Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
Every time somebody is convicted of lese majeste Thailand’s monarchy ends up looking bad.
After over six decades on the throne King Bhumibol Adulyadej has yet to really push for reform of a law that makes his rule seem fragile and even a little vindictive. We are still, somewhat bizarrely, supposed to believe that the palace harbours disquiet about the law’s application. However, as the current wave of convictions mounts up this understanding is becoming increasingly hard to maintain.
The evidence now suggests that the palace is as comfortable with efforts to lock up those who poke fun at the monarchy as it is with the exploitation of the royal image to overthrow elected governments. The evidence is that the palace takes a dim view of constitutional or legal developments that dilute its power. The goal, we must conclude, is to remain unchallenged by dissenters, by populists and by those others who wants to see democratic politics come to the fore.
For social scientists studying Thailand, lese majeste and its application should, of course, remain only one part of any effort to understand the country. Nonetheless this law provides a window into the priorities and prejudices of the elite as they go about the business of maintaining control.
Suwicha Thakor (р╕кр╕╕р╕зр╕┤р╕Кр╕▓ р╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Др╣Йр╕н) is the latest small fish to drop into the abyss of lese majeste hell. Clearly, his circumstances are different to those experienced by a Jakrapob Penkair, a Sondhi Limthongkul or a Sulak Sivaraksa, who have all also been recently accused of this most opaque of crimes. These men, and others like them, have many allies in their efforts to stay out of jail. Suwicha has almost none and, like Boonyuen Prasertying, he has paid the price for his lack of good connections.
Convicted last week for posting online material deemed offensive to the monarchy, he has been sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
Thankfully parts of the media are already helping publicise his dire circumstances. A wide range of outlets including the usual Thai renegades (such as Prachatai and Fah Deow Gan), more mainstream sources (like Kavi Chongkittavorn at The Nation, Thai Rath, and Matichon), some of the new agencies (such as Associated Press and Reuters) and others (Reporters without Borders, The Telegraph, etc, etc) have all made efforts to report on Suwicha’s conviction. Let’s hope this is just the beginning of a torrent of well-researched and hard-hitting pieces that skewer the justifications for locking him up.
The international academic campaign to draw attention to the abuses inherent to the lese majeste law should also get fully behind him and his family. His punishment undermines any remaining sense that there is freedom of thought in Thailand. As his days in prison tick by, and his life melts away on a concrete prison floor, Suwicha Thakor deserves whatever support we can offer. Beyond that, all we can hope is that he is free soon, and back where he rightly belongs with his family and friends.
Experience suggests that dogged media attention embarrasses the palace and the Thai political elite. It will be hard, no doubt, to keep foreign media outlets interested in Suwicha’s case but that is what he needs.
Such coverage will put extra pressure on Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva; a man who so clearly enjoys the positive attention that world-renowned bastions of intellectual freedom can provide. But without taking the lead on reforming lese majeste his legacy will inevitably be tarnished. Abhisit’s current performance on these cases dictates that he shouldn’t expect an uncritical welcome at free Universities any time soon.
[UPDATE: The Asian Human Rights Commission has an urgent appeal on this case.]
It seems to me what you are angling for here is that the establishment should consider moral principles to maintain power instead of obvious oppression. That it looks bad for them according to us is hardly progression for civil liberties, and dare I say the ‘state’ of human rights in Thailand – but more plays into the constructs of Lese Majeste by using shame as the instrument to spare Suwicha Thakor of his needlessly tragic sentence for the elites to save face. But it is ultimately shame, through the necessity of the elite saving face that has landed Suwicha Thakor in this position and I don’t feel it is logical to proceed with shame to dig him out.
Attacking the monarchy or those privy with shame arguments squared towards the vanity of upholding moral principle will not bring about any lasting change, but instead surely prolongs the existing system which is manipulated by those in the upper echelons.
Shame must be countered with something noble.
I don’t have any alternative solutions or suggestions for what is noble. But I would have thought that those in the upper echelon would have more of an idea about that… Indeed, the silence is deafening.
0
0
While I sympathize with KhunSuwicha on clearly an over-harsh punishment, the case must be seen in context with the current Red-Yellow Civil War of the past 2-3 years that has polarize Thai society like never before.
To separate the higher frequency of Les Majeste cases over this recent period from the extreme politics reads as selective, bias and prejudiced. It is like describing the cooked fish on the plate but being ignorant of the sea (and the other big and small fishes) it came from. Republican and related rhetoric – especially through the internet – such as AjarnGile’s, or foriegn-based critical of the Thai monarchy has only served to energized and further polarize the Thai conservatives (and we have witnessed a lot of that anonymous anger in this site who might be Australian-educated sons and daughters of well-connected elites) which, I argue, is and will be doing much more harm than good for the “small fish” like KhunSuwicha (or any chances for the needed reform of LM laws for that matter).
On that note, Nich’s point on the clearly unequal application of the law is apt and I strongly agree with the comment: “Nonetheless this law provides a window into the priorities and prejudices of the elite as they go about the business of maintaining control.”
Arguably the most powerful elite of them all, even in exile, is PMThaksin who is also the person who seem to have flirted with Les Majeste directly and indirectly most. Consistent with Nich’s observation, PMThaksin is also the most well connected of them all whether it is the constant refusal by the police (where he maintains significant influence at all levels) to prosecute to well known fact that elites loyal to him are also also embedded in high places within the palace. Who else can get away lambasting the whole Privy Council in public – and calling for their dismissal when only HMK has that legal right to do so!? The police have already come out to say that PMThaksin’s speech is above board! Besides, PMThaksin, a convicted felon, has today formally sued a Privy Councilor for accusing him of disloyalty!!!
