One of the reasons why so many people are passionate about the lese-majeste law is that they regard His Majesty the King as the "father" of all Thais.

When this is taken seriously enough, even the mildest criticism of the monarchy is seen not just as an "illegal" act, but also an ungrateful one. This helps explain why many ultra-royalists are refusing to pay heed to the growing call to amend the lese-majeste law or the statement by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that the law is "neither necessary nor proportionate, and violates Thai human rights obligations".

Ultra-royalist Thais see themselves as the children of their beloved King and Queen and would do anything to ward off any perceived threats, domestic or foreign. This is why the law is deemed not just "legal" but also "just" and "normal".

On social-networking sites such as Twitter, one can observe this discourse at work when ultra-royalists start attacking those seeking an amendment or abolition of the lese-majeste law and calling them "ungrateful children". Even though all laws can be amended or abolished through due legislative process, deconstructing long-held beliefs about the monarchy is much more difficult, if not impossible. This perceived relationship is so deep-rooted that many cannot look beyond it and it remains unchallenged.

Praew, a popular upscale fashion and lifestyle magazine, wrote in its November 23 edition: "Today, all children would like to tell their father that 'they will love and follow their father's footsteps forever'. Long live the King". This was just days before the King's 84th birthday on December 5, which is celebrated as Father's Day every year.

In May 2010, a very tumultuous time when red shirts were branded as anti-monarchists, movie actor Pongpat Vachirabanjong declared at an awards ceremony: "If you hate your father or no longer love him, you must leave [this country] because this is the father's house."

It is not just the mainstream mass media, but also schools, government and private companies that perpetuate this belief. It doesn't matter that this goes against the fact that we are supposedly living under a constitutional monarchy, wherein the institution should be open to criticism, or at least "constructive" criticism.

The tradition of obeying the father at all costs has a negative effect. Any doubts or questions from some of the "children" are treated as something "incomprehensible" or even "horrendous" by their "siblings". Severe punishment under the lese-majeste law is therefore a "sensible" and even "just" way of dealing with wayward "children".

The class conflicts and socio-economic and political disparities have been blurred or obliterated. Nowadays, these loyal children will not even think about asking why some of their "siblings" are so poor and why some of them have to pay rent, no matter how low, to the Crown Property Bureau.

As for those who voice their doubts publicly, they have it tough. It is as if they are no longer qualified to be the "siblings" of the ultra-royalists. And though a few people think they have understood and try to deconstruct the discourse, it lives on untouched nevertheless.