Crop top 112

Prachatai reports that on 25 November 2025 the Appeals Court has upheld Article 112 convictions of two monarchy reform activists who wore crop tops at a protest on 20 December 2020.

Thanakorn

While PPT has previously posted on Thanakorn, now 22 and charged when just 17, we do not see any post regarding Nattakorn, now 21 who was also 17 when charged.

The 20 December 2020 protest was organized by the United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration. At that protest, several activists wore crop tops and walked around the Siam Paragon shopping center, protesting a lese majeste charge that had been brought against activist Noppasin Treelayapewat, then 16, for participation in a protest on 29 October 2020 wearing a black crop top with the message “My father’s name is Mana, not Vajiralongkorn” written on his back. They demanded the repeal of Article 112.

When their case went to the Central Juvenile and Family Court. it found them guilty and sentenced them to three years in prison. Their sentence was reduced to 18 months because their alleged offences took place when they were minors. That was later changed and they were ordered to do up to two years of training at a juvenile training center, and required to complete three vocational training courses and finish their schooling.

Thanakorn and Nattakorn appealed.

The Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases upheld the guilty verdict. It ruled that their action during the protest defamed the king, “who is inviolable, and that they were not acting within the boundary of their constitutional freedom of expression and protest.”

In essence, by ruling this way, the court is acknowledging King Vajiralongkorn’s odd habits at the time, something that some ultra-royalists and palace propaganda now deny.

The court also noted that Thanakorn and Nattakorn were participants in the  protest and not leaders.

The court ruled to suspend their sentence for three years instead of replacing their prison sentence with detention in a training center. They will now be subject to three years’ probation and will be required to meet with their probation officer every four months. The paternalistic court went further, requiring that they “complete their schooling, after which they must find a job, and must not socialize with people who could lead them to repeat their offence.”

It court also observed that the two “still lived with their families who have promised to monitor their behaviours, and that they do not live in areas with crime or drug issues.” The families were instructed “to keep a close eye on them.”