Foreigners might help us see the truth

For starters, Chiranuch seems to only have been lauded overseas instead of at home. This is not to downplay the many Thai supporters she has, but the fact that Chiranuch is mentioned more in the international media and that she chose to write a letter in English thanking her supporters in the early hours of Monday is telling. Earlier this year, the US-based Newsweek magazine named Chiranuch as one of the 150 fearless women in the world. 

On Monday, when the ruling on her case was to be handed down but then referred to the end of May, many foreign observers from embassies and media-related organisations were present. However, Chiranuch said she saw nobody from the Thai Journalists Association.

Could it be that foreigners see something that most Thais don’t in Chiranuch’s trial?

The issue of intermediary liability is at the heart of Chiranuch’s case, because as per the Computer Crimes Act, she allegedly committed a crime by not deleting 10 postings that were supposedly defamatory to the monarchy quickly enough from the now defunct prachatai webboard. 

The case is important not because of who Chiranuch is, but for the impact it will have on the mass media, which already faces restrictions in relation to the monarchy. 

Even without the Computer Crimes Act, the climate of fear is all pervasive thanks to the draconian lese majeste law, which comes with 15 years’ maximum imprisonment. And if Chiranuch is eventually found guilty, webboards and websites will need to practice even more self-censorship. 

The reason why foreigners are keeping an eye on Chiranuch’s legal struggle is because she could be in jail for 20 years over comments she had not written, even though postings like these would not raise an eyebrow in countries with a monarchy such as the United Kingdom or Spain.

Here in Thailand, however, many are used self-censorship for anything mildly critical of the Royal Family. Many Thais believe that anybody breaking the lese majeste law deserves no sympathy. They refuse to even consider that this law is undemocratic or limits the freedom of expression.

This could help explain why many Thais do not feel any anger or sense of injustice over Chiranuch’s trial, while many foreigners, especially those from democratic countries, find the case disturbing.

What foreigners find abnormal, undemocratic and appalling, many Thais see it as normal and legal. Many Thais are satisfied with the one-sided information they are given about the monarchy, and find anything even mildly critical of the institution as abnormal or even illegal.

Somyos Prueksakasemsuk, Voice of Taksin editor, is being tried for lese majeste just because he allowed two defamatory articles written by someone else to appear in the magazine. In this case, Thai media associations have said nothing, while the International Federation of Journalists has been demanding that he be released immediately. Somyos has been denied bail eight times over the past year, while countries like Sweden, Finland and the European Union have sent observers to monitor his trial. 

Perhaps the overwhelming international attention being given to Chiranuch’s case, and to a lesser extent to Somyos’ case, may serves as an eye-opener to Thais who think there is nothing wrong with the Computer Crimes Act or the lese majeste law.

Sometimes it takes a (foreign) mirror to help us see how normal or abnormal our society has become.