Lese majeste - Old argument resurfaces
The debate on the lese majeste law is nothing new. Indeed, long and rambling arguments have been rekindled time and again following the October 13, 1973 student-led uprising.
Article 112 of the Criminal Code was introduced under the reign of King Chulalongkorn as part of the country’s modernisation. Traditional Thai laws had no comparable provisions to the lese majeste clause.
The provision, then and now, was designed to shield the monarch as head of state in a manner similar to the protection of private individuals against defamation.
The majority of convictions for a violation against the monarchy were about slander and physical insults in connection with vandalism, which had no bearing on freedom of expression or the free flow of ideas.
The articulate social critic Sulak Sivaraksa had been repeatedly prosecuted for lese majeste but never convicted for his critical views.
For the first hundred years after the lese majeste clause was adopted few Thai citizens were aware that such an offence existed.
Debate on the suppression of violations deemed offensive to the monarchy coincided with political turbulence in the wake of the 1973 uprising.
In the face of a rising leftist movement propagating socialism, conservatives– at the time known as right wingers– were alarmed about the country’s future. They pushed for a crackdown on the spread of poison-pen leaflets attacking the monarchy.
The political chaos culminated when the student movement, seen as the bastion of the left wing, was crushed in 1976. The ensuing power seizure saw the right wingers seal victory by gaining control of the country.
In what might be construed as a celebratory gesture, the right wingers successfully pushed for amendment of the lese majeste law to increase the punishment to between a three-year minimum and a 15-year maximum jail term.
The amended punishment deviated from international norms of a maximum of seven years in jail. Conservative legal minds tried to justify the change by citing the Thai people’s reverence for the monarchy. They also argued that a tougher punishment would act as an effective deterrent.
The debate was inconclusive and became mute following the end of the Communist insurgency and the waning of leftist sentiment.
For more than three decades, rival camps put the issue aside. After prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra won his second term in 2005, there was an eruption of political turbulence and cases of royal insults started to soar once again.
Just as the right wingers put on royalist cloaks to crush their leftist rivals, the yellow shirts too invoked the monarchy as their rallying cry to outwit their red-shirt rivals. They tried to brand their rivals as anti-royalist. The on-going struggle picked up on where the left and right wingers had fought, inconclusively.
The monarchy has suffered collateral damage in the political struggle even though the King is above and beyond politics.
On Sunday, the Nitirat academic group morphed into the 112 campaign to spearhead support for changing the lese majeste clause. At the same time, the multi-coloureds launched a counter campaign for tougher enforcement of Article 112.
Opponents of Article 112 argue that the clause has stifled freedom of expression. But the fact that they are free to campaign, ironically, debunks their own argument.
Proponents are pushing for stronger penalties but the rising offence in the face of an already-tough punishment is proof of ineffective deterrence.
Arguments are expected to ramble on, however, but the opposing sides are unlikely to move anywhere but back to square one.
