Clad in khaki uniform, a civil servant gave a three-finger salute even though he knew he could face a disciplinary probe. Nevertheless, he made a moral choice in defiance of the rules and norms that expect bureaucrats to remain politically impartial.
"Be brave, speak out and do what is right. I will talk about the vaccination plan," he told the rally led by the Thalufah group on Aug 18.
The pro-democracy movement has waxed and waned, but never surrenders and dies. It recently marked the first anniversary of its inception. The movement was born in August last year when the United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration staged a rally at Thammasat University, breaking a social taboo by demanding reform of the monarchy. Then it merged into the Ratsadon group, invoking the spirit of the 1932 Siamese Revolution, the historic political reforms that promoted the absolute monarchy into the current constitutional monarchy.
One year passes, and their three demands -- the resignation of Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, a massive charter rewrite and monarchy reform -- have not been met. Meanwhile, the anti-government protesters face a slew of charges; core protesters who have been granted bail have returned to the cells after going back to protesting, in defiance of their bail conditions.
While street demonstrations seem to dwindle in size, the groups behind them have expanded to take in new allies. Along the way, the movement has achieved in one aspect, instigating a spirit of rebellion in society.
That spirit forces other cogs in the machine, including journalists like me, to face a moral dilemma of choosing between professional codes of conduct and political participation.
While the public might have political and moral choices of their own to make, civil servants face a legal system that prevents them from participating in political activities.
Therefore, civil servants in Thailand rarely reveal their political hue. Section 43 of the Civil Servant Act permits them to join an assembly if it does not affect national administration and must not have a political goal. Section 82 (9) requires that they be politically impartial in the performance of their duties.
In fact, rebellions within a rigid bureaucracy pose the greatest threat to the powers-that-be and the authoritarian regime itself. In late August, a pilot officer broke ranks on Facebook by saying he was not happy that army resources were being used to suppress protesters. The officer now faces a disciplinary probe and charges of misconduct including disobedience and lack of discipline, and five types of punishment ranging from probation to imprisonment.
It is not surprising that the pilot ended up facing such harsh penalties, as the punishment seeks to ensure that other subordinates do not break ranks. Renegade officials are a real threat -- perhaps more than hot-headed idealistic protesters.
What if they rebel altogether, and their chiefs are unable to exercise authority. What if they start talking back or saying no. What if they refuse to help them stage coups? So, the authorities have learned to maintain the status quo by lavishing benefits on subordinates and even some model citizens. The privileges come with strings attached nevertheless.
For example, veteran editor Suchart Sawasdsri, now a symbolic mouthpiece of the protesters, became the first national artist of a lineup of more than 300 to be stripped of his title and its benefits after the National Culture Committee last month removed the title due to his "inappropriate behaviour".
Suchart's case upset the local art scene, drawing out artist critics regardless of their political stripe. The Ministry of Culture has bestowed 300-plus national artist awards to those who meet the criteria based on their body of work, perseverance and good character. By stripping him of the title, the ministry sends a stiff message to other artists that they must not break ranks, especially against the government.
What if rebellious citizens switch sides? Tanat Thanakitamnuay is a former member of the People's Democratic Reform Committee, the yellow-shirt protesters whose street protests culminated in the military coup in 2014.
Nevertheless, he joined the pro-democracy movement last month. Taking part in a protest in the Din Daeng area, he was reported to have lost his sight in one eye. He is now an object of hatred among members of the group to which he once belonged.
However, these rebels can instill tough moral questions among us. Should we maintain political neutrality? What is the future of our country and what exactly do we want?
The resistance of these rebels serves as a catalyst for others who don't want to go along with the system. Without the courage of some, such as the whistleblower in the recent police torture case, society may remain impervious to change.