A year after Thai coup, press freedom remains compromised and vulnerable
Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA), 17 September 2007
One year after the coup in Thailand, a new Constitution is in place,
elections are on the horizon and Thais are looking forward to
normalising the overall political climate in the Kingdom. The media
and free expression environment, however, remains compromised, with
martial law, lèse-majesté rules, and new and proposed laws governing
the Internet and national security concerns keeping the media footing
problematic in the foreseeable future.The newly approved Constitution returns much of the guarantees for
free expression and press freedom enshrined in the previous charter of
1997. Related to this, government moves to strengthen public
broadcasting, to impose stricter rules against political interference
and ownership in private media, and to revoke an antiquated Printing
Act seek to rectify vulnerabilities in the press that were exploited
by the deposed government of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
And yet, these developments have not necessarily created a complete
atmosphere for stability and more openness in all of Thai media. Many
concerns remain.
Martial law
For starters, martial law remains hanging over 35 provinces, or around
half of the kingdom. This fact alone has imposed limitations on
political activities, freedom of assembly, and, media advocates say,
on the vibrancy of alternative media such as community radio stations
and online forums.
In Bangkok, where Thailand’s mainstream media are headquartered, there
are indeed very active and very aggressive discussions being vented
and circulated over the country’s biggest newspapers and popular radio
programmes. But in the capital, self-censorship has been a concern for
every newsroom since the coup of 19 September 2006, and even then
there is acknowledgement by Bangkok editors that the reality for them
is not the reality for the smaller members of their community,
especially in the provinces.
Many of the community radio stations initially blocked after the coup
have since gone back up on air, but some with decidedly more
conservative editorial tones. Other alternative media, meanwhile, are
more sensitive to martial law and the prevailing political and legal
realities.
Computer crimes act and the Internet
Internet-based media and forums, in particular, are harassed and
troubled. The interim National Legislative Assembly has passed a
notorious Computer-Related Offences Commission Act that has online
news, forum and commentary providers anxious.
Even prior to the passage of this law, Thailand’s Information and
Communications Technology Ministry was already blocking an untold
number of websites. The government says only a few hundreds are on
their block list. Activists say thousands have been rendered
inaccessible. Whatever the real count, it is clear that the blocking
is not largely limited to pornography or material insulting the
monarchy, as the government insists.
The Computer-Related Offences Commission Act has given the government
impetus to be more aggressive in policing online content. Two arrests
have so far been effected under the controversial new law — in both
instances, involving individuals said to be posting comments on online
forums.
With this as backdrop, SEAPA reiterates that it is troubled by the
unclear criteria on what constitute “offences” under the Act, the
disproportionate punishments to violators, and the implications of
some of the provisions on free expression.
The law also impacts on access to information. One of the law’s
provisions seeks to strengthen the government’s intent to manage
access to, and content on, the Internet by penalising people who seek
ways around government-ordered blocks and filters. The law thus
penalises the use of proxy servers to access sites banned by the
government.
While campaigning for more responsible use of the Internet, Thai
lawmakers are also taking aim at the anonymity the Internet affords
many users. Free expression online may suffer as a result, as measures
of anonymity and privacy facilitate open and equal discussions,
objectivity in the evaluation of the message rather than the
messenger, and information-sharing pertaining to concerns over
official wrongdoing.
Meanwhile, harsh punishments and unclear criteria defining the
offences will encourage self-censorship on the Internet.
The law even seeks to apply to acts abroad that are deemed to “damage
the country, both directly and indirectly”. (
http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/83333 )
Many political sites – particularly those sympathetic to former prime
minister Thaksin – remain inaccessible, and Thailand’s most popular
online forums, such as Prachatai.com, continue to labour (and be
compromised) over “requests” from government (made more compelling by
the Computer Computer-Related Offences Commission Act) to manually
monitor each and every comment posted by its thousands of users.
Even the return of the popular video-sharing website YouTube – totally
banned in March, allowed to “return” in August – only comes after what
has reported to be an agreement between the Thai government and
YouTube to cooperate in censoring content from being accessible in
Thailand.
National security bill
Beyond the Computer-Related Offences Commission Act and the anxiety of
the online and alternative media community, free expression advocates
and human rights monitors are anxious about government’s consideration
of a national security bill — what would ultimately be Thailand’s
version of an internal security act. Among other things, the bill
proposes to impose restrictions on freedom of movement, assembly and
information [Articles 25(2), 25(3) and 25(6)], and to “suppress”
groups, individuals and organisations perceived as threatening to
national security [Article 26(2)].
“Threats” are very broadly and vaguely defined, notes Amnesty
International, “including not only acts of violence but also
‘trans-border crime,’ ‘propaganda’ and ‘incitement’.” (
http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGASA390102007&lang=e )
Reform and ‘normalisation’
To be sure, long-running campaigns to reform the media sector,
initiated years before the coup, continued through the past year and
actually resulted in some steps forward.
A draft Thai Public Service Broadcasting Agency Act seeks to create in
Thailand the first public broadcasting platform in Southeast Asia.
ARTICLE 19 says the draft act ensures independence of the broadcaster
and proposes “an innovative funding mechanism which is likely to be
largely insulated against political interference and inflation”.
But it still needs improvement as regards the independence,
representativeness and accountability of the proposed public
broadcaster’s board of directors. (
http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/84942/ )
Media advocates such as the Campaign for Popular Media Reform (CPMR)
say more safeguards are needed to ensure true editorial independence,
especially as the public broadcasting law still keeps the broadcaster
concerned heavily dependent on state funds.
This only underscores that the same old problems of free speech
limitations, media ownership and the resulting vulnerability of media
to political and commercial pressures will remain for Thailand.
Lèse-majesté laws remain in place to protect a genuinely revered
monarch, but also to be exploited and invoked by warring political
interests.
Indeed, the current campaign to “normalise” Thailand’s political
climate merely means returning to the status quo ante – with the new
and proposed laws discussed (Computer-Related Offences Commission Act,
national security bill) actually creating new and serious problems not
present before.
The free expression and media environment in Thailand thus remains
vulnerable. Elections in December may indeed present another step
toward normalisation, but further steps will clearly be needed beyond
then for a media and free expression environment that will give all
Thais more opportunities to responsibly take part in the healing of
their nation and democracy.
Leave a Reply