Debating lese majeste amendments and the role of the judiciary

Debating lese majeste amendments and the role of the judiciary:
A recent seminar at Thammasat University was held about lese majeste. The Nation:

Somchai Homla-or, a member of the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand, said he believed the problem involving Section 112 is caused by the law itself, its enforcement, and the court’s interpretations. He suggested that the law be amended in regards to penalties it prescribes. He said he did not agree with amending the section by imposing a minimum penalty of three years because the move would deprive judges of the right to exercise their discretion.
He said he believed penalties should vary depending on the damage done to the monarchy. For instance, if a person sends an insulting message once, but the message gets disseminated across the globe, judges can exercise their judgement on how many years of imprisonment a convict deserves. Somchai also believes there should be a proper procedure to file lese majeste complaints, not a normal complaint that anyone can lodge with police.
…
Worajet Pakeerat, a member of Nitirat group and a Thammasat University lecturer, pointed to the problem of interpretation by judges. He saying judges are very sensitive about the issue, resulting in ambiguous legal interpretations.
He insisted the lese majeste law should be amended by excluding the Queen and royal family members from protection under the section. He pointed out that the same law in foreign countries protects only the head of the state or the King and his representatives.

Prachatai has an article quoting Permanent Secretary of the PM’s Office Tongthong Chandransu, a well-known legal expert and royalist, who gave evidence in a recent trial for Somyot:

Even though Thailand now is a democracy, the penalty under Section 112 of the Criminal Code currently is harsher than it was during the absolute monarchy. And in his view the penalty of 3-15 years’ imprisonment is too harsh and not proportionate to the offence.
He said that the words ‘defame or insult’ in Section 112 should have the same meaning as those in Section 326 which involved ordinary people, but the penalties under these two sections are very different. And defendants in lèse majesté cases are not allowed exemptions from punishment or from the offence in line with Section 329.

BP: On judicial interpretation, the Veera’s case is a classic example – see here for more – and below is a translation of what was said by Veera from David Streckfuss’s excellent article:

BP: Veera was found guilty, but if this had been the case of defamation under Section 326 of the Criminal Code, would Veera have been found guilty? BP doesn’t think so. Such indirect statements would be not considered defamation under Section 326 which states “Whoever imputes anything to another person before a third person in a manner likely to impair the reputation of such other person or to expose the other person to hatred or contempt is said to commit defamation, and shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding 20,000 baht, or both” (source). Judges have interpreted lese majeste so broadly that it captures indirect comments which they don’t do for defamation of ordinary persons under Section 326. This is a question of interpretation and is separate from the issue of the text of the law and enforcement. No part of the text of lese majeste says that indirect defamatory statements or insults are punishable. Judges have decided this amongst themselves.
Now, there have been attempts over the past few years to set up committees to review lese majeste cases before they go to trial, but this means the big elephant in the room is clearly the judiciary. According to David Streckfuss, the conviction rate is 94% so obtaining a conviction has not been a problem. So it is not the situation that prosecutors have been bringing weak cases to trial only for cases to be thrown out. Normally, a major factor when a prosecutor brings a case to trial is the chances of getting a conviction. The prosecutor will look at previous cases. If there is a poor chance of obtaining a conviction then the case would be dropped. For lese majeste this is not the case. As you can see above, while the comments are often indirect (no one wants a contempt of conviction), the question remains and has rarely been asked, why has the Thai judiciary interpreted lese majeste so widely?
PPT also has some comments about The Nation article although you can see BP disagrees on on some points.