Thailand

Thailand is a country which is very rich in its diversity. Once governed by an absolute monarchy (Chakri Dynasty), it is now a constitutional monarchy, where the monarch is viewed as a living god. The nation’s democracy has been punctuated by at least 12 successful coups d’état since 1932.[ref] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/05/20/thailands-army-says-this-definitely-isnt-a-coup-heres-11-times-it-definitely-was/; https://www.ft.com/content/88970d60-e1b0-11e3-9999-00144feabdc0[/ref] The most recet was in 2014, when a military junta established the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), suspended democracy, annulled the Constitution and enforced martial law, including a nationwide curfew and media censorship.[ref]https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/05/24/thailand-rights-free-fall-after-coup[/ref] Although the Martial law officially came to an end on 1 April 2015,[ref]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32152893[/ref] the democratic transition has been subject to repeated delays. The first elections since the coup only took place in 2019, after the NCPO had adopted a revised Constitution [ref]http://www.unesco.org/education/edurights/media/docs/e60903d5f4cb9278215dc0c231ac42a4da007434.pdf[/ref]granting the military greater influence in politics. The election has been widely regarded as a means to prolong and legitimize military rule.[ref]https://freedomhouse.org/country/thailand/freedom-world/2020[/ref]

Constitution and government Education and children’s rights Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
The non-religious are barred from some government offices (including posts reserved for particular religions or sects)
Systemic religious privilege results in significant social discrimination
Expression of core humanist principles on democracy, freedom or human rights is severely restricted
‘Blasphemy’ is outlawed or criticism of religion (including de facto ‘blasphemy’ laws) is restricted and punishable with a prison sentence
There is systematic religious privilege
State-funding of religious institutions or salaries, or discriminatory tax exemptions
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)
Discriminatory prominence is given to religious bodies, traditions or leaders
Blasphemy or criticism of religion is restricted in law and is punishable by a fine
Official symbolic deference to religion
Anomalous discrimination by local or provincial authorities, or overseas territories
Some concerns about political or media freedoms, not specific to the non-religious
Constitution and government
The non-religious are barred from some government offices (including posts reserved for particular religions or sects)
There is systematic religious privilege
State-funding of religious institutions or salaries, or discriminatory tax exemptions
Official symbolic deference to religion
Anomalous discrimination by local or provincial authorities, or overseas territories
Education and children’s rights
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)
Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals
Systemic religious privilege results in significant social discrimination
Discriminatory prominence is given to religious bodies, traditions or leaders
Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
Expression of core humanist principles on democracy, freedom or human rights is severely restricted
‘Blasphemy’ is outlawed or criticism of religion (including de facto ‘blasphemy’ laws) is restricted and punishable with a prison sentence
Blasphemy or criticism of religion is restricted in law and is punishable by a fine
Some concerns about political or media freedoms, not specific to the non-religious
Use of Conscientious Objection clauses resulting in the denial of lawful services to women and LGBTI+ people
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in all or most state-funded schools with no secular or humanist alternative
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: Kazakhstan

The state is secular, with separation of religious and political authorities, not discriminating against any religion or belief
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
No fundamental restrictions on freedom of expression or advocacy of humanist values
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

No condition holds in this strand
No condition holds in this strand

Countries: Andorra

No condition holds in this strand
Religious courts or tribunals rule directly on some family or ‘moral’ matters; it is legally an opt-in system, but the possibility of social coercion is very clear
No condition holds in this strand

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

Localised or infrequent but recurring and widespread social marginalisation or prejudice against the non-religious

This condition is unusual in that it is applied in cases where there is some social discrimination, but it is not pervasive or nationwide. This condition is applied when there is sufficient background evidence to warrant the assertion that discrimination is not anomalous but widespread, and this condition may be applied for example even where if there is no legislative discrimination or where the non-religious may have legal recourse against such discrimination. However, societal discrimination (i.e. discrimination by peers, as opposed to state or legal discrimination) is not easily measured, and for this reason the Report does not currently have similar more severe boundary conditions to capture higher levels of social discrimination per se. In principle these may be introduced in future. However, we consider that countries with actual higher levels of social discrimination against the non-religious will generally already meet other higher level (more severe) boundary conditions under this thematic strand.

