Amendment To The Printing Act Of 2007 Will Take Press Freedom In Thailand Back To The Dark Ages

[webfact]

EDITORIAL

Thin line between democracy and its opposite number

The Nation

Proposed amendment to the Printing Act of 2007 will take press freedom in Thailand back to the dark ages

Freedom of expression is a funny thing. When you are outside the corridors of power, it's an ideal that should never be compromised, ever. The slightest hint of a threat against this liberty must be met with an uproar. It's a matter of life and death. Anything that might - no matter how remote the possibility - send democracy down a slippery slope to doom must not be allowed to happen.

When you are inside the corridors of power, "freedom of expression" is a different concept entirely. You will want to apply such terms as "pragmatism" or "flexibility" to this cherished ideal. There may be a few people, in your opinion, who may not deserve freedom of expression, after all. There may be a real need to keep in check some kinds of "dangerous" or "counterproductive" opinions. The stakes are too high and some restraints are necessary. Last but not least, in your opinion, if you have been on the receiving end of a political clampdown, it should be all right to give "the other side" a taste of their own medicine.

That's Thailand's story at the moment. Nitirat, the group of anti-coup academics, has a new serious question to answer. So do the activists campaigning against what they call draconian Thai laws. This time, however, those posing the question are not their critics, but the democratically elected government of Yingluck Shinawatra.

With the whole country preoccupied with the flood crisis, the Cabinet on October 18 approved a proposed legal amendment that would take Thailand's media freedom back a few decades. The proposed change to the 2007 law would return the power to control the press to the national police chief. Thanks to the Council of State, the proposed amendment has been deemed unconstitutional. Should we heave a sigh of relief? Not yet, perhaps. What we should do is keep our fingers crossed.

Without the Council of State's intervention, the head of the police would be able to censor, close down and threaten the constitutional rights of any newspaper, with impunity. The powers would be "on paper", of course, and it wouldn't mean that the police chief would invoke them all. Yet if the likes of Nitirat thinks this way, they should at least just come out and say so.

Ironically, the proposed change would represent a step backward from a law that came out when Thai politics was under military influence. Under the 2007 Printing Act - during the time of the military-installed interim government - the need to seek a permit from the government to publish opinion was virtually abolished. In its place, publishers only had to register with the Fine Arts Department instead of the Police Bureau. Permission was automatic, and since the law came into force there has been a flourishing of publications of a great diversity that has helped solidify the foundations of our democracy. For a "dictatorship legacy", it's not too bad.

More ironically perhaps, the Council of State has put the brakes on the proposed amendment by citing the much-criticised "military-installed" Constitution, which states that freedom of expression shall not be violated and media outlets shall not be controlled. As much as they did not like this charter, the ruling Pheu Thai Party's election candidates campaigned under a clear-cut platform of freedom of opinion and civil liberties. That stand was backed by pro-freedom activists such as Nitirat, a group that wants all things legally related to the 2006 coup nullified.

However, Nitirat is not the only one facing questions. People opposed to Article 112 of the Constitution, for example, will also have to do some soul searching. Article 112 has been criticised for allegedly being too rigid against criticism of the monarchy. The proposed change to the Printing Act would virtually endorse Article 112 by giving the police chief power to punish publications deemed disrespectful to the Royal Family.

Questions must also be asked of the likes of Robert Amsterdam. He has purportedly been campaigning on Thaksin Shinawatra's behalf against allegations of human rights abuse in Thailand by the fugitive former prime minister. Thaksin himself may not be able to stay silent over this. He can just say he's not involved, but for someone who has given opinions on a lot of Thai subjects, his thoughts on this issue would be welcome.

Thai politics has gone through many absurdities. This proposed legal amendment most certainly would stand out among them if it is passed into law. The Council of State has "plugged a leak", but hypocrisy disguised as ideology will keep pushing and threatening to overflow.

-- The Nation 2011-11-05

[softgeorge]

This topic is going to be very interesting. I think I will make a coffee and climb up on the fence and watch all the hypocracy unfold with everyone on here trying to stilfle each others expression of opinion. I think this thread will be quashed in a mtter of hours. Let the mayhem begin

[whybother]

This topic is going to be very interesting. I think I will make a coffee and climb up on the fence and watch all the hypocracy unfold with everyone on here trying to stilfle each others expression of opinion. I think this thread will be quashed in a mtter of hours. Let the mayhem begin

Sit on the fence? Do you mean that there will be some people supporting the amendments?

Good to see the Council of State put their foot on this one.

