understand me” clause. I get annoyed with such knee-jerk put-downs. Somebody needs less time commenting on books they haven’t read, and more time reading them.
Read the book first, and then start making such big claims.
If the FEER article is any indication, lese majeste, and those who enforce it, will have a busy few months when the political crisis enters its next phase. On New Mandala, at least, lese majeste is a peripheral concern, but one with many interesting social and political implications. Without fear or favour, we will continue to call it like we see it and try to give our readers some new perspectives on the region and its development.
13 responses so far ↓
1 bkkjourno // Sep 10, 2006 at 9:47 pm
Er…so where is this bold piece of yours, calling it exactly as you see it on the Feer article? Or is that it?
2 Bangkok Pundit // Sep 10, 2006 at 10:03 pm
I am not worried about knee-jerk put-downs, but having my blog blocked by the Thai government. No doubt there is a reason the author of the piece was not based in Thailand after the problems that Rodney Tasker and Shawn Crispin faced a few years ago.
On lese majeste, Streckfuss’ Ph.D dissertation (”The poetics of subversion: Civil liberty and lese-majeste in the modern Thai state”) is the most comprehensive I have read.
On the monarchy and its role in politics, Duncan McCargo’s paper in The Pacific Review (“Network monarchy and legitimacy crises in Thailand”) is well worth a read. Handley’s book is referred to.
3 New Mandala » A royal Grant // Sep 10, 2006 at 10:47 pm
[...] But there is a broader point. As Nicholas Farrelly notes in his post of earlier today, the Thai royal family is largely an academic no-go area. There is a limited and restrained body of scholarship on this important aspect of the Thai polity. In this context, Handley’s contribution is significant (a significance underlined by the banning of the book in Thailand). Of course, a good number of his sources are undocumented, but given the restrictions within Thailand on open discussion of royal matters this is hardly surprising. Evans’ acknowledges the value of Handley’s “important remarks on the uses and abuses of the lèse majesté laws.” But it is a much bigger issue than this. Handley has helped to open a discussion in which the royal imagery of “political and cultural unity” is put in its place, making room for a compelling account of political and economic partiality. If there has been some cultural insensitivity in the process, then so be it. [...]
4 Srithanonchai // Oct 9, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Lese majeste to be expanded…
LEGISLATION / ROYALTY, PRIVY COUNCILLORS
Group wants protections widened
MANOP THIP-OSOD
A group of 64 members of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) is seeking to extend protections against criticism for members of the royal family and Privy Council members as well as representatives appointed by the monarchy.
The group, led by Pornpetch Wichitcholchai, an NLA member and Supreme Court chief judge, plans to propose amendments to the Criminal Code in which Their Majesties’ children, privy councillors and representatives appointed by the monarchy will be protected from defamation, insults or threats.
The draft supporters include Borwornsak Uwanno, Sujit Boonbongkarn, Samran Rodpetch, Suchada Kiranand, Vallop Tangkananurak, Khunying Jada Wattanasiritham, Kamnoon Sitthisman, and Phattara Khampitak.
Under the draft proposal, offenders would be subject to a maximum jail term of five years and/or a fine of between 10,000 and 100,000 baht.
The current Criminal Code covers only Their Majesties, the heir apparent and the regent, and carries a maximum seven-year prison term and/or a maximum 140,000 baht fine.
The NLA members also seek to amend the Criminal Procedure Code to restrict media coverage of lese majeste cases.
In the course of the investigation, the hearing, the trial of cases against people charged with offences against the King, the Queen, the heir to the throne or the regent, investigators, the prosecution, or the plaintiff may ask the court to prohibit all kinds of media from publicising information on the cases, or expressing criticism or opinions on them.
The draft amendments are expected to go to the NLA tomorrow .
Mr Phattara, one of the NLA members, said the amendment was introduced to prevent attempts to use lese majeste allegations as a political tool and so offend the monarchy. “We think when someone is accused of offending the King, Queen, heir apparent or regent, it [the case] should not be covered by the media or used as a political tool.”
However, he noted that some critics might consider the proposed extended protection for the Privy Council as a move to protect Privy Council president Gen Prem Tinsulanonda, who was recently dragged into political turmoil.
Bangkok Post, 9 October 2007
5 Sidh S. // Oct 9, 2007 at 6:15 pm
I suspect is Srithanonchai’s #4 Bangkok Post article last paragraph is telling. The expansion of the Lese majeste is to protect the Privy Council – the most ‘active’ in politics – GenPrem, and particularly more so, PMSurayud. NLA members proposing this are on the opposing camp to the PAD’s spearheaded by Prasong Soonsiri, who are mounting (personal) pressure on PMSurayud to quit particularly on the case of Khao Yai Thiang land. (Here I’m inclined to agree with Ajarn Nidhi Eoseewong’s comments in the Bangkok Post sympathetic with PMSurayud: http://www.bangkokpost.net/News/09Oct2007_news20.php)
I don’t think this blanket expansion of the Lese majeste law is the way to go. The law is already exploited politically as it is (and here I am glad that, for whatever reasons, PMThaksin is not being pursued further for Lese majeste as was the original justification for the coup) and should be more clearly defined.
6 nganadeeleg // Oct 9, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Dumb & Dumber !
7 A sufficiently tight media lid // Oct 9, 2007 at 8:48 pm
[...] report states: The NLA members also seek to amend the Criminal Procedure Code to restrict media coverage [...]
8 Restorationist // Oct 10, 2007 at 12:56 am
Presumably we’ll now hear from all the admirers of the king that he doesn’t want this revised law and that it is being forced on him by nasty politicians seeking to use the law for their own purposes.
IMO, this is just one more part of the political jigsaw that began when the coup shattered the 1997 constitution. Putting a conservative polity back together requires a strong security law; a parliament that can be controlled; venal politicians in a system where parties are weak; strong laws to censor and restrict; a bureaucracy and military with control over politics in the countryside and amongst the poor; and an (elected?) PM who can be manipulated. Almost there….
9 nganadeeleg // Oct 10, 2007 at 8:44 am
Presumably we’ll now hear from all the admirers of the king that he doesn’t want this revised law and that it is being forced on him by nasty politicians seeking to use the law for their own purposes.
It seems your presumption was correct.
10 beth // Oct 10, 2007 at 9:57 am
Ouch!
11 Taxi Driver // Oct 10, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Wonder what this saga was all about. I note that they tried to increase the coverage of persons protected by lese majeste, but reduce the maximum penalties (7 years to 5, etc.).
Was all this just sheer overzealousness from Pornpetch, Bawornsak et al wanting to protect all and sundry who ‘reside above their head’, or were they encouraged by someone in the privy council (e.g. Prem) to propose the changes, only to be told later by someone else (e.g. HMK) to drop it? Does this suggest the possibility that HMK sees Prem getting too power-hungry and this is just a clip behind the ears to remind Prem of his place? Is it just possible that a rift is developing between HMK and Pa?
12 Restorationist // Oct 25, 2007 at 6:59 am
“Presumably we’ll now hear from all the admirers of the king that he doesn’t want this revised law and that it is being forced on him by nasty politicians seeking to use the law for their own purposes.
It seems your presumption was correct.”
So the lesson of this is that we can now never have anyone complain that the king and/or palace have no control over the LM laws and their use. It is crystal clear that they can have opinions and intentions, and when they express an opinion, everyone seems to snap to attention.
13 nganadeeleg // Oct 25, 2007 at 9:49 am
Restorationist: One other lesson you might need to learn is that there is a vast difference between expressing an opinion on a proposed law, and interfering in the operation of an existing law.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.