Countries: Botswana, Greece, Serbia, United States of America

The dominant influence of religion in public life undermines the right to equality and/or non-discrimination

Applied when the influence of religion on public life undermines others’ rights, such as SRHR, women’s rights, LGBTI+ rights.

May be applied when the influence is overt (i.e. when religious laws are applied to undermine others’ rights) or covert (i.e. where religious pressure groups exert influence to affect policy)

Countries: Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Croatia, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eswatini, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Hungary, Iran, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Liberia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nicaragua, North Macedonia, Oman, Paraguay, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, Zambia

The non-religious are persecuted socially or there are prohibitive social taboos against atheism, humanism or secularism
Complete tyranny precludes all freedoms of expression and thought, religion or belief

Applied when overriding acts of oppression by the State are extreme, to the extent that the question of freedom of thought and expression is almost redundant, because all human rights and freedoms are quashed by authorities.

Countries: North Korea

Expression of core Humanist principles on democracy, freedom and human rights is brutally repressed
Expression of non-religious views is severely persecuted, or is rendered almost impossible by severe social stigma, or is highly likely to be met with hatred or violence
There is significant social marginalisation of the non-religious or stigma associated with expressing atheism, humanism or secularism
Religious or ideological indoctrination is utterly pervasive in schools
There is a nominal state church with few privileges or progress is being made toward disestablishment

Countries: Bulgaria, Norway, Peru, Rwanda

The non-religious are barred from some government offices (including posts reserved for particular religions or sects)
‘Apostasy’ is outlawed and punishable with a prison sentence

Countries: Bahrain, Comoros, Jordan, Kuwait

‘Apostasy’ or conversion from a specific religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Some religious courts rule in civil or family matters on a coercive or discriminatory basis
Religious authorities have supreme authority over the state

Countries: Iran

State legislation is partly derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general

This condition is applied where there are miscellaneous indicators that organs of the state offer various forms of support for a religion, or to religion in general over non-religious worldviews, suggesting a preference for those beliefs, or that the organs of that religion are privileged.

Countries: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zimbabwe

There is a pattern of impunity or collusion in violence by non-state actors against the nonreligious
State-funded schools provide religious education which may be nominally comprehensive but is substantively biased or borderline confessional
Religious or ideological instruction in a significant number of schools is of a coercive fundamentalist or extremist variety

This condition highlights countries where schools subject children to fundamentalist religious instruction with no real opportunity to question fundamentalist tenets, or where lessons routinely encourage hatred (for example religious or ethnic hatred). The wording “significant number of schools” is not given a rigid quantification (sometimes the worst-offending schools are unregistered, illegal, or otherwise uncounted); however the condition is not applied in cases where only a small number of schools meet the description and may be anomalous, as opposed to being indicative of a widespread problem.

Countries: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia

State legislation is largely or entirely derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Anomalous discrimination by local or provincial authorities, or overseas territories
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)
‘Blasphemy’ or criticism of religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Government figures or state agencies openly marginalize, harass, or incite hatred or violence against the non-religious
Government authorities push a socially conservative, religiously or ideologically inspired agenda, without regard to the rights of those with progressive views
It is illegal to advocate secularism or church-state separation, or such advocacy is suppressed
Prohibitive interreligious social control (including interreligious marriage bans)
Quasi-divine veneration of a ruling elite is enforced, or a single-party regime holds uncontested power, subject to severe punishment
Legal or constitutional provisions exclude non-religious views from freedom of belief
It is illegal to register an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization, or such groups are persecuted by authorities
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
The non-religious are barred from holding government office
Some concerns about children's right to specifically religious freedom

This condition may apply if specifically religious education, religious materials, or specific religious denominations are so tightly controlled that children are in fact over-protected from exposure to religion and are likely unable to explore or construct their own worldview in accordance with their evolving capacities. This condition helps us to classify states (perhaps with secular constitutions) which have criminalized specifically religious beliefs or practices. This condition is not applied if the restricted beliefs or practices are found to be outlawed due to their being of an extremist variety. While this condition does not directly reflect discrimination against non-religious persons or non-religious ideas, it does represent an overall threat to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief; such restrictions could spill over to affect non-religious beliefs later; and they pose a risk of backlash against over-zealous secular authorities or even against non-religious individuals by association.

