'Opponents free to express opinions'

Opposition and differing opinions in a post-coup situation and ongoing reform were to be anticipated, he said, despite the junta’s open channel for people with an anti-coup stance.

“They are all entitled to their opinions and free to express them under the restrictions imposed by the martial law,” he said.

Asked by reporters about “undercurrents” and a movement against the junta-installed government, Suwaphan said he preferred to refer to them in other terms. People with “differing stances” do exist and should not be regarded as “undercurrents”, as they were free to express opinions. 

“The government is required to heed whatever opinions are expressed – while being careful about taking care of what might be excessive,” he said.

Suwaphan was a career civilian government agent and ran the National Intelligence Agency as its director, before being assigned a ministerial post in the Prayut Chan-o-cha government until his retirement in September.

Asked to analyse the three-finger salute campaigns by anti-coup students that may spread further next year, he said authorities were not fully at ease while such people acted that way. But “understanding their anti-coup stance is important, and their freedom of expression and publication of their messages needs to be accepted [by the general public].”

As for the far South, Suwaphan said Prayut’s expertise in the intelligence service and experience had contributed to a stronger coordination and better integration among agencies, on security and development.

He said the chief of operations and policy-making associated with the peace dialogue with insurgents’ representatives should be the head of the top authority, which was Prayut. The chief negotiator was General Aksaka Kerdphol, an Army advisor well versed in the subject.

Asked about the influence of social media and how the authorities can cope with it, Suwaphan called on netizens to double-check any posts before Liking or Retweeting them.

He said the authorities were bound by regulations and legal responsibilities to counter false information – while online posters bore no responsibility and were even fake, or closed their accounts once their posts subject them to criminal or civil liability.