Thailand's battle with youtube is finally over, but the freedom of speech war rages on

The battle is finally over and there are no winners. On one side, Thailand has once again been exposed as run by anachronistic bureaucrats, with little or no understanding of the technology they manage or the psyche of their own nation's young. In the other corner, youtube has lost Thai customers for many months.

It all started when a user with a Thai sounding name from America posted a bad, offensive and crudely edited video that was highly insulting to Thailand's king. Thailand's MICT (Ministry for Information and Communication Technology) immediately blocked the site and demanded youtube remove the clip.

Youtube staff initially refused, citing freedom of speech. Later, they reneged and agreed to remove the video although due to technical glitches the very first frame was still visible. Sadly, the google staff failed to understand just how pathetic Thailand's military junta can be and accidentally caused them loss of face by offering to "educate" MICT on how to block specific videos instead of an entire site.

Red faced, MICT continued to block the site and played up nationalistic sentiment by branding youtube as "bullying a small country like Thailand". Yes, that would be the military junta who raped democracy accusing the entrepreneur google group - who donate millions of dollars into poverty relief projects - of 'bullying'. MICT also "demanded" that the American ISP company "reveal" the identity of the user who had posted the video and, best of all, threatened to make their lese majeste laws extra territorial (i.e. applicable to anyone in any country).

Of course, while all this propaganda was going on, Thais were denied access to the site. A message would appear on screen saying the site was "a threat to national security". Meanwhile any user based in any other country could view the trashy video, and its viewer rating increased rapidly.

The propaganda continued. Thailand's MICT threatened to sue youtube. Various other web sites fell under the censor despite MICT chairman Sittichai stating his team had invoked far less censorship than its predecessor. Appearing at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand, Sittichai promised that youtube would return to Thailand in one week. He announced that he had requested new legislation that all internet censorship would require a court injunction. When confronted with a FACTTHAI reporter who produced reams of paper that listed the name of each web site blocked by MICT, Sittichai declared the list to be "wrong". That night, most difficult and critical questions were fired at Sittichai by fellow Thais.

Nothing changed. Youtube, anti - coup sites and some discussion forums remained blocked. After several weeks, the blocking message changed. It seemed that (perhaps to save face) the MICT requested legislation had indeed come into effect and MICT were no longer blocking web sites but now the censorship was (ahem) 'voluntary' censorship coming from the ISP's themselves!!! In my case the censorship was enforced by TOT, a state telecom company who happen to have army general Saprang as their chairman.

But just as I had given up on my sinful wish to see the questions posed to the candidates for American presidency or the blunder made at the Miss Teen USA parade by Lauren Caitlin Upton , my dreams were answered as youtube magically reappeared. It seems youtube (not MICT) designed new software systems to filter offensive material.

Still, nobody has come out looking good. The MICT and the entire junta have exposed their hypocritical and outmoded way of thinking. The junta are so used to censoring and intimidating anyone who disagrees with their view, they had no method of communication or debate with an agency they could not control.

And while youtube is the most prominent example, it is far from isolated. MICT (or rather now "voluntary" censorship by ISP's) is huge. Web sites can be blocked for any number of reasons, all of which are classed as "a threat to national security". Midnight University, a chat forum for Thai students, was closed down after it was critical of the coup in Thailand. Many sites remain blocked and others are falling victim to the censors each day.

Rather than articulating the feelings and passion of the Thai people, MICT responds to offensive content like a child sticking his fingers in his ears when he hears a noise he doesn't like. And by labelling google as "bullies" the junta made a big error. Google are renowned pioneers of charitable research. The irony of a junta in a developing country labelling google as "bullies" was not lost on onlookers. Neither was the dual irony of MICT's threat to enforce lese majeste laws worldwide after their own protests that people worldwide should respect Thai laws and culture.

The Nation (or maybe it was the Bangkok Post, I forget) also did not escape blame. Their cartoonist created a picture with an internet user being shouted at by a monster on the monitor screen. The monster was shouting something like: "I'm the WESTERN concept of freedom of speech! What that means is that I'm just here to be OFFENSIVE and VULGAR! You should admire me".

That cartoonist should look at himself. Would he have a job in a dynamic English language media industry in Thailand if it were not for "western" influence? Personally, I found his cartoon offensive on that partcular day. The difference is that I would never dream of trying to stop other people seeing it just because it upset me. Freedom of speech does include the right to say something others might not like to hear.

Of course, we should make critical comments with reason and articulation, something the youtube clip maker did not do. The video was disgraceful and designed to shock. But what I've always said about shock merchants is that they thrive and bank on attention to their actions. If I see a video highly offensive to the Queen of England, I would say "The person who made this is obviously an uneducated idiot who should be grateful he lives in a country where he can express his feelings" and forget it. If I made a great big protest about the video, threatened to sue the ISP and the hosting company and tried to enforce my own English laws on internet users in Somalia then I would be effectively drawing great attention to an unworthy internet clip.



It's worth pointing out too, that "freedom of speech" is not a "western" ideal simply because it (arguably) originated in the west. Freedom of speech is a wonderful concept that allows us to employ critical thinking, which is crucial to academic progress and therefore, the development and well being of a country.


