Thailand: Ruling Party Has Lost Credibility After Reneging On Lèse-Majesté Cases – Analysis

By Nontarat Phaicharoen

Thailand’s ruling Pheu Thai Party has lost its trust with citizens by breaking with an electoral promise of including royal defamation cases in a proposed amnesty bill for political prisoners, analysts said. 

In late October, the party reversed course by announcing it would now exclude so-called lèse-majesté cases in its version of the bill.

During the 2023 campaign, Pheu Thai, then a party in the opposition, had pledged that it would appeal to the courts to show leniency in the cases of people imprisoned for or charged under the draconian royal insult law, saying its use had been politicized.

Pheu Thai’s decision to exclude such cases in the proposed amnesty legislation shows the party’s true character, political analyst Olarn Thinbangtiao told BenarNews.

“Pheu Thai has now gone bankrupt in terms of credibility,” said Olarn, a political science associate professor at Burapha University.

“They have repeatedly broken their promises, exposing that their democratic ideals and justice are merely fictional narratives.” 

For instance, Pheu Thai reneged on its promise to join forces with the now-disbanded Move Forward Party to form the government.

The lèse-majesté law, framed under Article 112 of the country’s criminal code, carries a maximum jail term of 15 years for each conviction.

At least 27 people are currently imprisoned under the lèse-majesté law, according to the group, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights. And 274 people face 307 royal defamation cases from 2020 until September this year.

Pheu Thai probably took a lesson from the Move Forward Party, which was disbanded in August for 10 years for promising to abolish the royal defamation law, said Sunai Phasuk, a Thai advisor to Human Rights Watch.

Pheu Thai itself faces the specter of disbandment, with the election commission announcing on Oct. 21 that the party was being investigated for an alleged political violation.

“Pheu Thai has chosen to break its promises, possibly calculating that this reduces political risk, especially after seeing the Move Forward Party dissolved for proposing Article 112 reforms,” Sunai told BenarNews.

View from the street

Among Thai citizens, there appears to be an age divide on how Pheu Thai’s turnaround on the amnesty bill is being viewed. 

Peerawat Veeraviriyapitak, a student in Bangkok, said that the party had gone back on its promise. 

“Right now, it seems like Pheu Thai is going back on what they previously said,” Peerawat told BenarNews.

“If some people didn’t actually commit a crime, they should be granted amnesty too.”

But retiree Teerasak Kambannarak agreed with Pheu Thai’s decision.

“Article 112 should not be included in the amnesty bill, as the monarchy is an institution we should protect and uphold,” Teerasak told BenarNews.

While campaigning before last year’s general election, Pheu Thai said that Article 112 cases ought to be included in an Amnesty Act.

Then-party leader and now-Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra had said that royal defamation cases were problematic because anyone could file charges – a fact that has allowed the law to be used as a political weapon.

Paetongtarn’s father, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, also faces Article 112 charges. He was charged in May for comments about the monarchy he made during a 2015 interview in South Korea. 

Parliament is considering four amnesty bill drafts, which include pardoning actions seen as provoking periods of political unrest in the Southeast Asian nation since 2006.

All four target politically motivated offenses. 

These include violations of articles 114, 116, 117 and 118. They are related to sedition, actions aimed at changing laws, incitement to strike for political change and activities against national symbols.

Two of the four drafts – one by the main opposition party People’s Party (formerly known as Move Forward) and a public initiative – called for the draft law to include Article 112 cases.

Parliament is set to review the amnesty bills next month.

Historical precedent

Article 112 has fundamentally become political, said Kitpatchara Somanawat, an assistant professor at Chiang Mai University's Faculty of Law.

“Over the past 5-10 years, questions have arisen about the monarchy’s political involvement,” Kitpatchara told BenarNews.

“Academic works have suggested connections, leading some to view political expression about the monarchy as an active citizen’s duty. Therefore, Article 112 violations are inherently political crimes, not ordinary ones.”

Thailand has a historical precedent for such an amnesty measure. 

In 1978, the government granted amnesty to those arrested after the October 1976 protests in which 40 people were killed and 3,000 others thrown behind bars.

Ironically, several of those former students given amnesty now hold positions in Paetongtarn’s government.

They include Phumtham Wechayachai, deputy prime minister; Prommin Lertsuridej, the prime minister’s secretary-general and Pheu Thai MPs Adisorn Piengkes and Chaturon Chaisang.

Thailand’s political divisions will never end if the government decides to exclude Article 112 cases under the proposed amnesty law, political analyst Olarn of Burapha University warned.

“Pheu Thai’s decision may affect future democratic discourse and reform efforts in Thailand,” he said. 

“These political issues will remain dormant until the next development because we’re just hiding problems under the carpet.” 

Ruj Chuenban in Bangkok and Wanna Tamthong in Chiang Mai contributed to this story.