Countries That Still Have Lése-Majesté Laws

WRITTEN BY: Danial Ashraf bin Ghazali

“Vive la République! Vive la revolution!” These are the words that would haunt thousands of aristocrat, clergy and royalty across 18th century France, as the political system of Ancien Régime, an old-aged feudal system in which the king holds absolute power were discarded. The declaration also carries something significant. It rejects the idea that the king is God’s vicegerent on the earth and that they can be criticised whenever it is necessary. The term “Lèse-majesté” which means “a crime against the king/sovereign or treason” is no longer valid as turmoil swept across the nation, which would lead to the French Revolution. Currently, the term can be also used not just concerning the protection of criticism towards the blue bloods but also towards the head of states, presidents, prime ministers and other public officials. Lèse-majesté laws were usually enforced together with justifications that revolved around a socio-cultural system such as religion, tradition, nationalism and patriotism.

The French Revolution is a turning point towards absolutism in Europe and through times, more countries and nations go down the same road. However, in this day and age, there are still countries that uphold laws that protect royalties and high-ranking public officials. We are going to look at 3 countries that previously have or currently still implemented the controversial law.

Japan

After World War II, a 350-years-old system of Kokutai 国体 (sovereignty-government system) which was embraced by the fallen Empire of Japan, was dismantled. The nation drafted a new constitution, where laws concerning Lèse-majesté were scrapped. Before 1946, Article 74 of the Penal Code of Japan, mentions that any acts of insult and disrespect committed against the Emperor, the royal family and the heir presumptive to the throne shall be punished with penal servitude between 3 months to 5 years. The country’s Justice Minister Tokutaro Kimura removed a whole chapter of Article 73 to 76 under Part II of the Penal Code, which concerns the act of high treason against the emperor. Article 99 of the post-war Japanese constitution also mentions that the Emperor, ministers, members of the Diet and all other public officials, must respect and uphold the Constitution. Evidencing that even a country where its subjects used to consider the Tenno 天皇, the heavenly emperor as a descendant of the Japanese sun goddess Amaterasu, can espouse new conformity where the Emperor and the imperial household is subjected to the same law applied to any ordinary Japanese citizen.

Malaysia

In 2019, three people were arrested under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act 1948 for making adverse comments about the resignation of the then Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Sultan Muhammad V of Kelantan. If convicted, it is punishable with a fine not exceeding RM5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or both for the first offence. Even though Article 10 of the Federal Constitution (FC) guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression for all citizens, criticism towards Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the sultans and the royal family can be shielded under the Sedition Act 1948. Article 10 (2) & (4) of FC, explains that the parliament can impose restriction for the interest of the state. Just like the theory of the divine right of the King of France which based on Roman Catholic monarchical doctrine and the Japanese celestial emperor which revolved around Shintoism, Lèse-majesté laws in Malaysia also rooted from the ancient Malay concept of Daulat-Derhaka, which means “sovereign supremacy” and “treachery”. Since the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and each state respective sultans are constitutionally considered as the defenders of Islam based on Article 3 of FC, any criticism against them is considered as an offence against the faith, country and constitution.

Thailand

In 2021, a 65-year-old woman was sentenced to more than 43 years in jail. She posted audio clips from a podcast on Facebook and was sentenced to 4 decades of imprisonment, making it the harshest sentence that was ever made under the country’s Lèse-majesté law. The law is being put in place since 1908 and has never changed even though the country underwent radical reforms and revolutions namely during the Siamese Revolution of 1932, which ended 800 years of absolute monarchy. Mention in Section 112 of the Thai Criminal Code, anyone who defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent shall be punished with imprisonment of 3 to 15 years. Just like the case of old-aged Malay concepts of Daulat-Derhaka, Thailand’s Lèse-majesté also rooted in an Ancient Brahmin-Theravada Buddhist monarchical system that considers the king as the Devaraja or a divine embodiment of the gods. Thailand’s constitution even explicitly mentions the attachment towards this archaic idea of reverence. Mention in Section 8 of the Kingdom of Thailand Constitution, the King shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated. An insult against the samuthi-thep meaning “supposed deity” is considered as an insult towards the people of Thai, the country and the old-aged Buddhist mysticism which regard the king as almost a semi-god.

