The case for and against Nitirat

No "freedom fighter" can escape pillory, whether real or symbolic, deservedly or undeservedly.

Cynics may say that "punishment" is needed because it emboldens or even crystallises a cause. As far as the Nitirat members are concerned, the political hailstorm bombarding them may feel like rain that will hasten the growth of seeds of rebellion.

One thing that is not so clear about the defiant academics is whether their timing of provocations was intentional and well executed, or they were getting too far ahead of themselves. In other words, it's still hard to tell if the increasing opposition to the group will inadvertently stimulate the group's revolt, or grow to dwarf its controversial doctrine entirely.

As of now, Nitirat has radiated both positive and negative light. Supporters see courageous torch-bearers trying to chip away at taboo for democracy's sake. The group has sparked public debate on matters people would only whisper about a few years ago, and that alone is a great achievement if you cherish freedom of expression, regardless of which side of the political divide you are on.

Opponents and detractors see Thaksin Shinawatra in the background. That is enough for seeds of doubt to grow wild. Even some of those thinking Nitirat is probably doing the right thing suspect that it may be for the wrong reason.

Here are the presumed assets and liabilities of Nitirat, a fearless movement with an ideal or a clueless group that ignores its roots, depending on your point of view:

They break a taboo and make possible a debate on a subject that is undeniably important to the country's future. Angry reaction to their proposals brought ultra-sensitive issues to the surface. It's up to society to address them in a civilised manner.

Nitirat is proposing major surgery on an extremely weak patient: Thai society. It's good for democracy to break taboos, but there are times and places for everything. The group has been dubbed unpatriotic by those who think it is belittling the value of key institutions, while in fact its total disregard for the poor state of a badly-divided society is more worrisome.

To try to send a stern message to the 2006 coup-makers is justifiable. Nitirat's most original question was somewhat legitimate. Theft is bad, but should we kill a thief at every opportunity? If Thaksin was corrupt, did staging a coup make things worse for Thai politics? If a coup is worse than Thaksin, shouldn't we do something - like legally erasing all its consequences - to deter generals with similar ambitions in the future?

To pay no attention to political ills that give pretexts to coups belies "good intention". To Nitirat, it almost sounds like coups are bad and everything else is good. The group's assertion that Thaksin could be held accountable in a normal democracy for his alleged corruption lacks an answer to the question "How?" To add to this line of criticism, the only tangible benefits of "erasing consequences of the 2006 coup" involve Thaksin and his assets. It's practically no use revoking the dissolution of pro-Thaksin parties or the five-year ban on pro-Thaksin politicians, whose "punishment" (or persecution if you will) has almost run its course.

Nitirat's campaign is an exercise in fundamental rights. True democracy respects minority opinions, even controversial ideologies. What is the point of democracy, anyway, if the "majority" decides everything? The group is not being popular with its proposals, but it's advocating an ideology. If we were in their position, we would want to be able to do the same thing.

It's hot in "the kitchen", so get out of it. When you tear apart other people's beliefs, faiths or opinions, it's freedom of expression. When it's vice versa, it's a "witch-hunt". Nitirat lacks maturity - some may say open-mindedness. To describe the opposition to its ideas as a "conspiracy" raises questions about Nitirat's leaders' attitude to opinions that are different from theirs.

The monarchy will benefit from constructive debate on its role in a new world. Time’s changed. This apparent cliche works both for and against Nitirat. To the group's credit, even some of its most vocal critics can't deny that reform could do Thailand's revered institution more good than harm, and that it's people like these hardliners who stick their necks out and kick-start the process. Thailand has come a long way since the days of absolute monarchy, but when heavy jail terms are still handed down for "expressions" of discontent, there should be room for "improvement".

Time's changed. In this new world, no grassroots is enslaved or heavily-taxed or recruited against its will to serve the monarchy. On the contrary, palace properties, brainpower and human resources have been considerably mobilised to serve the poor and underprivileged. Generally speaking, anti-monarchy leanings don't get you thrown out of district offices, or lead to poor service at restaurants, or mean your home is wiretapped. For cases not so "general", while some people have received shocking jail sentences, others have found their way to universities, fame, job satisfaction, or even a comfortably living out of anti-monarchy inclinations. Most importantly, while reform could benefit the monarchy, the institution is not responsible for the real ills weakening this country. Corruption, local mafias, "addiction" to bribery "from childbirth to funerals", drugs and contempt for the laws are the real causes of great misery in this country. None of them has anything to do with the monarch's inability to veto a law, or Constitution, or decide who's prime minister, interior minister or education minister. It's a priority and timing question. Nitirat has failed to demonstrate concrete reasons why its divisive campaign is of the most urgent importance while society is plagued with bigger problems warranting immediate attention.

If not now, when? Nitirat and sympathisers are asking this question.

Under the circumstances, when is less important than why now. The other side argues.