Imagine this experiment: you take two groups of students who are all trained in economics. To the first group you say "I want you to design an economic model to aid the entire nation. However, you must ONLY think about the KEYNESIAN model. You are NOT allowed to criticise this model! You are BARRED from viewing information or statistics on welfare economics! Now go and do your best." To the second group you say simply: "Study what you like. Feel free to weigh up the merits and drawbacks of each model." Which group will produce the better model? Why?



I love Thailand. My son is Thai. But sometimes I wonder if Thai people really understand that in many ways, they are facing a culture clash. They want to be recognised as a major figure internationally. They want FTA's , Premier League football, big time cinema and all the comforts of modern technology and a free market. On the other hand, they also want to keep their traditional values and identity which is great and admirable. However, such values cannot be enforced on others , nor should they be pushed on all Thais without giving them the right to decide for themselves.

Like I said before , freedom of speech does not include freedom to shout "fire" in a theatre, but it does include the right to say things we sometimes don't like to hear.

Restrictions on freedom of speech are simply a form a thought control and involve a huge amount of power. Thailand must accept that if it wants to be a fore - player in the modern world, it must at least accept that other nations allow freedom of speech.

What's more, Thailand's powers that be should perhaps consider allowing Thai people to decide for themselves what is allowed to be said and thought about, rather than employing themselves as moral guardians and thought police for millions of people who never invited them to do so.

An evening with the man who banned youtube

To summarise my friend Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom in one word is a truly impossible task, but if forced to do so I would have to go with "bi-polar".

The man responsible for blocking one of the Internet's most popular web sites cuts a sober, almost sombre figure as he takes the stage at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand and begins to introduce himself.

The decorated professor cracks a series of self-effacing jokes that win favour with the farang dominated audience. Sitthichai waxes lightheartedly over his educational background, achievements in engineering and family life whilst jesting over his sex life, lack of hair, and most notably, Thai politicians and his own lack of ability at his current role.

Like most visitors I was caught off guard and somewhat disarmed by his seemingly genuinely amicable, almost innocent manner. Was this truly the man who had incurred so much criticism for banning web sites, describing the Internet as "not an exciting tool" and demanding that "Thailand should build its own computers to be truly proud"? Indeed it was.

As the night started in a friendly manner, Sitthichai dropped plenty of compliments to his hosts and reminded us that "I was warned it would be a tough night, I hope you will live up to it". So did I.

The questions began gently, as Sitticahi breezed over a question about the recent resignation of a TOT official and his allegation that military officials had demanded TOT fund a military project "It could have saved many lives" was Sitthichai's easy 'get out' clause on that one.

But before long, along came a reporter from my favourite paper, The Nation. "I'm sorry I address you only as 'Khun' and not 'Minister' but I can't acknowledge an illegitimate regime" began the reporter as he went on to question the anomaly between the number of web sites blocked as claimed by MICT, and the far higher figure quoted by the web site of my buddies facthai.com.

Sittichai claimed the facthai figures were old and inaccurate and pledged to allow the reporter to check for himself. The mood remained serene, but not for long.

Step forward Kitty from BK magazine. Kitty posed the question many had been waiting for: "There's so much more to youtube than a few offensive videos and there's more to the Internet than golf scores, what gives you the right to block it?".

Buoyed by his crowd pleasing jokes, Sitthichai made a misjudgement as quipped to young Kitty "When you grow up, you'll understand". Unfazed, Kitty replied: "Why do you have to make deemening jokes about me , or women or people's looks all the time?" to a round of applause from sections of the audience including me.

It had a notable effect on Sitthichai as - to his credit - he made a sincere apology. The crowd now seemed not quite so warm to him and he began to answer questions with more depth and seriousness. He explained "If I didn't block youtube, I'd be dead. I'd be lynched by the people" , before going on to pledge that "hopefully" youtube would be accessible within two weeks as Google had agreed to block individual offensive videos. When pinned for a promise by Kitty, who asked him four times over "What does 'hopefully' mean?", he said he would propose it to his cabinet next week.


Still the hostile questions were not done. A member of faccthai bravely presented Sitthichai with a list of blocked web sites taken from MICT apparently without their knowledge. The minister repeated his earlier claim that the list was old and outmoded.

The night went on with more lively and provocative questions. Sitthichai confessed that although his group claim to be more democratic than Thaksin's, they had not actually unblocked any of the fourteen thousand sites blocked by their predecessors. However, he went on record as saying he had proposed a bill that would forbid any government group to block web sites, in future it would have to be blocked by a court order.

Sitthichai also confirmed he owned no less than three hundred and twenty two rifles, and he "didn't care" which government came in after him. He was "not aware" of any online gambling sites but he did hope to see a fairer playing field for Internet and communications providers in Thailand. Throughout the night, Sitthichai confessed he didn't believe he was a good politician and he didn't feel it was his calling in life. He was an engineer and as such he believed in critical thinking and the pursuit of truth.

