Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
Online censorship in Thailand has become more draconian following the approval of additional legislation last week to curtail freedom of thought, Khemthong Tonsakulrungruang writes.
The junta has a dream, the ultimate dream of being able to control the minds of the Thai public. But if that dream is impossible, the authoritarian government is happy to settle with controlling the expression of those minds. Last week, the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) unanimously approved amendments to the Computer Crime Act, in a move that gives the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) almost absolute control over how Thais express themselves.
Under the Computer Crime Act, people can be jailed for up to five years for entering “false information into a computer system that jeopardises national security, public safety, national economic stability, or causes panic.” The Act will also see the introduction of a nine-person committee that can seek court approval to remove any content considered in breach of “public morals”.
The NLA claimed that the objective of the bill was to deal with online royal insult and dissent. The need for the harsher law becomes more urgent with the transition from King Bhumibol to King Vajiralongkorn. But the junta is also acting out of self-interest in passing this new law.
Since the coup in May 2014, the NCPO has engaged in information warfare. Activists are monitored and persecuted making a large-scale public demonstration impossible. The battle then moves online. Prayuth and his cabinet are constantly ridiculed. His grumpy expression makes a perfect meme.
But the Internet battlefield offers more than silly harassment. It is the lifeline for dissent against Prayuth. In one example, soldiers kidnapped a student activist at midnight outside a university. Within seconds, the news spread to the network of activists at the university, then on to the network of international human rights groups and news agencies. A short while later the detainee was released at the police station. The prompt online reaction probably saved that student from a forced disappearance.
Moreover, the Prayuth administration is porous. Leaks of confidential documents have led to allegations of exorbitant spending, nepotism, and cronyism in his government. Prayuth’s nephew won lucrative construction contracts from the Third Army Region where Prayuth’s brother had been the commander. Prawit Wonsuwan, the Deputy Prime Minister overseeing security, flew to Hawaii on a luxurious 20-million baht trip. The former Army Commander was also involved in the notorious Rajbhakti Park scandal. Cronyism, corruption, and conflicts of interest badly delegitimise a regime that relies primarily on moral authority. When Prayuth is unable to stop this behaviour, the alternative solution is to block the public from receiving this damaging information.
There is no doubt that the model of Internet censorship the NCPO wishes to follow is that of China or North Korea. But those two countries have the advantage of an early start. Their Internet monitoring systems were developed alongside the arrival of the Internet. Alternative platforms replace the prohibited ones. Millions of employees have been hired to monitor the virtual world. Thailand proves more difficult because Thais are already spoiled with access to the online world. Thais are among the most heavily addicted to social media. Depriving them of Internet freedom would surely create a backlash.
The boldest attempt happened a few days after the 2014 coup. Facebook was entirely blocked, causing panic and anger. The blockage was quickly lifted. Although the NCPO denied any involvement, one mobile phone company confirmed being approached by the NCPO for cooperation; a confession that upset the government, which the company subsequently apologised for.
Another bold, yet embarrassing, attempt was the Single Gateway policy. The NCPO dreamed of channelling all Internet traffic through one national gateway where the NCPO could easily monitor online traffic. Internet users struck back with Distributed Denial of Service attacks that shut down websites of the government agencies and armies for days. The attack showed how weak the security of the government’s system was and forced the government to retreat.
Unsuccessful, the NCPO resorted to the two-pronged approach. On the diplomatic side, the junta repeatedly asked major IT giants such as Facebook, Line, and YouTube for help. Its success was limited. Facebook and Line rejected requests to access personal accounts of their users. YouTube agreed to block some content, which was contrary to its universal policy. But, overall, the gestures were more theatrical, to please the NCPO’s supporters.
Other moves include online coercion in several different ways. When a dissident is detained, he is forced to surrender the passwords to his social media accounts. The government then combs through conversation threads to find harmful content, often leading to more arrests. Other tactics involve intimidating people who pressed “like” or shared content deemed to be improper by threatening them with cyber crime, lese majeste, and sedition charges. Lately, the NCPO expanded its scope of operations to those who followed dissident figures on Facebook. This created a chilling effect. Internet users have to think twice before expressing their thoughts. The army also conducted an informational operation, countering such content with its own messages through proxies.
The number of banned websites in Thailand has soared, leaving the country among the least liberal in term of freedom of expression. More people are being indicted for sedition, defamation, lese majeste and computer crime. But the online world is still relatively uncontrolled. Virtual private networks provide a backdoor to banned content. For many netizens, fake accounts can circumvent prosecution.
