Little basis for charges against Veera
Should the powers-that-be find the candid opinion survey by anti-corruption activist Veera Somkwamkid annoying? Probably. For them, it must be infuriating that Mr Veera used lines from the song composed by Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha himself, a song of sublime promises and sacrifice, as the very means to hurt the country’s leader and his government.
But personal annoyance should not be the basis to accuse Mr Veera of violating the Computer Crime Act by spreading false information and causing damage to the public.
While police said over the weekend they are searching for Mr Veera, now wanted on an arrest warrant, the agent provocateur announced on his Facebook on Monday he will go and meet the Technology Crime Suppression Division police tomorrow.
Mr Veera also made an observation about why he faced an arrest warrant when he had never been summoned to report to the police before. That is probably the smallest question about the case.
The amended Computer Crime Act has been in force for only a few months, enacted in late January this year. Mr Veera must be among the first to be prosecuted under the new law, which has been controversial from the start.
According to news reports, Mr Veera’s alleged “crime” was spreading “false” information causing “damage to the public”. What exactly did he do?
On March 4, Mr Veera asked people to share their thoughts by answering which of eight statements are correct.
The first seven were taken from the song composed by Gen Prayut right after he took power on May 22 three years ago. These include: “We will do as promised, it should not take long, the beautiful land will return, and we will return happiness to you the people.”
The eighth and last choice was: “All the above are wrong.”
The next day, Mr Veera wrote in another Facebook post that more than 90% of over a hundred answers to his questionnaire had picked the last choice.
The activist then said it should be clear that more than 90% of people who answered his questionnaire do not trust the Prayut government, nor do they believe they will deliver what they promised.
According to news reports, the police said Mr Veera is a well-known figure. His opinion that people who replied to his survey found the government to be untrustworthy could therefore mislead the public, cause confusion and inflict damage on the government and PM.
Also, the police alleged that the survey was based on the views of only a single group of people so its results may not reflect reality.
The Computer Crime Act is never a darling of human rights activists as it has been subject to criticisms that it is overly broad in its definition of what constitutes a “crime”. Even against this seemingly imperfect law, it’s difficult to see how the accusations against Mr Veera could hold.
Referring to the first part of the accusation, the law forbids an entry into computer systems distorted information or forgery that may cause damage to the public which is not an act of defamation.
Did Mr Veera publish “false” information? That is tricky. It seemed he only reported the result of his own unofficial survey in a truthful manner. It’s true the poll was not conducted in a proper, reliable manner. But then again, Mr Veera did not seem to try to fool anyone into believing that his candid questionnaire was a real opinion poll. He was using lines from a song for that matter. Who would take such a personal Facebook questionnaire seriously or be misled by its result?
While the result of Mr Veera’s personal questionnaire is decidedly not flattering to the government or Gen Prayut, how would the police prove it has caused public damage? Mr Veera’s post about the survey’s result was shared by only 22 people and liked by some 200. That is a rather limited definition of “public”.
Besides, the police may forget that a dent in reputation of the government or the PM does not always constitute public damage. And as the law stated, defamation, whether it’s personal or against a public entity, does not seem to be covered by the Computer Crime Act.
As for the last accusation, that Mr Veera’s questionnaire does not reflect the real situation, it does seem from the post that the activist was airing his opinion based on his unofficial questionnaire. How accurate it is, how reliable or whether people like it or not should be up to them to decide.
But was it a crime or a forgery? That seems like a stretch, not just of the coverage of the Computer Crime Law but also imagination, plain and simple.