By the end of the night Sitthichai had indeed been met with a lot of questions and, to his credit, he ducked very few of them. As he repeated his apology to anyone that had been offended by his quips, the MICT minister took his exit and received a round of applause for his appearance.

Still, despite the provocative and lively questions fired throughout the evening, I felt few minds had been changed. From a personal point of view there was only one question that remained unasked: If Sitthichai so disliked politics, felt so strongly that it wasn't what he was good at and blocked web sites often against his own principles, why did the maverick scientist join hands with the junta in the first place?

Perhaps we'll never know.

Thailand Vs Google youtube

If there is a Thai equivalent to the old adage "There's no rest for the wicked", then Thailand's ruling junta must be asking themselves just how bad their karma is right now.

As if the escalating tensions between the junta and the PTV (see my previous blog) and various other anti-coup groups were not enough, eh? Protests are becoming more popular and various allegations of graft and abuse of power are doing the rounds. This being Thailand, it's very rare for anyone to actually be specific, simply because everybody has some blackmail on some one else so a typical allegation is simply "a man who recently came to power has been extorting the TV stations". Another popular allegation method is to use some silly epithet. For example: "Chinese older sister has been alluding to evade tax" and so on. The junta have made counter threats as thinly veiled as possible against protesters as well as suggesting they have all been sponsored by "ostracised politicians". All to no avail, protests continue.

It seems the old brass are not learning by error though. About one week ago, an appallingly badly made "movie" on youtube.com depicted pictures of HM The King accompanied by bad quality music slowly having some kind of lines drawn across the picture. It resembled the work of a maladjusted hermit. Had it been ignored, it would have faded away. But, in their infinite wisdom, the MICT or ICT (Ministry of Information and Computer Technology) decided to ban it.

Before we knew it the issue had mutated from a bad and vulgar but unpopular video to an international expose of insecurity, lese majeste and restrictions on freedoms in Thailand.

There was nothing new about this decision. ICT have been revelling in their self appointed role of purity guardians for a long time, and any of their staff will proudly quote the number of blocked sites as being well into the thousands. What was new this time around however was that the blocked site wasn't internal pornography or a local university website that dared to question the coup, this time the victim was a very popular international American nerd site. And of course, western nerds don't like being told what the hell to think.

After the usual tactic of denying responsibility didn't work out, the ICT accepted they had blocked the site and "demanded" youtube take down the video. Youtube initially refused but eventually succumbed -- presumably due to the drop in advertising revenue for the region -- and removed the offending "clip". However, the first frame (i.e. a still picture) remained viewable. The ICT continued the ban and again "demanded" that even the first frame go down. This time, a collectively vexed youtube issued a statement explaining they "will not assist censorship."



Having lost face, the ICT responded in the only sensible, modern and adult manner possible. Like a kid in the playground that doesn't want to admit he lost at marbles , the nation's moral thought police responded with "We were right, and to show we were right we'll ban more sites!". And indeed, the ICT made an official notice of more closures and official "warnings" to other sites. This time though, they played it safe and stuck to bullying Thai websites. The most popular Thai newspapers which print pictures of dead and mutilated bodies of woman and children on its cover almost every single day, remain non - samizdat.

The backlash against such censorship was inevitable and, in my opinion, self inflicted by the medieval level of incompetence and maladjustment by the ICT. Various other forms of disrespect to sacred Thai institutions have appeared on line and youtube have issued a statement offering to "educate" the ICT on how to block a specific video rather than an entire site. The offer appeared genuine but the stress placed on the word "educate" means a further loss of face to our juvenile minded moral guardians and , ergo, more tantrums and more censorship from Big Brother seems sure to follow.



The ICT represents a microcosm of Thailand's developmental conundrum. They want to be viewed as a modern, developed country with rich tradition, yet the rulers are neither modern nor developed. Their Jurassic beliefs that people will respond to cogency dictatorship and their embarrassing level of incompetence at communications censorship has bought nothing but problems for Siam. It smacks of insecurity and hidden agendas. What's more, it may prove to be ultimately self defeating. It seems that for the first time in a long time, Thais are actually starting to ask something to the effect of: "If people have nothing to hide, why are we not allowed to criticise them?" A good question indeed.

A bizarre cartoon and a silly reader's letter appeared in 'The Nation Thailand' today. The letter slated Google for its defence statement: "we also have videos mocking George Bush on our site". The writer stated "Effigies of Bush are burned across the world by those who revere the Thai king." I found this statement in condemnation of Google not only false, but bizarre. The writer seemed to be using the logic "If the person is already disrespected it's OK to do it on youtube, otherwise, it should be censored".

I suspect fanatics like this are the people who would most benefit from a dose of global reality and un - manufactured truth. Freedom of speech does not allow freedom to incite or encourage harm, but it most certainly does include freedom to say something we might not like.


One can only hope some good comes out of this. Some foolishly optimistic part of me hopes that the ICT will learn that not only is it wrong to tell people what to think, it's impossible. The more one is told not to peruse something, the more recalcitrant and curious they become. Sadly, the kindergarten mentality of ICT's "each time someone denies us we'll block more sites" response does not bode well. The temperature climbs.