Thai Criminal Code classifies offences of insult or defamation in accordance with the status of and relations  among persons in line with ethical norms in Thai society. This has made Thai laws different from those of other countries in a number of  respects.

For example, the offence of theft of religious objects  is probably non-existent in Western law because Thais and Westerners have different ways of showing their respects to the religion.

Thai laws and Western laws are made from different perspectives, affected by different ethical and cultural backgrounds. Thus, Thai and Western laws are different and there are many examples to emphasise this point.

Introduction to Monarchy

There are  26 countries which have monarchies and may be classified into two major groups.

The first of them is “constitutional monarchy,” in which the monarch is the Head of State, reigns but does not rule, and acts upon the advice of a  government which is elected by the people and has the power to govern. These are countries such as the United Kingdom, Belgium, Norway, the Netherlands,  Spain, Japan and Thailand.

The second group  is “ruling monarchy”. Countries in this group are mostly Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia and Brunei Darussalam, where the kings chair the meetings of the Council of Ministers.

Nevertheless, within the first group of constitutional monarchies, there are still three variations:

The  first is a monarchy which has a long history dating back to ancient times and which, after the change to democracy, has retained its mystique and revered status as well as strict royal traditions.  Countries within this category include the United Kingdom and Japan, where the Queen or the Emperor is not very closely engaged with the people.

The second is a monarchy which also has a long history but where, following the change to democracy, royalty comport themselves similarly to commoners. The monarch may drive or ride a bicycle to department stores. Royal court traditions are not as strict as in the first category. Monarchs in this category include those of Scandinavia,  i.e. the Queen of Denmark, the King of Sweden and the King of Norway,  and the Queen of Netherlands. The bonds between the monarch and the  people are not prominent.

The third is a monarchy which has a  long history dating back to ancient times, has an exalted religious and  social status as well as strict royal traditions, but has close bonds with the people, who love and respect them for the monarch’s  contributions to their well-being. The most evident example of this category is the Thai monarch.

The Thai Monarch

Foreigners may have seen images of  King Chulalongkorn or of the present King sitting in the Royal Barge or dressed in kingly attire at royal ceremonies. However, Thais have seen not  only these images of magnificence, which reflect the continuity of Thai history and tradition, but also those of the King and Queen and their children sitting on the ground and conversing in plain language with ordinary people in remote, harsh areas of the country where no one  wanted to go.

In fact, the present king has travelled for approximately about 800,000 km countrywide to see his people, while the distance from north to south of Thailand is just 1500km. Royal development projects, which today number more than 3,000, were initiated, reflecting the monarchy’s closeness to the people. The monarch was so important in nearly everything that there is a proverb "In this country, everything can only be done by the King." This is not far from the truth as corrupted democracy does not contribute much to the well being of the Thai people.

The bond between the monarch and the people is  unique. It is not one between the Head of State as a political institution and the people as holders of sovereign power. It is a special relationship with certain characteristics that may be difficult  for foreigners to appreciate, especially when using the western perspectives.

Deva-Raja (God-King) or  Dhamma-Raja (Righteous King)?

Some foreign writers have explained  that Thais regard their king as a god-king based on the Brahmin concept  of deva-raja. This is not entirely wrong, considering the roots of some  royal traditions in Thailand. But in fact, Buddhist beliefs are more  dominant. In the Agganna Sutta on the origins of the world and the  social order, Buddha said that the king, or Khattiya, is “mahasammata”  (“the people’s choice” or “one whom the public acclaims as their  leader”), a “raja” (one who brings happiness or contentment to others).  The king attains such a position by his “virtues,” not his “vices.”  Buddha further said that “the king is best among those who value clans.  But he who has knowledge and virtue (dhamma) is best among gods and  men.”

In this regard, the concept of “dhamma-raja,” which means a  king who rules with righteous principles (e.g. the 10 raja-dhamma or  principles of a righteous king, the 12 principles of cakkavatt-vatta or  duties of a universal ruler, and sangaha-vatthu or principles of  benefaction), is more important than that of deva-raja. Examples in this regard have been set by King Ashoka the Great of India, and in Thailand’s case, King Thammaracha Lithai of the Sukhothai era and His  Majesty King Bhumibol, who has acted in keeping with his Accession Oath before a grand audience that: “We shall reign with righteousness, for  the benefit and happiness of the Siamese people.”

