Spokesman says efforts to correct misinformation and inform the public are above-board

The army does not conduct online military-style information-influencing operations (IO), but has been providing facts to correct misleading information on social media, says Maj Gen Winthai Suwaree.

The Royal Thai Army spokesman made the comment during a discussion about the state’s use of social media at a meeting of the House Committee on National Security, Border Affairs, National Strategy and Reform.

Representatives from other agencies including the Office of Policy and Planning, Internal Security Operations Command and Royal Thai Police also attended to clarify their roles in the alleged use of IO, also known as “coordinated inauthentic behaviour”.

People’s Party deputy leader Rangsiman Rome, the committee chairman, said IO was not a new issue as it has been raised multiple times since the coup regime of Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha, when IO tactics used against activists, academics and politicians were exposed and taken down by Facebook.

Despite expectations that such operations would end under the current civilian-led government, Mr Rangsiman claimed they have instead become more aggressive.

He stressed that the state’s use of IO not only targets opposition parties but also figures within the government itself.

He strongly opposed the use of taxpayers’ money to spread fake news or hate speech online, as it could create division among people, which contradicts the military’s mission of national unity.

He noted that IO can be justified in military conflicts between nations. However, using such tools domestically by treating some Thai citizens as enemies harms national security. It also reduces the country’s ability to tackle real threats, such as drug trafficking.

In response, Maj Gen Winthai told the committee that the army did not conduct IO in the way critics had pointed out.

He explained that while “IO” is a term commonly used in military contexts globally, especially during wartime, the Thai army uses regular communication tools, particularly online, to correct misinformation and build public understanding, and it does so openly.

If content is found to be inaccurate or inappropriate, legal tools such as the Computer Crime Act or defamation laws can be used to deal with it, he said, adding that figures such as politicians or academics may be monitored due to the level of their influence.

Do you like the content of this article?