Last week's biggest news-making event was the two-hour Facebook Live interview with a young businessman drawing major political attention. Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit made waves, to the point that the junta issued a warning. It sent out Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam, its civilian legal expert. He claimed Mr Thanathorn might have been "crossing the line" between legal speech and the ban on political discussion.
Threats against the suddenly popular auto-parts executive aside, Mr Wissanu's warning actually exposes a key blemish and possible danger to the ruling National Council for Peace and Order. There arguably was a reason for the ban on outright political speech -- in 2014. Passions were high, streets were blocked, there was violence and there were deaths as the waves of rhetoric rose higher. The key, immediate reason for the May 22, 2014, coup was to regain order in the streets and civility for everyone.
That occurred almost instantly. The junta has kept the ban on political speech for extremely controversial and arguably illegal reasons. Its own 2016 constitution legalises all speech. It makes no distinction about the type of speech. The ruling military group now justifies its ban on political speech under a codicil of the constitution's Section 34. That exception states that speech can be outlawed if it endangers state security or public order.
So this is where we must be clear. Mr Thanathorn's Facebook Live interview was a week ago. Since then, no person has raised a hand in anger, no protests have resulted. The government of Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha is as secure as ever, and as safe to continue implementing all its policies. As the interviewee himself said during his Facebook Live encounter, it is time for all Thai people to "join hands and open a new door". Mr Wissanu could not or would not explain how such talk could in any manner appear to threaten the state or call for insurrection.
There is a second reason the junta should cashier its ban on political speech before it clashes openly with majority, public opinion. The regime is seen to be employing the same unfair, technically illegal and widely disrespected election rules it enforced hypocritically during the 2016 campaign for the referendum on the constitution. In short, most fair people believe military authorities encourage all campaigning that favours the junta and its leader, and discourages, intimidates or finally prosecutes those who differ with Gen Prayut's policies.
Registration of new parties opened on March 1. It escaped no astute observer that even before the Election Commission began taking applications, there was plenty of noise. It came pretty much exclusively from supporters of military rule, advocates of having an outsider prime minister instead of an elected person, and outright fans of Gen Prayut. It was notable, given Mr Wissanu's "crossing the line" warning, that every political speech, meeting and interview by parties that support the prime minister and military was judged completely legal.
It's clear to everyone -- possibly excepting Mr Wissanu -- that the popular Facebook interview granted by Mr Thanathorn was helpful. It threatened no one, although it contained honest criticism. Mr Thanathorn spoke of inclusion, not division. To try to intimidate political critics of the regime through public threats to Mr Thanathorn should not occur. More, they should stop.
It bears repeating than an election is not democracy, but democracy is impossible without an election. Even Prime Minister Prayut now recognises that delay is no longer an option, and there must be elections within a year. To get there, discussion is completely necessary. Today, it is clear the NCPO retains its ban on political speech for its own protection, not national security. That ban should be lifted immediately.