Countries: China, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Guyana, Italy, Kazakhstan, Laos, Madagascar, Mexico, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe

It is illegal or unrecognised to identify as an atheist or as non-religious
It is made difficult to register or operate an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization
Legend
 
Severe Discrimination
Systemic Discrimination
Mostly Satisfactory
More information about rating table

Constitution and government

Thailand is a constitutional monarchy whose King has tremendous influence on Thai politics, government and society.[ref]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38126928[/ref] Under Section 7 of the Constitution, the monarch must be Buddist.

Thailand has no official state religion, and Section 27 of the Constitution protects citizens from discrimination on the grounds of differences in religious belief. However, Buddhism has a privileged status according to Section 67 of the 2017 Constitution, which calls upon the state to “support and protect Buddhism and other religions”. Furthermore, the same article adds that:

“[i]n supporting and protecting Buddhism, which is the religion observed by the majority of Thai people for a long period of time, the State should promote and support education and dissemination of dharmic principles of Theravada Buddhism for the development of mind and wisdom development, and shall have measures and mechanisms to prevent Buddhism from being undermined in any form. The State should also encourage Buddhists to participate in implementing such measures or mechanisms.”

According to Section 31 of the Constitution, freedom to profess a religion and exercise religious worship, however, is permitted only “provided that it shall not be adverse to the duties of all Thai people, neither shall it endanger the safety of the State, nor shall it be contrary to public order or good morals.”

Only five religions are officially recognized by the law: Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikh, Christianity. [ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2018-report-on-international-religious-freedom/thailand[/ref] Atheism is not recognized and, as such, non-religious individuals reportedly face challenges when accessing public services, as they are required to divulge their religious affiliation when completing the requisite forms and are unable leave the section blank.

The government subsidizes activities of all five primary religious communities. Between 2018-2019, it budgeted 415 million baht (US$13.9 million) for the Religious Affairs Department (RAD) of the Ministry of Culture to provide support to officially recognized religious groups. In addition,  it allocated a further 4.85 billion baht (approximately $163 million) to support the National Buddhism Bureau, an independent state agency. The bureau oversees the Buddhist clergy and approves the curriculums of Buddhist teachings for all Buddhist temples and educational institutions. Furthermore, the bureau sponsors educational and public relations materials on Buddhism as it relates to daily life.[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-report-on-international-religious-freedom/thailand/[/ref]

Education and children’s rights

In 1999, all Thai children were given the right to education under the Education Act. In 2005 all foreign children living in Thailand also gained the same right. By 2009, there was compulsory free education to children of age 12-15 years.

In 2003 the Ministry of Education introduced a course called “Social, Religion, and Culture Studies,” which students in each grade study for one to two hours each week. The course contains information about the recognized religious groups in the country. In 2018, the Education Ministry of Thailand officially announced that Buddhist teaching would be allowed in  at both the primary and secondary levels.

School curricula tend to be conservative on social issues. There are reports of school textbooks labeling LGBT people as “deviant”.[ref]https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/54ed82784.pdf[/ref]

Family, community and society

Social and cultural values in Thailand are greatly influenced by religion as 93% of the population practice Theravada Buddhism.[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-report-on-international-religious-freedom/thailand/[/ref]  Strong emphasis is placed on the role of the family in Thai society.  Especially in small villages, non-Buddhists experience discrimination.  Religious groups dominate the social and cultural landscape.

The attachment to traditional religious values translates into conservative views on gender roles and non-conformist sexualities. Human Rights Watch reports that, despite the adoption of the Gender Equality Act in 2015, broad exceptions allow noncompliance based on religious principles or national security,[ref]https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/thailand#a4e657[/ref] while polls show a still widespread view on the role of women as limited to the household.[ref]https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2020/2/my-take-your-take-womens-rights-in-thailand-and-mens-role[/ref] Concerning LGBT rights, religion negatively affects the perception of non-conformist sexual orientation and gender identities: Theravada Buddhism views them “either as a punishment for sins in past lives, or as a lack of ability to control sexual impulses and tendencies”.[ref]https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/54ed82784.pdf[/ref] As a result, discrimination against LGBT is widely reported, whether on the part of the family, authorities or employers.[ref]https://www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/global_workplace_briefing_thailand_final.pdf; https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Society/Thailand-s-historic-LGBT-bill-exposes-rifts-inside-community; https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/54ed82784.pdf[/ref] Even worse is the situation in the Southern provinces with a strong Islamic minority.[ref]https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/54ed82784.pdf[/ref]

Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values

Since the military coup that took place in 2014, freedom of expression has been restricted largely by the government. Despite elections in 2019,  Thailand has seen few improvements in this domain. According to the Amnesty International, the authorities continue to   take action against dissenting voices, filing criminal charges against those who criticize the government, the police or the military.[ref]https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ASA3921572020ENGLISH.pdf[/ref] The primary instruments of this repression are: the provisions of the Criminal Code punishing sedition (Art. 116) and defamation (Art. 326-333); the Anti Fake News Centre launched in 2019 by the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society to monitor online content and arrest those who oppose the government; and Section 14(1) of the 2016 Computer-Related Crime Act, which allows the government to prosecute individuals for spreading “false” or “distorted” information.[ref]https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/21/thailand-cyber-crime-act-tightens-internet-control[/ref]  In short, the government exerts a tight grip on the public and the media, and heavily censors  dissenting voices and unfavourable news.

“Blasphemy”

The 2017 constitution generally provides for freedom of speech; however, laws prohibiting speech likely to insult Buddhism and other religions remain in place. The Sangha Act specifically prohibits the defamation or insult of Buddhism and the Buddhist clergy. Violators of the law can face up to one year’s imprisonment or fines of up to 20,000 baht (approximately $667).[ref]https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Blasphemy%20Laws%20Report.pdf; https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-report-on-international-religious-freedom/thailand/[/ref] The sections 206 to 208 of the Penal Code prohibit the insult or disturbance of religious places or services of all officially recognized religious groups. Penalties range from imprisonment of one to seven years or a fine of 2,000 to 14,000 baht ($67 to $467).[ref]http://un-act.org/publication/view/thailands-criminal-code-1956/[/ref]

Insulting the monarchy

The king is traditionally revered in Thai culture as the protector of the country and of the Buddhist religion.

Article 112 of Thailand’s Criminal Code (Lèse-majesté) states that anyone “who defames, insults or threatens the King or Queen or the heir apparent or the regent” will be punished with a jail term up to 15 years.[ref]https://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/criminal-code-royal-family-sections-107-112/[/ref] Since the 2014 coup, at least 90 individuals have faced charges under the law.[ref]https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/1939428/thailand-needs-to-talk-about-lese-majeste-law[/ref] However, there has been no definite description on what constitutes the insult of the monarchy, and the law has been widely abused. For example, in August 2017 a law student and activist, Jatupat Boonpattaraksa, was sentenced to two and a half years just for sharing on Facebook a critical but otherwise innocuous BBC profile of the new king. While thousands of other users had seen and shared the same article, Jatupat Boonpattaraksa was also a well-known critic of the government.[ref]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-king-insult-idUSKCN1AV0YN[/ref] Further, between 2014-2018, prominent activist and writer, Sulak Sivaraksa, faced an investigation under Article 112 after he delivered a speech at Thammasat University in which he questioned whether a 16th Century elephant battle between the Thai King Naresuan and the Burmese Crown Prince Mingyi Swa had actually occurred.[ref]https://pen-international.org/news/thailand-octogenarian-writer-and-activist-faces-15-year-prison-sentence; https://pen-international.org/news/charges-against-octogenarian-writer-and-activist-dropped[/ref]

Since the democratic transition,  the use of  lèse-majesté law seems to have declined.[ref]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-protests-monarchy-explainer-idUSKCN2501Q1; https://www.tlhr2014.com/?p=10431&lang=en[/ref]

Freedom of association and assembly

Between 2014 to 2018, the NCPO banned political meetings and activities. Ahead of the March 2019 elections, opponents of military rule faced considerable harassment.[ref]https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/01/14/thailand-no-end-rights-crisis[/ref] Further, the government has used the country’s sedition law, among other legal provisions, to repress peaceful political protesters calling for democratic reform.[ref]https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/08/27/thailand-more-protest-leaders-arrested[/ref]