Hiding behind S112

re: "Pita: ‘I’m not giving up’" & "Pita loses first PM vote" (BP, July 13, 2023) 

Dear editor,

As widely reported not only in the Bangkok Post's articles on July 13, but elsewhere both locally and globally, including by the New York Times in its front page article "Junta’s Allies Reject Thai Election Results, Derailing Top Opposition Figure" (July 13), the senators and others who voted, either directly or by abstention, to deny the pro-democracy coalition's choice that Pita Limjaroenrat become the next prime minister of Thailand did so largely on the excuse of protecting the existing lese majeste laws. For that clarification, those who so set themselves against the will of the Thai people, who are the Thai nation, are to be thanked. The Thai people has made its will perfectly clear through its properly elected representatives in the pro-democracy coalition, who unanimously chose Move Forward's Pita Limjaroenrat as their sole nominee to serve the nation in the position of prime minister. That is what was rejected by those who failed to to vote in accord with the duly expressed wishes of the Thai people, the Thai nation, that is. 

That some should hide behind the lese majeste laws as a deceitful excuse is unfortunate. That law as is exists is the antithesis of benevolence, which does not imprison for years on end those who peacefully express an honest opinion, however much some might disagree with any such opinion. Even less do the existing provisions of Section 112 of the Criminal Code comport with righteousness, let alone with justice, neither of which virtues countenance the suppression of honest, peaceful speech. 

Worse, the false claim that Thailand's monarchy needs the protection of such blatantly undemocratic law suggest that there is some inherent defect in the institution that does not apply to the even older monarchies of several flourishing, modern democratic states of Western Europe. Not least among these is the ancient monarchy of England and its fellow members of the Commonwealth, including my own country, Australia, which institution, the current head of which is His Majesty King Charles III,  thrives perfectly well in globally respected democracies that themselves respect the will of the their peoples benevolently, righteously, and justly, each under a "democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State", as Section 3 of its own current (2017), and many former, constitutions describes the Kingdom Thailand.  

How could it not be insulting to suggest, and to taint by such suggestions, that Thailand's monarchy needs anything so contrary to benevolence, to righteous, to justice and to democratic principle as the existing lese majeste laws? Those who genuinely value it would free Thailand's respected institution from such law that appears to put it in in direct conflict with good moral values and with the will of the people. In parliament today, that genuine concern for the well-being of the institution is most apparent in Move Forward, the outstandingly popular choice of the Thai nation's democratically chosen representatives in the pro-democracy coalition, whom the Thai people wish to govern their nation. 

 Felix Qui 

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on July 15, 2023, under the title "Hiding behind S112" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2611881/pita-had-no-chance