The latest Computer Crime Act is the junta’s answer to these problems. The law creates a Digital Economy Ministry, inside which there is a central monitoring body connected to the systems of every Internet service provider. The government’s direct access to the system means that it does not have to notify a service provider so the process takes less time. The law expands its coverage to any content that violates public order or good order, terms so vague that everything could be captured by them from drinking to swearing to satirical caricature. Distortion of fact is an offence too.
Once harmful content is detected, the agency seeks the court’s approval and blocks it. But judicial review is not rigorous. The court usually defers to the agency’s discretion. In the past, the court has approved the blocking of thousands of websites within one day. There is no appeal available. Moreover, the possession of banned content can lead to punishment alongside the provider. Thus, under the new Computer Crime Act, bans are prompt, swift, unaccountable and total.
The impact of this law is devastating in every sense. Online privacy is no longer meaningful. The law assures the government’s access even to secured networks meaning service providers have to allow access to personal accounts. The NCPO now has the haystack in which to find a needle. The chance of abuses, such as fabrication of evidence, or blackmail, is likely. Freedom is gone.
The law encourages self-censorship. If a person disagrees with the government’s opinion, his or her view may be deemed distorted, hence an offence. Furthermore, the law raises the alarm among service providers since it places a heavy burden on them to store data for inspection. Businesses, especially start-ups, are concerned with the security of their online transactions. Many are considering moving their bases abroad. The Computer Crime Act stunts any attempt to mobilise the digital economy, something Prayuth himself tries to promote.
The reaction from the public has been one of anger. Within a few days, more than 360,000 people had signed a petition urging the NLA to vote against the bill. The NLA ignored it.
Two major factors may contribute to the NCPO’s success this time. First, the NCPO won quite significantly in the national referendum in early August which approved the draft constitution. With the referendum over, the Thai public have no bargaining power. That victory also boosted Prayuth’s confidence. Second, although many people are alarmed about the threat to their privacy, they feel the need to protect the monarchy. As a result, they are persuaded into an awkward acquiescence.
The public can still challenge the law in the Constitutional Court. But the court is unlikely to find it unconstitutional as the judicial institution is known for its conservative stance, siding with the traditional elites who supported the coup. An elected government might not be able to amend it either because the new constitution has designed a very weak political system that would struggle to achieve any significant policy change. More importantly, a civilian politician might find the law useful to silence his critics too. Thaksin’s Emergency Decree, which was invoked to crack down on his supporters’ demonstrations, is a good example.
Thailand is often dubbed Ka-la land. Ka-la, a coconut shell, is a metaphor for ignorance blocking Thais from any lights of wisdom. With the new Computer Crime Act, Ka-la is getting thicker. Thais must act right and think right. For the junta, it’s better that Thais stop thinking at all – leave it to Big Brother instead. Thailand has inched toward an Orwellian dystopia.
Khemthong Tonsakulrungruang is a constitutional law scholar.
Excellent article , only issue I have is the ‘ inching’ , more to the point is the head long rush .
I pray that the genie is sufficiently out of the bottle to make the return impossible .
0
0
The comment “Thaksin’s Emergency Decree, which was invoked to crack down on his supporters’ demonstrations…” is a puzzling statement. It may be seen even as an example of the salim’s continuing distortion of truths (post-truths?). In fact, the Emergency Decree on Government Administration in a State of Emergency (2005), signed by the late king, was initiated during Thaksin’s government as a response to the insurgency in the south (*it was enthusiastically taken on by the military; and the act itself widely criticised at the time by CSOs; see ICJ report: http://icj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2005/08/Thailand-accountability-advocacy-2005.pdf). There was later Yingluck’s use of a State of Emergency in Bangkok and surrounding areas in January 2014 to counter mass violence caused by Suthep’s PDRC. But in this case, it should be recalled that no one took notice of the order as part of the wider amaat-military plot to bring to bring her elected government down; neither the military or public sector. And, on this track, the writer may want mention Abhisit Vejjajiva’s vile Internal Security Act, which was an excuse for a massacre of at least 90+ documented unarmed protestors?
0
0
Sorry Jim, you might have to check the fact again. Abhisit invoked the emergency decree at least twice in 2009 and 2010. See Constitutional Court Decision 9/2553 (2010) and 10-11/2553 (2010). Abhisit and the Police force were accused of unduly exercising emergency power, the Constituional Court dismissed both cases.
0
0
Khemthong, not sure that says much as the Constitutional Court (as we can all see), has long been in the hands of royalists, anti-democratic advocates, and working in the interests of the Democrat Party. Not exactly an impartial history.
0
0
It’s simply sad the way so much commentary on New Mandala degenerates into discussion / debates about the past. When the HERE and NOW is now SO
crucially important.
