Thai Activist Says Israel Has Put Him on a Watch List for Speaking Out: 'What Right Does a Foreign Government Have?'

Thai activist Siranudh 'Psi' Scott says he has been effectively 'watch‑listed' by Israel after criticising the behaviour of some Israeli visitors in Thailand and highlighting alleged illegal activity.

An Instagram post he shared appears to show an excerpt from a report produced by an Israeli government ministry that names him, cites his social media reach and notes his attendance at a September protest outside the Israeli Embassy in Bangkok.

'What right does a foreign government have to keep track of natives and locals being opposed to illegal settlement/colonisation?' Scott asks in the post. The question frames his objection, but it also highlights a key evidentiary gap: being named in a government report is not, by itself, proof of a formal watch‑list designation.

What the Document Shows

The report, published through Israel's Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism, identifies Scott by the public name 'Sai Samut' and describes his attendance at a 10 September demonstration outside the Israeli Embassy.

A screenshot Scott shared shows an entry setting out his social media reach and recounting an exchange with journalist Pravit Rojanaphruk about what message he wanted to send the Israeli ambassador.

This material shows that the report recorded Scott's public activity. It does not establish who, if anyone, is subject to a formal watch list, what such a list would be used for, or whether Scott faces any restriction as a result. Scott's account that he was 'targeted' is his allegation, not a finding made by the document.

Scott says he was named for speaking out in his own country against what he describes as illegal settlement, overstays by Israeli tourists and the presence of Israeli soldiers. Those are his allegations; the screenshots do not establish that the particular people or businesses he depicts broke Thai law.

A Protest Over Thai Laws

Scott joined a Bangkok demonstration on 10 September at which protesters called for scrutiny of alleged foreign control of property and businesses, and demanded that visitors respect Thai laws and customs. His participation was reported at the time by Khaosod English.

The dispute had already reached diplomatic channels. Thailand's foreign minister said the country would enforce its laws against foreign nationals who broke them after meeting Israel's ambassador over complaints involving some visitors.

Following the demonstration, an Israeli embassy official said the embassy was not ignoring the concerns and would issue guidance urging Israelis travelling to Thailand to respect local laws and culture.

Scott's new claim is distinct from those earlier complaints. It concerns what it means for a foreign government report to identify a Thai participant in a protest, and whether his description of that inclusion as a 'watch list' can be substantiated.

Similar Complaints in Siargao

Thailand is not the only Southeast Asian destination where complaints about the conduct of some Israeli visitors have prompted an official response.

On Siargao, the Philippine surfing destination, local disputes and reported altercations led authorities to call for responsible behaviour by foreign tourists. Police intervened in an April bar fight involving American and Israeli visitors, according to the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

Israel's embassy in the Philippines had separately said in early May that it would not tolerate misconduct by some of its nationals in Siargao. After a later reported attack on café owners in May, the Philippine Department of Tourism reminded visitors to respect locals and Philippine laws, and urged the public not to generalise about an entire nationality.

Local authorities confirmed an attack involving two people but did not identify their nationality in their initial account, although reports at the time named them as Israeli nationals.

The Siargao incidents do not verify allegations about Israeli visitors in Thailand, or Scott's watch‑list claim. They illustrate a narrower parallel: complaints about particular visitors have led officials in both countries to address local law and conduct without treating an entire nationality as responsible.

For Scott, the immediate issue remains the report bearing his name. The available material indicates that his protest activity was recorded in a publication by an Israeli government ministry. It does not yet show that he was formally watch‑listed, or what consequences, if any, the entry carries.