PM wrong to attack critics
Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha disappointed more than a few people when he waved off concerns over human rights and civil liberties last week as an obsession and preoccupation. The premier was supposedly responding to criticism, both foreign and domestic. While serious and professional comments on government policies are unwelcome to him, they never should be dismissed as the ravings of hostile or “obsessed” people.
Three main issues had been raised in quick succession over the past week before the premier gave the media yet another lecture. David Kaye, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on the long-winded “promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression”, criticised the lese majeste law. He said it should be wiped from the Criminal Code. That was followed by Amnesty International pitching a 30-page opinion charging Gen Prayut’s regime with excessive legal action to suppress and intimidate civil society and peaceful critics.
The third and main focus by foreign and domestic critics was Jatupat Boonpattararaksa, now known nationwide as Pai Dao Din. The young dissident’s most recent arrest was in early December. He was charged with lese majeste for providing a link on his Facebook page to a BBC Thai profile of His Majesty King Maha Vajiralongkorn Bodindradebayavarangkun.
Calls for fairness demanded that he be granted bail while awaiting trial. On Friday, at about the time the prime minister was making his attack on criticism, prosecutors pressed charges and Mr Jatupat was formally indicted. His seventh bail request in two months was denied.
Gen Prayut sees the criticism as trouble-making targeting his government. But he is wrong. The opposition is as loyal as the regime. Outside critics are as serious as Thai citizens. Both groups deserve better understanding and more respect than being pigeon-holed as “obsessed about rights, liberties and democracy”. Holding the government to standards is not just a right, but a duty of concerned and serious people.
There is irony in this disagreement. The prime minister is in the midst of shepherding through a new constitution. In the meantime, he is governing under a temporary charter that he personally approved and participated in passing. These constitutions, the supreme law of the land, guarantee rights including speech and petitioning the government. A primary duty of the regime is to protect freedom of speech for all, which includes criticism.
Governments and groups stressing civil and human rights are naturally antithetical. In Thailand, civil society raised its timorous voice during the regime of Sarit Thanarat. In the roughly 50 years since of informing the public of governmentinduced abuses and arrogance, civil rights groups have grown in size and influence.
They also have gained much respect. There are two reasons for that. The first is their own credibility. Civil society has championed popular causes such as freedom of speech, equal justice for all and accountability of government and authorities. Governments from Sarit to Gen Prayut have squirmed under the bright light of publicity brought to questionable or illegal acts, from torture to corruption to abuse of authority to squashing the loyal opposition.
Like the 31 governments since the welcome end of the Sarit regime, the current administration hates criticism of its governance. Arguably, Gen Prayut has gone a step too far in saying he will not be swayed by public opinion. But the truth is that both the UN envoy and Amnesty International made polite and well-reasoned analysis. It would better serve Gen Prayut and his ministers to consider such criticism, and perhaps improve their decisions and actions in the future.
A primary duty of the regime is to protect freedom of speech for all, which includes criticism.