Whose ‘communication sovereignty’ are we protecting?

Thai regulators argue for more controls, when what is needed is better education

The Thai people are under threat of being fed lies and being wrongly influenced, and the country is at risk of losing control over its communication channels.

For the safety of the nation’s naïve and impressionable populace, the government must fortify homegrown (read state-operated) communications and information media, lest the Thai people begin forming opinions.

Surely, the proper protection would not be developing some level of information literacy?

AM Thanapant Raicharoen, speaking as a commissioner of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC), sounded the alarm this past week, declaring that Thailand must enhance its “communication sovereignty” as soon as possible.

His concern is that with technology platforms allowing for the circumvention of traditional communication channels, Thailand’s “national interests” are at risk of being compromised by miscommunication, misunderstanding and deliberate deception.

Pointing to scam centres, online fraudsters and cyber criminals, AM Thanapant made the rather incongruous statement that “threats to national security have evolved far beyond conventional military confrontations”.

The commissioner’s call definitely deserves serious consideration. In an era of cyber warfare and threats based in misinformation campaigns, the government cannot ignore the vulnerabilities that arise from having foreign entities exerting control over information circulated in Thailand.

Yet there is another danger that deserves equal attention. When does communication sovereignty become counterproductive to information democracy?

National security

The argument for communication sovereignty, as presented by AM Thanapant, is framed in terms of national security. Foreign-owned social media platforms, messaging applications and cloud services are portrayed as strategic risks. The fear is that public opinion could be manipulated by outside actors, sensitive data could be exposed and the nation could lose control over critical infrastructure.

However, when discussions move from protecting infrastructure to controlling the flow of information, the line between sovereignty and censorship becomes increasingly blurred.

“If global operators are able to provide end-to-end communications services directly to consumers, countries may gradually lose influence over key layers of their digital ecosystem,” AM Thanapant declared.

It’s an argument that seems airtight in a vacuum.

However, in a world where social media has proven consequential during times of government oppression, or at the very least has served as a useful tool for public oversight, that remark can be read as the state wishing to maintain the systems that allow for an imbalance of power.

A democratic society thrives not because information is perfectly controlled, but because information is openly available and can even be contested. Citizens are exposed to competing viewpoints, conflicting interpretations and uncomfortable facts.

Ultimately, the factor most in need of protection is the ability of everyday citizens to interpret and analyse information.

Unlikely as it may be that a Thai government would concede this, the best immunisation against manipulation should be critical thinking ability, not better controls on input.

Information control

The call for communication sovereignty assumes that citizens require protection from harmful information. This assumption reads as well-intentioned, but it also takes for granted that the governments and institutions involved are solely intent on defending the people from malicious messages.

A society that relies primarily on information controls risks creating a population that remains vulnerable whenever those controls fail. Investing in media and information literacy develops citizens who can evaluate sources, identify manipulation and make informed judgements.

Alongside the three strategies proposed by AM Thanapant — accelerating the development of domestic digital capabilities, appropriate governance frameworks for communication channels, and deeper regional cooperation — Thailand needs to add enrichment of its own people’s critical thinking capability.

The strongest defence against being misinformed is not stricter control. It is being informed.