All eyes on Article 112

News > Investigative Report

International rights bodies, local scholars, activists and public figures are joining the growing call for reform of the contentious and often politicised lese majeste law

Published: 27/09/2011 at 06:20 PM
Newspaper section: Spectrum

This month several prominent lese majeste cases are going through the courts or are in the public eye, from that of the webmaster of a news site to an activist student and two US citizens. Lese majeste cases have been on the rise since 2005, but of late there has been increasing international and Thai unease with what some activists and rights organisations are calling use of the law to stifle political opposition, suppress freedom of speech and violate human rights.

Article 112 of the Criminal Code allows three to 15 years in jail for "whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the heir to the throne or the regent". This can apply for each offence, and theoretically anyone can make this claim against anyone else; the royal family itself has never brought a charge to court. While other countries also have lese majeste laws, the penalties aren't as severe and the law is better defined.

Related provisions in the 2007 Computer Crime Act in Thailand have also enabled prosecutors to dramatically increase penalties. The law was passed by the post-coup military-backed government to combat hacking but can also be used to prosecute attempts to undermine national security. It is for the latter reason that the law is increasingly being used, and the vagueness of the language means it can be interpreted to prosecute political opponents.

This article is older than 60 days, which we reserve for our premium members only.You can subscribe to our premium member subscription, here.

About the author

Writer: Staff Reporters

Keep this article in your social bookmark:

Latest stories in this category:

Forum

Your comments

felixqui
Post : 82
Send message

Discussion 3 : 01/10/2011 at 06:35 AM3
Post this to my Facebook
Prof Borwornsak Uwanno's defence is based on gutting the very notion of moral right and wrong and of any possibility of even making sense of the idea that a nation could make moral progress. Once you accept the ethical relativism he explicitly advocates, there is and can be no moral difference between the US during slavery and the US after slavery: both are equal. Similarly, he leaves no basis for saying something like: "Canada has more just and moral laws than North Korea". Such statements are literally meaningless under moral relativism. If that is the only defence that can be offered, then the LM laws of section 112 are even less defensible than we thought: the defenders of their justice can only succeed by ditching the very notions of justice and morality!
Like dislike 0 people liked / 0 people disliked this comment
howell
Post : 1,121
Send message

Discussion 2 : 25/09/2011 at 09:51 PM2
Post this to my Facebook
Yes, agree with cleardawn. Please BP more of the same on other issues plaguing Thailand e.g. corrupt politicians.

It is possible to have democracy and a Royal family e.g. the UK and many other countries all over the world. The King has done great things for Thailand, some of his ideas have changed this country very positively. I doubt that a review of 'Lese majeste' is a major worry for him. However it seems to be for those with a small mind and those who might benefit from LS.
Like dislike 0 people liked / 0 people disliked this comment
cleardawn
Post : 27
Send message

Discussion 1 : 25/09/2011 at 02:24 PM1
Post this to my Facebook
Thank you Bangkok Post for having the courage to publish this article. Change will come as more and more people, both Thai and foreigners, stand up and speak with courage, compassion and honesty.
Like dislike 0 people liked / 0 people disliked this comment

All eyes on Article 112 | Bangkok Post: news