Are we so afraid of offending our neighbour?

The government’s decision to ban Cambodian opposition-leader-in-exile Sam Rainsy from entering Thailand for his book launch last week was a step backwards for Thailand.

Rainsy, a long-time opponent of Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen who is living in exile in France to avoid an 11-year prison sentence, is actually no stranger to Thailand.

Cambodia will hold a general election in late July. Rainsy is prohibited from taking part due to his conviction for publishing what is allegedly a map showing an alleged false delineation of the Cambodia-Vietnam boundary.

His intention in coming to Thailand for the book launch no doubt involved a political agenda. But that is not a good reason for a country like Thailand to refuse him entry, as we, and this government, have told the world that we are an open and democratic society, where all people have freedom of expression.

The Foreign Ministry says Rainsy was barred because this country allows no foreigners to use its territory as a stage from which to attack friendly neighbours.

This is the standard rationale and it never works, since Thailand always exercises the rule selectively. Overtly or covertly, Thailand has over the years permitted, tolerated and even supported all kinds of political activities. Various “freedom fighters”, activists and other campaigners have enjoyed freedom to air their views here and carry out efforts to further their causes and struggles. This is well recorded in our history.

The possibility of souring good relations with the government in Phnom Penh under Prime Minister Hun Sen – who is virtually assured, as usual, to win the upcoming election – is also not a good reason to bar Sam Rainsy from Thai territory.

Many people in this government will be seen as hypocrites if they support the ban on Rainsy. They have good experience of using other countries as venues for overt political purposes when they opposed the former government under the Democrat Party. What would have happened if no country had allowed them to lash out at the situation in Thailand and attack their opponents from abroad?

Senior officials in this government should explain to Hun Sen that the administration of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra champions democratic principles and that freedom of expression is a basic right of everyone, including visitors. After all, that’s what they themselves have been saying for years.

Allowing Sam Rainsy to speak in Thailand, and to criticise the leadership of a country that has good relations with Thailand, would cast the governments in both Bangkok and Phnom Penh as properly democratic. It would be an example to the world that they do indeed safeguard rights.

It is ridiculous to say we are a democratic country when we will not allow anyone to criticise our friends. If the friendship is genuine, we should not be afraid of criticism.

Prime Minister Hun Sen should also demonstrate his democratic credentials by remaining silent while Thailand takes the opportunity to show the international community that it is democratic. Prime Minister Yingluck needs to demonstrate to the world that she supports the democratic principle that brought her to power.

The only valid reason that could vindicate the decision to ban Sam Rainsy, or anyone else from any other country, is that their words or actions here would involve or encourage the use of violence against the leadership of a neighbouring country. If that is not the intent, then they should be made welcome here and be able to exercise their freedom of speech, because this is what Thailand is supposed to stand for.