Internet Politics in Thailand after the 2006 Coup
107
Ambivalence and Indifference
In contrast to the stance and strategies taken by NGOs and activists, key institutional
bodies responsible for human rights in Thailand are not only slow in responding to
complaints about impediments to freedom from enforcement of the new computer
law, but they have also been ambivalent in the face of l è se-majest é and the protection
of national security. According to the chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), a post-1997 reform independent organization, the MICT ’ s Internet
blocking is a new challenge for many organizations, including NHRC. There are still
few complaints at NHRC about Internet fi ltering as a violation of the freedom of
expression — compared to other more pressing issues such as exploitation of natural
resources, abuse of power, and governmental malpractice. The complicated nature of
the Internet has also contributed to Thai institutions ’ limited understanding of the
seriousness of the situation.
The NHRC usually refers ICT-related complaints, including online blocking, to the
National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), an independent telecommunications regulator and now interim regulator of broadcasting. While acknowledging that
violations of freedom do exist on the Internet, the NHRC also admitted they lack the
necessary technical and legal expertise to deal with the problem.
Apart from the NHRC, another avenue where people can address Internet fi ltering
issues is through human-rights-related commissions attached to the House of
Parliament and the Senate. However, an interview with one chairperson of such a
commission — the House commission on human rights, freedom, and consumer
protection — revealed a rather conservative stance. Absolute freedom, this person
argued, can threaten national security, especially when it involves the monarchy. The
reverence of the monarchy, he stressed, is unique to Thai society and shall not be
compromised at any cost. In this light, the new computer crime law is a justifi ed effort
by the government to properly regulate Internet use by balancing freedom of expression with national security. The chairperson feels that the judicial system is always
open for online civil rights groups to tap if the rights to communicate and freedom
of expression online are violated by the law.
Conclusion
At a glance, the politics of Internet fi ltering in Thailand may only refl ect the larger
political struggle between pro- and anti-Thaksin forces or between pro- and antimonarchy forces. But a closer examination yields another type of politics beyond the
dominant color-coded politics. This politics of the Thai Internet code involves a subtle
relationship between different elements in the regulation of Thai cyberspace.
107
Ambivalence and Indifference
In contrast to the stance and strategies taken by NGOs and activists, key institutional
bodies responsible for human rights in Thailand are not only slow in responding to
complaints about impediments to freedom from enforcement of the new computer
law, but they have also been ambivalent in the face of l è se-majest é and the protection
of national security. According to the chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), a post-1997 reform independent organization, the MICT ’ s Internet
blocking is a new challenge for many organizations, including NHRC. There are still
few complaints at NHRC about Internet fi ltering as a violation of the freedom of
expression — compared to other more pressing issues such as exploitation of natural
resources, abuse of power, and governmental malpractice. The complicated nature of
the Internet has also contributed to Thai institutions ’ limited understanding of the
seriousness of the situation.
The NHRC usually refers ICT-related complaints, including online blocking, to the
National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), an independent telecommunications regulator and now interim regulator of broadcasting. While acknowledging that
violations of freedom do exist on the Internet, the NHRC also admitted they lack the
necessary technical and legal expertise to deal with the problem.
Apart from the NHRC, another avenue where people can address Internet fi ltering
issues is through human-rights-related commissions attached to the House of
Parliament and the Senate. However, an interview with one chairperson of such a
commission — the House commission on human rights, freedom, and consumer
protection — revealed a rather conservative stance. Absolute freedom, this person
argued, can threaten national security, especially when it involves the monarchy. The
reverence of the monarchy, he stressed, is unique to Thai society and shall not be
compromised at any cost. In this light, the new computer crime law is a justifi ed effort
by the government to properly regulate Internet use by balancing freedom of expression with national security. The chairperson feels that the judicial system is always
open for online civil rights groups to tap if the rights to communicate and freedom
of expression online are violated by the law.
Conclusion
At a glance, the politics of Internet fi ltering in Thailand may only refl ect the larger
political struggle between pro- and anti-Thaksin forces or between pro- and antimonarchy forces. But a closer examination yields another type of politics beyond the
dominant color-coded politics. This politics of the Thai Internet code involves a subtle
relationship between different elements in the regulation of Thai cyberspace.