On the contrary, “small fish” like Da Thorpedo, encouraged by PMThaksin’s rhetoric, or Suwicha (and potentially many others, we’ll see post-Red “Final Battle”) here gets speedily prosecuted and trialed. They were most likely driven and inspired by the elites flirtations with Les Majeste, forgetting that the law does not apply equally.
It is this inequality that must be seriously addressed at a societal level and an ideal place to start is to see a corrupt former PM go to jail for his crimes through due process. Ofcourse a group of elite, possibly former partners in corruption, were reluctant to jail one of their own.
As I have always said, LM is the least of Thailand’s problems at this moment and does not feature in most Thai’s concerns as revealed in another ABAC poll conducted in 18 provinces. The findings were revealed today:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/139660/74-sick-of-politics-abac-poll
http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1238908473&grpid=01&catid=01
For me, LM is an issue that will eventually take care of itself. In a time where political power is increasingly distributed amongst diverse stakeholders, future generations of the monarchy will not have the same kind of role in mitigating conflicts amongst ambitious elites. In that future, Les Majeste will not be abused as it has been by warring elites – and it is hoped, political conflicts can be resolved in parliament complemented with robust checks and balances and the rule of law…
Let’s see what shape Thailand comes out off the 8th-10th April. I expect that there will be a bigger crowd than the 26th – and if there are no violence (and I hope and pray that they are none), the conflict will still persist for months – until closer to the date when the verdict to PMThaksin’s assets seizure case is read when they’ll be more drama. Much of the conflicts could subside when the Democrats call the next election – early next year could be to their (and Phumjai Thai’s) advantage, if the GFC does not bite very hard and is managed well…
0
0
I agree with your sentiment, that the law is absurd and archaic. But I think your analysis — along with the hopes of the academic petitioners — is wrong-footed. For what reason should the king “push for reform of a law that makes his rule seem fragile and even a little vindictive” ? There’s no reason he should do so.
In fact it only appears that way to foreigners and to a very small though active fragment of Thai society. The king’s audience is Thais, not foreigners, and they mostly believe in him, in his mythology. For most of them the LM law is a positive, supportive part of that relationship, in the same way that Catholics, Jews, Muslims, whatever their own private doubts, do not want to hear outsiders disparage their religious leaders and dogmatic contradictions.
My guess is that the king and close aides, and maybe the whole palace institution, are uncomfortableand dismayed with the abuse of the LM law by politicians — the king never liked politicians anyway.
But they have one bottom line: survival of the institution. And most Thais probably cannot imagine Thailand without the monarchy. So those two things come together in accepting the need to maintain the LM law as is.
Your analysis — that “the palace takes a dim view of constitutional or legal developments that dilute its power”; that “The goal … is to remain unchallenged by dissenters, by populists … democratic politics” that protecting the LM law reflects “the priorities and prejudices of the elite as they go about the business of maintaining control” — this analysis looks too far, makes too much judgement on what the palace collectively, and the king and core royals, are thinking.
They are not thinking about constitution or power dilution or elite class privilege. They are simply thinking: “King Bhumibol is immune to criticism but his son is not. If we allow any room for criticism the son’s succession might be challenged. We do not have a viable alternative. So we must not allow any criticism to undermine the succession. So we cannot loosen the LM law, and in fact we have to get things under control after Thaksin, Handley’s TKNS, the Thai Studies Conference (with critical papers on royal wealth and the royal projects); and things like Fah Diaokan. So we have to set examples: first the drunk farang in Chiangmai, then Harry N. and also poor Suwicha.” All smalltimers, none willing to put on a media-focused show trial like Giles’ or Sulak’s would be.
If those examples have their desired effect — and let’s watch how academics, journalists and internet posters proceed over the next year — then the palace will have otherwise no problem with Aphisit’s whatever efforts at building democracy or even cutting elite power if he has it in him.
There’s just this bottom line of succession and the successor and a determination to have nothing interfere. They do not have a game plan beyond that, and that’s why I think you are expounding too much too deeply on the use of the LM law. The palace collectively may have thought about all those other things, but it comes down to the simple formula of sustaining the throne to the next generation.
0
0
It would be great and inspiring to all if the King acts benevolently in regard to those accused of lese majeste. It would certainly be in keeping with the rule of compassion, one of the ten virtues that should be practiced by a ruler. Needless to say, his popularity would increase tremendously.
0
0
I agree with polo — protecting succession is probably top motive.
Anyone know what picture was actually posted? Was it of the king or of, say, the wife of the Crown Prince? If it were the latter it would substantiate the point.
0
0
Found some info on Salon.com:
“Suwicha Thakho, 34, a former oil worker, was detained in January and admitted to altering the photos of revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej and his family, the Bangkok Criminal Court said. It did not say how the photos were changed or where they appeared, although local news reports said some appeared on YouTube.”
So it was pics of 9, not 10 or 10’s +1.
0
0
I agree with polo for most part, except the part that protecting royal succession was the top priority. I agree with this statement the most,
“For most of them the LM law is a positive, supportive part of that relationship, in the same way that Catholics, Jews, Muslims, whatever their own private doubts, do not want to hear outsiders disparage their religious leaders and dogmatic contradictions.”
and I believe that the current political instability in Thailand has made it essential to enforce the law to preserve this believe.
0
0
[…] Zoo in Sydney named “Suwicha” (р╕кр╕╕р╕зр╕┤р╕Кр╕▓) in honour of lese majeste prisoner, Suwicha Thakor. That campaign was unsuccessful, although we hope it generated some more awareness of […]
0
0