HUMAN RIGHTS defenders and civic groups yesterday vowed to push for more efforts to prevent the controversial Computer Crime Act from infringing on netizens’ freedom of expression.

“We have another six months after the Act is announced in the Royal Gazette to monitor ministerial orders coming in accordance with the Act,” Thai Netizen Network leader Sarinee Achavanuntakul said at a seminar yesterday on the outlook for Thailand.

The National Legislative Assembly passed the amendment to the Computer Crime Act this month and the law is pending royal endorsement before coming into force.

The rights groups hoped that related ministerial orders following the Act’s introduction do not infringe on the public’s right to freedom of expression and people’s right to access data.

Rights advocates called on the government and junta chief Prayut Chan-o-cha to listen to the people and opponents of the law. Opponents of the law launched a series of cyberattacks targeting a number of state agencies’ websites including those of the Armed Forces and the ministry.

The Ministry of Tourism and Sport will today hold a press conference to tell the public that it would take legal action against the perpetrator(s) of an attack on its website. Many other agencies also threatened to do so.

Five suspects were arrested for allegedly attacking government websites last week. The military will reportedly detain them for seven days before forwarding their cases for civilian prosecution.

At the seminar organised at Thammasat University’s Tha Phra Chan campus yesterday, the rights groups included representatives from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the Internet Law Reform Dialogue, Thai Netizen, the Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA), and the Society Online News Providers. NHRC commissioner Angkana Neelapaijit urged the government to be sincere and not to fear the people, also calling on Prayut to work with civic groups including opponents of the amendment to the Act.

She voiced concern that the law would not be enforced appropriately and may be abused as it allowed too broad an interpretation.

The law gives the power to a certain committee to regulate all websites, she said, in reference to the nine-member committee authorised by the law to block websites with content it considers harmful to the state’s security and public morality.

The law should not be used to only protect the state but also to protect individuals, Angkana said.

“If individuals are charged with violating the law without doing anything wrong but just expressing their opinions, the rest of their life would be in trouble,” she added.

Thitirat Thipsamritkul, a law lecturer at Thammasat, said the powers that be should not design and enforce the law in order to limit the freedom of the online society.

“What kind of online society do we want to see?” Thitirat asked. He further asked: “Does Thailand want to be a society where people could not access information that should be available to an open society which encourages people with different opinions to discuss a wide range of topics?”

The Act, including nine digital-related laws, which have been passed and are pending the NLA’s deliberation, set the tone for a limited online society, she said.

The Act does not abide by the three legal principles: respond to the public’s need, the need to limit the abuse of power and rights, and promote freedom of the online society, she said.

Yingcheep Atchanont, project manager of iLaw, said the Act was the most disconcerting of the 10 digital-related laws. A large number of people are concerned about the Act, he said, referring to the 360,000 netizens who signed an online petition against the Act via the website Change.org, which was ignored by the NLA.

Sarinee also called on the government to clarify to the public questions over the law based on facts rather than standard responses, referring to the government’s normal practice to respond to the argument by saying that the powers that be write the laws based on goodwill.