In addition, Muslims and Christians also value and respect the King greatly. This is because HM The King upholds every religion. The fact disproves some people's opinions that Thai people worship the King like god.

From ‘Political Institution’ to ‘Principal Social Institution’

The monarch is the Head of State and thus a  political institution. Although he has no political agenda and acts on the basis of advice from an elected government, the monarch remains a  “political institution” which is – in the words of Walter Bagehot – a  “dignified part of the Constitution,” while the Council of Ministers and the National Assembly are the Constitution’s “efficient parts”.

His  Majesty the King’s deeds and contributions over 60 years  of his reign – be they his tireless dedication in alleviating socio-economic problems faced by Thai people to “narrowing the gap” of what  the government had not done or in places the government had not reached  through implementation of royally-initiated projects, or his  intervention to prevent escalation of the crisis between the government  and the people during the events of October 14, 1973 and May 1992 – have  transformed the Thai monarchy from a “dignified political institution”  to an “efficient social institution” in the same manner as the family or  religion. The monarch therefore is not a “demi-god” unreachable and  cloaked in mystique but rather a “father,” as Thais call him, whom Thai people love and respect as the spirit and pillar of the nation.

Such a relationship is more than between any head of states and the people be it republic or kingdom. How Thais  feel towards their King was clearly demonstrated when hundreds of  thousands of Thais, at their own behest, thronged Ratchadamnoen Avenue  to wish their King well on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of his  accession to the throne, and when they kept round-the-clock vigils at Siriraj Hospital where the King was admitted.

Lese Majeste

This is the basis of a provision which appears in every Thai constitution – that “The King  shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be  violated. No person shall expose the King to any sort of accusation or  action” (Section 8 of the present Thai Constitution). This provision is  the “effect” of Thai culture and ethics, not the “cause” which coerces Thai people to respect the King as alleged by some.

This culture  of paternalistic governance also explains a phenomenon which may not  take place anywhere else. When the Thai King is unfairly criticised,  most Thais feel like their own parent is being attacked and cannot  accept it – much in the same way that Thais do not accept anyone demeaning the Buddha or even statues that represent him.

The lese  majeste offence means not just harm to the monarch but also to the  “father” of most Thais – a serious social offence comparable to  ingratitude towards one’s own father. It is therefore not surprising  that the “father” himself does not want to take offence and feels that criticism of  him can be done (as apparent in  His Majesty’s remarks on December 4, 2005) . Most Thais, however, still wish to maintain the law in order to protect the institution they revere from harm.

In other  words, lese majeste is regarded as not just harmful to the person insulted but to Thai society, ethics and culture. This is in line with  the criminological principle that certain acts may be criminalised if  there is a societal consensus that they are harmful to society and  constitute a limitation on freedom of expression. It is not dissimilar  to the limitation on freedom of expression as regards criticism of God  and the Prophet in Muslim countries, which is not understood by some  Westerners, who ridiculed the Prophet revered by all Muslims, thereby  creating a controversy that almost led to worldwide violence.

All  this demonstrates that in Thai society, the lese majeste offence has  its basis not only in the principles of international law or  constitutional law but also in Thai ethics, culture and Buddhist  principles which are unique to Thai society. In a similar vein, some  Western countries may protect their parliaments through  contempt-of-parliament laws (which Thailand does not have), or protect  their courts through contempt-of-court laws, while Muslim countries  protect their God and faith. Individual freedom of expression thus ends  when it comes up against what each society wishes to protect.

This  is in fact the beauty of diversity. No true democrat should want every  society to use a single set of standards and place individual freedom of  expression above the needs and consensus of the majority of that  particular society. Someone who wishes to do so, if such a person  exists, should not be called a democrat but an ethical despot.  Conversely, it is the recognition of ethical and cultural diversity  based on the concept of ethical pluralism that is democratic and  open-minded because it appreciates the right to self-determination of  each society.

