On Wednesday, August 27, a quiet ripple turned into a noticeable stir across Thailand’s activist circles and social feeds: dozens of prisoners convicted under the country’s controversial lese majeste law were released after royal pardons issued earlier this year. The Corrections Department confirmed the mass release, which included a cross-section of people long familiar to human-rights monitors — activists, artists, a grandmother, and even a mother who had been jailed while pregnant.
Faces behind the headlines
One of the most striking stories belongs to 65-year-old Anchan Preelert, a former civil servant who had received a jaw-dropping sentence of 43 years and six months for sharing 29 audio clips from underground radio host Banpot that were deemed insulting to the monarchy. After serving eight years, four months, and 19 days, Anchan walked free from Bangkok’s Central Women’s Correctional Institution, reentering a world that has shifted dramatically during her time inside. (Photo of Anchan Preelert courtesy of France24)
Another poignant case is that of Thanaporn (surname withheld), who was convicted for commenting on a Facebook post while pregnant. Thanaporn later entered prison with her newborn and served 458 days — just over 15 months — at Thonburi Women’s Correctional Institution before being released, iLaw confirmed. Her story underscores how Thailand’s strict enforcement of Section 112 can touch ordinary people in extraordinarily personal ways.
Not all those freed were accused of speech crimes. Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported the release of hip-hop artist Thanayut Na Ayutthaya — better known by his stage name “Book” from the group Eleven Finger — who was jailed for possessing explosives during the Thalu Gas protests and sentenced to two years and six months. Thanayut had spent nearly 23 months behind bars since his arrest on September 22, 2023. (Photo courtesy of BK Magazine)
Later in the day, iLaw confirmed the release of two more prisoners held under Section 112: Kanun Poomphuengphut and Sombat Thongyoi, both freed from Bangkok Remand Prison. Kanun had been detained for 521 days after a public speech judged offensive to the monarchy, having been arrested on March 25 of the previous year, Bangkok Post reported.
Section 112 and the wider debate
Section 112 of Thailand’s Criminal Code criminalises defamation, insult, or threat against the monarchy — a law critics say is used disproportionately to silence dissent. In recent years, enforcement of lese majeste has drawn mounting domestic protests and international scrutiny, with legal watchdogs and rights groups arguing that the law is applied in ways that curtail free expression and chill political debate.
The August releases came via royal pardons rather than a legal overhaul, and that difference matters. While pardons free individual prisoners, they do not change the law that led to their sentences. Calls for reform of Section 112 have grown louder, particularly since the youth-led Three-Finger Movement and other protest groups thrust the debate into the public square. Yet substantive legislative action has been slow.
Parliament stalls on amnesty
Attempts to secure broader amnesty for lese majeste offenders have hit a procedural wall. Although the House Committee on Peace Building has signalled support for revision of Section 112, no formal proposals have reached the floor. That means the legal framework that put many of these people behind bars remains intact, leaving future arrests and prosecutions a continuing possibility.
The result is a bittersweet relief for many families and supporters: loved ones are back home, but the underlying tensions are unresolved. Activists welcomed the releases, describing them as a moment of respite — and one that restores lives interrupted by lengthy trials and imprisonment. At the same time, rights organisations stress that pardons are an incomplete solution without meaningful legal reform.
What this means for Thailand’s political landscape
The releases are likely to accelerate public conversation about Thailand’s balance between protecting the monarchy and safeguarding civil liberties. For many observers abroad, the gesture of mercy signals a recognition that the international glare on Thailand’s lese majeste prosecutions has had diplomatic and reputational costs. For people inside the country, the debate is more visceral: families reunited, careers disrupted, and artists trying to reclaim their creative voice.
As freed activists and artists step back into a world transformed by two years of ongoing political debate, their return will test both social tolerance and the appetite for legal change. Will Parliament seize this moment to propose meaningful reform? Or will pardons remain a one-off balm while the old law waits in the wings?
For now, the headlines are full of names Read aloud, laughter, and the cautious optimism of those who have finally seen someone they love emerge from behind the prison gates. The next chapter — whether it brings reform, further unrest, or a tenuous peace — remains to be written.
Latest reporting on the releases came from iLaw, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, Bangkok Post, France24 and local outlets tracking updates. As Thailand navigates the aftermath, international eyes and domestic advocates will keep watch on whether these royal pardons become a stepping stone to deeper change or merely another episodic pause in a longer struggle over speech, power and law.
Pardons are a nice headline but they don’t change the law that locked these people up. This feels like a band-aid on a wound that needs surgery. When will Thailand face real judicial reform?
Exactly — mercy without reform leaves the same traps in place for the next generation. Families rejoice for now, but the chilling effect on speech remains. We should push for legislative change, not just acts of clemency.
