A controversial online ad featuring a transgender influencer and a colleague who acted as a wheelchair-bound person has triggered a spate of political correctness in society.
Several have condemned the commercial, which promotes a Lazada shopping campaign, for mocking the disabled. It depicts influencer Aniwat Prathumthin, aka Nara Crepe Katoey, and a wheelchair-bound woman having fun and joking around with each other.
Because the character in a wheelchair, Thidarat Chaokuwiang, wears traditional costume, some have jumped to the conclusion that it targets a member of the royal family. A social activist filed a complaint with police, based on Section 112 of the Criminal Code, or the lese majeste law. An additional charge of computer crime, another contentious law, has been laid against the influencer, who denies all allegations.
Intersect Design Factory, the media agency that hired the influencer, later issued an apology for the incident and removed the ad.
Government spokespeople and deputies came out in force to warn the influencer and those involved in these sensitive issues.
It's a welcome sign that the public refuses to tolerate acts deemed to offend the disabled and that key government figures stepped in quickly in that regard.
But the government should not misplace the focus by shifting away from abuse of the disabled and towards abusing the lese majeste law.
The Lazada incident provides an opportunity for the government and state agencies to assess their policies and performance regarding the disabled, particularly in ensuring protection for this group and finding a way to make improvements where and when possible.
For instance, the country has a law that requires workplaces to employ disabled people at a ratio of 1:100. If a company cannot fulfil the requirement, it has the option of contributing to a fund for the welfare of the disabled. In theory the law, which was implemented in 2007, is quite progressive. But in practice the reality seems otherwise: most companies choose to donate rather than hire the disabled.
Apart from implicating an education system that fails the disabled by not helping them acquire skills relevant to employers' needs, the data also suggests other serious obstacles remain that make it nearly impossible for the disabled to achieve their goals. Indeed, many disabled people are forced to earn a living by selling lottery tickets, busking and relying on similar jobs with no stable income.
All this makes it difficult for the disabled to live a full and independent life, one with dignity in which they do not have to rely solely on their families or state assistance.
Another major obstacle for the disabled -- in a real physical sense -- is poor infrastructure affecting their mobility. Just consider transport in Bangkok. Despite the city's expanding system of trains, busses and boats, the disabled are not always well accommodated. And of course, in the capital, footpaths and pavements are a challenge even for the able-bodied.
If the government really wants to help, it must tackle all such obstacles. It must address the problem of inadequate education for the disabled so they can pursue career and personal-fulfilment goals just like everyone else.
It must encourage genuine workplace integration rather than donations to a fund. Above all, it must not allow itself to be tripped up by misplaced ire that does little to help the disabled live better lives.
