Meanwhile, the Thai Netizen Network, which co-lodged a petition endorsed by 300,000 internet users against the bill draft, said that it was normal for the public to give their opinion in political arenas, especially concerning laws that could curb freedom of expression during election campaigns.

The petition raised concerns that the bill could pose a threat to rights and privacy. It was submitted to the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) a day before members’ final consideration of the draft bill, and was eventually approved with minor changes.

The passing caused an online uproar and has been followed by threats to disable government websites, mainly provoked by a Facebook page “Single Gateway: Thailand Internet Firewall #opsinglegateway”, which often blamed the new bill for centralising authority control over online content in Thailand.

The page also claimed that it has been successful in calling for attacks against official websites.

According to the source, the Army website and its finance department were hit by “denial of service” attacks more than 200,000 and 100,000 times respectively, causing its Cyber Centre to monitor potential online threats.

“We’ve already blocked input/output processes of those websites,” the source said. “Since they [have] a self-defence system, those attacks caused no harm at all.”

The attacks were from the hacktivist group Anonymous, the source claimed. The group was also said to be affiliation with the anti-Single Gateway page.

The source suspected that the action was an attempt to damage the junta. “They drag people in to cause stirs. They use people’s rights and freedoms as conditions,” the source said. “Nothing is ever done for free.”

Arthit Suriyawongkul, coordinator of the Thai Netizen Network, said that the petition was part of a political agenda but only because public engagement is normal in a democratic regime.

“We don’t know if our movement will be related to the election,” Arthit told The Nation. “However, this bill draft is likely to pose stronger threats against people of different opinions than its preceding 2007 bill.”

During pre-referendum periods, people were caught spreading content that authorities considered to be distorted, an act prohibited by the referendum bill. Most of the people convicted spread content against the charter draft.

The ban against distortion is now written into the Computer Crime bill, Arthit said. “This could be unsafe for the future election. With such prohibition, how could parties carry out campaigns and discuss [issues] without fear of breaking laws?”

Arthit also said that people’s rights and freedoms cannot be used as conditions but are already endorsed in the constitution. “Whoever is making such claims seriously distorts the facts,” he said.