112 and the referendum

Prachatai has a comprehensive post on the “misinformation and fearmongering” that is “conservative rhetoric against constitutional reform.” It also underpins election campaigning by the conservatives and their allies who have managed to devise a political system and abetted a social and economic system that have run the country into the ground in the name of the monarchy.

One claim is that approving the referendum question is somehow likely to make Thailand a republic. In concocting this mad claim, the ultra-nationalists and ultra-monarchists ignore the fact that this referendum is a first step in a long process of two more referenda and parliamentary and public debate. By playing the monarchy card on the referendum, they are throwing more fuel on the simmering fire of anti-monarchism that they have built to bring down even the timidly progressive People’s Party.

The quite bizarre Somchai Sawangkarn is quoted as making up a story that “voting yes in the referendum would be a blank cheque for drafters to write anything, including making the country a socialist regime or be governed by a president.” Such fake drivel spreads widely through the conservative social media cess pool.

These malarkey makers also slither over into the 112 issue:

Accusations of treason and of wanting to overthrow the monarchy, of course, come as a package. Both are based on the same fears and the same logic which leads to the idea that there is a hidden agenda behind the call for a new constitution despite numerous restrictions to the drafting process.

The article quotes a survey of social media posts showing “that many netizens believe that … Section 112 of the Criminal Code … is part of the Constitution, and that writing a new constitution means Section 112 would also be rewritten.” This is misunderstanding based on conservative lies.

Of course, critical or even reasonable domestic reporting of the position of 112 in the election and referendum has been limited. To fill this yawning gap, Time has a really useful intervention, even if the headline is subject to misinterpretation: as Prachatai shows, 112 hasn’t been sidelined, just manipulated by the crown’s clowns. But the headline is right if interpreted as seeing the wave of popular reformism, including monarchy reform, has waned under the weight of repression and lawfare. Yet as the story says, “even after years of the government and judiciary cracking down on dissent, many Thais still yearn for a new, more democratic direction.”

 

The article rightly shows how the “interpretation” of the lese majeste law has broadened. That is all about repression and stopping any kind of meaningful reform. “Rule of law” is what the higher-ups want law to be: a hammer for cracking reformist hearts and heads.

 

And, it seems, a way to prevent reform through the ballot box.