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

[scorecard]

It really is a shame that the newspapers are completely ignoring this as a news story and not letting people read the actual facts of this proposed but failed legislation instead of only providing one sided biased editorials.

The facts are that PT tried to put into law the ability for the police chief to accept or deny media licences and that the publishers needed to apply for a licence, IIRC, every year.

Don't you think that is worth discussing?

Quote from whybother: "The facts are that PT tried to put into law the ability for the police chief to accept or deny media licences and that the publishers needed to apply for a licence, IIRC, every year." Please add "and/or simply close newspapers down at a moments notice, purely at the whim of one man, no process."

[scorecard]

It really is a shame that the newspapers are completely ignoring this as a news story and not letting people read the actual facts of this proposed but failed legislation instead of only providing one sided biased editorials.

The facts are that PT tried to put into law the ability for the police chief to accept or deny media licences and that the publishers needed to apply for a licence, IIRC, every year.

Don't you think that is worth discussing?

What you are saying is not true .. please show a link to back up this claim.

And I actually said it was worth reporting by the media but cannot find any news report about this ... only one sided opinion/editorial pieces.

It seems, that much of the newspapers here do no reporting at all but simply pass along official statements. Then the provide these editorials in place of investigative journalism that appear to be taken as actual news by many readers based on the posts here..

Start with reading the OP

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4822745

This is the whole point of the thread.

They can ramrod in whom ever they want as Police Chief

and let him muzzle any dissenting papers and communications sources.

In a word: Diabolical.

+1

[geriatrickid]

And g'kid, do you add the red rags which publish dozens of outright lies to your list of publications who'se day of reckoning is nigh? If not why not?

And what treatment would you suggest in regard to the doctored tapes etc., under your principles surely they should be jailed for life.

And g'kid perhaps you'd like to share where /how pt got a mandate to limit freedom of speech, and perhaps you'd like to share how this links to the paymasters / jatuporns veeras / etc., loud and numerous claims that they are the champions of democracy? The paymaster has made this claim again and again during his numerous phone ins 'fight for democracy .....'

The UDD affiliated publications are political organs.. They make no secret of their political allegiances. They do not pretend to be unbiased newsmedia..One media group that has a hardon for the government hides behind "freedom of the press" to press its owner(s)' political agenda.

In respect to your quesry as to my view on political organization publications publishing false allegations, they too should suffer the consequences.of their wrongful acts. I do not defend any group that publishes false allegations.

One should keep in mind that print media is a quasi monopoly in Thailand. Over 1/2 the distribution is controlled by two business entities. Neither of which offers much in the way of political commentary. These two groups are focused on making a profit delivering stories of crime, car crashes, sports, recipes and tales of woe that befall the lonely.If there was a free and vibrant print media in Thailand, I could understand the concern. However, I think what the proposed changes had intended to do was to restructure the monopoly structure, to try and make some room for others. I'd be more sympathetic if Thai Post or Matichon, two papers which have taken the PTP to task and have delivered tough constructive criticism, expressed a concern of being silenced. So far, it is only one media group that is upset. Is Thai Rath offering editorials on the subject?

[animatic]

Even here on TV we are censored from freedom of speech

you just cannot get away from it in todays life

So we had just better get used to it i suppose

no matter how much you hate it

Or you can fight it as best possible with dialogue.

The only real large public thing we can't do is lese majesty talk.

And there is no reason to do it except for zealotry.

And you can't unduly criticize a courts decisions.

And discussing moderation issues in open forum.

Not using 'Proper Names', for political figures.

I can't think of other topics, when filled with TRUTHS, and not serial falsehoods, that is not let to run endlessly on TVF.

If you flame, lie, or break other clearly stated rules then you have broken your agreement when joining. If you go bye bye, som mon na. Your fault not TVFs.

Edited November 6, 2011 by animatic

[lannarebirth]

And g'kid, do you add the red rags which publish dozens of outright lies to your list of publications who'se day of reckoning is nigh? If not why not?

And what treatment would you suggest in regard to the doctored tapes etc., under your principles surely they should be jailed for life.

And g'kid perhaps you'd like to share where /how pt got a mandate to limit freedom of speech, and perhaps you'd like to share how this links to the paymasters / jatuporns veeras / etc., loud and numerous claims that they are the champions of democracy? The paymaster has made this claim again and again during his numerous phone ins 'fight for democracy .....'

The UDD affiliated publications are political organs.. They make no secret of their political allegiances. They do not pretend to be unbiased newsmedia..One media group that has a hardon for the government hides behind "freedom of the press" to press its owner(s)' political agenda.

