Preserving the Monarchy in Thailand

Thailand’s Constitutional Court back in August dissolved the progressive Move Forward Party, which had placed first in national elections earlier in the year. The court claimed that by campaigning to amend Section 112 of the Criminal Code, which enshrines the lèse majesté law, the party threatened the monarchy and national security. 

It didn’t punish either the Pheu Thai or the Thai Sang Thai parties, which also supported parliamentary review of the law. Nor was the Kla Party sanctioned for earlier proposing a panel to screen lèse majesté complaints.

Several Thai academics found the court’s reasoning problematic. One noted Move Forward only proposed a policy, and had not put forward legislation to parliament.

The world’s most draconian royal defamation law

The law protects the king, the queen, the heir apparent and regent from defamation or insults. It’s by far the world’s harshest: up to 15 years’ jail per offence. As courts apply sentences consecutively, people can face terms exceeding fifty years. Anyone can file a complaint, which police usually feel obligated to follow up. Courts have also punished people for disparaging royals not covered by the law.

The lèse majesté law: royal views and Buddhist precepts

The king and his father reportedly had issues with the law.

In June 2020, then Prime Minister (and 2014 coup leader) Prayuth Chan-ocha said the king “instructed [him] personally over the past two to three years to refrain from the use of the [lèse majesté] law”, and “does not want people to be punished for it”.

In 2005, the late King Bhumibol said, “to say that the King can do no wrong is an insult to the King … the King can do wrong.” According to the book King Bhumibol Adulyadej: a life’s work (reportedly approved by the palace), he added, when criticism is prohibited, and people are jailed for lèse majesté, “the damage is done to the king”, noting monarchs are criticised in other constitutional democracies.

Some commoner monarchists also sought to restrict the law’s use.

Dr Borwornsak Uwanno has solid royalist and establishment credentials. Formerly Secretary-General of the King Prajadhipok Institute, and Fellow of the Royal Institute, he served in the 2014 junta’s administration. To prevent the law being abused, he recommended the attorney-general be responsible for filing complaints, investigating and pressing charges. Putting this in a Thai context, he added, “As the Buddhist law of impermanence states, everything, the lèse majesté offence included, arises, exists and perishes, as the society’s ethical and cultural norms evolve also in accordance with this same Buddhist law.”

Former two-time prime minister Anand Panyarachun recommended clearly specifying who could file charges, noting some cases were unreasonable and abuses of power. He also said jail terms should be replaced by moderate fines.

Move Forward’s proposals in context

Move Forward was a late-comer to lèse majesté law reform. Its predecessor party (Future Forward) vowed prior to 2019 general elections it would not amend the law. Only after pro-democracy demonstrators demanded an end to the law and royal reform in 2020 did Move Forward propose its amendment, all the while stressing its commitment to constitutional monarchy. 

Moreover, its proposals — to allow honest criticism of the monarchy, to reduce punishment, and to limit who can file complaints to prevent its abuse — substantially reflected those of Kings Bhumibol and Vajiralongkorn, Borwornsak, Anand above.

Amendments in this parliament were always a dim prospect

Even had Move Forward tabled a reform bill, it would have failed. Before the 2023 general election, three conservative parties opposed change. When Pheu Thai renounced changes to the law in order to lead these parties in a coalition government, the four parties’ combined 288 MPs in the 500-seat lower house sealed its fate.

Why, then, dissolve Move Forward?

One could be forgiven for believing one aim of the court was to hobble the progressive side of Thai politics. Other parties went unpunished. And, as noted, Move Forward’s proposals were remarkably similar to those of people with impeccable royalist credentials.

The court’s ruling parallels its annulling Move Forward’s previous incarnation (Future Forward) in 2020. Then, it asserted a loan by that party’s leader was a donation (thereby contravening prevailing laws). Dozens of Thai law lecturers faulted this argument, saying judges had not interpreted the law correctly.

Squandering an opportunity for peaceful change

In the author’s view, the court has squandered a chance to allow progressive and conservative Thais to find agreement through the parliamentary process on amending the law. In so doing, it risks alienating a sizeable and growing proportion of society.

King Vajiralongkorn may have to step in. He is prepared to seek amendments to a law, when he sees it in his interest. In 2017, the draft constitution was changed at his request so he could reign from outside Thailand.

If the king demanded the law be brought into line with the position that Prayuth — who the king subsequently made one of his advisors — attributed to him, it may help convince younger, progressively-minded Thais of the monarchy’s continued relevance. With the number of monarchies around the world having sharply declined during the twentieth century, rallying the support of the young and progressive political forces will be crucial. 

Craig Keating is a former senior analyst with Australia’s Office of National Assessments (ONA). Prior to joining ONA, he held numerous positions with the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID).