Thailand’s courts and legal system are once again in the international spotlight after two high-profile cases this week underscored the country’s strict approach to royal defamation and the deep sensitivities surrounding its monarchy. On Tuesday, September 30, 2025, an appeals court in Bangkok upheld a two-year prison sentence for Chonthicha Jangrew, a lawmaker from the progressive People’s Party, for defaming the monarchy in a speech made during a political rally in 2021. Just a day later, on October 1, 2025, an American scholar teaching at a Thai university, Paul Chambers, was released on bail after being jailed on similar charges, though his visa was revoked and he now faces likely deportation.
These two cases, though involving very different individuals—a Thai parliamentarian and a U.S. academic—have thrown into sharp relief the ongoing debate about freedom of expression, the reach of Thailand’s lese-majeste laws, and the country’s political trajectory. According to The Independent and the Associated Press, both cases have drawn attention from human rights advocates and international observers, raising questions about the balance between national security, tradition, and civil liberties in Southeast Asia’s second-largest economy.
Chonthicha Jangrew’s conviction stems from remarks she made during a 2021 rally, where she called for the release of all political prisoners and accused the then-government, led by former Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, of altering laws to grant more power to King Maha Vajiralongkorn. The appeals court’s decision to uphold her two-year sentence—while granting her bail set at 150,000 baht (about $4,600)—was, in many ways, expected. Thailand’s judiciary has long been seen as a conservative institution, and its willingness to enforce the country’s strict royal defamation laws has only intensified in recent years.
Had Chonthicha’s request for bail been denied, she would have been immediately stripped of her status as an elected Member of Parliament. Instead, she was allowed to remain free pending an appeal to the Supreme Court. Speaking after the verdict, Chonthicha confirmed her intention to fight the ruling, stating, “I will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.” Her case is not unique. In recent years, several political activists have found their acquittals overturned by higher courts or have received longer prison sentences upon appeal, a trend that underscores the establishment’s wariness of perceived threats to the monarchy.
Thailand’s lese-majeste law—Article 112 of the criminal code—remains one of the harshest anywhere in the world, prescribing sentences of three to fifteen years for anyone convicted of defaming, insulting, or threatening the king, the queen, the heir apparent, or the regent. According to The Independent, the law has been used not just to protect the monarchy but also as a tool to silence critics of the government and the military. Since early 2020, more than 270 people—many of them student activists—have been charged under Article 112, as reported by Thai Lawyers for Human Rights.
Paul Chambers, a 58-year-old political scientist from Oklahoma with a doctorate from Northern Illinois University, found himself ensnared by the same law this week. Chambers, who had been working as a lecturer at Naresuan University in the northern province of Phitsanulok, was jailed on Tuesday, September 30, after the Thai army filed a complaint alleging that he had insulted the monarchy. The charge was linked to a webinar organized in October 2024 by the ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute, a Singapore-based think tank.
Chambers’ defenders have argued that he was not responsible for the statements quoted in the charge sheet. In addition to the lese-majeste charge, he was also accused of violating the Computer Crime Act, which covers online activities. After being denied bail twice by a lower court, Chambers was released on bail by an appeals court on Wednesday, October 1. However, his relief was short-lived: immigration police revoked his visa the same day, a move that could see him deported back to the United States at any moment.
Under Thai law, Chambers has 48 hours to appeal the visa revocation. Police Maj. Gen. Sarawut Khonyai explained that the decision was based on an immigration law barring entry to foreigners deemed likely to engage in activities contrary to public order or good morals—a law that also covers offenses such as prostitution, people smuggling, and drug trafficking. The U.S. State Department, for its part, expressed concern over Chambers’ arrest, saying in a statement, “We are alarmed by Chamber’s arrest and urge Thai authorities to respect freedom of expression and to ensure that laws are not used to stifle permitted expression.”
Thailand’s monarchy has been a pillar of national identity and stability since the country became a constitutional monarchy in 1932. The Thai military, which has staged 13 coups since then—most recently in 2014—has often positioned itself as the monarchy’s defender. Critics, however, argue that the lese-majeste law has been wielded as a political weapon to quell dissent and maintain the status quo. According to The Independent, the law’s breadth and severity have drawn condemnation from human rights organizations both inside and outside Thailand.
Recent years have seen a surge in youth-led pro-democracy protests, with activists calling for reforms to the monarchy and a more open political system. These demands have been met with a combination of legal action, police crackdowns, and a hardening of official rhetoric. The People’s Party, for which Chonthicha serves as a lawmaker, emerged as the largest party in Parliament after the most recent elections, reflecting a growing appetite for change among Thailand’s younger generations. Still, as the court’s actions this week have shown, the machinery of state remains deeply conservative and resistant to challenges—especially where the monarchy is concerned.
Other recent appeals involving political activists have seen lower court acquittals reversed or sentences lengthened, adding to a climate of uncertainty for those pushing for reform. For many, the cases of Chonthicha Jangrew and Paul Chambers serve as stark reminders of the risks faced by anyone who dares to speak out on royal or political matters in Thailand. The legal battles are far from over: Chonthicha is preparing her Supreme Court appeal, while Chambers must decide whether to contest his visa revocation or accept deportation.
As these cases unfold, they highlight the tension between tradition and change in Thailand—a country where the old guard’s grip on power remains strong, even as calls for greater freedom and accountability grow louder. For now, the message from the courts is clear: criticism of the monarchy, no matter the source, remains a perilous undertaking.
