The debate on the prosecution of Nicolaides has raised a number of burning issues. Among the questions is whether the zealous attempt to uphold the monarchy has, in fact, backfired to harm the revered institution.

 

No matter what advocates or opponents of the law do, it seems to only fan the flames. And against a backdrop of political division which has created powerful propaganda machines on both sides, a law which has existed for such a long time and did not matter during periods of relative political peace has been thrust into the spotlight. And when foreigners became involved, including well-connected half-Thai half-British activist Giles Ungpakorn, there was no stopping a global campaign against something that Giles himself put on a par with extrajudicial killings of drug suspects and human abuse of Muslims in the South during the Thaksin era.

 

But advocates of the law never help either. Law-enforcement authorities had made an all-out attempt to pick apart an obscure book fictionalising the current events with seven copies sold in order to prosecute Nicolaides, a relatively unknown Australian writer.

 

At issue is not the law or the judicial review but the manner which the lese-majeste clause was invoked. The Nicolaides case has been sucked into and became part of the political turmoil, where rival camps have always tried to sway sentiment by attacking one another for offending the revered institution.

 

Since the political crisis erupted in 2005, police have launched more than 30 cases relating to lese majeste. Only a handful of the police reports have reached either the prosecution-review or the trial stage.

 

The vast majority of high-profile cases, such as that involving former PM's Office minister Jakrapob Penkair, appear to have made no headway.

 

Under mounting pressure to unmask culprits responsible for undermining the monarchy, Nicolaides was apprehended last August as he was about to board his flight back home following one of his numerous trips to Bangkok.

 

He was completely unaware of the arrest warrant for him or the charge based on the 2005 book. Although he was surprised that one short paragraph in his writing was deemed offensive to the monarchy, he promptly showed remorse and apologised profusely for wrongdoing. He subsequently entered a plea of guilty, paving way for the speedy conclusion of his trial.

 

The prosecution of Nicolaides, unaware of his unintentional crime, is a case in point of poor judgement blindly invoking lese majeste before weighing the benefits against the drawbacks.

 

A wrong signal has been sent to the international community. The country's reputation has been tainted by what is perceived as an unjustified attempt to stifle freedom of expression.

 

His Majesty the King is revered by Thais and admired by foreigners from afar because of his intrinsic goodness and dedication to improving the people's livelihood, yet many foreign friends of Thailand are now casting doubt on the broad application of lese majeste.

 

Authorities may have intended to achieve deterrence from offending and disrespecting the revered institution, but the international community sees a witch-hunt.

 

The legal principle behind lese majeste has been in existence since the Roman Empire. The Thai legal system adopted the offence against the monarchy in 1908 as part of the country's modernisation. In times of political volatility there have been a number of attempts to involve the monarchy for political gain, although the essence of His Majesty's reign is compassion, perseverance and a guiding light in troubled times.

 

The King remains well loved by Thais, and the monarchy is the solid pillar of society regardless of political ups and downs. In the past, the charge for offending the monarchy was rarely invoked. Presently, there is a surge of accusations of lese majeste, and things may get harder and more complicated.

 

People less familiar with Thai culture and tradition will always ask questions about the monarch's compassion and the existence of the law.

 

Debate will continue about such a culture, such tradition, about "rights" not to be bound by such culture or such tradition, and a long road lies ahead.

 

Hopefully the Harry Nicolaides case will give both seemingly uncompromising sides of the conflict some common ground when they take another look at the lese-majeste law.