How do you even start changing a law tied to the monarchy? That seems impossible here. It feels risky to try.
Mike, it’s risky, but civil rights never advanced without risk. Small steps like safe legal protections for speech can begin the shift.
Pardons are politically expedient: they placate critics while preserving institutional prerogatives. The strategic calculus suggests the monarchy and state want to reset tensions without conceding legal authority.
Lese majeste exists for a reason. Respect for the monarchy preserves national unity and stability. Social media is not a free-for-all for insults that can inflame public order.
That’s just an excuse to silence dissent and art. Laws don’t protect respect; they protect power. You can’t use ‘stability’ to justify jailing grandmothers and artists.
There is a difference between legitimate criticism and deliberate provocation. Reform can be considered, but complete abolition risks destabilising the fabric of Thai identity.
My aunt cried watching the video of Thanaporn walking free. She said she couldn’t believe someone would be jailed while pregnant for a comment. This is about human lives, not just politics.
As a lawyer, I see how prosecutions under Section 112 are often vague and open to interpretation. The law’s application needs clearer safeguards to prevent abuse and protect due process.
Anna, what kind of safeguards would actually help? People here are scared to speak even in private chats.
Pardons without statutory amendment are a temporary relief measure. The legal certainty for future cases remains absent, and that perpetuates self-censorship across media and academia.
From a comparative law angle, lese majeste is anachronistic in modern democracies. Recalibrating statutes to include intent, harm thresholds, and mens rea would limit arbitrary prosecutions.
But do you really think parliament will adopt those nuanced reforms? Politicians prefer easy headlines to complicated legal fixes.
Citizen42, political will is the obstacle, yes, but sustained advocacy plus international pressure can open windows for reform. It’s slow but possible.
As an artist, the message is chilling: create too boldly and you might disappear. How do creatives rebuild trust and safety after this?
Artists like ‘Book’ paid a steep price for protesting. Creativity thrives on fearless speech, and these pardons don’t erase the trauma of jail time and lost opportunities.
Some of us will self-censor forever. Others will get louder. The real danger is the economic and social cost for artists who must survive in that climate.
ArtistAnon, exactly. It’s not just freedom; it’s livelihoods and education that suffer when voices are suppressed.
They put people in jail for words? That is so unfair.
It’s complicated, Tom, but your instinct is right: criminalising speech can hurt ordinary people. We should teach kids about respectful debate and the value of free expression.
I hope schools talk about this more. People should be able to say what they think without fear.
Don’t forget the diplomatic side: these prosecutions damaged Thailand’s image abroad. Pardons are a soft reset, perhaps aimed at easing external pressure and investment concerns.
International observers notice patterns, not single acts. While pardons help, meaningful legal reform signals long-term commitments to rights and invites better bilateral relations.
Ambassador, that’s my point. The court of global opinion watches for systemic change, not episodic gestures.
Parliament stalling on amnesty is the real scandal. Elected representatives should be debating this openly instead of letting committees hold everything hostage.
They fear backlash from conservative blocs and the palace. Political calculus, not justice, guides their steps here.
Also, procedural delays cloak indecision. Activists need to build broader coalitions to make reform politically safe.
Observer, coalition-building is key, but activists also need to frame reform as national healing, not attack.
Abolish Section 112 entirely. No compromise. Free speech is non-negotiable and the law is incompatible with democratic norms.
Absolute abolition is principled but politically implausible in the short term. A staged approach — narrowing scope, raising burdens of proof, and adding intent requirements — may be more realistic and still protect free speech.
ScholarLee, I understand pragmatism, but incrementalism risks entrenching the law forever. Sometimes bold demands shift the Overton window.
Rule of law matters, and laws should be applied consistently. That said, when statutes are weaponised to target opponents, they lose legitimacy and must be reformed.
Our reports show pattern-based misuse of Section 112. International human rights bodies call for revisions that align with freedom of expression obligations under treaties Thailand has ratified.
Treaties matter in framing debates, but domestic political realities often override external norms. Advocacy must be both local and global.
This looks orchestrated: a few pardons, lots of PR, and then business as usual. The system protects itself. Wake up, people.
Conspiracy theories don’t help. Some pardons genuinely aim to reduce tension. Not every act is suspicious.
Larry D, sometimes a pattern is a pattern. Look at who gets pardoned and who doesn’t — it’s rarely the most vocal critics.
I was released and it’s surreal to be outside after so long. Freedom is sweet but also frightening when you realise how much changed while you were gone.
Welcome back, Anchan. Your story moved many of us, and I hope you can find peace and rebuild your life. The community stands with you.
We’re documenting these reunions and the social consequences. Would you consider speaking publicly about your experience to help push for reform?
Journalist, I want to tell my story but I’m careful. Public speaking feels risky, and some doors are still closed for me.