The key findings and analysis of artistic freedom in Thailand from the Southeast Asia Artistic Freedom RADAR, 2023 – 2024.
Silent Resistance: Censorship of Art and Culture in Post-Election Thailand
Following the 2023 general election, Thailand’s socio-political landscape experienced a surge of hope for reform, but this momentum quickly encountered structural repression. This article examines the censorship and suppression of art and cultural activities following the 2022 general election, drawing on case studies and recent data. It highlights how intersections of legal prosecution, security intimidation, and hierarchical local power structures foster widespread self-censorship, particularly outside Bangkok, creating a harmful environment for local artists, activists, and even children and youth who wish to express their freedom of expression through art and culture. Despite the decline of mass mobilizations, localized cultural resistance continues to shape the evolving political narrative and civic spaces.
Socio-political momentum and the limits of electoral politics
Mass protests in 2020 – 2022 demonstrated widespread political engagement, characterized by demands for democratic reform, transparency, and accountability. Post-election momentum, however, shifted under increasing repression, resulting in the fragmentation of movements into smaller, localized, often cultural forms of resistance—a strategic adaptation to heightened risks.
The 2023 general election in Thailand initially appeared as a significant political turning point, with the Move Forward Party (MFP) achieving unprecedented electoral success, reflecting widespread public aspiration for democratic reforms. However, despite their electoral popularity, the MFP was unable to form a government due to an inability to secure alliances with other political parties and gain necessary votes from senators. Subsequent judicial interventions, including the Constitutional Court’s involvement, further solidified the entrenched power of unelected conservative institutions.
Quantifying suppression: data from 2023-24
Recent monitoring recorded 15 cases of cultural suppression in Thailand between 2023 and 2024. Among these, public visibility varied: 10 cases were publicly known, while 5 were cases that the researcher documented from private sources. The data indicated the most frequently violated rights included the right to create without censorship or intimidation and the right to participate in cultural life. The methods used to target artistic freedom include online public attacks, removal of artworks from public view and prosecution of 15 under 4 charges.
From 2023–2024, censorship of artistic expression in Thailand was strategically driven by both state and non-state actors, systematically targeting different cultural forms. State agents predominantly suppressed visual arts and heritage, while non-state actors exerted pressure on film and broadcasting. Most challenges succeeded immediately, effectively silencing expression without the need for sustained action—reflecting deliberate intimidation tactics that perpetuate a culture of self-censorship and limit public discourse. It is important to note that nearly 80 percent of these cases were considered low profile, characterized by limited or local-only news coverage, with some cases completely absent from mainstream media. This observation underscores significant challenges faced by local artists and activists who employ art and culture to advocate sensitive issues in Thailand. Conversely, a few cases involving high-profile academicsa or artists based in Bangkok or other major cities drew more focus, indicating a disparity in public visibility and media attention.
Case categorization and summaries
Political content was most frequently censored, underscoring severe governmental intolerance toward political dissent. Suppression extended significantly to historical narratives and human rights issues, highlighting the state’s systematic restriction of sensitive discussions. Occasional censorship of entertainment and humanity-related content further revealed broader attempts to control cultural expression.
Low- to moderate-profile cases, characterized by limited or no national news coverage, include the cancellation of a human rights film screening by Phatthalung Micro Cinema, police monitoring of the rap group Rap Against Dictatorship, and surveillance of the Resistance of Commoners exhibition.
Further examples include the removal of sensitive artwork, a T-shirt bearing a message that references the Monarchy, at Bangkok and Cultural Centre’s Murdered Justice exhibition and the Cross Cultural Foundation postponing a book launch due to sensitive materials. These cases also include artist Topat, who was charged under Section 112 (lese majeste) for monarchy-defaming artwork and cartoonist Tum Jirawat facing charges over royal satire.
In contrast, high-profile cases gained significant national and academic attention, sparking broader debates about academic freedom and freedom of expression. Prominent examples include the lawsuit against Asst. Prof. Dr. Nattapon Jaijing over alleged historical distortions and the controversy surrounding Prof. Dr. Puangthong Pawakapan’s critical book launch. Both cases received mainstream media coverage and considerable public and scholarly support, highlighting the differing experiences of suppression depending on visibility and location.
In addition, since the resurgence of conflict in Thailand’s Deep South in 2004, issues related to memory, violence, and separatist insurgent groups have become highly sensitive, closely linked to national security. Consequently, activities addressing these themes frequently attract intense monitoring by security forces, fostering an atmosphere of caution and self-censorship. Recent incidents in Southern Thailand illustrate these tensions clearly: authorities monitored the Indelible Memory: 20 Years Tak Bai exhibition, publicly removed art installations at the Kenduri Seni Patani festival, and disrupted Tadika school* sports parades in Pattani and Panare districts over religious imagery and mock weapons. These examples underscore ongoing sensitivities surrounding public expressions in the region.
While Thailand notably demonstrated substantial public backing against censorship in certain high-profile cases, reflecting active civil society resistance, the existence of incidents without such support reveals critical weaknesses and fragmented advocacy. These inconsistencies indicate persistent barriers to unified public opposition, leaving artistic freedom continually vulnerable and highlighting significant gaps in collective awareness and coordinated action.
Localized censorship and the fragility of rural activism
Activism beyond Bangkok faces unique vulnerabilities. In provinces and rural areas, artists and activists often operate without access to national networks or significant financial resources, relying instead on local funding and hierarchical relationships with authorities. This dependency renders them highly susceptible to pressure and censorship. Examples include the Phatthalung Micro Cinema’s cancellation of a human rights film screening under business pressure, and the forced removal of installations at the Kenduri Seni Patani Art festival exemplify localized suppression. Moreover, a mere security presence can intimidate without formal charges. Paramilitary officers in Narathiwat intervened in a local heritage parade to confiscate religious leader flags, while in Pattani, security forces disrupted a school sports parade over religious imagery, creating chilling effects despite no arrests.
Another prominent example occurred at Chiang Mai University, where professors and students from the Faculty of Fine Arts staged an art exhibition protest after the university failed to respond to their request to use the venue. When they proceeded without official approval, university authorities responded by filing legal complaints against them for property damage and trespassing. Despite initial refusal by prosecutors to pursue the case, the charges were reinstated following police pressure, leading to court proceedings and highlighting the systemic constraints faced by academics and artists even within institutional spaces.
Section 112 and the judicialization of artistic expression
Of the 15 documented cases of artistic suppression, 3 involved charges under Section 112 of Thailand’s Criminal Code (lèse-majesté). Furthermore, 8 out of these 15 cases were legally supported, while 7 cases occurred without any clear legal basis, reflecting arbitrary suppression and intimidation.
Section 112 of the Criminal Code (lèse-majesté) significantly contributes to the repressive climate. By late 2024, at least 274 individuals had faced charges under this law since 2020. Artists, particularly visual creators and satirical illustrators, faced severe repercussions; Topat received a suspended prison sentence for artwork posted online, and cartoonist Tum Jirawat faced multiple legal challenges.
This climate of fear extended to curators and venue owners. Authorities requested the exclusion of politically sensitive materials at a book launch by the Cross Cultural Foundation and censored artwork at Bangkok Art and Culture Center’s Murdered Justice exhibition, highlighting Section 112’s broad chilling effect. Venue owners, curators, and organizers increasingly self-censor, limiting the scope of discourse and reducing platforms available for critical artistic expression.
Academic spaces under siege
Academic discourse has similarly been policed. The lawsuit against Asst. Prof. Dr. Nattapon Jaijing for alleged historical distortion illustrates the conflation of critical scholarly inquiry with threats to national security, significantly stifling academic freedom. Such actions discourage intellectual inquiry into politically sensitive topics, creating a significant obstacle for researchers and academics attempting to engage critically with Thai history and politics. Military and monarchy remain particularly restricted topics, demonstrating persistent areas of sensitivity and limitation within academic research.
The controversy surrounding Prof. Dr. Puangthong Pawakapan further exemplifies these pressures. Following the publication of her critical book on military influence in Thai society, her scheduled book launch at Chulalongkorn University faced institutional interference due to public criticism from military authorities. The event was initially blocked by university administrators but eventually proceeded as planned with substantial public and scholarly support, underscoring ongoing tensions between academic freedom and state power.
Cultural resistance and the persistence of memory
Despite declining mass movements, cultural resistance has diversified, strategically maintaining political memory and dissent. Projects like Indelible Memory: 20 Years Tak Bai, commemorating state violence, and Chiang Mai’s Resistance of Commoners exhibition, demonstrate resilient grassroots resistance amid administrative barriers and police harassment. These initiatives represent alternative forms of activism that maintain visibility of critical issues, continuing the discourse on justice, democracy, and human rights despite systemic attempts to silence them.
Conclusion
Thailand’s socio-political landscape post-2023 election reveals a complex interplay between aspiration and constraint. Structural repression, rooted in law, surveillance, and localized intimidation, has effectively contained mass mobilization. The documented 15 cases of suppression between 2023 and 2024 reflect broader patterns of controlled freedom. Nonetheless, fragmented cultural resistance persists, maintaining critical spaces for dialogue, memory, and contestation, underscoring the resilience of Thai civil society and its continued demand for democratic reform.
*Tadika schools are Islamic educational institutions primarily located in Thailand’s southern border provinces. Often situated within or near mosques, these schools focus on teaching Islamic ethics, principles, and basic religious education to young children and youth. The military frequently visits Tadika schools, expressing concerns that children and youth attending these institutions might be influenced or encouraged to join separatist groups.
About the author(s)
Patporn (Aor) Phoothong
Patporn (Aor) Phoothong is a researcher focusing on peace education via peace museum and archives. Her current research is a feasibility study for the establishment of a peace museum connected to the deep south of Thailand. She has also co-founded an initiative to establish a 6 October 1976 Massacre Museum and Deep South Museum and Archives’ Initiative. Her focus has been on using museums and archives as a tool for conflict transformation and ending the culture of impunity. In addition, Aor also serves as a consultant for an international development organization specializing in violent extremism, gender dynamics, and peace process.
