Thailand’s lèse-majesté law used to ‘target political opponents’

Last week, Thailand’s record on freedom of expression came under particular scrutiny in Geneva, Switzerland, during the Universal Periodic Review at the UN’s Human Rights Council.

Frank La Rue, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, urged Thailand to fall into line with international human rights obligations, by holding public consultations to amend the 2007 Computer Crime Act, and Section 112, the country’s draconian lèse-majesté law. Section 112 can see people imprisoned for up to 15 years for ‘defaming the monarchy’.

Several countries backed the call for Section 112 to be reformed, including Brazil, Indonesia and Canada, while other nations such as the UK, France, Norway asked for space to be opened up in Thai public discourse where the future of the law could be discussed.

Thailand’s key military ally, the USA, has remained almost completely silent on the issue of lèse-majesté, despite the incarceration of US national Joe Gordon under Section 112.

One of the organisations attending the Geneva review was the UK-based freedom of expression advocacy group ARTICLE 19. Amy Sim is their senior programme officer for Asia, and I had a chance to ask her a few questions about Thailand.

Q: If, as is claimed, Thailand’s lèse-majesté (LM) law is in breach of international legal requirements on freedom of expression, what action would you like to see the international community take if Thailand continues to use the law?
ARTICLE 19 would like to see the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and countries with close links to Thailand, to raise serious concerns with the Thai government on the misuse of the LM law and the 2007 Computer Crime Act (CCA), which has been used as a default LM legislation.

The Thai government must open up dialogue with local civil society actors on the provisions of the LM law and CCA and their use, and the government must amend these laws in accordance with Thailand’s obligations under its constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Q: The US Embassy in Bangkok is sometimes seen as ineffective in protecting the rights of its own citizens – particularly Joe Gordon – from punishment under LM law. A WikiLeaks cable revealed that the embassy believed “quiet diplomacy” was more effective than vocal protest. There have also been rumours that the embassy advised Joe Gordon to plead guilty to secure his release. What action should foreign governments take to protect their own citizens from the long reach of LM? (Thailand claims its LM laws have universal jurisdiction, and Gordon was arrested because he supposedly posted a link to LM material while he was resident in the USA).
We cannot comment on the rumours surrounding the Joe Gordon case. Naturally, his case is a cause for concern and indicative of the far-reaching implications of the LM law. Each government makes its own assessment and judgment, pending the situation of the cases and its diplomatic relationship with the Thai government.

Q: Most of the recent arrests, prosecutions and harassment using LM laws, which ramped up sharply under the previous Thai Democrat Party government, seemed to have a political tone – has LM been used as a blunt tool to stifle dissent against particular ruling groups?
Yes – given that LM charges were mainly brought on red-shirts, affiliated individuals and critics of the government, it is obvious that the broadness of the law is being used as a tool to target political opponents and critical voices. It is almost as if the Thai people’s love for their king has been hijacked by politicians to achieve their own political agenda, in which critical dissent is not tolerated.

Q: What message would you give to the recently elected Pheu Thai government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra?
ARTICLE 19 hopes the new prime minister will address the country’s deteriorating freedom of expression situation by amending the LM law and Computer Crime Act. We also call for the release of individuals convicted for exercising their legitimate right to freedom of expression and urge the respective authorities to drop charges on individuals for remarks made that are deemed lèse-majesté. We also hope that the prime minister will reverse the policy announced by the deputy prime minister to crack down on LM on the internet and to establish a task team to monitor internet content, which will create a chilling effect on freedom of expression in Thailand.

We are glad to hear from the Thai delegation during the UPR session at the United Nations last week that the Thai government recognises the implications of the LM law and is keen to prevent abuse. We understand that a review of the LM law is ongoing. We hope the outcome of the review will be made public and the government will take concrete steps to implement its recommendations with close consultation with civil society organisations.

Q: How could LM be reformed so Thailand’s monarchy can remain protected and the law is not used as an attack on civil liberties?
International standards of freedom of expression require public figures to tolerate a higher degree of criticism than ordinary citizens and be open to public scrutiny. By providing special protection to royalty, the LM law is in violation with this requirement. ARTICLE 19 is for the repeal of the LM law for these reasons.

We hope the Thai government will encourage open dialogue on LM and provide a clear timeline for the reform of the LM law and CCA to minimise abuse of these laws and their impacts on the right to freedom of expression and the right to information.

Q: More recently the head of the Thai army, General Prayuth, said that LM in its present format should not be touched. The USA has a close military relationship with the Thai army – should US citizens and lawmakers be questioning the terms of this relationship when such statements are made?
Given USA’s strong constitutional guarantee for freedom of expression, we would of course hope to see the US speaking out on Thailand’s suppression of speech using LM law.

Q: Both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, despite maintaining offices and staff in Bangkok, have refused to mount any meaningful campaign against LM – do you think it is time for a stronger, co-ordinated international campaign to be mounted?
There is already a concerted effort among a number of national, regional and international organisations on campaigning against LM. The recent advocacy activities and trial observation around the case of Chiranuch [Premchaiporn, editor of a news website who was accused of breaking LM laws]  is an example.

Besides international groups, Thai NGOs have done a great job campaigning against LM and garnering support from foreign governments and international organisations – which is starting to pay off, as is evident from the responses from the Thai delegation during Thailand UPR.

Q. The international media has a strong presence in Bangkok, yet few journalists mention the constraints of the LM laws. Do you think these journalists are serving the wider public by failing to mention both the restrictions and the self-censorship they operate under?
Self-censorship among journalists is a serious problem, and this is not limited to Thai journalists, but also [extends to] international correspondents reporting on Thailand. I have, however, also seen many pieces of good journalism from both Thai and foreign media discussing the issue of LM and freedom of expression. Journalists have the responsibilities to report accurately and provide information of public interest to its readers, without being subjected to any form of censorship.