Today I was tremendously affected by things that I saw, so much so that I was at a loss for words. First, in the morning, I saw the Facebook status of a former student of mine. My former student harshly condemned Professor Piyabutr Saengkanokkul and linked to a photo of him from Thai Post newspaper. When I scrolled down, the comments included only further condemnation, including calls to actually harm Professor Piyabutr.

The second thing that affected me today was the news that the first-year student at Thammasat University whose pseudonym is “Kan Thoop” (“Joss Stick”) was summoned by the police in relation to violation of Article 112.  The summons is based on a complaint that was made in 2010. Kan Thoop herself has already been severely affected by the complaint, with two universities refusing to allow her to matriculate as a student. Most recently, at the end of last year, ASTV and Manager viciously publicized her real name, personal information and stories about her.

I am speaking about a “danger” or “a scary thing” worse than Article 112.

On it’s own, Article 112 is not too terrifying, if the person who files the complaint and the justice system proceed forthrightly in line with the true “meaning” of the words “defame, insult, threaten.” But what arises in the current witch hunt atmosphere and in the justice system is that we are unable to clearly “differentiate” between what is defaming, insulting and threatening, what is the expression of feelings or child-like “trolling,”  and what is sincere criticism for the public good.

When someone files a complaint, the police do not dare to refuse to proceed. When the police send the file to the prosecutor, he has to send it to the court, because the prosecutor himself does not want to take responsibility in a “delicate” matter like this. Once the case makes it to the court, it is difficult for the “victims” to survive (In the case of “Ah Kong,” given that the proof was “not beyond  doubt,” many people thought be would be spared, but he was not. Instead, he was punished even more severely than seemed conceivable.)

It seems as though “anyone at all” is permitted to go file a complaint. Those who do not like different political opinions or stances, those who do not like different colors, or those who are “ultra-royalists” -- whatever the reason, they can go file a complaint.

Article 112 has become the instrument of  “anyone at all,” and anyone like that possesses a very frightening method of thinking.

For example, the majority of those who posted attacks on Facebook about Professor Piyabutr are youth of the new generation.  They live a life that is fully free with respect to eating, drinking, going out, shopping, etc.  You could say that in sum, their way of life holds freedom from old-style conventions.

But freedom like that tends to come automatically or naturally arises from the permeation of the values of living modern life in society from films, dance, fashion, internet media, etc. It does not come from challenging established thinking, or result from a culture of asking questions, analyzing and criticizing until thought crystallizes. Living a life of freedom that comes automatically and naturally like that is far preferable to a life of old, Thai-style conventions. Even if there were numerous “Rabiabrats”(1), how could they regulate the lives of the new generation? There is no way that they could succeed.

I cannot blame new generation for living a life of freedom. Still, this enhanced life should make people learn to be more responsible for their own lives. Yet I want to offer the observation that a life of freedom in which the freedom has not come from challenging established thinking, or resulted from a culture of asking questions, analyzing and criticizing until thought crystallizes, makes it seem like the lives of the new generation are very, very free. So when they are faced with the problem of “political freedom,” which is freedom that has to be understood in relation to  challenging established thinking and a culture of asking questions, analyzing and criticizing until thought crystallizes, it becomes apparent that the new generation does not get it.  They do not get the meaning and “value” of political freedom at all. They do not get what is the “problem” or the “obstacle” in the way of democratization.

Consequently, they then attack people like Professor Piyabutr, people who come out to fiercely assert political freedom on behalf of all people, including them.  They then pursue a witch hunt, claiming “warped thinking.” The claim comes out by rote, as if they are mynah birds.

Does the new generation love the life of freedom? Certainly they do. Without doubt, they do not want anyone to force to them to live their life in a particular way. But what if you ask if they love “political freedom”? This is where there is a problem. The phenomenon of the Cyber Scouts, the witch hunt atmosphere, and the tendency to repetitively cite the existence of “warped thinking” like mynah birds have been readily absorbed and accepted by the new generation.  All this indicates support for an assault on “political freedom” that is concerning.

What this reflects is the culture of learning and way of life inside the fenced-in university and/or the official education system.  The system does not foster “citizens” who love political freedom. Yet instead inculcates citizens to love and appreciate other things. They then allow these other things to become more important than the political freedom of the people. Until those things come to be cited, again and again, as the reason to kill the people who come out to demand political freedom. 

The danger, or that which is scarier than Article 112, is therefore the inability to appreciate the meaning and value of political freedom combined with the ever-present readiness to use all means to attack those who come out to demand or assert political freedom.

Today, I had a conversation with an American professor who is a work colleague of mine (he speaks Thai well). He said something worth thinking about -- “Every society has issues that are, more or less, fraught with peril. When people come out to raise questions or offer analysis on these issues, they should be supported rather than condemned.”

I have watched the media, intellectuals, and other prominent individuals offer analysis that the call to reform Article 112 and amend the Constitution is a “time bomb,” so to speak, that may create political conflict and violence in 2012. My sense is that if we are more “responsible” than those who offer this kind of analysis, and bring a reasoned, thoughtful, carefully detailed proposal comprising various views, there will not be further conflict and violence.

Do we have the courage to raise questions about or offer analysis about an issue that poses all-around risks of political conflict and violence today?

Why does the mainstream media fail to report the voices of those who are courageous enough to do so, such as Professor Somsak Jeamteerasakul, who insists on the “principles” of democracy and explains the fundamental “problem points” of democratization in a direct and logical fashion? When the other side claims that this is “warped thinking,” the mainstream media is ready to be their “mouthpiece.” 

This is another kind of terror.  It is terror that results from the voice of principle and reason lacking a “mouthpiece,” while the mainstream press is ready to give voice to the claim that this is “warped thinking.” Members of the new generation who love their lives of freedom but do not recognize the value of political freedom are led along easily, like a flock.

Issues that were similarly perilous in the 19th century make the “mouthpieces” of the second decade of the 21st century “afraid” to reflect the voices of  principle and reason that assert political freedom and democratization. 

This is the “fear that is frightening” beyond belief in our times!

Note:
(1) “Rabiabrat” refers to Rabiabrat Pongpanich, a former senator from Khon Kaen province known for her harsh, public criticisms of behavior and clothing that she sees as transgressions of what she (narrowly) identifies as Thai values and culture.

Translated by Tyrell Haberkorn.