Silencing regime critics is pointless

Mockery and satire have always made dull and dry politics look more interesting. That could be a reason why a defunct Facebook page that parodied the prime minister entitled “We Love Gen Prayut” attracted as many as 70,000 likes in less than a year.

The page was shut down by authorities in late April, to the surprise of many. At the same time, eight administrators of the page were rounded up and charged by the army with violating the sedition law and the Computer Crimes Act.

The page merely offered funny and mocking graphics criticising Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, who also heads the National Council for Peace and Order.

Recently, the Bangkok Military Court decided to accept the case against the eight defendants, but the case was almost buried under small headlines in newspapers.

So how does mockery and satire on Facebook put someone at risk of seven years in jail under the sedition law?

In normal times like the free world we lived in prior to the 2014 coup, such partial and excessive use of the sedition law might have been seriously questioned. Since we now live in special circumstances where students are rounded up and charged with criminal offences for simply expressing their thoughts, prosecutions could become the norm.

The regime has widened the use of the sedition law against individuals in the name of national security. In fact, many see it as an effort to protect the reputation of just one individual: Gen Prayut. It brings up a question: Why hasn’t Gen Prayut brought defamation lawsuits against those whose posts he finds damage his name?

The Chiang Mai-based Thai Civil Rights and Investigative Journalism (TCIJ) group recently published an overview of the sedition law. Earlier, it said, there were just a mere handful of cases involving sedition. But the law has become more popular under the military regime which cites it as a means to suppress critics. Since the coup, at least 47 people have faced charges under this law.

For example, a 44-year-old woman, Rinda Parichabutr, was charged with sedition and computer crimes in July last year for posting accusations on Facebook that Gen Prayut illegally transferred billions of baht to Singapore. The Military Court in December dropped the charges on the grounds the case should be tried under defamation laws.

In November last year, 61-year-old Juthathip Verochanakorn faced the same offences for a Facebook post about alleged corruption in the Rajabhakti Park project by the military. But the public prosecutor decided to drop the charges, saying there was no act of inciting unrest.

Other political dissidents have been accused of similar wrongdoings involving the use of either Facebook or Twitter.

TCIJ said the regime chose to use the sedition law because it has harsher penalties under the national security section of the Criminal Code. Political dissidents could be threatened into silence for fear of reprisal. Whenever there was an arrest, the centre said, police put the accused before a news conference and accused them of orchestrating a “coordinated effort”.

The prosecution of the eight administrators, who are out on bail, can instigate such fears, but it will not stop the regime’s critics from speaking out.

Following the closure of the parody page, a second version has been created on Facebook. Another anti-regime Facebook page was also created recently to criticise the widespread use of Gen Prayut’s sweeping powers under Section 44 of the interim charter.

To a certain extent, Thais have always enjoyed a measure of freedom of speech.

The media for decades has employed mockery and satire as part of their commentary on politics.

What the parody page did was no different.

The regime’s social media clampdown reminds me of a similar tactic used by Thaksin Shinawatra and his government.

Before the 2006 coup, Thaksin and his government gained notoriety for their excessive use of pressure against the media and critics. Shin Corp brought a libel lawsuit against media activist Supinya Klangnarong and Thai Post in 2003 over Ms Supinya’s comment that a company mainly owned by Thaksin’s family benefited from his government’s policies.

There was a demand for 400 million baht in compensation. The Criminal Court in 2006 acquitted the defendants, saying the article was published in good faith and in the public interest.

The regime seems intolerant of criticism. The NCPO should learn from Thaksin that silencing critics is a waste of time.