Following a call for applications in late 2023, the Article 112 Project is supporting six mini-research projects. See below for the projects and online public presentations!
1. The 2020-2021 Thai Youth-Led Movement and Its Influence on Freedom of Expression Regarding the Monarchy
Sataphat Silsawang, National Chengchi University
Arnon Nampa, a human rights lawyer and pro-democracy activist, once expressed that “The youth protest created a phenomenon that has changed Thailand to the point of no return…I believe that the people are becoming more confident in their freedom and equality and are ready to transform the country to be more progressive (Reuters, 2023)”. In light of this statement, my research project aims to address two fundamental questions: 1) How does the movement disseminate a new public discourse concerning freedom of expression related to the monarchy? and 2) To what extent does this public discourse raise awareness among the people?
To comprehensively answer these inquiries, the research employs a mixed-methods approach, integrating both qualitative and quantitative methods. It includes semi-structured interviews conducted with activist groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) advocating for freedom of expression. These interviews explore recurring patterns, thematic elements, strategies, and challenges. The data collected from these interviews will also shed light on the effectiveness of the public discourse by examining changes within the organizational structure of these groups, such as membership growth and increased public engagement. Additionally, social media analysis will be employed to leverage numerical data obtained from social media keywords and trends, providing valuable insights into the dissemination of this new public discourse during and after the 2020-2021 movement.
The research assumes that the movement significantly contributed to both cultural change and heightened awareness of freedom of expression in Thai society.
2. Freedom of Expression vs Privacy Rights: A Comparative Study of Thai and Chinese Laws in the Context of Facebook’s Notice and Takedown Measures in Thailand
Peeyakorn Leankattava, Ramkhamhaeng University
This paper by LEANKATTAVA Peeyakorn* examines the intricate relationship between freedom of expression, privacy rights, and the challenges faced by internet intermediaries like Facebook in Thailand and China. The study focuses on legal frameworks and the difficulties these intermediaries encounter, particularly concerning content censorship and privacy issues.
In Thailand, the focus is on the freedom of expression within the Computer-Related Crimes Act of 2007 and its 2017 amendment, especially during the 2017 and 2020 political crises. It discusses the Thai government’s requests to Facebook for post takedowns under Article 112, the lese-majeste law, and the implications of the Prachatai case, which might set precedents for similar instances involving Facebook.
In contrast, the paper delves into China’s unique regulatory environment regarding privacy and data protection laws, highlighting their effects on the operations of internet platforms.
The paper concludes that social media platforms, adhering to the mere-conduit principle, should avoid undue responsibility for content monitoring and censorship. This stance is crucial to preserve a balance between freedom of expression and privacy rights, considering technological limitations and the impracticality of monitoring all posts.
*SJD student at Koguan Law School Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU), Shanghai, China, fully-funded by Chinese Government and Lecturer at faculty of Law, Ramkhamhaeng University, Bangkok, Thailand. I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Dr. SHEN Wei, my supervisor during my SJD studies at SJTU, for his invaluable inspiration, motivation, and support. Additionally, I extend my thanks to the Article 112 Project in the Justice in Southeast Asia Lab at The University of Wisconsin–Madison for their funding support.
3. Platform advocacy and social media’s accountability to freedom of expression in Thailand
Mai Van Tran, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Global platforms, such as Facebook, TikTok, and Twitter, have faced widespread criticisms for failing to tackle authoritarian censorship, especially in the Global South. Current scholarship on digital media in Thailand has highlighted both the platforms’ vulnerability to authoritarian abuse as well as the government’s effort to directly regulate online content. In response, human rights advocates have launched multiple advocacy efforts toward the Thai government as well as the foreign platforms to defend free speech. Some directly called on the platforms to engage with local civil society representing vulnerable users, provide more user-friendly appeal options, or resist the government’s overbroad removal requests. Despite the varying forms and effects of these transnational advocacy efforts, there lacks research that systematically examines their dynamic. Hence, this research aims to analyze how civil society advocacy might affect the tech giants’ practice to defend free speech in Thailand, based on original interviews and social media data. Together, the evidence will demonstrate achievements and challenges in the advocacy efforts that urged the social media platforms to adopt a human-rights based content moderation practice.
