Does lese majeste law work?

Well, this is definitely topical, but also highly sensitive - possibly taboo - so I won't blame you if you don't want to touch it. Anyway, here goes:

To my western eyes, the lese majeste law seems anachronistic and regressive. Of course, there may well be similar legislation lying forgotten in the statute books of some European constitutional monarchies, but no one would dream of dusting them off.

I gather the King himself has let it be known he is not happy with this law, or at least does not encourage its use.

As it is, it appears to be a convenient catch-all for any Tom, Dick or Harry with an agenda to nail someone they have taken a dislike to - presumably even without His Majesty's prior knowledge.

Are there not enough generic laws to adequately cover all possible offences to the Crown in a focused, effective manner?

Best wishes,

Christopher Jeffery

Well, a big disclaimer is that I'm no expert on the law. Plus, this question apparently seeks an opinion rather than information. So, the following are my honest feelings alone:

First off, generic laws possibly cover all kinds of defamation offences. What they lack is the pre-emptive power that the lese majeste law wields.

Do we need the pre-emptive power then? This is a highly debatable question. How big a shield do we need for the institution? We have seen "damaged" parties winning libel cases but emerging more bruised than the offenders. And yes, we have seen lese majeste law used wrongly and possibly by wrong people.

The big question is: how can we prevent Tom, Dick and Harry from abusing the power while dealing effectively with Peter, Dan and you-name-it who will be willing to test the new-found freedom?

"The King should just sue" is easier said than done. What would the world think if members of the royal family file suits on a daily basis against everyone from Mr A, who shouted abuse in a movie theatre, to Mr Z, who posted outrageous lies on a website?

What I'm trying to say is that if the shield is removed and His Majesty practically has to sue by himself, the institution will be virtually at the same level as other institutions. You may cite the great British example, but this definitely has nothing to do with other countries and I guess the ultimate question is "Do Thai people want that now?"

I think we can never have a national referendum on whether the country should do away with the law. But if we could, the result would make such a fascinating debate.

Send your questions to

tulsat@hotmail.com