Time 'not right' for change to lese majeste law: politicians
Play
Thammasat meet discusses 5 recent plans to amend controversial law
Although there have been five attempts since 2007 to modernise what some believe to be an outdated law concerning lese majeste offences, politicians believe the country’s current political climate is not favourable to making changes to the law.
A seminar held at Thammasat University’s Faculty of Law discussed five draft amendments to Section 112 of the Criminal Code.
The first was proposed by a team of lawmakers led by Pornpet Wichitchonlachai, a member of the National Legislative Assembly, in September 2007; the second by a team led by Pheerapan Salirattawipak in 2008; the third by People Power Party members led by Jumpol Bunyai in the same year; the fourth by Bhum Jai Thai Party members led by Sanong Tepaksornnarong in November 2009; and the Nitirat group was the latest group with its proposal for an amendment in December last year.
Democrat Party deputy leader Thaworn Senniam said amendment of Section 112 must be done only when the political climate and public sentiment are favourable.
“I do not agree with the amendment, because right now Thailand is confusing lax law enforcement with loopholes in the law. I believe there are no loopholes in Section 112, but our justice system fails to enforce the law,’’ he said.
He said Thailand’s Section 112 was no different from laws in other countries concerning the protection of the monarchy under a democratic system.
He pointed out that Malaysian laws restrict certain rights of their people, for instance banning insults to the monarchy or the Islamic prophet Muhammad, and banning homosexuality.
Thaworn added that he believed the Democrat Party has never resolved to propose an amendment of Section 112.
Somchai Homla-or, a member of the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand, said he believed the problem involving Section 112 is caused by the law itself, its enforcement, and the court’s interpretations. He suggested that the law be amended in regards to penalties it prescribes. He said he did not agree with amending the section by imposing a minimum penalty of three years because the move would deprive judges of the right to exercise their discretion.
He said he believed penalties should vary depending on the damage done to the monarchy. For instance, if a person sends an insulting message once, but the message gets disseminated across the globe, judges can exercise their judgement on how many years of imprisonment a convict deserves. Somchai also believes there should be a proper procedure to file lese majeste complaints, not a normal complaint that anyone can lodge with police.
Kittisak Prokkati, Thammasat University lecturer, believed the lese majeste law has been problematic since the country changed the ruling system from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy. He believed that people are entitled to express their opinion, but their rights must not be exercised in violation of others’.
Worajet Pakeerat, a member of Nitirat group and a Thammasat University lecturer, pointed to the problem of interpretation by judges. He saying judges are very sensitive about the issue, resulting in ambiguous legal interpretations.
He insisted the lese majeste law should be amended by excluding the Queen and royal family members from protection under the section. He pointed out that the same law in foreign countries protects only the head of the state or the King and his representatives.
Sources said the Democrats’ draft proposes a penalty of between 5 and 25 years’ imprisonment, while the Bhum Jai Thai Party draft calls for seven to 15 years.
