It's been over a week since the disappearance of Wanchalearm Satsaksit, an exiled Thai activist living in Cambodia, touched off a heated debate in Thai social media and beyond.
Mr Wanchalearm has been an ardent critic of the current government and its military predecessor; he fled the country in 2014 after the coup. Thai netizens say that could explain why he hasn't been seen since a black SUV pulled up outside his Phnom Penh apartment on June 4.
The most vocal critics allege the act was perpetrated by the Thai state itself. Since there's no evidence, it's all speculation at this stage.
Some senior Thai politicians have expressed puzzlement, saying Mr Wanchalearm was a bit player in the dissident movement and not a threat. But they should not dismiss the case as non-essential. After all, it calls into question their respect for fundamental principles of human rights.
Isn't every citizen entitled to the protection of their country? Failing to even show concern in this case will make our leaders look like hypocrites the next time they mention human rights in an international forum.
The seeming lack of interest from both the Thai and Cambodian governments is disturbing. A Cambodian police spokesman last week cast doubt on talk of an abduction but said the force "will investigate whether this information is true or not". Such nonchalance has sparked a public outcry.
The Wanchalearm case has also exposed other disturbing features of modern online discourse. In recent days, some celebrities have been metaphorically lynched. Not for expressing their stance, but for not uttering a word.
Among them was actress Praya Lundberg, the face of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Thailand, an organisation that netizens say should be speaking up for exiled dissidents. But she has faced backlash for defending her decision not to speak out about a case she deems "political".
In a country where intolerance of different opinions is growing worse, to speak or not to speak is a big issue. Speaking out could cost us opportunity and advancement. For me, freedom of speech also means freedom not to speak. Either way, there should be no retaliation.
For the angry public, I think there's a better way to channel our anger for positive change. Hear me out.
The environment of fear is plaguing Thai society. Human rights and pro-democracy activists have endured intimidation for years, and not only in Thailand. Enforced disappearance as a tool of states to get rid of their opponents is on the rise in Asia, says the Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearance (AFAD).
Of the 43,250 such cases in 88 countries under active consideration by the UN in 2014, Sri Lanka alone accounted for a staggering 5,676. In Thailand, the UN has recorded 82 enforced disappearance cases since 1980.
Just last year, two corpses found disembowelled and stuffed with concrete in the Mekong River were later identified as Thai dissidents. The disappearance of the lawyer and rights activist Somchai Neelapaijit 16 years ago is no closer to being solved. And just recently, prosecutors backed away from laying murder charges against those suspected of having killed Karen activist Porlajee "Billy" Rakchongcharoen and burning his body in an oil drum.
These cases are only the tip of the iceberg. Those who speak out and dare oppose powerful forces risk various forms of retaliation, with enforced disappearance the ultimate tool.
Thailand signed the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED) in 2012 but has yet to ratify the international agreement or issue the relevant domestic law. The cabinet sent a draft to Parliament last July, but without public pressure, it may languish again. A law will allow families to seek help from courts and bring criminal charges against perpetrators and collaborators.
We can channel our anger into a force that compels the government to finally act on the issue of enforced disappearance. Even if we cannot give the families the closure they need, at least they can rest assured that their losses were not in vain.
Having a concrete criminal law may deter malign actors from using enforced disappearance against their opponents, and safeguard society from the forces that are trying to curtail freedom of expression.
This will contribute to a culture in which people can speak out without having to fear or resort to self-censorship. All of this will ultimately lead to a healthier democracy.