Blowing a whistle as a symbol of protest or civil disobedience is not just trendy in the current tense political climate, it has also become a contentious legal issue.
Speaking on the "Prime Minister Meets the People" programme last Saturday, Social Development and Human Security Minister Paveena Hongsakul referred to the anti-government protesters’ blowing of whistles at some ministers as a "form of violence".
I looked up two dictionaries to find out the exact definition of violence in case Ms Paveena might have misunderstood the meaning of the word.
The Oxford Dictionary says violence is behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage or kill someone or something. In legal terminology, the same dictionary says it means the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.
Vendors enjoy brisk sales of whistles at the anti-government protest on Ratchadamnoen Av. Photo by Thiti Wannamontha
Wikipedia defines violence as an intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group of persons or community which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.
Then on Monday, Department of Special Investigation (DSI) chief Tarit Pengdith issued a stern warning that any protester who harassed any government official, including DSI officials, by blowing a whistle at them would face criminal charges in accordance with Sections 370 and 397 of the Criminal Code.
Mr Tarit also instructed DSI officials to take photos of the whistle blowers with their smart phones, to be used as evidence against them in the court.
Section 370 says that anyone who unreasonably causes a deafening sound that causes public panic or disturbance is liable to a fine of 100 baht. Section 397 says anyone who subjects someone to shame is liable to a fine of 1,000 baht and/or one month’s imprisonment.
Mr Tarit appears serious about his warning. He said that his warning was intended to awaken the conscience of the protesters so they stop blowing whistles against ministers and officials.
So far, three ministers or their assistants have been harassed by whistle blowers. They are Education Minister Chaturon Chaisaeng, Deputy Prime Minister Plodprasop Suraswadi and health vice minister Prasit Chaiwirattana.
Mr Tarit might have misread the mind-set of the protesters. They blow their whistles with a sound conscience, in the belief they that they are doing the right thing to protect national interests against all the crooks in the government and the parliament.
Moreoever, the deafening sound of the whistles is intended to awaken the conscience of the likes of Mr Tarit to the need to perform their duties honestly and properly in the interests of the people and not in the interests of certain individuals.
As for Section 397 of the Criminal Code that Mr Tarit threatened to invoke against whistle blowers, the alleged offender is liable to punishment only if the targeted person is shamed as a result of the whistle blowing. The question is, since the victim is not ashamed at all to break the law, or is in the service of a crook, how can he or she be shamed by the sound of a whistle?
Maybe Mr Tarit should treat whistle blowing by the protesters as a special case, so that his staff can devote their full time to investigating these cases and ensure they nail all of them.