Global Freedom of Expression

Thailand v. Patiwat Saraiyaem and Pornthip Munkong

Closed Contracts Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Books / Plays
  • Date of Decision
    February 23, 2015
  • Outcome
  • Case Number
  • Region & Country
    Thailand, Asia and Asia Pacific
  • Judicial Body
    First Instance Court
  • Type of Law
    Criminal Law
  • Themes
    Academic Freedom, Artistic Expression, Content Regulation / Censorship
  • Tags
    Criminal Defamation, Students, Public Officials, Monarchy

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

A student and recent graduate were imprisoned under Thailand’s lese majeste law for performing an allegorical play that was critical of the Thai monarchy.


A university student, Patiwat Saraiyaem, and a local activist and former student, Pronthip Munkong, were arrested in August 2014 for participating in a play, “The Wolf Bride.” The play was set in a fantasy kingdom and featured a fictional king and his adviser. The play was part of Thammasat University’s 40th anniversary of the October 1973 pro-democracy protest, and 37th anniversary of the 1976 student uprisings. The students were charged with violating Article 112 of the Thai criminal code.

Various human rights groups have spoken out on behalf of Saraiyaem and Mukong, emphasizing that Article 19 of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) protects the right to hold opinions without interference, and the right to freedom of expression, which includes “the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.” Thailand ratified the ICCPR on October 29, 1996.

Decision Overview

The students were charged under Article 112 of the Thai criminal code, the Thai lese majeste law which protects the royals from any insults. Article 112 states, “Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years.” Prosecutors cited nine passages from the play script that they believed violated Article 112.

The Thai court sentenced the man and woman to two years and six months in jail in February 2015  for “damaging the monarchy,” after they admitted guilt.

Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Contracts Expression

Thailand’s lese majeste laws are among the world’s strictest. Critics say the military government use them to silence dissent, and this case is evidence that there is a trend of increased use of lese majeste laws to limit freedom of speech in Thailand.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • Thai., Crim. Code art. 112

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

This case did not set a binding or persuasive precedent either within or outside its jurisdiction. The significance of this case is undetermined at this point in time.

Official Case Documents

Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:


Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback