IOs are real and need to be stopped

A surprising but welcome decision was made by the Court of Appeal this past week, which overturned part of a lower court ruling and ordered the Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc) to pay over 200,000 baht in compensation to human rights activists smeared online by a so-called information operation (IO).

The ruling has deservedly been hailed by many as historic, a rare occasion where a Thai court was seen siding with those critical of the state and, more importantly, holding a state apparatus accountable.

Even more significant, though, is the fact that the ruling can be taken as an acknowledgement that the IO practice is real.

That the court order did not lead to a larger conversation about a Thai governmental body engaging in a smear campaign against two citizens, employing underhanded tactics and using falsified information in an attempt to silence them, seems like a wasted opportunity.

The appellate court judge on Thursday said that Angkhana Neelapaijit, a former chair of the National Human Rights Commission, and Anchana Heemmina, founder of the rights group Duay Jai, were targeted by false news and that Isoc was liable for the damages they experienced.

The security agency was told to pay 120,000 baht in compensation to Ms Angkhana and 90,000 baht to Ms Anchana, plus interest, as well as to remove any offending content within seven days.

Such instructions support the conclusion that the IO carried out to intimidate and discredit the two activists was within the control of Isoc. If it did not actively will the operation, at the very least it allowed it to take place without intervention.

It is true that the security body has in the past admitted to maintaining information operatives, but the explanation has been that they are needed to combat disinformation, not disseminate it.

The latest development in this six-year-old case is just another undeniable argument that the country is in need of serious introspection as to the powers allotted to its official bodies, and the purposes for which those powers are being used.

In April, Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul himself ordered the investigation of another IO, this time aimed at Thapanee Eadsrichai, founder of the news outlet The Reporters.

The campaign against her emerged after she questioned the commander of the Fourth Army Area about possible military involvement in the attempted assassination of a Narathiwat MP known for speaking out against military abuses in the South.

Publicly accepting a petition from Ms Thapanee, the prime minister “acknowledged the issue” and even went as far as saying that the intimidation of journalists or citizens by state officials was not representative of the government’s wishes.

So, now we have the leader of the nation, along with one of its courts, conceding that information operations are a real practice. Yet, neither of these acknowledgements has led to much in the way of actually uprooting the practice.

The Bangkok Post already pointed out this lack of concrete action in May, when a similar series of events took place around the time of Ms Thapanee’s petition.

Can the latest court ruling be construed as a meaningful blow against the IO practice?

The reality is that 200,000 baht is a nominal fee to pay for an organisation that receives billions of baht in funding with little oversight, and there has yet been a clear directive that would end information operations outright.

Even if the crusade against Ms Angkhana and Ms Anchana has been halted, and the heat has been taken off of Ms Thapanee and The Reporters, the intended effect of the online smear campaigns against them was surely accomplished to a satisfying degree.

Their greater efforts to draw out truth and focus attention on issues that pose a genuine threat to Thailand were diverted, and they were, at least for a time, intimidated from their actions.

Much has been said by government officials about the need to end fake news, scam criminals and the miseducation of the Thai people, so the irony is clear that these same officials admit misinformation campaigns are being carried out for their interests.

Is it too much to ask then that the ruling against Isoc should trigger a deeper and more tangible review of information operations?

Perhaps before the country pours another 9 million baht into the Thai–Cambodian Joint Information Coordination Centre to “improve communication” and signs off on the next budget for Isoc, it could ensure that the messages put out by such agencies do not add to the discord.