[Moruya]

Another one under the radar with the flood

[redroo]

they seem to have learned a lot from the american politics,

first create or alow for a disaster to take place ,

then impose a new law on the restriction of freedoms,

and then steal from the treachery ,by claiming to help the people in need ,

and then retire .

the modern bank robber

[Nisa]

Politicians try to pass a law but it is shot down as unconstitutional. Seems like the system is working. Being from the US, these types of laws are actually passed and then later shot down as unconstitutional all the time. The big difference is that people generally see an editorial as just that .. an opinion piece but for some reason when these editorials are posted here, it gets people all in an uproar and buy into this BS such as the heading "Proposed amendment to the Printing Act of 2007 will take press freedom in Thailand back to the dark ages' when in fact, it would appear the proposed amendment (not shown here) appears to have already been shot down and is never going to happen.

This proposed law would have effected directly effected this newspaper and instead of running an actually news story getting both sides of the story, they choose to run with these one sided, emotional editorials. I am all for freedom of the press ... when you can trust the press even a little.

Edited November 5, 2011 by Nisa

[LuckyLew]

If the majority of the population is "smart" enough to elect the current regime

Then perhaps they do not deserve certain rights

This sort of governing will continue as long as people choose their "elected"

officials based on who pays them the most

[KKvampire]

"Back to the dark ages"?take away the superficial surface of thailand it is actually still there ,witness its governance

Edited November 5, 2011 by KKvampire

[geriatrickid]

From another thread;

-------------------------------------

Posted Yesterday, 09:07

Not to worry, the Nationmedia's day of reckoning is drawing nigh.

---------------------------------------

Ditto.

[moe666]

You may not like it but it is just opinion and that is sometime misunderstood even on here. Someones opinion is meaningless unless you buy into it. Another way to put it its like your as--ole everyone has one.

[Nisa]

If the majority of the population is "smart" enough to elect the current regime

Then perhaps they do not deserve certain rights

This sort of governing will continue as long as people choose their "elected"

officials based on who pays them the most

I'm pretty sure the majority of voters around the world vote the same way ... who is going to make my life better (put more money in my pocket)

[toenail]

With cell phone sms, cyber communication (Facebook, Twitter, Hotmail, Youtube...) in this 21st century, censorship can only be used for newspapers and other hardcopy publications. --Look at the Arab Spring where these countries had strick censorship with their newspapers and other publications but it was the internet and the cellphone that informed the oppresed population. The best thing a government can do is educate their people to be able to "think" and rationalize for themselves and not believe everything they hear or read; for, a false rumor/ text message can spread like fire on the social networks.

[scorecard]

From another thread;

-------------------------------------

Posted Yesterday, 09:07

Not to worry, the Nationmedia's day of reckoning is drawing nigh.

---------------------------------------

Ditto.

Dear g'kid, just further evidence that you don't believe in freedom of speech. I recall one of your posts just two or three weeks ago when you said words to the effect that you hope for the day when the hammer comes down hard on anybody who says negative things about your idol.

[scorecard]

Politicians try to pass a law but it is shot down as unconstitutional. Seems like the system is working. Being from the US, these types of laws are actually passed and then later shot down as unconstitutional all the time. The big difference is that people generally see an editorial as just that .. an opinion piece but for some reason when these editorials are posted here, it gets people all in an uproar and buy into this BS such as the heading "Proposed amendment to the Printing Act of 2007 will take press freedom in Thailand back to the dark ages' when in fact, it would appear the proposed amendment (not shown here) appears to have already been shot down and is never going to happen.

This proposed law would have effected directly effected this newspaper and instead of running an actually news story getting both sides of the story, they choose to run with these one sided, emotional editorials. I am all for freedom of the press ... when you can trust the press even a little.

Two points:

1). Yes it was shot down as unconstitutional, but I still have fears that the paymaster and his nasty ilk will try other ways to achieve the same result. The paymaster has railroaded legislation through parliament before, he has no morals, he'll try anyway he can to achieve his very selfish goals.

2). We would all hope that newspapers are unbiased / balanced, call it what you will, but the reality is of course different. Many Thai language newspapers daily take the opposite line to the newspaper which published this editorial. It's also true that speakers in a parliamentary debate are all biased and will add whatever spin they can (often very clever spin) to try to convince people to believe their version. It's also true that in some countries people are educated (at home, at school, by their own observation of the behaviors of the society around them) to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff.

[CWMcMurray]

Good job to the Council of State for declaring this unconsitutional and good job on the Nation for printing this article.

Even though this was overturned, it is still important to inform the public, so that all can be aware.

In my opinion, freedom of speech is the most important of rights, otherwise no criticism or information on "mess ups" of the poweful would ever see the light of day.

[Bakseedaa]

From another thread;

-------------------------------------

Posted Yesterday, 09:07

Not to worry, the Nationmedia's day of reckoning is drawing nigh.

---------------------------------------

Ditto.

Suicide is painless....!!

[jdfmail]

This proposed law would have effected directly effected this newspaper and instead of running an actually news story getting both sides of the story, they choose to run with these one sided, emotional editorials. I am all for freedom of the press ... when you can trust the press even a little.

Umm...editorials are one sided. They are opinions of the editor and thus the paper as a whole. News articles are to be unbiased but editorials of all newspapers are not.

[Deez]

they seem to have learned a lot from the american politics,

first create or alow for a disaster to take place ,

then impose a new law on the restriction of freedoms,

and then steal from the treachery ,by claiming to help the people in need ,

and then retire .

the modern bank robber

I see you changed your name to post this. Go slink back into your hole.

[Buchholz]

Politicians try to pass a law but it is shot down as unconstitutional. Seems like the system is working. Being from the US, these types of laws are actually passed and then later shot down as unconstitutional all the time.

when in fact, it would appear the proposed amendment (not shown here) appears to have already been shot down and is never going to happen.

This proposed law would have effected directly effected this newspaper and instead of running an actually news story getting both sides of the story, they choose to run with these one sided, emotional editorials. I am all for freedom of the press ... when you can trust the press even a little.

1). Yes it was shot down as unconstitutional, but I still have fears that the paymaster and his nasty ilk will try other ways to achieve the same result. The paymaster has railroaded legislation through parliament before, he has no morals, he'll try anyway he can to achieve his very selfish goals.

An Executive Decree from the Prime Minister could bypass any constitutional amendment hurdle.

.

[geriatrickid]

Dear g'kid, just further evidence that you don't believe in freedom of speech. I recall one of your posts just two or three weeks ago when you said words to the effect that you hope for the day when the hammer comes down hard on anybody who says negative things about your idol.

Another exaggerated claim. I do not worship before idols. You have taken my position out of context.

Along with rights come responsibilities. Unfortunately, the very same people in the print media that claim "freedom of expression" are often the same ones that spread falsehoods and utter malicious allegations intended to cause harm and foment civil strife. It is no secret that one small media conglomerate has what can politely be termed (IMHO), a nasty vendetta with another group and it appears it will use hyperbole and exaggerated claims to press its scorched earth campaign of hate.

I could understand the concern if there was athriving independent broadcast media in Thailand. Most of the networks areeither controlled directly or indirectly by the government or the military. Evenprint media which traditionally was left to private enterprise has aconcentration of ownership interests. It is to a great extent, a monopoly. 2 Newspapers control in excess of 50% of the market (as per BBC); ThaiRath - 34% and Daily News - 19%. They also have what is described as a very close relationship with vested ruling interests, particularly themilitary. Is it any wonder then that these papers focus on gory crime, car crashes and sports than anything else?

I prefer to wait and see what the opinions of Matichon - 12% and Thai Post - 9%are. Matichon is the paper that took on the Shinwatra clan and I believe it was the first to break the stories on Shin Corporation. Thai Post also has been quite critical, but in a positive constructive manner. I think they have both tried to be fair.

If one print media group is distressed, then so be it. I think that the system that protected that group from competition in the past is now about to smother it with the same type of rules used to curtail that group's competition. Too bad. As yee sow, so shall yee reap.

Edited November 5, 2011 by geriatrickid

[wintermute]

These discussions about press freedom is completely moot in Thailand because political headwinds and institutional restrictions have always dictated the direction of the press. I can't think of any moment in modern Thai history where this wasn't the case. There is no such thing as press freedom and every source is manipulated from inside.

[tgeezer]

This proposed law would have effected directly effected this newspaper and instead of running an actually news story getting both sides of the story, they choose to run with these one sided, emotional editorials. I am all for freedom of the press ... when you can trust the press even a little.

Umm...editorials are one sided. They are opinions of the editor and thus the paper as a whole. News articles are to be unbiased but editorials of all newspapers are not.

One Thai language paper apparently used a Thai proverb to sum up the situation. When the water recedes the stumps appear.

The Flood water receding is the politician's power disappearing, without power they have no means of stopping the truth emerging like stumps after the flood, unless they use the law.

This is why it was so vital that Bangkok should not flood, no previous government has had such a catastrophe, the consequences so huge and the blame so easily attributed, that they can't be hidden.

There should be huge changes after this debacle, it could actually work in favour of good people everywhere, on which ever side they have been told they belong.

With very few exceptions, I think that all of us know of far higher moral ground than where we normally operate, many of us want governments which allow us to live there.

[animatic]

If the majority of the population is "smart" enough to elect the current regime

Then perhaps they do not deserve certain rights

This sort of governing will continue as long as people choose their "elected"

officials based on who pays them the most

You can be stupid as a stump,

and that doesn't mean you should lose you rights.

If they were "smart" enough to elect this bunch then they can get hurt in the pocketbook where it is most likely. Of course in the land of save face above all else, blocking criticism has a different meaning, see the 'I just won't answer that question' school of talking with the press.

But bottom line today; you just can't make them go away.

As much as some politicians would leve that to happen.

