With the release of his book "Truth on Trial in Thailand. Defamation, treason and lese-majeste" earlier in 2011, Khon Kaen-based US scholar and Wall Street Journalcontributor, David Streckfuss, has now firmly established himself as one of the leading researchers and thinkers on the shape, history and impact of Thailand's "regime of truth".

Over the last few days I had the opportunity to conduct a short interview with David. I questioned him about the role of Amnesty International in Thailand, the politicised use of Thailand's draconian lese majeste laws and how human rights might improve if Pheu Thai take power. I started by asking him how he felt about Thailand's present human rights situation. He said:

On the one hand, the conservative powers in Thailand are trying to put a cap on the extraordinary amount of political fervor erupting throughout the country, in a rather naked attempt to turn the clock back on democratization. These efforts, spearheaded by the Thai military, aim to stir up nationalistic sentiments by bringing various groups together to publicly express their devotion to "Nation, Religion, King," propagating the idea that there is an anti-monarchy conspiracy, and arguing such things as "human rights is a foreign concept." On the other hand, there are progressive strands within the red shirt movement whose members are calling for a strict adherence to international human rights standards, repeal of repressive dictatorship-era laws, and an end to impunity. There is a new political consciousness emerging, one that is increasingly bold—such as the various groups calling for reform or abolishment of the lese majeste law. In the year since the government crackdown on protesters, the red shirts have been largely successful in highlighting for society as a whole the issue of justice — whether it is the question of bringing perpetrators of the crackdown to justice, the unequal treatment given to red shirts in the justice system, or the repressive nature of the lese majeste law. This growing consciousness of human rights and the courage to openly demand from the government respect of rights will not be easily thwarted. Indeed, even those Thai and foreign human rights activists who had initially been ambivalent about or even supported the 2006 coup have now come to realize the utter havoc the coup has caused to the justice system and Thai society as a whole.

Do you think that if Amnesty had made a more concerted stand on the issue of lese majeste and the imprisonment of people such as Da Torpedo it may have given the regime pause for thought in its recent round of repression?

Who knows what might have happened had Amnesty International taken a more forceful stance from the beginning. The main question now is how will Amnesty International make up for lost time and reclaim a modicum of respect from many activists and academic groups in Thailand — and abroad — who have quite rightly criticized the organization for taking a more consistent and forceful stand on the issue of lese majeste which, after all, as a matter of the right to freedom of expression, has traditionally been a core issue for Amnesty.

How politicised is the use of lese majeste today?

I think the better question is: to what extent has Thai society become politicized as more and more voices are demanding to be heard? If "politicized" is to be understood as an awareness about the way that power functions in a society, people as a whole in Thailand have become much more politicized. The lese majeste law – its very existence, its profound punishment, its ambiguous wording make any use of the law necessarily political. It is an expression of power. However, unlike before when even questioning the law seemed to be unthinkable, there is an unprecedented grassroots movement to collect signatures in a drive to have the law entirely abolished. The power of the law, when seeming at its height in terms of putting people in jail, has nonetheless begun to wane. Politicization of the population in general has broken the spell that this law has long held over Thai society.

Do you think that international NGOs such as HRW and AI still have an important role to play in the protection of human rights or are they morphing into tools of Western foreign policy?

I don't have enough information to answer whether international human rights organizations are becoming tools for Western foreign policy. What I can say is that a number of Western embassies in Thailand look to these NGOs when a human rights crisis is brewing. If they [the human rights organisations] aren't making too much of a stink, then it seems to hold true at least so far that none of these Western government will challenge the lese majeste law on their own. So yes, I think these NGOs have importance.

Can you see the human rights situation improving or worsening in the event of a Pheu Thai election victory?

At present, it does not seem that the Pheu Thai party is any more interested in human rights than any of the other parties. They, to my knowledge, have no policy statement on Article 112, and until that's addressed, I doubt that Thailand will be able to honor commitments on other human rights. Having said that, there is the question of the red shirts who, of course, are not synonymous with Pheu Thai. The views of red shirt leaders are much more stated in human rights terms, and they have shown an eagerness for a future Thailand to abide by its international human rights obligations. So there perhaps is a bit of hope that Pheu Thai, if pushed by the red shirts, may eventually develop a stronger commitment to human rights.

What are your thoughts on Pheu Thai's proposed amnesty?

This is a very poorly thought-out idea that risks undercutting red shirt support. Pheu Thai should carefully re-think this proposal, and see if there are other ways to achieve some of what they are seeking without having to resort to a blanket amnesty.

What is the significance of the role that the Thai Army have played in the investigation of Somsak Jeam? Does this bode well for Thailand?

No, it does not. A similar case against Sulak Sivaraksa was pursued by the Thai Army in 1995. The military taking a more central role as the self-appointed protector of the monarchy might lead to more and more cases of lese majeste, and no increase of lese majeste cases is good for Thailand now, or ever.