The title of National Artist -- an honour the government bestows upon individuals in creative arts -- is usually associated with positive media coverage each February when the national cultural committee announces the names of the year's latest batch of recipients in each discipline.
Initiated 36 years ago, the title has subsequently been given to more than 300 artists, all big names in their respective fields. Along with the prestige, the government also provides some financial rewards for the achievement, including a 25,000-baht monthly allowance, medical coverage worth 100,000 baht per year as well as other fringe benefits.
Yet, the title's hitherto immaculate image was last week tarnished, ironically by the national cultural committee itself, the body governing the selection process.
On Friday, Air Chief Marshall Veeravit Kongsak, a leading member of the committee, officially announced the decision to strip veteran editor Suchart Sawasdsri of the badge citing "inappropriate behaviour" in connection with his outspoken stance in support of pro-reform, anti-government protests. He has 30 days to appeal.
Suchart is the first national artist to be stripped of the title after backing the groups, whose demands include reform of the monarchy. He had previously gone so far as to dare the panel to censure him for his publicly expressed opinions on Facebook, so it remains to be seen whether he will bother to lodge his appeal.
Regardless of Suchart's political stance, the national committee should rectify this grave mistake by reversing the decision promptly. In taking such action the committee has undermined the freedom of expression that underpins the art scene and drives creative endeavour. What it has done is of no help to artists in Thailand whatsoever.
By stripping the title from an artist who sided with anti-government protesters, the committee has only succeeded in cementing the brand image of a narrow-minded authoritarian regime while undermining the institution it was originally commissioned to nourish and celebrate.
Penalising a rebellious artist sends a message that threatens to stifle the budding seeds of creativity shown by the current generation of young artists.
Such distasteful pseudo-censorship is contrary to the remit of a committee whose duty it is to promote arts and culture, not silence the voices of those artists who refuse to toe the government line.
The demotion of Suchart also raises a bigger question relating to our polarised society.
How should we deal with those artists, heroes to some and villains to others, who fail to conform to the prevailing standards and beliefs of the status quo?
Perhaps the national cultural committee should follow the example of the Norwegian Nobel committee when faced with calls by human rights activists to strip former Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi of her Nobel laureate after deplorable government-led violence against the Rohingya.
Berit Reiss-Andersen, the Norwegian committee's chairperson asserted "It's not our task to oversee or censor what a laureate does after the prize has been won ... the prizewinners themselves have to safeguard their own reputations."
Any fallout from the 76-year-old veteran editor and writer's posts should be his and his alone to deal with. Unfortunately, it is the national cultural committee that now has a reputation problem worse than the ageing artist it has tried to undermine.