At The Nation Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra again made her lese majeste position clear: “We are not doing this now. We should focus on solving economic problems.” At the Bangkok Post it is stated that this statement amounted to “[t]aking a clear stance on the issue for the first time…”.
Perhaps the Post listens too closely to its allies in the Democrat Party for this has been her position and that of Puea Thai for a long time.
Likewise, when the prime minister went further was in making a classic royalist call to “protect the institution.” She is quoted: “We must not bring the monarchy into our business. As Thais, we have to protect the institution, not exploit it…”. In the Post, the quote is more damaging. She is reported to have said that “the government is more concerned about protecting the institution than changing Article 112 of the Criminal Code to protect freedom of speech.”
While she at least acknowledges that protecting the monarchy is negative for freedom of speech, the statement is a travesty in terms of human rights.
Schoolbook monarchism or ultra-royalism?
Interestingly, Yingluck appears caught between the schoolbook monarchism that she was brought up on – as all Thais are – and simplistic ultra-royalism.
Many ultra-royalists see Article 112 and the monarchy as inseparable, a bit like the Siamese twins of old. Of course, this is errant nonsense and we are yet to see it from Yingluck. If readers think we are missing something, let us know.
Yingluck is reported in both papers as saying that:
she had asked government figures to avoid certain sensitive issues and to focus instead on rehabilitation work aimed at restoring confidence in Thailand after the recent severe floods.
She has said this before and it amounts to a kind of “ignore the law and it will go away” head in the sand approach.
Yingluck is quoted further on this:
people need to turn to one another and cooperate instead of focussing on amending the lese majeste law. “Right now, many people are still in trouble and need help so they can lead a normal life after the floods,” Ms Yingluck said. “The economy dropped in the fourth quarter of last year. We need to hurry up and restore confidence. I would like to ask everyone to concentrate and help out on this matter instead.”
When asked about “a growing number of insulting websites,” Yingluck apparently responded that “she would rather focus on campaigning for better understanding. She asked that all agencies support such a campaign.”
If Yingluck is sounding just monarchist, Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung is reasserting his ultra-royalism as he attacks Nitirat:
The party will definitely not amend this article. I will oppose whoever proposes its amendment…. This is Thailand and we are happy because of the royal kindness. Don’t you have anything else to do?
At the Bangkok Post, Chalerm is cited further:
Some people seem to overreach their bounds and express their wishes to amend Section 112…. What right do they have to change it? What power? They can only talk…. The [Pheu Thai] party will never change this law. I will also oppose anyone who proposes that it is changed.
We think Chalerm all bluster on this for he knows that Nitirat, like all citizens, under the constitution have the power to bring an amendment petition to parliament. While the law may never be changed under Puea Thai, Nitirat have the power of the constitution and of the people supporting them.
And then there is aging political animal Sanan Kachorn-prasart, an inveterate party-jumper currently listed as chief adviser to the coalition Chart Thai Pattana Party. He has also jumped on Nitirat but is staggeringly stupid:
Sanan said the political situation appeared to be worsening, with the Nitirat campaign likely to lead to renewed conflict. He said the group’s members, consisting of academics in their 30s and 40s, should study Thai history to understand that the monarchy contributed to society and the country’s survival.
This is an inane statement, reflecting the usual nonsense of cultural constraints on juniors and acceptance of royalist narratives. PPT reckons that it is Sanan who should get beyond comic book royalist histories and read some real history.
Not to be outdone, the Democrat Party’s Jurin Laksanavisit continued the Party’s unbridled plagiarism of yellow shirts in claiming it
appeared that Nitirat and Pheu Thai shared the goal of whitewashing wrongdoings for a particular person. He said the opposition was against amending Article 112 as it would be tantamount to reducing the status of the monarchy. He also voiced opposition to the proposal for a new head of state to take part in a swearing-in ceremony. “The requirement that kings have to be sworn in before assuming post is not compatible with the national tradition. It is more like a presidential system…”.
Exactly the same tale was told by Komsan Phokong, a law lecturer and supporter of the Sayam Prachapiwat group. If “plagiarism” seems like a harsh accusation readers might consider how often the Democrat Party does this. Indeed, the Democrat Party and the yellow shirts seem comfortable together, again back in the same political bed.
Political Prisoners in Thailand 