
The butt of the joke was Sondhi Limthongkul, shown crouching like a toad and complaining that he had been sidelined despite his protests paving the way for Abhisit’s premiership. This is a reference to the Thai idiom ‘คางคกขึ้นวอ’ (‘a toad carried on a palanquin’): rising above one’s station. But it was the drawing of Suthep that caused the controversy. A reader reported the cartoon to the police, alleging that Suthep’s face resembled that of King Rama IX. As Sakda explained today, he was falsely accused of depicting “ในหลวงชักใยอภิสิทธิ์” (‘the King manipulating Abhisit’).
Under Thai law, defamantion is a criminal offence, and lèse-majesté (royal defamation) charges can be filed by anyone. The police examined all of Sakda’s work published six months before and six months after the cartoon in question. (He often caricatured Abhisit as a puppet, usually controlled by an unseen figure. Suthep is shown as the puppetmaster in only a couple of other cartoons from the period.) The political editors of four newspapers were also called to give evidence, and they all confirmed that the cartoon depicted Suthep, not Rama IX.
Even benign illustrations of King Rama IX were considered taboo during his reign, to the extent that children’s picture books — such as The Story of Tongdaeng (เรื่อง ทองแดง) — showed him only in silhouette. Somewhat trepidatiously, Stéphane Peray (known as Stephff) drew a respectful cartoon of the King ascending to heaven, published in The Nation newspaper to commemorate his death (reproduced in Red Lines). A hundred years ago, the political climate was very different: เกราะเหล็ก (‘armour’) printed a highly unflattering front-page caricature of Rama VI by cartoonist Sem Sumanan on 22nd November 1925 (reprinted in Woman, Man, Bangkok), and the newspaper was closed down, though it was back on sale six weeks later.




