More than three weeks after the traditional football game between Chulalongkorn and Thammasat universities -- an event known for its satirical parade and card stunts -- those involved in the parody are complaining of threats and intimidation by police and security officers.
Thammasat University's political parody group lodged complaints with various House panels on March 5, seeking assistance. Among them were the panels on laws and human rights, as well as national security. The panels have pledged to investigate the matter.
The complaints say the threats and intimidation have included stalking and photographing -- both at the university and student dormitories -- before and after the game, which took place on Feb 15.
Worse still, the group alleges security officers installed closed-circuit cameras at their office without informing them. University officials later told them that security officers had placed some members of the group on a "watch list". Such actions are excessive.
One activist reported she was forced to compromise the content of the Feb 15 parade under threats.
It appears that both the officers carrying out these actions and those ordering them, fail to recognise that what they are doing is illegal. These activists are not enemies of the state.
In a press release, the activists explained their performances serve as a mirror, reflecting the realities of Thai society. Their actions pose no threat to national security and do not constitute an offence against key institutions.
They are right. The traditional football game between Chulalongkorn and Thammasat universities has long been more than just a sporting event -- it has served as a barometer of freedom of expression in Thailand's unique brand of democracy. It also reveals the true nature of politicians -- how well they tolerate criticism and respond to satire, which is, in fact, a recognised form of free speech in Western democracies.
During the Prayut Chan-o-cha era, reports indicated authorities required universities to submit the theme and content of their displays to the police before the football game to ensure they did not offend the leadership. Yet there were no reports of post-event intimidation.
Moreover, mocking political leaders is not unusual in democratic countries. Former US President Donald Trump faced satire even before taking office. The late Queen Elizabeth II of the UK, as well as Queen Margrethe of Denmark, both had impersonators.
In fact, when the latter's impersonator -- a transgender -- retired a few years ago, the Danish monarch attended his final performance, congratulated him, and even presented him with a gift.
Thai leaders may be thin-skinned and lack a sense of humour, but they are still bound by the law -- particularly the constitution, which guarantees human rights and freedom of speech.
In the case of the political parody group, Thammasat University and the Thammasat Association can no longer remain indifferent. The university, in particular, owes the group an explanation as to why it has allowed such intimidation to take place. Its administration must do more to protect students and ensure campus activities remain free from harassment.
Since state agencies are implicated in this misconduct, the Paetongtarn Shinawatra government must intervene immediately.
The Pheu Thai Party -- where Prime Minister Paetongtarn serves as leader -- has long positioned itself as pro-democracy. Many of its senior figures were once political activists who suffered state crackdowns under military juntas in the 1970s.
The Pheu Thai government must make it clear that intimidation by police and security officers is unacceptable. No agency has the right to create a climate of fear under any pretext. During her policy declaration in parliament last October, Prime Minister Paetongtarn pledged to uphold democratic principles, including guarantees for civil liberties and free speech, as the leader of an elected government.
She must demonstrate to the people that she is serious about these commitments. It is crucial she reassures the public that, under an elected government, everyone is protected and free from intimidation. No one should be forced to live in fear. Ms Paetongtarn has an obligation to prove that her government is different from -- and better than -- that of the junta when it comes to human rights protection.