A number of New Mandala readers (including one journalist who is “frustrated to a degree that is hard to bear”) have drawn my attention to the proposed changes to Thailand’s lese majeste laws. Yahoo News carries one report:
Thailand, which strictly enforces laws protecting the monarchy, plans to extend protection to royal advisers and other members of the royal family and restrict media coverage of cases, lawmakers said on Monday. Under the proposed amendments, to be debated by the army-appointed parliament on Wednesday, journalists could be jailed for three years and fined 60,000 baht ($1,750) for ignoring a court-ordered publication ban. “We don’t want any offence to the monarch to be repeated in the news or become an issue of any criticism” inside or outside Thailand, Supreme Court chief judge Pornpetch Wichitcholchai told Reuters. Those protected by the expanded law would include sons and daughters of the monarch and royal advisers known as privy councillors, Pornpetch said. “The current law doesn’t cover privy councillors, some of whom have become political victims,” he said.
Another report states:
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.
I will leave it to other more legally informed minds to dissect the differences between the proposed and existing lese majeste provisions. But the attempt to restrict reporting of cases seems particularly interesting. As the recent contributions to Youtube demonstrate, a good way of drawing attention to royally damaging material is to accuse others of peddling it. The Youtube videos are nicely double barrelled – explicitly attacking Privy Councillor Prem while also stoking the fires of curiosity about the material Prem is alleged to have circulated about the crown prince. Royal defenders now find themselves in a difficult position. Some of the most potentially damaging material appearing on the internet (the extraordinary birthday party video in particular) appears to have impeccable provenance. Pursuing the producer(s) of this material would be counter-productive as enquiries would probably end up in the royal household itself. All that those defending the royal image can hope for is that a sufficiently tight media lid can be kept on the whole affair.
7 responses so far ↓
1 Vichai N. // Oct 9, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Andrew Walker said: Some of the most potentially damaging material appearing on the internet (the extraordinary birthday party video in particular) appears to have impeccable provenance.
Me thinks Andrew Walker’s fascination with this particular royal birthday video is peeping Tomish.
2 Srithanonchai // Oct 10, 2007 at 12:05 am
Why should a member of the NLA and his backers care about what a privy councilor tells him on the phone?
Amendment bills to increase penatlies on lese majeste cases withdrawn
A National Legislative Assembly member Tuesday withdrew two bills designed to amend the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedural Code to increase penalties on lese majeste cases.
Pornphet Wichitcholchai, the NLA member, who proposed the bills, said he withdrew them after receiving a phone call from a privy counicllor, saying the Privy Council did not agree with the amendments.
The amendments seek to insert a clause in Article 112 of the criminal law that covers offences against the monarchy institution to include offences against representatives of the King and the King’s sons and daughters.
The Nation 9 October 2007
3 nganadeeleg // Oct 10, 2007 at 8:42 am
Why should a member of the NLA and his backers care about what a privy councilor tells him on the phone?
Maybe it took a privy councilor to convince them of the irrationality of their proposals.
You should be pleased that sanity has prevailed.
4 Srithanonchai // Oct 10, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Yes, I am pleased with the outcome. But why should it need a telephone call from a privy councilor to tell all those highly educated elite members of the NLA who backed both amendments what “sanity” in this case is? Should they not have known by themselves? And they were not at all convinced, but merely followed the order of a person higher up in the hierarchy. The same people, by the way, accuse up-country voters of not being mature enough to have the right to vote, and charge that they follow suggestions by their leaders as for how to vote, instead of using their own judgement!
5 nganadeeleg // Oct 10, 2007 at 6:54 pm
I cannot speak for those highly educated elite members of the NLA, but I do understand where they are coming from in trying to block malicious material.
I think they went about it the wrong way, but sometimes emotion gets in the way of rationality.
I still think the best amendment to the lese majeste laws would be to limit who can make the charge.
I like the David Streckfuss suggested amendment ”only by order of the King or with his consent” as mentioned in today’s editorial in the Bangkok Post.
6 Thai Chat // Oct 10, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Thailand is the epitome of Democracy ! Great !
7 fall // Oct 11, 2007 at 12:30 pm
The damage was done by proposing such law, but for Privy Council to put it down was a double whammy.
The Privy Council should have no right in influencing whether the law can or cannot be pass. It give the image that certain position are influential in making the law. Even the king does not immediately drop the Jufer case, but let it goes through trial and then pardon him.
Either this insane law should have been voted down, or drop quietly without refering to Privy Council call.
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.