Is Section 112 or the lese majeste law a kill or cure for the government when it comes to its Covid-19 vaccination plan?
Questions about the government's vaccine strategy and its effectiveness are likely to become more pronounced.
Globally, debates are robust about each vaccine's efficiency, whether it is possible to achieve herd immunity which will allow businesses to continue with currently available products, and which vaccination plan is best.
Here, however, we are caught in a strange association between Section 112 of the criminal code and Covid-19 vaccines which shouldn't even exist.
These two issues should not have met -- an arcane law aimed at protecting the monarchy dating as far back as 1908 and high-tech biotechnology aimed at protecting humanity from the highly contagious, novel coronavirus.
But they have in Thailand, and it seems to be an unfortunate event.
The government, through the Digital Economy and Society Ministry, last Wednesday filed a lawsuit against Progressive Movement leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit accusing him of defaming the monarchy and violating the computer crime act by publicising false information.
Mr Thanathorn, former leader of the Future Forward Party who was banned for extending loans to the party, released a Facebook livestream on Jan 19 in which he questioned the transparency of the government's Covid-19 vaccine procurement plan.
Most importantly, Mr Thanathorn criticised the government for being too reliant on a firm owned by the Crown Property Bureau, which is under the King's personal control.
Siam Bioscience was given a monopoly on the production of the Covid-19 vaccine developed by Oxford-AstraZeneca in a tech-sharing deal to secure 26 million doses for the Thai government worth six billion baht.
The bio-pharma company is wholly owned by the CPB through the Laddawan Fund.
Mr Thanathorn questioned why the government chose to pin its hopes only on the single manufacturer when six other candidates including the Government Pharmaceutical Organisation and BioNet Asia are available, which were included as potential partners in the national vaccine plan.
The national vaccine institute director said it was AstraZeneca that chose Siam Bioscience as it was the only firm capable of receiving the technology to make the vaccine locally.
In its lawsuit, the government claimed that Mr Thanathorn's 30-minute talk contained 11 instances which could be deemed insulting to the royal institution.
Since each charge is punishable by as many as 15 years in prison, Mr Thanathorn could be looking at 165 years in jail if convicted.
This is not unimaginable. The court last week sentenced a 63-year-old former civil servant to 43 and a half years in prison for sharing clips on social media of an online talk show which allegedly defamed the monarchy.
It was the harshest term for the controversial crime to date. Bail was also denied.
The government must believe that slapping Mr Thanathorn down with the threat of more than one hundred years of confinement will work in deterring further criticism.
Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha was clearly irked by Mr Thanathorn's attack.
He vowed to take legal action against "anything that is distorted and not factual" about the government's vaccination plan.
But he did not give any explanation about his government's overall vaccination plan or the specific points raised by Mr Thanathorn.
The same is true of Public Health Minister Anutin Charnvirakul who said the government can't unveil the vaccine-making contracts as they are deals between private firms.
But as concerns about Covid-19 vaccines are bound to arise, would the Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation tactic serve the government, and the monarchy, well?
The vaccines, whether from Sinovac or AstraZeneca, are not risk-free.
When the time comes, people will want to have thorough information about their benefits and downsides. And they deserve it. The government will not be able to withhold the information or hide behind vague answers like it has done before.
Besides, the fact is unavoidable about Siam Bioscience's ownership. If the government plans to respond to any questions regarding the AstraZeneca vaccine and its procurement with the controversial lese majeste charge and possible jail term, can it be sure that the brutal tactic will not backfire on the monarchy?
There is nothing wrong with the CPB's company being given a monopoly on AstraZeneca's vaccine production as long as it can be fully explained and justified.
The issues about the vaccination and its procurement are about medical technology and public policies, realms that require transparency and scientifically proven data.
The lese majeste law from the last century should not be in the mix.
Atiya Achakulwisut is a Bangkok Post columnist.