Court hears views of both sides in complaint over EC rules on expression of opinion
The Supreme Administrative Court yesterday summoned the concerned parties in a complaint asking it to consider revoking the Election Commission’s (EC) announcement on regulations governing the expression of opinion on the upcoming referendum, in order to
The Internet Law Reform Dialogue (iLaw) and its allies filed a complaint with the court last week, asking it to consider revoking the announcement and placing an injunction on its implementation – as well as on the EC’s television programme disseminating information on the draft constitution, and its campaign on the plebiscite.
Jon Ungphakorn, director of iLaw, reasoned in the complaint that with the August 7 referendum on the draft charter fast approaching, the court should consider suspending the announcement as well as the TV show immediately, so that voters could receive information from different sources ahead of the poll.
The group claimed in the complaint that the announcement was unlawful, as it comprised content that could be deemed as violating democratic principles and international obligations that Thailand had agreed to.
Most importantly, they said, it affected the very essence of freedom of expression under a democratic regime.
Jon went to the Supreme Administrative Court yesterday with some of his fellow complainants, and stressed the point again.
He told the judges that it would be difficult for people to differentiate what actions would be deemed illegal under the terms used in the announcement, and they would therefore be afraid of expressing their opinions.
This is the point they wished to petition the court to consider, he said.
In regard to the TV programme, Jon said the EC should have no role in organising it and, by taking part, the electoral agency could be deemed to be biased.
The group therefore wished to request the court to place an injunction on the programme, in order to open the way to ensuring fairness in the programme’s organisation, he added.
An EC representative defended the agency’s position to the court, saying that expression of opinion in regard to the draft charter was permissible as long as it was not vulgar or intimidating.
The court spent around four hours questioning both parties and listening to their views.
RELATED