Thin line between democracy and its opposite number

Freedom of expression is a funny thing. When you are outside the corridors of power, it’s an ideal that should never be compromised, ever. The slightest hint of a threat against this liberty must be met with an uproar. It’s a matter of life and death. Anything that might – no matter how remote the possibility – send democracy down a slippery slope to doom must not be allowed to happen.

When you are inside the corridors of power, “freedom of expression” is a different concept entirely. You will want to apply such terms as “pragmatism” or “flexibility” to this cherished ideal. There may be a few people, in your opinion, who may not deserve freedom of expression, after all. There may be a real need to keep in check some kinds of “dangerous” or “counterproductive” opinions. The stakes are too high and some restraints are necessary. Last but not least, in your opinion, if you have been on the receiving end of a political clampdown, it should be all right to give “the other side” a taste of their own medicine.

That’s Thailand’s story at the moment. Nitirat, the group of anti-coup academics, has a new serious question to answer. So do the activists campaigning against what they call draconian Thai laws. This time, however, those posing the question are not their critics, but the democratically elected government of Yingluck Shinawatra.

With the whole country preoccupied with the flood crisis, the Cabinet on October 18 approved a proposed legal amendment that would take Thailand’s media freedom back a few decades. The proposed change to the 2007 law would return the power to control the press to the national police chief. Thanks to the Council of State, the proposed amendment has been deemed unconstitutional. Should we heave a sigh of relief? Not yet, perhaps. What we should do is keep our fingers crossed.

Without the Council of State’s intervention, the head of the police would be able to censor, close down and threaten the constitutional rights of any newspaper, with impunity. The powers would be “on paper”, of course, and it wouldn’t mean that the police chief would invoke them all. Yet if the likes of Nitirat thinks this way, they should at least just come out and say so.

Ironically, the proposed change would represent a step backward from a law that came out when Thai politics was under military influence. Under the 2007 Printing Act – during the time of the military-installed interim government – the need to seek a permit from the government to publish opinion was virtually abolished. In its place, publishers only had to register with the Fine Arts Department instead of the Police Bureau. Permission was automatic, and since the law came into force there has been a flourishing of publications of a great diversity that has helped solidify the foundations of our democracy. For a “dictatorship legacy”, it’s not too bad.

More ironically perhaps, the Council of State has put the brakes on the proposed amendment by citing the much-criticised “military-installed” Constitution, which states that freedom of expression shall not be violated and media outlets shall not be controlled. As much as they did not like this charter, the ruling Pheu Thai Party’s election candidates campaigned under a clear-cut platform of freedom of opinion and civil liberties. That stand was backed by pro-freedom activists such as Nitirat, a group that wants all things legally related to the 2006 coup nullified.

However, Nitirat is not the only one facing questions. People opposed to Article 112 of the Constitution, for example, will also have to do some soul searching. Article 112 has been criticised for allegedly being too rigid against criticism of the monarchy. The proposed change to the Printing Act would virtually endorse Article 112 by giving the police chief power to punish publications deemed disrespectful to the Royal Family.

Questions must also be asked of the likes of Robert Amsterdam. He has purportedly been campaigning on Thaksin Shinawatra’s behalf against allegations of human rights abuse in Thailand by the fugitive former prime minister. Thaksin himself may not be able to stay silent over this. He can just say he’s not involved, but for someone who has given opinions on a lot of Thai subjects, his thoughts on this issue would be welcome.

Thai politics has gone through many absurdities. This proposed legal amendment most certainly would stand out among them if it is passed into law. The Council of State has “plugged a leak”, but hypocrisy disguised as ideology will keep pushing and threatening to overflow.