0
0
Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with your plea, the answer is really “out there”. I’m writing this from a Starbucks in the new CENTRAL Westgate mega-mall in Bangkok’s north-western corner of Bang-Yai.
The place is crawling, as it always is at the weekend, with bovine types lapping-up the dubious delights of 21st century consumer culture. * A little note to some commentators, those of a particular ‘unique Thai’ bent, that’s not Thai consumer culture, just the common garden variety.
That this lot remotely possess the gumption to lead a meaningful renewal of their society truly stretches credulity, but lead it they must. So far, the regime has been able to buy time by the simple expedient of spending money it doesn’t have, lots of it, by borrowing. That spigot and all that flows from it – an insane property bubble and the Ponzi-banking system that supports it/is supported by it, can’t continue forever and just as has happened in Europe and America in 2007/08, and in Thailand itself in ’97, the inevitable crash will bring in it’s wake the conditions for real reform.
Too many commentators o these pages – especially those that make a living by reading the runes, look to the arcane or the simply irrelevant for their inspiration and interpretation. The simple fact is that without the kind of social safely nets that exist in the West, recession in Thailand and the rest of SE Asia will confront the middle classes with real stark choices, either economic evisceration or protest. With the family farm sold long ago to pay for that condo/town house, kids private education and the Ford Ranger in the drive, there won’t be anywhere else to run. So, protest it has to be, otherwise it’s time to dust-of that begging bowl.
0
0
Orwell (keeping to the theme) said that the most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history. The royalists have done just that through incessant propaganda. Unfortunately the only way to make sense of the double-speak coming out of Thailand on the here and now mostly by “yellow” academics, (those who now bemoan the excesses of the military, such as with the computer crime act, yet were enthusiastically cheering the military to overthrow an elected government), is to reflect on how the past has shaped the present mess that Thailand is now in,,,
0
0
Indeed the quote which is often mistakenly attributed to George Santayana is Thailand to a T
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
this is why I say that the only people the Thai’s are fooling are themselves .
0
0
I don’t think there is any mistake in attributing that bit of sententiousness to Santayana.
The mistake is in failing to interrogate it to see whether indeed there is any truth in it.
0
0
My belief is this PRB Computer is going to cause KSC more problems than it bargained for. Middle class support for Prayut rests largely on the belief that the dictatorship will protect the financial advantages they have achieved by maintaining a more peaceful society. But younger yellow leaning people will not accept this intrusion into their personal use of the web and when the downside of single gateway-more difficulties in doing business- become apparent, they will become dissatisfied.
As an anecdote, I know of a person who abstained from any political involvement or critical thought, discouraged from thinking anything would ever change. But this month when discussion of social sanction- in lieu of functioning democratic judicial system- became talk of the town and the Red Skull site closed down and Citizens Opposed to Single Gateway became talk of the town suddenly they have become self politicized. New generation middle classers who previously didn’t care which semi-illegitimate political players was dominating the system will now care and oppose this top down structure. Basically, a sense of ownership of basic personal freedoms in the narrow sense of media use can not be separated from the larger umbrella of personal freedom. This is turning many people from being apolitical or apathetic politically into becoming supporters of activists and activists themselves.
0
0
PM Prayut named “Man of the Year 2016”
http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/pm-prayut-named-man-year-2016/
0
0
What? The newly-installed King gets aced out by an ignorant corrupt General?
0
0
The proliferating ironies involved whenever someone decides to go for the “Orwell Option” in writing about Thai politics would make for belly laughs and snorts of glee were there not so many dead and incarcerated human beings connected directly to the subject.
The constant repetition of the phrase “democratically elected” as a modifier for the government that was overthrown in the most recent coup is, without a doubt, classic Orwellianism:
“The word FASCISM has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable.” The words DEMOCRACY, SOCIALISM, FREEDOM, PATRIOTIC, REALISTIC, JUSTICE, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like DEMOCRACY, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.”
To begin, Yingluck’s administration bragged about its having shut down more websites than any previous government, so any facile suggestion that “democratically elected” must somehow involve a commitment to freedom of expression should be questioned.
Unlike the administrative autonomy that we tend to associate with governments that are “democratically elected”, the Yingluck administration from day one kowtowed left and right to attempt to appease what it saw as its “real” constituency.
Soon after being elected, the Shins bought a piece of highly symbolic land in Ayuthaya to submit as a gift to HRM who “accepted” the gift wearing a military uniform. Perhaps a cultural anthropologist could give us a reading of the significance of this quickly improvised (and just as quickly ignored) ritual. Of course, anyone who misses the obvious is not likely to be enlightened by an obscurantist elevation of language anyway.
