[FACT comments: It is incredible that military-appointed, interim legislators would arrogate to themselves this extensive abuse of power just months before an election. (Give it up, NLA members, you will not be remembered by history except as willing tools of a government taken by force!)
That public media organisations should not only accede and cooperate in being silenced but welcome and encourage it, is disturbing to all who want democracy in Thailand. It may be indicative of the sort of news coverage and its slant to which we have been unkowingly subjected.
Make no mistake: The NLA members did not give up on these laws because of any public, activist, media or international outrage. They gave up on them because their toadying up to the Privy Council was seen for what it was--a craven abuse of power that in no regard helps to further dignify and protect our monarchy.
Second-tier Royal family members should in no way be offered this unwanted 'protection' for their positions. Royals, like others, deserve respect because they have earned it.
Dr. Streckfuss makes an elegant and equable proposition--let the King decide whether lese-majeste has been committed.]
EDITORIAL: A serious and sensitive issue
Bangkok Post, October 10, 2007
The group of 64 members of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) who had earlier sought to extend the legal protection against criticism to all family members and representatives appointed by the monarchy, made the right decision to withdraw their proposal to amend the Criminal Code. The legislators made the abrupt about-turn after the Privy Council expressed its concern about the move and wisely suggested that it did not need such protection. According to Pornpetch Wichitcholchai, the group’s leader, the 64 legislators will continue to work on the issue to see if it is necessary to rewrite the amendment to cover members of the Royal Family but not the Privy Council.
The point, however, is that lawmakers should still stop the debate immediately and leave the issue for an elected Parliament. First of all, it should be made clear that opposing lese majeste laws or their extension is in no way tantamount to disrespecting the Royal Family. As a constitutional monarchy, Thailand upholds His Majesty in a position of extreme reverence and the lese majeste laws are in place to punish those who criticise the King. Still, lese majeste laws have problems, largely because anyone can file a lawsuit accusing someone of insulting His Majesty. As many legal scholars have noted, lese majeste charges in Thailand are often used to discredit or silence a political opponent instead of genuinely seeking to protect the monarchy.
David Streckfuss, a Southeast Asia scholar who did a PhD on lese majeste and defamation in Thailand for the University of Wisconsin-Madison, wrote recently: ”Somehow, Thai society has dead-ended itself, unable to go forward or back, unable to even address the extremely problematic nature of this law. Thai society has narrowed its options, leaving a single unavoidable logic of suppression: the law protects the monarchy. Anyone who questions the law must not care about protecting the monarchy. Such a person must be disloyal to the monarchy, and must be suppressed.”
His Majesty the King has signalled that the lese majeste law troubles him. In his annual birthday speech in 2005, the King said: ”Actually, there should be criticism. And I am not afraid if someone criticises and points out to me where I went wrong. Because then I will know. If you say the King cannot be criticised, it means the King is not human.”
His Majesty went on to indicate that when people are jailed for lese majeste, he was ”in trouble” and had to pardon them. Given the King’s own words and example, as well as the troubling application of the current lese majeste law, it seems inappropriate for the government to consider extending the law further.
Along with the proposed extension of the lese majeste law, the NLA member introduced a motion to ban media coverage of lese majeste cases _ a stipulation that is particularly worrisome and unwarranted. Again, it was correct for the group to take it back. The proposal is not only seen as curtailing the public’s right to know but also has the potential to be used for political retribution, since anyone accused of lese majeste could be tossed in jail in a secretive court hearing. Banning reporting on lese majeste cases will only further stifle the free speech environment, particularly because the new lese majeste law–just like the current one– will continue to be used for political ends unless another kind of amendment is made.
In his article, Mr Streckfuss suggested a simple solution: add a key sentence to the Criminal Code that makes the use of the lese majeste law possible ”only by order of the King or with his consent”. This would take lese majeste out of the hands of those who simply want to use it for political gain. That would eliminate the controversy surrounding lese majeste, as everyone would know the King’s position on the case. Any amendment that still allows anybody to sue anybody on the King’s behalf does not address the root of the problem with lese majeste laws. Making them more expansive and the legal process more secretive is a step back for free speech and transparency.