Thai Laws Reflecting Thai Culture and Ethics

The  structure of offences of insult or defamation in the current Thai  Criminal Code is divided into three groups and six levels:

The  first group is insult or defamation against ordinary persons. Insult  against another person in his or her presence under Section 393 has a  penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or a fine not  exceeding 1,000 baht, or both. The penalty for defamation under  Sections 326 to 333 is imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or  a fine not exceeding 20,000 baht, or both. The penalty for defamation  by means of publication is imprisonment of up to two years or a fine of  up to 200,000 baht.

The second group is insult or defamation  against state officials or the Court. Insulting officials (Section 136)  carries a penalty of imprisonment for up to one year or a fine of up to  20,000 baht, or both. Insulting the Court or the judge (Section 198)  presiding over a case carries a penalty of imprisonment for four to  seven years, or a fine of 2,000 to 14,000 baht, or both.

The  third group is insult against the Head of State of foreign countries or  lese majeste. Insulting or threatening the King, Queen, Consort,  Heir-apparent or Head of State of foreign countries (Section 133), which  is an offence against the friendly relations with foreign states, is  punishable by one to seven years’ imprisonment or a fine of  2,000-140,000 baht, or both. The penalty for defaming, insulting or  threatening the Thai Monarch, the Queen, Heir-apparent or Regent is  imprisonment for a term of three to 15 years. Insulting or defaming a  representative of a foreign state accredited to the Royal Court has the  penalty of imprisonment for a term of six months to five years or a fine  of 1,000-10,000 baht, or both.

It is clear from the above that  the Thai Criminal Code classifies offences of insult or defamation in  accordance with the status of and relations among persons in line with  ethical norms in Thai society. This has made Thai laws different from  those of other countries in a number of respects. For instance,  deliberate homicide (Section 288) is punishable by death, life  imprisonment, or imprisonment for 15 to 20 years, while murdering an  ascendant (e.g. parents and grandparents), an official in the exercise  of his or her duties, etc (as specified under Section 189) carries a  mandatory death sentence. This is because in Thai society, parricide is,  based on its religious and ethical norms, an unforgivable sin and the  gravest act of ingratitude.

The offence of theft (Section 334)  carries a penalty of imprisonment of up to three years and a fine not  exceeding 6,000 baht. But if such theft involves Buddha statues or  religious objects (of any religion) which is venerated by the public or a  national treasure (Section 335 bis), the penalty is imprisonment for  three to 10 years and a fine of 6,000 to 20,000 baht.

The offence  of theft of religious objects is probably non-existent in Western law  because Thais and Westerners have different ways of showing respect for  religion.

Section 71 on theft further stipulates that a husband  stealing from wife or vice versa shall not be punished. If the offence  is committed by a descendant against his or her ascendant or vice versa,  or by a brother or sister of the same parents against each other, then  the offence shall be deemed compoundable and the Court may inflict less  punishment than that provided by the law for such offence.

These  provisions reflect the fact that where theft occurs among parents and  children, or brothers and sisters, society allows these persons to  “forgive” each other. This also may not exist in Western law.

There  are many other instances that demonstrate the differences between the  ethics and culture of the majority of the Thai people as appears in Thai  laws on the one hand, and the ethics and laws of Western countries on  the other. For example, Thai law prohibits a descendant from suing his  or her ascendant as this is considered an act of ingratitude (Section  1562 of Thai Civil and Commercial Code) and revocation of a gift cannot  be claimed except for an act of ingratitude on the part of the receiver  (Section 531)

In conclusion, the Thai monarchy is special and unique from any monarchy in the world. HM The King has been engaged with his people for decades and people revere him because the great innumerable works he has done for his people. The King is the symbol, the spirit, the centre, the main pillar, the patron and the father of Thailand. What Thais feel towards their monarch cannot be expressed into words. The "Lese Majeste" law is to protect the revered institution in which the majority of Thai people will not allow the law to be abolished. The Thai culture and society cannot be judged using the western standards or the stereotype that the Third World countries are usually dictated and the people have no freedom. This is not true. The King is on the top of pyramid, but that pyramid is upside down.