At no time during the Yingluck administration was there an effort to expose and oppose the obvious fact that the military was not only independent of the civilian administration but acting as an overseer to that “democratically elected” body.
Previous “democratically elected” administrations in Thailand have been responsible for media intimidation, extrajudicial executions and have quite accurately been described as “electoral authoritarianism”, which is absolutely not what is being transmitted by the constant drone of “democratically elected” used to contrast the authoritarianism of the junta.
This website and its tendency to publish such things as the purely fantastical rumor-mongering regarding the “succession crisis”, thus lending a patina of academic respectability to tabloid journalism, engages in a particularly modern form of “Orwellianism”: there is a comment section to create the illusion of “discussion and debate”.
The majority of posts concerning Thailand are riddled with what Orwell called “meaningless words”. Never is there an article questioning or problematizing the way words such as “democracy” and “fascism” are used to obscure the far more complex moral and political realities of Thai society and politics.
One result of this simplistic barrage of Orwellian “journalism” is the almost staggering ignorance of Thai realities that is evinced in so many of the comments on the site.
But then again, that is the point of propaganda, is it not?
0
0
“Thai realities?” The reality today is that the Kingdom has entered a period of vicious repression of the voices that would bring a modicum of hope to working-class Thais. There was hope under the elected governments that preceded the most recent coup. Now?
0
0
If you have the time to write something so long-winded and boring on Christmas Eve, I truly feel sorry for you.
0
0
Not to put too much stress on “meaning” in any given political political statement, since that in itself is an “Orwellian” operation, I wonder if you could identify some of those “voices” in their pre-coup manifestation and show how they gave “hope to working-class Thais”.
I would be interested if you would also address the obviously Orwell-inspired point of my post, i.e. the suggestion that the way a phrase like “democratically elected” is used to describe the previous administration is an instance of the kind of language Orwell excoriates in his much-loved essay “Politics and the English Language”.
I would like to add at this point that while this junta obviously lies and spouts nonsense in public and is promoting a crude program of propaganda aimed at everyone in Thai society from children on up, this is nothing unusual where governments are concerned and that all populations are subject to this sort of disrespect from their leaders, “democratically elected” or not.
Some people in subject populations around the planet prefer not to question the swill and just get on with getting and spending. Others obviously simply ignore what they know is garbage and do the same thing. While yet others call out the nonsense and make attempts to “set the record straight” as it were.
A further interesting group seems to spend an inordinate amount of time and energy going with the flow in their own societies and calling out the flaws and injustices visited upon other peoples in totally other societies, thus reproducing the kind of imperialist rhetoric that is so perfectly encapsulated in Kipling’s poem “Falang’s Burden” (to give it the appropriate Thai coloring here).
But my main interest is in questioning your lovely sounding assertion about the “voices that would bring a modicum of hope to working-class Thais”.
Who are they and what evidence do you have that while Yingluck was being besieged by folks wearing t-shirts with her image printed on it and promising “Free Tablet Computers!” as an education policy there were voices giving hope?
I saw a picture of Kim Jong-un being mobbed by schoolkids the other day, some crying with joy, some just gobsmacked by the presence of celebrity power.
I imagine that one day, after the DPRK gets absorbed into the economics of neoliberalism and the people lose their victim status, pictures like that will be held up by “Orwellians” to suggest that at least the Kim regime gave the people “hope”. I really hope that is not the kind of “hope” we are talking about here.
0
0
The day after Christmas and you’re still at it? Most normal people take breaks from politics during the holidays. It’s a time for inner reflection and a chance to get away from contentious bickering for a short time. You should go listen to Burl Ives sing Holly Jolly Christmas and be happy!
Again, I truly feel sorry for you.
0
0
The “voices” I obviously am referring to are those who led and supported the government’s policies before the 2006 coup, and then again various pro working-class governments before the latest military coup. I see no evidence in your posts that you possess any understanding of the divide separating those working-class folks from the pigs-at-the-trough corrupt military/ammart interests.
0
0
I can assure you I have no problem differentiating between “pigs-at-the-trough” and working-class folks.
What I am having a problem with is my impression that you are either engaged in “obliterating” any and all understanding of Thai history or simply don’t know any.
Please just indulge a long-time admirer of Orwell and provide a few names for specific “voices” who provided hope for working-class people.
I would also appreciate a little more detail about the “various pro working-class governments before the latest military coup” that you so vaguely refer to.
Another quote from Orwell’s essay on political language in its propagandistic and thought-murdering mode:
” The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing.”