Peeyakorn Leankattava and Mai Van Tran’s presentations are now available online:
4. The Price of Freedom: Lèse-majesté Persecutions and the Politics of Bailing in Thailand
Khorapin Phuaphansawat and Puangchon Unchanam, Chulalongkorn University and Naresuan University
In recent years, the Thai court has become more political. It has arbitrarily used the lèse-majesté laws to persecute more than 262 defendants in 287 cases. This is a reaction against the protest movement that had been mobilized nationwide during 2020-2021. Breaking the kingdom’s biggest taboo, the movement criticized the King, royal power, and royal wealth in explicit manners and demanded a reform of the monarchy. Besides the unprecedented numbers of cases and victims, what distinguishes the recent wave of lèse-majesté persecutions is the way the court handles the question of bail granting. In the past, almost all lèse-majesté defendants were likely to be imprisoned since an early stage of investigation and they were constantly denied bail. Recently, in contrast, most lèse-majesté defendants have been granted bail.
This research examines the politics of bailing in Thailand’s lèse-majesté cases. Instead of following international standards, the rising trend of granting bail should be considered a political tactic of the court to maintain the kingdom’s persecutions of disloyal subjects. In spite of granting bail more frequently, the court sets the conditions of securing bail so high that ordinary people cannot reach. This new approach is supposed to make bailing unaffordable for most lèse-majesté defendants. Despite this high “price” for freedom, this research reveals, the monarchy reform movement and several civic associations manage to “buy” freedom for most defendants. This research will focus on their fundraising and examine its role as a form of resistance against the power of the court and the crown.
Khorapin Phuaphansawat and Puangchon Unchanam’s presentation is now available online:
5. Lese Majeste Law: Continuity and changes in repression by law against Thailand pro-democracy movement 2014-2021
Manita Noosawat, Chiang Mai University
Article 112 of Thailand’s criminal code, or Lese Majeste Law, has been perceived as the most oppressive tool for suppressing political opposition. After the 2014 military coup, the use of the law against political protesters was a prominent approach enforced by NCPO. Article 112 returned more severe and suppressive political repression during 2020-2021; even though, NCPO’s rule ended in 2019.
What makes the use of Article 112 against pro-democracy protesters become more suppressive in recent years? Conventional studies on, e.g., law, social movements, and political sciences, explain repression by law, focusing on a mechanism for repression, the impacts of using law against social movements, and the influence in forms of political regime that determines state repression. Nevertheless, those studies lack explanations for motivation and changes in adopting repression by law during political transition periods.
The research aims to supplement this gap. Instead of technically analyzing the legal framework of Article 112, this qualitative research studies the use of Article 112 against pro-democracy movements from the NCPO’s rule (2014-2019) to Prayuth Chan-O-Cha’s government (2019-2021). It seeks to understand how the governments have used Article 112 to strengthen state repression in the political transitional periods, and what makes it has persisted. The research examines the influence of the military authority after the 2014 military coup on resolving political conflicts that shape state repression against pro-democracy movements. With emphasizing the idea of threats, enlarging repressive coordination and cooperation, and strengthening prosecution under the justice process, the use of Article 112 has been heightened intensively and sophisticatedly against young pro-democracy protesters during 2020-2021.
6. #WhyDoWeNeedAKing: A Discourse Analysis of Thailand’s Anti-Monarchy Hashtag Activism
Tracy Beattie, Australian National University
Thailand’s monarchy is constitutionally enthroned in a position of revered worship and protected by harsh lèse-majesté laws that restrict citizens from any form of critical expression. In recent years, however, the country’s discourse surrounding the monarchy has increasingly been transformed by young people engaging in hashtag activism on social media to break the royal silence.
In the online world, rights activists and youth groups are typing out hashtags to openly discuss the secrets and scandals of the royal family hidden behind closed palace doors for over a century. Between 2020 and 2023, #ReformTheMonarchy, #ShatterThePalace, #Abolish112, #RepublicOfThailand, #DownWithTheChakriDynasty and #PleaseEnjoyTaxPayersMoney were among the highest trending hashtags online, used in millions of posts to voice resentment against the monarchy. The hashtag #WhyDoWeNeedAKing, one of the earliest displays of anti-monarchy sentiment, was shared more than 1.2 million times in 24 hours. It delved into sensitive topics, including vast royal wealth, disgraced royal consorts, poolside birthday parties, mysterious family deaths, and human rights violations. Local observers have deemed this open criticism ‘the first of its kind in Thai history.’
Such activism wields significant power in redefining and undermining the draconian effects of royal defamation in Thailand. While authorities have attempted to curb online dissent through extrajudicial measures, they have not deterred young people from risking their livelihoods to reform the monarchy in a way that is compatible with modern society. The transformative potential of hashtags demonstrates that understanding online discourse is crucial for a broader analysis of Thailand’s political situation and its future developments.
Manita Noosawat and Tracy Beattie’s presentations are now available online: