Press Freedom In Thailand

[konangrit]

I read in todays Bangkok Post that Thailand is now ranked 88th in the world for freedom of the press. They didn't say where they were ranked when Thai Rak Thai came to power, so I decided to do some research myself, all these statistics are available on Freedom House.

Freedom House is an organisation that has ranked individual countries every year going back to the 70s on various criteria to give an overal score of that countries freedom of the press. Scores are from 0-100, 0 being total freedom going to 100 for no freedom.

0-30 is considered Free, 31-60 Partly Free, and 61-100 Not Free.

In 2001 when Thai Rak Thai came to power Thailand had a score of 29 and were ranked 65th, joint with one other. This was their assesment that year:

Thailand - Press freedom may be restricted in the interests of national security, public order, public morals, and the rights of others. Laws prohibit criticism of the royal family, incitement to unrest, and insulting Buddhism. CPJ noted that Thai journalists are increasingly aggressive in their investigation and reporting of official corruption and misconduct, though not without occasional consequences. In April, the editor of a newspaper was shot in an attempted murder following his critical reporting on local government. The home of the crime editor of another paper was bombed in August. Military-controlled companies continue to own nearly all the country's radio and television stations despite promises to reform the sector. However, broadcasters present diverse viewpoints. One cable network operates autonomously.

In 2002 Thailand actually moved up 2 places to 63rd, however they were joint in this position with eleven other countries, and their score had increased to 30. Review for that year:

Thailand - Bribing of journalists, use of commercial advertising to curry political support in the press, and the corruption of low-paid journalists particularly in the provincial press, diminish the proffesionalism of Thai news media. They are generally lively, diversified, and increasingly engaged in investigative journalism, but are subject to a press code that provides prison terms for insulting the head of state and other violations. A radio journalist was shot dead in a southern city in April presumably for investigating corruption in the local government. Internet laws of 1996, like those for the print and broadcast press, prohibit material that is sexually explicit, or promotes ethnic, racial, or religious hatred or intolerance. The determination is left ambiguously to the provider. There are no laws supporting access to official information.Observers voiced concern that Thaksin Shinawatra's new government was applying both political and economic pressure on the media in 2001 in order to silence critical voices. Authorities issued warnings to several publications, and also tried to influence the press through their allocation of advertising.

2003 wasn't a good year for freedom of the press in Thailand, they slipped to 85th place (joint with Mongolia) and increased their score to 36, pushing them out of the category of countries classed free and into the category of partly free. There was even a special mention of the decline of freedom in that years introduction. Here's Thailands 2003 summary:

Thailand Status change explanation: Thailand’s rating declined from Free to Partly

Free to reflect increased official pressure on both local and foreign media

outlets throughout the year.

Media outlets were subject to increased pressure from Prime Minister

Thaksin Shinawatra’s administration in 2002. The constitution allows

the government to restrict press freedom in order to preserve national

security, maintain public order, or prevent insults to the royal family or

Buddhism. Despite some progress in the redrafting of broadcasting laws,

the 1941 Printing Act, which empowers authorities to shut down media

outlets, remains in force. By law, radio stations must renew their licenses

annually. The government and armed forces own or oversee most radio

and broadcast television stations. Newspapers scrutinize official policies

and report allegations of corruption and human rights abuses, but

journalists exercise an increasing level of self-censorship. Editions of the

Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) and The Economist were banned

early in the year, and in February the government threatened to deport

two FEER reporters. According to the Thai Journalists Association, two

editors were forced to resign and an independent media group’s radio

programs were taken off the air on the grounds that they were too critical

of the government. Meanwhile, media organizations accused the

government of intimidation after learning that an official anticorruption

agency had been instructed to investigate the bank accounts of leading

journalists and critical publications. Reporters, particularly in the provinces,

were subjected to some harassment during the year.

The trend continued in 2004 with Thailand dropping further to 88th (joint with 2 others) and increasing their score further to 39. They had this to say:

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s government continued to exert

pressure on the Thai media in 2003. Strong constitutional protections

for freedom of expression are balanced by laws that enable the government

to restrict this right in order to preserve national security, maintain public

order, or prevent insults to the royal family or Buddhism. Though rarely

used, the 1941 Printing Act gives authorities the power to shut down

media outlets. In addition, libel charges were filed against several journalists

and media advocates during the year. While the print media are largely

privately run, the government and armed forces own or oversee most

radio and broadcast television stations. Conflicts of interest remain a

concern, as corporations controlled by Thaksin’s family or with ties to

the ruling party own or have shares in a growing number of private media

outlets and exert influence over editorial policy. Despite an increasing

level of self-censorship, some journalists continue to scrutinize official

policies and report allegations of corruption and human rights abuses.

Nevertheless, they faced a range of renewed economic and political

pressures. Radio stations are required to transmit government-produced

newscasts twice a day and must renew their licenses annually; media groups

noted that renewals were sometimes delayed or withheld in order to punish

critical stations. According to the Thai Journalists’ Association, business

associates of the government also withheld advertisements from news

outlets in a further attempt to stifle critical coverage. Reporters were

subjected to some harassment while covering the news, and a local

journalist from the island of Phuket was murdered in February.

This post is quite long, so I'll leave it at that for now and give my thoughts later.

Edited February 24, 2005 by konangrit

[tuky]

It is very interesting, I just wonder how far it will end up going???

[konangrit]

I realise this doesn't say anything that most people didn't suspect already, but it's usefull to actually have the statistics to back up the argument to the current government. Unfortunately the opposition seem way too weak to be able to do this now, so it's upto the media to start saying more on the subject before it's too late for them to be able to say anything critical at all.

I can't speak for the Thai language press, as I don't read it, but I feel that the English language press should be making a much louder noise over this than they currently are. Of course, the reason for this may be due to the perceived lack of freedom the press now has.

Like Tukyleith said, how far will it end up going? After the elections Thai Rak Thai now have even more power than before and can basically do what they like with impunity. I can only see the current trend accelerating over the next four years.

When you're poor and have a low education do you really care about freedom of the press when compared to a real improvement in your standard of living? Thaksin is taking advantage of this to take total control of the country, including the media.

[mickmac]

Shades of "Eine Reich, Eine Volk, Eine Furher" methinks.

Will "ol' Moonface" have ammased enough wealth by the time his 2nd term in office is up or will he go for the "BIG ONE".............. total control.

Thankfully the Royal Family is held in such high regards by the populace, otherwise there may be no end to his ambitions!

[fw1]

As a Thai would inexorably and unfortunately say "Mai pen rai".

[Thaiboxer]

I heard sometime back about a journalist for either the Nation or the Bangkok Post being fired for criticizing Thaksin's government. As another poster said, now that Thai Rak Thai basically has no political/legal opposition, they can do whatever they like...and worse than that, many people in Thailand put them there. The current government is running this country like a business and suppressing all criticism...this is no longer a democracy, this is a dictatorship. Thai Rak Thai will only allow the public access to information it wants them to have access to. Total propaganda, this government is just like the former governments of Nazi Germany and Iraq.

[ProfessorFart]

Its nothing new in Thailand. It will all end in bloodshed yet again. If you think its a recent trend then you know ##### all about Thailand. I would suggest a dip into the history books before getting all uppity about things now.

[Thaiboxer]

The oppressive government control of the media here is not recent trend for sure...I have been travelling in and reading about Thailand for almost six years and I've lived here for nearly 2 1/2. In 1973, soldiers gunned down a bunch of students in downtown Bangkok and a similar incident occurred in the spring of 1992 and a bunch of demonstrators were shot. The buildings still have loads of pockmarks from the stray bullets that hit them. That was more or less the last big incident in which the military controlled the government and put down demonstrations.

Nowadays, things are done on a smaller, albeit no less significant, scale. Journalists and various other outspoken individuals are either removed from their jobs or assinated. If the current government can execute 2,500 "drug dealers" without trial/jury in just one year, what's the difference if they take out a few journalists?

[HarryHacker]

Its nothing new in Thailand. It will all end in bloodshed yet again. If you think its a recent trend then you know ##### all about Thailand. I would suggest a dip into the history books before getting all uppity about things now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are quite right Prof, but its 2005 now and the country in not evolving as quick as it should be. Sometimes I do sit and ponder the mind of Thai Thai's....then again I think they can get on with it and enjoy the ride, so to speak.

The only hope is, that the old guard are disappearing (shovalshit excluded) and the next generation of technocrats will be a breath of fresh air.

[marquess]

Thaksin is taking advantage of this to take total control of the country, including the media.

Did I not read in the newspaper this morning that, Toxin, has drafted some legislation. That will allow him to pass draft laws for cabinet approval, with the aid of just one minister. We are in for a rough ride over the next four years

[aletta]

I am a fan of Mr Thaksin,but i must say that as an avid reader i am dismayed that there appears to be absolutely no investigative journalism here.

[konangrit]

Its nothing new in Thailand. It will all end in bloodshed yet again. If you think its a recent trend then you know ##### all about Thailand. I would suggest a dip into the history books before getting all uppity about things now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thailands history in this regard is why it should be such a big concern. In terms of democracy, the country is heading backwards rather than forwards.

I'm rather surprised that you think I'd even bother to post this without having a little knowledge of 20th century Thai history.

Edited February 26, 2005 by konangrit

[Ajarn]

Its nothing new in Thailand. It will all end in bloodshed yet again. If you think its a recent trend then you know ##### all about Thailand. I would suggest a dip into the history books before getting all uppity about things now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are quite right Prof, but its 2005 now and the country in not evolving as quick as it should be. Sometimes I do sit and ponder the mind of Thai Thai's....then again I think they can get on with it and enjoy the ride, so to speak.

The only hope is, that the old guard are disappearing (shovalshit excluded) and the next generation of technocrats will be a breath of fresh air.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't hold your breath on that one. Thaksin was that hope, so now what? History tells us it will always be more of the same, under different flavours and colours. All proclaim themselves 'New & Improved'. And many citizens, like many people here in TV, believe in whatever they read or are told, and baring real info, create their own story in their mind, and swear by it to their dying breath.

Who needs a free press unless it's telling you what's 'correct', right?

Human Nature, it seems to me. Most humans are sheep, anyway.

Edited February 26, 2005 by Ajarn

[toastwars]

Its nothing new in Thailand. It will all end in bloodshed yet again. If you think its a recent trend then you know ##### all about Thailand. I would suggest a dip into the history books before getting all uppity about things now.

You are quite right Prof, but its 2005 now and the country in not evolving as quick as it should be. Sometimes I do sit and ponder the mind of Thai Thai's....then again I think they can get on with it and enjoy the ride, so to speak.

The only hope is, that the old guard are disappearing (shovalshit excluded) and the next generation of technocrats will be a breath of fresh air.

I hear that Toxin has quietly pushed through a totally undemocratic motion allowing him to pass "in an emergency" any measures he likes with just one cabinet minister present, Judging by his track record on over reaction and being able to say jus the right inflamatory thing at just the wrong time I see a disaster looming. We live in interesting times, I hope I live to see them over

[Ajarn]

It's another trial balloon, just like every hair-brained idea they have. The King has to sign it first, but will he?

And, isn't Thaksin in a position to change ANY part of the constitution, with control of both houses of Parliment??

Edited February 26, 2005 by Ajarn

[Sir Burr]

I've always believed in the quotation "Every people get the government that they deserve".

The Thais voted Toxin and his government in, so, they get what they deserve.

Personally, I think this will be Toxin's last term. The Thai people will wake up in a couple of years and realise just how much freedom has been taken away from them.

Edited February 26, 2005 by Sir Burr

[Erwin1011]

I've always believed in the quotation "Every people get the government that they deserve".

The Thais voted Toxin and his government in, so, they get what they deserve.

Personally, I think this will be Toxin's last term. The Thai people will wake up in a couple of years and realise just how much freedom has been taken away from them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if the other article in the Bkk Post is true to some extent, that won't be the case.

"50 % would vote for candidates with connections,esteemed background and well recognized"

" about 10 % were willing to take part in public demonstrations, protest"

[aaaaaa]

I read in todays Bangkok Post that Thailand is now ranked 88th in the world for freedom of the press. They didn't say where they were ranked

when Thai Rak Thai came to power, so I decided to do some research myself, all these statistics are available on

Freedom House.

Freedom House is an organisation that has ranked individual countries every year going back to the 70s on various criteria to give an overal score of that countries freedom of the press. Scores are from 0-100, 0 being total freedom going to 100 for no freedom.

0-30 is considered Free, 31-60 Partly Free, and 61-100 Not Free.

thanks konagrit for your honest ans sincer concern and fair approach.

however I feel compelled to point out something.

although I don't argue the point of importance of freedoms such as of press and do accept your attempt to be objective and prove your points by what might be reliable facts from reliable sources - it is not sure whether these sources can be used as criteria. simply because statistics in general have tendency to "choose" facts - by proving them by selected evidences, and the very criterias defined not always objectively but rather subjectively. this particular source you refer to is very subjective - it is not even any independent agency (if such even exist nowdays in modern world, I mean completely uncompromised/ ing seekers of truth - except perhaps blogs on net, although accuracy of facts on blogs can be

doubtfull / questionable).

instead it is almost oficial "voice of policies-makers" and almost government -run :

"Freedom House is governed by a board of trustees which includes prominent Republicans and Democrats, business

and labor leaders, foreign policy experts, former government officials, and other prominent Americans....

Today, Freedom House is a leading advocate of the world's young democracies, which are coping with the debilitating legacy of statism, dictatorship, and political repression. It conducts an array of U.S. and overseas research, advocacy, education, and training initiatives that promote human rights, democracy, free market economics, the rule of law, independent media, and U.S. engagement in international affairs

....

Freedom House is a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world. Founded over sixty years ago by Eleanor Roosevelt, Wendell Willkie, and other Americans concerned with the mounting threats to peace and democracy, Freedom House has been a vigorous proponent of democratic values and a steadfast opponent of dictatorships of the far left and the far right....."

it is so full of slogan-like statements and proclamations - that even Soviets in those days would be humbled ! oh, and that map of Freedom on their website - reminds me a lot of the color zones which Thaksin so much criticised about nowdays ! perhaps he's borrowed idea from them? And BTW - on that map Thailand is in steady green color - Free ! while neighbouring Malaysia is only partially free - yellow;

Amongst the major "supporters" of this Freedom house are ... wonder who? here are just a few:

- US Department of State (not at all independent and objective institution !)

- The Soros Foundations (guy who caused 97 crises in Asia - so much for promotion of democratic values and what's that - ah yeah: "the world's young democracies" ! )

obviously - such a source would be and IS biased simply because it is not a voice-populi but of very highly politically and economically motivated and interested people in big positions.

one simple example:

the very value (democracy) this site is trying to promote, is not even in the consitution of the country which is self-considered as stronghold of it.

anyone can check it out - just press Ctrl-F and type in word 'democracy' or 'democratic' and then hit the Enter bottom on the page:

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

not even once it mentioned there ! but rather there is this line in section 4 of Article IV:

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government

..."

here is definition :

republic

"A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

A nation that has such a political order"

then down on the bottom the difference with democracy is explained:

"...Traditionally a republic is distinguished from a true democracy in that the republic operates through a representative assembly chosen by the citizenry, while in a democracy the populace participates directly in governmental affairs. In actual practice, however, most modern representative governments are closer to a republic than a democracy. The United States is an example of a federal republic, in which the powers of the central government are limited and the component parts of the nation, the states, exercise some measure of home rule. France is an example of a centralized republic, in which the component parts have more limited powers. The USSR, though in theory a grouping of federated republics and autonomous regions, was in fact a centralized republic until its breakup in 1991."

hmmm, interesting, huh? actually in principle USA is not much different from USSR (well, in the sence that both weren't and ain't democracies - but republics) even before its breakup! although till now Russian is - yellow color on the Freedom map - while USA is deep green.

so, it is interesting, why the country which propagates democracy in the world - in this regard can be said, global democracy - still won't change it's form of government to democracy, huh? not in any of changes or Amendments (total 27 were made - last one XXVII in 1992, not so long time ago) it is mentioned.

Furthermore, democracy is not synonimous to freedom. in fact word freedom was used only once there in Constitution - for freedom of speech or of press - not at all as for democracy. as well as neither democrasy is mentioned among the words-synonyms for 'freedom' - but only liberty and license !

democracy

"Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives Majority rule......

The idea that equality of opportunity can be maintained through political democracy alone has long been challenged by socialists and others, who insist that economic democracy through economic equality and public ownership of the major means of production is the only foundation upon which a true political democracy can be erected....

....Since the mid-20th cent. most political systems have described themselves as democracies, but many of them have not encouraged competing political parties and have not stressed individual rights and other elements typical of classic Western democracy. With the collapse of one-party Communist rule in Eastern Europe, the fall of authoritarian dictatorships in Latin America, and the end of some one-party states in sub-Saharan Africa, however, the number of true multiparty democracies has increased. Despite the increase in the number of countries holding multiparty elections, however, the United Nations issued a study in 2002 that stated that in more than half the world's nations the rights and freedoms of citizens are limited."

majority rule - rules out freedom for minority, doesn't it?

and also - arguable point about which system is more democratic....

and mind you - this source is Columbia University press, not Freedom House !

and especially : varieties of democracy

very educative and interesting article there - many eyes opening facts ! 2 main forms of democrasy - direct and indirect.

"Modern direct democracy is characterised by three pillars:

- Initiative

- Referendum including binding referenda

- Recall

Various governments around the world exhibit one or more of the above pillars; for example, just over half the states in the United States have citizen-sponsored ballot initiatives and the vast majority have either initiatives and/or referenda.

Switzerland provides the strongest example of a modern direct democracy, as it exhibits the first two pillars at both the local and federal levels. In the past 120 years more than 240 initiatives have been put to referendum. The populace has been conservative, granting about 10% of the initiatives put; in addition, they have often opted for a version of the initiative rewritten by government....

Direct democracy becomes more and more difficult, and necessarily more closely approximates representative democracy, as the number of citizens grows.....

There are concerns about how such systems would scale to larger populations;

We can view direct and indirect democracies as ideal types, with actual democracies approximating more closely to the one or the other.

Some modern political entities are closest to direct democracies, such as Switzerland or some U.S. states, where frequent use is made of

referenda, and means are provided for referenda to be initiated by petition instead of by members of the legislature or the government.

"

as one can see - SOME US states - not even whole country ,as well as Switz. are only "closest" to direct democrasy - BUT not named as such. may be semi-direct democracy - yes, but not fully direct. but then, it may be considered as indirect as well it if is not 100% direct, right?

and then -

"Indirect democracy is a broad term describing a means of governance by the people through elected representatives.

The most common system found in today's democratic states is the representative democracy. The people elect government officials who then make decisions on their behalf. Essentially, a representative democracy is a form of indirect democracy in which representatives are democratically selected, and usually difficult to recall.

One critique of indirect democracy is that it centralizes power into the hands of a few, thereby increasing the likelihood of corruption in and abuse of power by the government....

Moreover, while some contend indirect democracy eliminates demagoguery, there is little reason to believe the elected representatives are not themselves demagogues, or subject to the persuasive appeal of demagogues.

"

then Alternative forms of democracy are listed ans explained - those interested can read (interesting things about Anticipatory D. there - and mentioning that the project was cancelled in 2003); one thing though:

"Well-known advocates of the anticipatory approach include Newt Gingrich, Alvin Toffler and Heidi Toffler, K. Eric Drexler, and Robin Hanson. They all advocate approaches where the public, not just experts, participate in this "anticipation". It is questionable whether the US TIA program has, or can have, enough openness to satisfy any of them. "

well - openness, I thinks should be releted to freedom of press / speech, isn't it?

anyway, my main point is: it doesn't mean those forms of goverance ain't democrasies.

so, please pardon me for disagreeing - but at least the source and the criterias to judge whether Thailand is or isn't FREE and democratic -

ain't reliable ! it doesn't mean though that I advocate the decrease of freedom of speech or press - not at all !

[konangrit]

aaaaaa,

I appreciate the time and effort you've put into creating that post.

Firstly, I'd like to point out that I didn't select my source due to any political reasons, it was simply the source quoted in the Bangkok post.

You say that the source I used is not independent and almost (US) government run. This may be the case. I must admit I was sloppy and didn't check this out, but seeing as the current Thai government is a very close ally of the US government, then their' conclusions should be considered all the more damning. Personally I think their annual press freedom reports are objective and unprejudiced, however I shall do a little research and find out what the press in general feel about this, and how highly respected they are.

Whilst your' points about different definitions of democracy are interesting, they're quite different to the original intention of this post, which is more to do with the current government than the actual constitution.

[aaaaaa]

thanks for respectfull answer.

I didn't mean though that you are sloppy or anything - nothing personal.

just only discussing the meaning of words and terms, because I think it is essential for such subjects as yours. and according to proper perspective - the issue would be viewed differently. that's why I still think that these points were relevent to the topic here and local government etc. although I may agree that I wasn't disputing directly - whether Thailand has freedom of speech or not and to which extent.

I think it has enough. and used those points to illustrate it.

[konangrit]

OK, this is who Freedom House is according to them in full.

Freedom House is a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world. Founded over sixty years ago by Eleanor Roosevelt, Wendell Willkie, and other Americans concerned with the mounting threats to peace and democracy, Freedom House has been a vigorous proponent of democratic values and a steadfast opponent of dictatorships of the far left and the far right.

Non-partisan and broad-based, Freedom House is led by a Board of Trustees composed of leading Democrats, Republicans, and independents; business and labor leaders; former senior government officials; scholars; writers; and journalists. All are united in the view that American leadership in international affairs is essential to the cause of human rights and freedom.

Over the years, Freedom House has been at the center of the struggle for freedom. It was an outspoken advocate of the Marshall Plan and NATO in the 1940s, of the U.S. civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, of the Vietnam boat people in the 1970s, of Poland's Solidarity movement and the Filipino democratic opposition in the 1980s, and of the many democracies that have emerged around the world in the 1990s.

Freedom House has vigorously opposed dictatorships in Central America and Chile, apartheid in South Africa, the suppression of the Prague Spring, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, genocide in Bosnia and Rwanda, and the brutal violation of human rights in Cuba, Burma, China, and Iraq.

It has championed the rights of democratic activists, religious believers, trade unionists, journalists, and proponents of free markets. In 1997, a consolidation took place whereby the international democratization training programs of the National Forum Foundation were incorporated into Freedom House.

Today, Freedom House is a leading advocate of the world's young democracies, which are coping with the debilitating legacy of statism, dictatorship, and political repression. It conducts an array of U.S. and overseas research, advocacy, education, and training initiatives that promote human rights, democracy, free market economics, the rule of law, independent media, and U.S. engagement in international affairs.

Freedom House is a non-profit, nonpartisan organization that relies upon tax-deductible grants and donations under Section 501©(3) of the IRS code. Major support has been provided by:

 

The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation    The Byrne Foundation

The Carthage Foundation    The Eurasia Foundation

The Ford Foundation    The Freedom Forum

Grace Foundation, Inc.    Lilly Endowment, Inc.

The LWH Family Foundation    National Endowment for Democracy

The Pew Charitable Trusts    Sarah Scaife Foundation

The Schloss Family Foundation    Smith Richardson Foundation, Inc.

The Soros Foundations    The Tinker Foundation

Unilever United States Foundation, Inc.    US Agency for International Development

US Information Agency    Charles Stewart Mott Foundation

Whirlpool    U.S. Steel

Whilst they may be a US organisation, it could not be called almost government run as its' board of trustees comprise both Democrats and Republicans. The "other prominent Americans" you refer to are classed as Independants, scholars, writers and journalists.

Non-partisan and broad-based, Freedom House is led by a Board of Trustees composed of leading Democrats, Republicans, and independents; business and labor leaders; former senior government officials; scholars; writers; and journalists.

This sounds a little different to your quote of:

"Freedom House is governed by a board of trustees which includes prominent Republicans and Democrats, business

and labor leaders, foreign policy experts, former government officials, and other prominent Americans....

Googling Press Freedom , these organizations came up, in this order:

Committee to Protect Journalists(They link to Freedom House)

World Press Freedom Committee (They Link to Freedom House)

Freedom House Press Freedom Survey

Reporters Sans frontieres ( No links to any sites, have had their own annual reports since 2002.

Reporters Sans Frontieres have only been doing annual reports since 2002, so no way to know what they thought press freedom was like when the current government came to power. The reports are quite long, so I'll just post the links:

Thailand annual report 2002

Thailand annual report 2003

Thailand annual report 2004

I see no reason to suggest my original source was biased against the current government.

Edited February 27, 2005 by konangrit

[konangrit]

This is an old thread (2 years), another thread about the CNS attempt to stop the media reporting on Thaksin's statements made me decide to update it with the last 2 years data. The coup was too recent for it to have been taken into any consideration for the latest rankings.

2005: Thailand drop further from 88th to 95th and increase their score from 39 to 42.

Press freedom declined further in Thailand in 2004 as editors and publishers faced increased pressure from the government in the form of civil and criminal defamation lawsuits, as well as more subtle forms of editorial interference and economic pressure. While there are strong constitutional protections for freedom of expression, they are balanced by laws that enable the government to restrict this right in order to preserve national security, maintain public order, or prevent insults to the royal family or Buddhism. Though rarely used, the 1941 Printing Act gives authorities the power to shut down media outlets. The National Broadcasting Commission, which administers broadcast frequencies and is constitutionally mandated to be independent and nonpartisan, held elections this year that nevertheless saw victories by candidates that to a person had close ties to business and government. Access to government information has diminished under Thai premier Thaksin Shinawatra, despite the 1997 passage of a freedom of information law. The year's highlight development was a US$9.6 million libel suit filed during the last week of August against Thaksin's critics by Shin Corporation, the country's largest telecommunications conglomerate founded by Thaksin himself. The Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) expressed concern over reports published by one of Bangkok's leading English-language newspapers, The Nation, that the Thai government is considering laws and measures patterned after Singaporean and Malaysian internal security acts to preempt expected violence in its troubled southern provinces.

Over the past three years, the Thai Journalists Association and the Thai Broadcasters Association have documented more than 20 cases in which news editors and print and broadcast journalists have been dismissed or transferred or have had their work tampered with to appease the government. Journalists and editors report that they are routinely pressured by the government to alter news coverage and edit overly critical stories. Even international news agencies now face pressure from the government. The Nation reported that police harassed reporters into identifying a photographer who took a damning photo of a soldier firing into a crowd of protesters in one of Thailand's southern provinces, where violence claimed more than 500 lives in 2004. There is an increasing level of self-censorship, but many journalists continue to scrutinize official policies and report allegations of corruption and human rights abuses despite threats and pressures.

While the print media are privately run, the government and armed forces own or oversee most radio and broadcast television stations. Conflicts of interest remain a concern, as corporations controlled by Thaksin's family or with ties to the ruling party own or have shares in a growing number of private media outlets and exert influence over editorial policy. The government rewards media outlets supportive of its policies through the allocation of advertising by telecommunications firms and state enterprises.

2006: The trend increases, Thailand drop down to 107th and increase their score to 50.

Thaksin Shinawatra and his Thai Rak Thai party's landslide reelection in February 2005 rightfully alarmed press freedom and democracy watchdog groups. The year brought the prime minister's escalating intolerance for criticism in the media to new heights with the use of emergency national security legislation and several lawsuits and business acquisitions to limit criticism in and increase state control of the Thai press.

The 1997 constitution includes strong protections for freedom of expression, yet several older laws still in force reserve the government's right to restrict the media to preserve national security or public order, and limit criticism of the royal family or Buddhism. In July 2005, Thaksin took full advantage of such provisions when, in response to mounting violence in the southern provinces, he issued the Executive Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situations. The decree, passed without parliamentary approval (despite the party's overwhelming parliamentary majority), allows for the prohibition of media considered a threat to national security or to be "distorting the facts." Justified as an improvement upon martial law, the decree was renewed for three months in October. Access to information, also constitutionally guaranteed, has essentially been reversed under Thaksin, with the number of disclosures steadily declining as compared with the first four years after the Access to Information Law was passed in 1997. The 1941 Printing Act reserves the government's right to shut down media outlets, but this legislation has typically been reserved for blocking pornographic or separatist content. However, government concern about a surge of community radio stations prompted the abrupt cancellation of the popular "Muang Thai Rai Sapda" television program because the show "promoted misunderstanding among the public"; and in August, the Public Relations Department and police closed down a popular community radio station notoriously critical of the government.

The number of criminal and civil defamation suits filed by government officials or business affiliates against members of the press increased significantly in 2005. Several politically connected corporations filed legal charges to curb disparaging reporting on their activities and, in certain cases, suspend the careers of critical editors and journalists for many years. This tendency was largely encouraged by the landmark criminal defamation suit in July filed against media activist Supinya Klangnarong and three Thai Post senior editors (charged with suggesting a conflict of interest between Thaksin's public office and his family's private businesses) by the Shin Corporation, a Thaksin-founded conglomerate of which his family is a major shareholder. Although later pressured to drop them, Thaksin himself filed a series of charges against Sondhi Limthongkul, a prominent journalist and fierce Thaksin critic, for alleging that he was disloyal to the Thai monarch, and against the daily Manager for reporting a Buddhist monk's criticism of the government. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, monetary damages sought in civil cases alone included some of the largest figures ever requested for libel anywhere in the world. The country's growing culture of legal intimidation and a general fear of economic repercussions have sparked a rise in self-censorship and, in certain cases, caused newspaper managers to take punitive action against critical reporters. The murders of two press members who had reported negatively on local police and officials mark an additional decline for press freedom in Thailand, where violence against journalists has typically been rare.

Radio and television remain primarily under the control of the state or state-affiliated private businesses; stations are required to renew licenses annually and to feature government-produced newscasts daily. Media ownership became even more problematic toward the end of the year with the prime minister's use of business cronies to purchase greater shares in or orchestrate financial takeovers of media organizations. Examples include the secretary-general of the Thai Rak Thai party, who increased his family's stakes in the Nation Group (an independent media company), and the controlling stakes that GMM Grammy PLC (a large media conglomerate dealing with both news and entertainment) maintains in Matichon (an independent Bangkok-based daily) as well as the publishing company of the Bangkok Post. The National Broadcast Commission, established in October 2005 to redistribute the country's frequencies from the state to the private sector as constitutionally mandated, was nullified just a month later for irregularities in its selection process. The government has censored the internet since 2003 and has successfully blocked more than 4,000 websites; since violence erupted in the south, it has ramped up efforts to block sites considered a threat to national security, including those of Muslim separatist groups.

So, Thailand's Press Freedom went from 65th place with a score of 29 to 107th with a score of 50. 0-30 is considered Free, 31-60 Partly Free, and 61-100 Not Free.

2001=29=65th

2002=30=63rd

2003=36=85th

2004=39=88th

2005=42=95th

2006=50=107th

It will be interesting to see what their verdict will be for this year under the CNS when compared to TRT. I'll try to find data from Reporters Sans Frontiers to see how it compares to Freedom House.