So do take the opportunity to veer away from the vague handwaving and share some specifics.
0
0
Michael – OK, I’m beginning to see that you haven’t been keeping up on matters Thai. You ask for “more detail” regarding recent governments supported by working-class Thais. Try googling Thai Rak Thai, People’s Power Party, and Puea Thai. And ref “voices” – you can go from Pridi Banomyong to Pavin Chachavalpongpun and any number of patriots in-between who were exiled (or worse) by reactionary military/ammart interests.
0
0
Actually, Jim, I asked for more detail concerning “various pro working-class governments before the latest military coup” and not “recent governments supported by working-class Thais.
If you have difficulty seeing the difference, think of it this way: Donald Trump was “supported” by working-class Americans in the recent election but only a fool would imagine that that will translate into the Trump administration being a “pro working-class government”.
And, funny thing, I can’t for the life of me imagine any of the many working-class Thais I know receiving “hope” from the voices of Aj Pavin and Pridi before the recent coup. Obviously you know a whole different class of working-class Thais.
Enjoy your “keeping up” on matters related to Thai politics! And do spend some time considering what Orwell meant by “obliterating their own understanding of their history”.
0
0
“various pro working-class governments before the latest military coup” include Thai Rak Thai, People’s Power Party, and Puea Thai. You really don’t know that?
0
0
How would Orwell have written Politics And The THAI Language ? His “Politics And The ENGLISH Language” was written post-WW2. Hitler never claimed to be a “democrat”, and was rigidly anti-royalist. Orwell famously fought in Spain’s civil war. He’d probably label Prayut a Falangist. Franco was a royalist.
0
0
I imagine that you are talking about the village loan scheme, the 30-baht medical program and the debt-relief for farmers that TRT initiated when it first came to power and conflating these well-known “pro-poor policies” with the notion of “pro-working class governments”.
But when you use the phrase “working-class” to mean nothing more than “poor” you are engaging in the kind of vagueness that Orwell identifies as an aspect of debased political language and that I consider to be essential to the kind of “dumbing down” of political discourse that characterizes most of what gets posted on this site.
The PPP phase of Thaksinite “rule” was headed by Samak, a royalist who not only was actively involved in the October 6 massacre but as PM went on television and denied that it had actually happened. In that sense, I suppose he and Thaksin shared a propensity for massive state violence, so it may not have been pure cynicism that led Thaksin to appoint him as nominee PM.
It goes without saying that the PPP administration was so tangled in up in existential protest against its very existence that it engaged in nothing that could be called “pro working-class”, “pro-poor” or indeed “pro-” anything at all but hanging onto power.
By the time Yingluck’s PT government got into power the advertising program that was the TRT “pro-poor policies” was whittled down to such things as the free tablet for every child “education policy” and the rice subsidy program, an unsustainable one-time payout to rice farmers.
The 300 baht per day minimum wage policy, arguably the only purely “pro working-class” policy ever promoted by a Thaksinite administration, was in itself little more than yet another populist program with short-term effects, including cheers from workers, but no long-term “pro working-class” supplements like improvements to the disgraceful Thai public education system or even just fully-funded skills upgrading programs etc.
One thing that is notably missing from any Thaksinite administration and that would be definite evidence of a “pro working-class” slant is a new Labor Relations Act. The restrictive “anti working-class” nature of that Act is well known to pro working-class people.
The increase in minimum wage was a welcome development and long-overdue but top-down “paternalism” is no substitute for removing the legal chains that bind Thai workers and keep them from being able to organize effectively and thus gain some degree of agency of their own.
For many reasons, including Thaksin’s firing of a whole raft of recently unionized employees at ITV when he bought it to bolster his control over media during the first TRT administration, organized labor was prominent in PAD and in the more recent Suthep mob calling for a coup to replace the “pro working-class” Thaksinite governments of the day. And this is not simply a case of people protesting against their own interests, although there is an element of that.
Let’s just say that I agree with Kevin Hewison when he said:
“The populism of these policies should not conceal the fact that the TRT
government was one by and for the rich, and the government immediately set about helping domestic business, including those associated with its leaders and supporters.”
So, Jim, what I “know” and what you “know” are apparently very different things. I wonder which of us is indulging in an “Orwellian” destruction of an understanding of history?
0
0
Yes, Michael, there are indeed many poor people among the Thai working class. Very perceptive of you. What little hope there remains for the future among those folks resides not with the parasitic military/ammart ruling class but with those brave people that stand in opposition to the parasites.
0
0
Michael Wilson – would you accept that ” populist” is a better description of the Thaksin governments, than “pro-working class” ?
0
0