Edited November 5, 2011 by animatic

[KHR1010]

they seem to have learned a lot from the american politics,

first create or alow for a disaster to take place ,

then impose a new law on the restriction of freedoms,

and then steal from the treachery ,by claiming to help the people in need ,

and then retire .

the modern bank robber

AKA --" False Flag" Don't give the American's credit for this....it has been a tactic politically and militarily for many governments throughout history.

[Crushdepth]

Dear g'kid, just further evidence that you don't believe in freedom of speech. I recall one of your posts just two or three weeks ago when you said words to the effect that you hope for the day when the hammer comes down hard on anybody who says negative things about your idol.

Another exaggerated claim. I do not worship before idols. You have taken my position out of context.

Along with rights come responsibilities. Unfortunately, the very same people in the print media that claim "freedom of expression" are often the same ones that spread falsehoods and utter malicious allegations intended to cause harm and foment civil strife. It is no secret that one small media conglomerate has what can politely be termed (IMHO), a nasty vendetta with another group and it appears it will use hyperbole and exaggerated claims to press its scorched earth campaign of hate.

I could understand the concern if there was athriving independent broadcast media in Thailand. Most of the networks areeither controlled directly or indirectly by the government or the military. Evenprint media which traditionally was left to private enterprise has aconcentration of ownership interests. It is to a great extent, a monopoly. 2 Newspapers control in excess of 50% of the market (as per BBC); ThaiRath - 34% and Daily News - 19%. They also have what is described as a very close relationship with vested ruling interests, particularly themilitary. Is it any wonder then that these papers focus on gory crime, car crashes and sports than anything else?

I prefer to wait and see what the opinions of Matichon - 12% and Thai Post - 9%are. Matichon is the paper that took on the Shinwatra clan and I believe it was the first to break the stories on Shin Corporation. Thai Post also has been quite critical, but in a positive constructive manner. I think they have both tried to be fair.

If one print media group is distressed, then so be it. I think that the system that protected that group from competition in the past is now about to smother it with the same type of rules used to curtail that group's competition. Too bad. As yee sow, so shall yee reap.

More gold-medal hypocrisy from the champion

Thailand has adequate laws to prevent abuse of free speech. If someone spreads falsehoods, you can sue them for defamation and certain ex-Prime Ministers exercised this heavily. Thailand also has laws against 'hate speech' and incitement, which were exercised by the previous government to cries of "politically motivated censorship". But now you support this arbitrary, draconian power to impose censorship with no judicial oversight, and placing that power in the hands of a relative of the Prime Minister. Great idea.

Your position has nothing to do with principles, so why waste lipstick on the pig? If the Democrats had introduced this bill you'd be howling about it.

Edited November 5, 2011 by Crushdepth

[lannarebirth]

they seem to have learned a lot from the american politics,

first create or alow for a disaster to take place ,

then impose a new law on the restriction of freedoms,

and then steal from the treachery ,by claiming to help the people in need ,

and then retire .

the modern bank robber

Isn't it funny when what many would characterize as crackpot conspiracy theories becomes the conventional wisdom? You've captured the times we're in as succintly as anyone could.

[hammered]

Thailand went back to the dark ages in terms of media freedom ages ago. The best years were the mid 90s. Thaksin started exerting media control and since then it has been worsened through every government. It remains to be seen what route this one actually takes and it will be hard to be as bad as the last government but it seems they are going to try.

Another point is the selective defence of freedom of expression by the certain parts of the media. They were quite happy to overlook abuses by those they favoured.

[Jawnie]

Why would any government in the world today consider a law limiting free speech and public opinion, especially handing the enforcement to the police? The answer is because that government is already controlling speech by force and without popular mandate.

In the case of Thailand, that is done by the military, encouraged by powerful, but mean-spirited, Thais who simply have no regard for basic rights or the humanity of their fellow citizens. Article 112 is also another reason why limiting free speech still has traction in Thailand. Article 112 is a complete absurdity.

Yes, this would be a step backward. It displays a way of thinking that is becoming less and less "exportable" beyond Thailand (or any other country practicing it: China, notably). The idea that states exist to serve and protect the few and the privileged is out of date in the 21st century.

[lannarebirth]

From another thread;

-------------------------------------

Posted Yesterday, 09:07

Not to worry, the Nationmedia's day of reckoning is drawing nigh.

---------------------------------------

Ditto.

You're the first person I ever saw that agreed with you on anything.

[chooka]

Good job to the Council of State for declaring this unconsitutional and good job on the Nation for printing this article.

Even though this was overturned, it is still important to inform the public, so that all can be aware.

In my opinion, freedom of speech is the most important of rights, otherwise no criticism or information on "mess ups" of the poweful would ever see the light of day.

And thank good for the likes of Assange and Wikileaks true campainers for freedom of speech and the freedom of the press.