In recent years, controversies surrounding the obscurity of justice against those who are protected by the Lèse-majesté law have sparked the conversation about its necessities among the public. This can be seen in countries such as Malaysia and Thailand where news that made headlines around the world such as the secretive marriage of the then Yang di-Pertuan Agong Muhammad V of Kelantan and the concubinage of Sineenat Wongvajirapakdi by King Vajiralongkorn of Thailand has caused outrage, if not, disapproval among the populace. However, it is unlikely to see that the change might happen momentarily as lengthy disputes and quarrels about individual rights of speech and expression and the safeguard of traditional mores are still a highly controversial and provocative topic to discuss.

1^st

Definition

A French term which means “A crime/wrong against the king/sovereign or treason”. The term usually refers to the immunity of criticism against royals and hereditary blue bloods. In recent years, the definition of the term has broadened towards elective officials such as the head of states, chancellors, presidents, prime ministers and other public officials.

Lèse-majesté laws were usually enforced together with justifications that revolved around a socio-cultural system such as religion, customs, tradition, nationalism and patriotism.

2^nd

However, through times, as absolutism and autocracy were toppled down across the globe, Lèse-majesté were seen as less of a crime and laws concerning it were dismantled and stripped down either by peaceful passing of legislation or violent brutal revolution. We are going to look at 3 countries that previously have or are currently still implementing the controversial law.

3^rd

JAPAN

The Lèse-majesté laws are based on the archaic system of Kokutai 国体 (sovereignty-government system), which considers the Tenno 天皇, the heavenly emperor as a descendant of the Japanese sun goddess Amaterasu and thus, should be immune of criticism.

After World War II, the nation drafted a new constitution, where laws concerning Lèse-majesté were scrapped. Article 74 of the Penal Code of Japan, mentions that any acts of insult and disrespect committed against the Emperor, the royal family and the heir presumptive to the throne shall be punished with penal servitude between 3 months to 5 years.

4^th

The country’s Justice Minister Tokutaro Kimura, with the help of American Major General Courtney Whitney, removed a whole chapter of Article 73 to 76 under Part II of the Penal Code, which concerns the act of high treason against the emperor.

Article 99 of the post-war Japanese constitution also mentions that the Emperor, ministers, members of the Diet and all other public officials, must respect and uphold the Constitution. The Emperor and the imperial household are subjected to the same law applied to any ordinary Japanese citizen.

5^th

MALAYSIA

The Lèse-majesté laws are based on the traditional Malay concept of sovereign reverence called Daulat-Derhaka, which means “sovereign supremacy” and “treachery”. In modern-day Malaysia, since the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and each state respective sultans are constitutionally considered as the defenders of Islam based on Article 3 of FC, any criticism against them is considered as an offence against the faith, country and constitution.

Even though Article 10 of the Federal Constitution (FC) guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression for all citizens, criticism towards Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the sultans and the royal family can be shielded under the Sedition Act 1948.

6^th

In 2019, three people were arrested under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act 1948 for making adverse comments about the sudden resignation of the then Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Sultan Muhammad V of Kelantan after the controversies regarding the secretive marriage with 2015 Miss Moscow Oksana Voevodina.

If the person is convicted, it is punishable with a fine not exceeding RM5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or both for the first offence.

7^th

THAILAND

The Lèse-majesté laws are rooted in an Ancient Brahmin-Theravada Buddhist monarchical system that considers the king as the Devaraja or a divine embodiment of the gods. Thailand’s constitution explicitly mentions the attachment towards this archaic idea of reverence.

Mentioned in Section 8 of the Kingdom of Thailand Constitution, the King shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated. An insult against the samuthi-thep meaning “supposed deity” is considered as an insult towards the people of Thai, the country and the old-aged Buddhist mysticism which regard the king as almost a semi-god.

8^th

Mentioned in Section 112 of the Thai Criminal Code, anyone who defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent shall be punished with imprisonment of 3 to 15 years.

9^th

In recent years, controversies surrounding the obscurity of justice against those who are protected by the Lèse-majesté law have sparked the conversation about its necessities among the public.

However, it is unlikely to see that the change might happen momentarily as lengthy disputes and quarrels about individual rights of speech and expression and the safeguard of traditional mores are still a highly controversial and provocative topic to discuss.