Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha conveyed a notable message on Monday that His Majesty the King has asked for the controversial Section 112 of the Criminal Code, also known as the lese majeste law, not to be used.
The prime minister, however, claimed that lese majeste violations had increased since authorities had stopped invoking the law.
He therefore urged people not to spread "distorted" information about the monarchy and told the public not to fall for such information, without going into detail about what exactly was he referring to.
The news that Section 112 will stop being used against critics of the monarchy is welcome but it may not strike at the heart of the problem.
The use of the lese majeste law has been contentious and subject to criticism from democratic groups as being a tool to silence political "enemies".
This is because the law is problematic in itself.
For a criminal law that carries a maximum punishment of 15 years in jail, Section 112 is brief but nebulous.
It stated: "Those who defame, insult or threaten the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent shall be punished by a jail term of between three to 15 years.''
Many law lecturers and academics have debated the merit of the law over the past decade. They pointed to at least three main flaws.
First, the maximum sentence of 15 years is deemed too severe comparable to the punishment for planning to launch a rebellion, according to iLaw, a non-governmental organisation promoting civil rights and freedom of speech.
Second, the law carries a minimum punishment of three years in jail, which is considered quite high while denying the possibility of a lighter sentence.
Third, the law is subject to interpretation especially in regards to what may qualify as acts of "insult".
In the past, the law was used against people who may have given honest, even constructive criticism of the monarchy.
In some cases, the lese majeste charge was filed against activities that might not conform to the "crime'' as defined by the law at all.
Social critic Sulak Sivaraksa, for example, has been charged with lese majeste five times since 1985 but never convicted.
The fifth case against him was unique. In 2014, two retired generals filed a lese majeste complaint against Sulak for defaming King Naresuan, a historical figure described as liberating the kingdom of Ayutthaya from being a Burmese serfdom.
Police officially charged Sulak with lese majeste three years later in 2017. A year after that, the military tribunal dropped the charge.
That the law could be interpreted to cover a historical figure from some 400 years ago with unreliable records and scarce evidence about the personalities or events involved is indeed questionable.
Another issue is the lese majeste law allows anyone to file complaint against others without having to be the damaged party. This has led to the law being abused, especially to provoke hatred for political gains.
Since the law is problematic in itself, amending it does indeed seem the best, most logical way to avoid its abuse.
Such an attempt will also help desensitise the lese majeste crime, which has pitted one group of people against another and provoked episodes of extreme hatred and violence in recent history that should never be repeated.