Font size: 
The PAD reiterates that the current ruling People Power Party is a nominee of the Thai Rak Thai party of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra -- but then wisely questions why the country’s Election Commission could not find an applicable Thai law that would result in the dissolution of the PPP.
Besides this, the PAD maintains that the PPP and former TRT executives – especially Thaksin – were involved in a conspiracy to undermine the status of the revered monarchy and replace it with a secular presidency. The TRT and PPP deny this, of course, but charges are repeated and not likely to dissipate.
Recently a foreign researcher visited a Thai colleague, who was one of the 2007 constitutional drafting assembly members, to ask about charges being flung back and forth in the kingdom regarding the monarchy. The sentiment of the Thai people in regard to an enforced lack of open discussion on the role of the monarchy is at the center of the charges against BBC’s Jonathan Head.
At present there are hundreds of online sources, in Thai and English, regarding the Thai royal household and the institution of the monarchy. Many of the postings are uncomplimentary, some challenge the institution’s existence, some praise it. Others ask the fundamental question as to why the role of the monarchy is not raised openly in Thailand, since the country is supposed to be a democracy and freedom of speech is enshrined in the democratic form of government.
Any advocate of democracy commenting on the Thai monarchy would tend to call for open discussion of its role and interrelationship with the Thai political system. An advocate of traditional moral values and of the mindset that there are important things in the world that must be held above day-to-day values, would tend to advocate conservative expression in private, respectful expression in public, and resist any changes to the institution or its role in Thai society.
In review of the issue of lese majeste, an American researcher has asked whether “Thailand is primarily a democracy protected by a Constitution that guarantees rights, or is it primarily a monarchy with authoritarian structures that prevent democratization?”
Another question may be whether Thailand is a sociopolitical entity that either needs, should, or is able to cross the line from severely enforced criminal lese majeste laws to where it will allow open discussion, without fear of jail or unjust recrimination, of the role of the monarchy on the one hand and the forced public demonstration on the other, by those who would rather be citizens in a democracy than subjects under a monarchy.
The paradigm resembles somewhat the global debate on secularism and religion. Extremists on both sides strongly advocate their points of view. But in Thailand’s case there is also an ancient traditional culture at work fighting against globalization and widespread moves away from traditional value systems that advocate going back to the old values of close-knit families, respectful social interaction and the need for respectful silence in the face of sensitivities.
In a sense, then, those who advocate open discussion of the role of the monarchy are legitimately exercising their constitutional and moral rights. On the other hand, those who advocate that such open discussion not take place do so because they are either adamantly against the idea no matter what, or are able to foresee future undermining of the revered institution if such open discussion becomes both legal and socially acceptable.
A foreign writer in Thailand was accused three years ago of lese majeste on community radio. He heard on the radio the public being incited to throw both him and his Thai wife out of the country for allegedly insulting the nation, the religion, and the monarchy.
The charges – officially filed with the police – reminded the writer of what former Thai Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai said in Bangkok years ago when he addressed a large gathering of students and other democracy advocates some time after the 1976 bloody massacres.
The former premier told the thousands gathered then that when Samak Sundaravej, Thailand’s current prime minister, incited right-wing supporters with false charges that Chuan and others were harming the nation, the religion and the monarchy, Samak knew what he was doing and what the consequences would be – a bloodbath.
Following Samak’s October 1973 and 1976 incitement, over 100 students and protestors were murdered in the center of Bangkok. Samak to this day maintains he had nothing to do with the bloodshed, and was part of a royal pardon given afterwards.
At the center of Thailand’s initial registration and subsequent investigation of lese majeste charges is the country’s “santiban.” It is defined in the Thai dictionary as “police who secretly investigate state matters.” An alternative definition states “those who maintain order.” Still another definition of members of the Central Bureau of Investigation is “public security officers.”
Local police officials who record and/or instigate allegations of lese majeste turn over the report to the santiban, who then proceed with an investigation that includes visiting witnesses, the accused, reviewing evidence and putting together a case. If the case is viewed as strong enough, the charges are filed with central officials in Bangkok and finally formal lese majeste charges are filed.
All during this time, there are few restrictions on making public charges against the accused in terms of stating that they are guilty. That is, in the media and in private, officials and accusers are free to name the accused without any court injunction being issued to maintain silence. In the interim, reputations and peace of mind can be torn asunder.
Insofar as the actual case details are concerned, unfortunately the accused is not protected by a formal criminal code procedure that allows him or her to offer any real defense during allegations.
This severe curtailing of individual rights and liberties is part of what makes the country’s lese majeste laws so seemingly unfair. Punitive and open to all, the lese majeste charge can be made without any regard to the shame it can cause, the hatred it can incite, the loss and damage to reputation that will certainly follow, and the likely eventual outcome that the charge will be found to be false.
In the end His Majesty is most often likely to dismiss the charge or provide a pardon. He has himself indicated publicly that he wished the law were used less, because having to forgive those convicted causes him trouble. He has also said that if he does anything wrong he wants to be told so he can improve himself, that he is not a supernatural being. But the police are not heeding the message behind the nuance insofar as revamping an antiquated and unfair law.
The People’s Alliance for Democracy is busy stressing that an alleged conspiracy to topple the monarchy is in part being waged by former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and other anti-royalist supporters. The PAD’s most public presence, Sondhi Limthongkul, has also cited as a member of this conspiracy a Thai democracy advocate who refused to stand up in a theater during the royal anthem. The charge is spurious, but popular among royalists who in one way or another represent the country’s majority.
In pursuit of the recognition of a conspiracy to damage the nation’s most cherished and respected institution, the PAD has hold of a powerful incitement vehicle – lese majeste. It is by its very nature a tool to incite, and thus a tool that must, by necessity and in the name of justice, be modified.
But Thai society is not ready to modify its lese majeste law. Time and time again people are falsely persecuted and prosecuted because of fervor surrounding a personage and institution that has not, despite claims to the contrary, always been able to maintain unity and order.
Only the country’s military and police – which have stepped in constantly since 1932 against elected governments – have done that. In accomplishing that they have also ensured that democracy will not take the important foothold in Thailand it must have to become a genuine form of governance.
Thomas Jefferson’s November 17, 1787 letter to William Hunter in part said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” He also said once in a letter to Lafayette that “We are not to expect to be transported from despotism to liberty in a featherbed.”
Jefferson’s centuries-old message carries over into the Thai political and social theaters. It carries a frightening warning of what is needed to make real democratic changes in Thailand. The fight has not yet become public, but the public accusations of a conspiracy and tight-lipped internal investigations and private anger spell continued unease in Siam.
Is it time that Thailand’s Tree of Liberty is refreshed, as Jefferson has written? Many feel that this inevitable clash is what the Thai elite fear and have so far successfully quashed, because they know it would be their demise.
--
(Frank G. Anderson is the Thailand representative of American Citizens Abroad. He was a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer to Thailand from 1965-67, working in community development. A freelance writer and founder of northeast Thailand's first local English language newspaper, the Korat Post -- www.thekoratpost.com -- he has spent over eight years in Thailand "embedded" with the local media. He has an MBA in information management and an associate degree in construction technology. ©Copyright Frank G. Anderson.)
