I have seen two responses prepared by Thai diplomats to the international campaign for reform of the lese majeste law. Neither was addressed to me, so I am not in a position to provide them here on New Mandala.
The basic argument in both responses is similar, and some of the phrasing used is identical, suggesting that an official position has been developed. The arguments are much the same as those put by Prime Minister Abhisit. The main points made in the letters are:
- The monarchy is a highly revered institution in Thai society and stands above politics and must be defended against “violation”.
- Protecting the monarchy is a matter of national security. The monarchy is not in a position to defend itself.
- Other countries have strict laws to protect their national security.
- There have been problems with enforcement of the law, especially the fact that anyone can file a complaint under the law. The Prime Minister has asked the police to enforce the law cautiously to avoid abuse. There will be clarification about enforcement of the law.
- Freedom of expression does not justify deliberate attacks on the monarchy.
- Improvements to the law will not be implemented because of pressure from foreigners.
- Existing cases will proceed. Charges will not be dropped in all cases (implying that they may be dropped in some cases).
- The lese majeste law is consistent with democracy, freedom of speech and academic freedom.
Nothing surprising here. The open acknowledgement that there have been problems in relation to the implementation of the law may represent a small step in the right direction.
But, as Thongchai Winichakul observed (in an email exchange with me), the official position that the problem lies in the “enforcement” of the law is vague and open to all sorts of interpretations. Focussing on enforcement alone may be just a strategy for rejecting calls for reform and effectively doing nothing. As David Streckfuss argues “the law is the problem“, not just its enforcement.
Thongchai also notes that these official responses leave out the allusions made by Abhisit, Kasit and a few other ministers, to the “hidden agenda” behind the international campaign. Paralleling the official government responses, there are less official suggestions (both within and outside the government) that the calls for reform of lese majeste are part of a republican movement to abolish the monarchy.
10 responses so far ↓
1 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Mar 17, 2009 at 12:53 am
the official position that the problem lies in the “enforcement” of the law is vague and open to all sorts of interpretations.
But isn’t the proposed ‘reform of LM’ by the ‘Fifty Scholars’ itself also quite vague? In fact the government could argue, wih some ‘reasonableness’, that the above points have already more or less met the three demands by the ‘Fifty’:
- – The Prime Minister has asked the police to enforce the law cautiously to avoid abuse.
for the Fifty’s first demand (”Please stop seeking more suppressive measures against individuals, web sites, and the peaceful expressions of ideas.“)
- – There have been problems with enforcement of the law, especially the fact that anyone can file a complaint under the law.
for the Fifty’s second demand (”Please consider suggestions to reform the lese majeste law to prevent further abuses and to prevent the possibility of further damage to the international reputation of Thailand and the monarch.“)
This second demand, one may observe, isn’t specified. But there has been suggestion, by people who talk about ‘reforming’ LM themselve, similar to the point the government mentions here. (I should add that I personally never see this issue – anyone can file LM complaint – as important as many seem to do.)
and, finally,
- – Existing cases will proceed. Charges will not be dropped in all cases (implying that they may be dropped in some cases).
for the Fifty’s third demand (”Please consider taking action to withdraw the current lese majeste charges, and working to secure the release of those already convicted under the lese majeste law.“)
I am aware that there maybe “limits” to what largely non-Thai scholars could call for, regarding Thai laws and such campaign may be important for the fact that it has taken place. On the other hand, however, one should note that, as everyone here probably knows, prior to the Fifty’s campaign, there had been call to abolish the LM law altogether, initiated by Ji himself. That call was ’stillborn’ by (the ‘manner’ of) Ji’s ‘departure’ and later overshadowed by this one.
2 BKK lawyer // Mar 17, 2009 at 2:56 am
“Charges will not be dropped in all cases (implying that they may be dropped in some cases).”
Your parenthetical comment is accurate if this were a statement that originated in English, but as a translation from Thai, and particularly given the context (including the preceding statement “Existing cases will proceed,” I am not so sure. I surmise the meaning is this: ‘In all cases, charges will not be dropped.’
3 ThaiCrisis // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:37 am
Very interesting.
The concept “monarchy = national security” is… new.
The first time I heard it was in january… with a statement from the Justice Minister Pirapan (who has a “US Masters degree in law”).
http://thaicrisis.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/justice-minister-and-lese-majeste-freedom-of-speech-is-like-your-shoes-at-the-airport/
It took them 8 years, after 9/11, to come up with this brilliant idea.
They must be thinking : “What ! It’s working in the US. So why not in Thailand ! ?”
Check the link Pirapan is making… with shoes and belt at airport security checks… You’ll cry.
Poor Thailand.
4 doctorJ // Mar 17, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Thai Crisis:
The concept of “Protecting the monarchy is a matter of national security” was not something new. In fact, it was the very idea of Rama VI, and this propaganda was well known to all Thais since then. The nation, the religion(Buddhism, implicitly), the monarchy are the core value of Siam.
FM Pibul had added the fourth element, the constitution, but it was dropped out , right after Pibul went exile. It’s a very interesting part of Thai contemperary political history.
5 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:02 pm
In terms of Thai legal history, the LM law has been part of the ‘national security’ offence section in the Criminal Code because it originated in the Absolute Monarchy, which naturally regarded the monarchy as equivalent to the State. That the People’s Party didn’t remove it from that section of the Criminal Code or from the Code altogether, even though in others areas such as its adminstration of state affairs, it had practically and effectively removed the monarchy from involvement, is in my opinion one of the key historic mistakes of the Party.
6 David Brown // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:21 pm
there are lese majeste laws in some other countries…
it seems most people do not have problems with these
how about a comparison of the laws and their implementation
to expose the extremities of the Thai law….
- its included under national security of the criminal code
- its extreme punishments
- there are no limits on who can file and no penalties for false filings
- the filer does not need to present or defend their evidence
- accused are gaoled or bailed seemingly arbitrarily (reasons?)
- there is no open prosecution
- there is no open discussion
- no defence is provided (truth? relevance? public interest?)
- judgement is by judges with no legal appeal
- the judges are protected from criticism (extreme form of contempt rules)
do any of the other countries laws approach this list?
7 R. N. England // Mar 19, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Thank you, David Brown, for listing the most outrageous features of the Thai lèse majesté law. Is there any law in the world more absurdly tyrannical than this?
8 WLH // Mar 19, 2009 at 3:59 pm
David:
Streyckfuss has pointed out several times that Norway’s LM laws are such that only the palace can approve of LM charges going forward, which assures that they feel defamed rather than just someone targeting political enemies.
Morocco has strict LM laws but they’re rarely enforced. Note however that Morocco is barely a democracy, more like a lite-Muslim tourist-friendly police state. On vacation in Marrakesh I was told my many locals not to worry about mugging, because “every tenth person is an undercover cop.”
Several African Kingdoms like Swaziland have absolute monarchies and thus very strict LM laws. You might find similarities to Thailand there. But Swaziland probably doesn’t position itself as a regional leader and an aspiring, modern democracy.
Malaysia is heading Thailand’s way if recent noises are to be believed. Now that the ruling party has been clipped the old guard appears to be shoring up their nepotistic privileges.
9 hclau // Mar 19, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Hello WLH,
Malaysia is not heading the way of Thailand. It is already there! Just take a look at the recent events and the lack of “Law”
10 Dudeist // Mar 19, 2009 at 6:14 pm
I’m still waiting for Abhisit to tell us EXACTLY which European countries have laws similar to LM.
Of course this line is utter rubbish – he knows it and we know it.
Maybe he was talking about the Middle East, Iran, Afghanistan or Africa?
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.