The military junta is throwing all its legal weapons at the pro-democracy youth leaders. It is now just over a year since Generalissimo Prayut announce that the government would start to use the lèse-majesté law law against protesters. This was after a brief two year period when the no one was charged under this law.
The human rights organisation “iLaw” reports that 156 people have since been accused of lèse-majesté, with prominent leaders facing multiple lèse-majesté charges. Student activist Parit Chiwarak (“Penguin”) faces 22 cases under this law, while the lawyer Arnon Nampa faces 14 cases.
Other leaders being charged include student activist Panusaya “Rung” Sithijirawattanakul and Ramkhamhaeng University student Panupong Jadnok. Many activists have spent time in jail or are still being detained. The junta’s Kangaroo courts have often refused bail. [See https://bit.ly/3r6hBun .]
The use of the lèse-majesté law this time round has been aimed at those demanding the reform of the scandal-ridden Monarchy, with many pro-democracy activists believing that loathsome King Wachiralongkorn has too much power. Recently, the junta’s Kangaroo Constitutional Court ruled that merely calling for the reform of the Monarchy is equivalent to “treason” or attempting to overthrow the state. The maximum sentence for this is the death penalty. Some protesters have also been charged with lèse-majesté for wearing crop-tops on protests, ridiculing the preferred dress style of Wachiralongkorn.
This repression against the protest leaders has resulted in a revival of calls for the abolition or reform of lèse-majesté. Such calls were raised by myself and others after the 2006 military coup, but the movement against the lèse-majesté law today is more wide-spread and has support of large numbers of young people. A recent on-line petition gathered over 200,000 signatures. People are also refusing to stand up for the King’s anthem in cinemas.
In many ways, the demand to reform the Monarchy is a real threat to the military junta and the Thai ruling class. It undermines the way that the military and the capitalist politicians have always used the weak Monarchy to justify their rule, claiming that they always act to defend the “sacred” Monarchy, when in fact they merely act to defend their own interests.
The so-called “power” of the king is manufactured by the military, and other members of the Thai ruling class, in order to create fear and also enforce the idea that people are not equal. It is equivalent to the way some regimes in the world claim that they rule according to God’s wishes. Neither Pumipon, nor his idiot son Wachiralongkorn have any real political power.
Those who claim that Wachiralongkorn is all powerful need to explain how this can be the case, given that he chooses to spend most of his time living with his harem in Germany. Is there an example anywhere in the world, now or in the past, where a powerful ruler can exercise his power while spending most of his life abroad? Tyrants are very wary of leaving the country where they rule for fear of being deposed while abroad. The idea that Wachiralongkorn has been increasing his power is parroted by some articles published by mainstream news outlets abroad.
The lèse-majesté law is an anti-democratic law. The way it is used in the courts, with cases held in secret, is also un-democratic. It cannot be reformed; it must be abolished. In fact, the parasitic and wasteful Monarchy, which is used to justify the destruction of democracy, cannot be reformed either. It is time to fight for a Republic. Many young people today would agree with this sentiment.
Unfortunately, the building of a powerful pro-democracy social movement to achieve these aims has still not been achieved. The protest movements are fragmented, with many just watching from the sides or merely hoping in vain that the opposition mainstream political parties can achieve reform in a parliament controlled by the military. A mass movement based among the working class is required so that strikes can bring down the military. Some young people understand this, but they are being led astray by Anarcho-Syndicalist ideas about building a “red” trade union: “The Workers’ Union”. Unfortunately, this Red Union is merely an Anarcho-Syndicalist movement made up of youth, it isn’t an affective trade union and, unlike a revolutionary party, it cannot place activists among existing unions in order to agitate among workers. This is a task that is being attempted by a small group of Marxists in Thailand at the moment.
Giles Ji Ungpakorn