In respect to your quesry as to my view on political organization publications publishing false allegations, they too should suffer the consequences.of their wrongful acts. I do not defend any group that publishes false allegations.

One should keep in mind that print media is a quasi monopoly in Thailand. Over 1/2 the distribution is controlled by two business entities. Neither of which offers much in the way of political commentary. These two groups are focused on making a profit delivering stories of crime, car crashes, sports, recipes and tales of woe that befall the lonely.If there was a free and vibrant print media in Thailand, I could understand the concern. However, I think what the proposed changes had intended to do was to restructure the monopoly structure, to try and make some room for others. I'd be more sympathetic if Thai Post or Matichon, two papers which have taken the PTP to task and have delivered tough constructive criticism, expressed a concern of being silenced. So far, it is only one media group that is upset. Is Thai Rath offering editorials on the subject?

I don't know, but the Bangkok Post certainly is, in today's edition.

[lannarebirth]

Even here on TV we are censored from freedom of speech

you just cannot get away from it in todays life

So we had just better get used to it i suppose

no matter how much you hate it

Or you can fight it as best possible with dialogue.

The only real large public thing we can't do is lese majesty talk.

And there is no reason to do it except for zealotry.

And you can't unduly criticize a courts decisions.

And discussing moderation issues in open forum.

Not using 'Proper Names', for political figures.

I can't think of other topics, when filled with TRUTHS, and not serial falsehoods, that is not let to run endlessly on TVF.

If you flame, lie, or break other clearly stated rules then you have broken your agreement when joining. If you go bye bye, som mon na. Your fault not TVFs.

People tell lies here on TV all the time. It is only when you call them on it that you can expect fallout.

[Nisa]

It really is a shame that the newspapers are completely ignoring this as a news story and not letting people read the actual facts of this proposed but failed legislation instead of only providing one sided biased editorials.

The facts are that PT tried to put into law the ability for the police chief to accept or deny media licences and that the publishers needed to apply for a licence, IIRC, every year.

Don't you think that is worth discussing?

What you are saying is not true .. please show a link to back up this claim.

And I actually said it was worth reporting by the media but cannot find any news report about this ... only one sided opinion/editorial pieces.

It seems, that much of the newspapers here do no reporting at all but simply pass along official statements. Then the provide these editorials in place of investigative journalism that appear to be taken as actual news by many readers based on the posts here..

There was a link to a Prachatai article about the subject on the other thread about the proposed law (you posted there but must have missed the link)

From the article:

The amendments include 7 points:

1. Any print media, excluding newspapers, printed in the kingdom must identify itself by category according to criteria set by ministerial regulation;

2. The National Police Chief is authorized to ban the printing, distribution or import of any printed media which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals;

3. Publishers must publish within 60 days after receiving permission;

4. Publishers must identify in the printed materials the category and ISBN of each publication as issued by the National Library of Thailand, and must submit two copies to the National Library of Thailand;

5. The name of the publication must not be the same as or similar to any of the name or abbreviation of any state agency;

6. Publishers who do not submit copies of their publication to the National Library of Thailand within a specified timeframe will be fined up to 10,000 baht; and

7. Those who violate a banning order by the National Police Chief will be punished with a jail term of up to three years or a fine of up to 100,000 baht, or both.

Here is the link to the actual news story (thanks as I did miss this) -- I really don't see anything scary here and certainly NOTHING that says the Police Chief can shut down a publication but instead can simply order them to stop distributing an article that is illegal and then arrest any person who ignores that order ... nothing really new here but simply clarification of how things will be administered and accounted for in the future..

http://www.prachatai3.info/english/node/2847

A rating system for printed media will also be introduced in the law because currently newspapers, magazines and journals are found to have violent and pornographic content and pictures which are not appropriate for young readers who might imitate them, she said.

The Ministry of Culture will work out the details of the rating system appropriate to Thai society. The amendments will be vetted by the Council of State before being forwarded to Parliament, the Minister said.

[Nisa]

Start with reading the OP

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4822745

This is the whole point of the thread.

They can ramrod in whom ever they want as Police Chief

and let him muzzle any dissenting papers and communications sources.

In a word: Diabolical.

+1

The OP is an editorial. Why don't you read the actual news and changes that were proposed and tell us what is so diabolical. There appears to be nothing added to limit freedom of speech but simply a clarification of how the checks and balances will be handled to observe current laws.

The police can only tell them to stop printing an article that is in violation of the law .... in fact, it seems to give more leeway to the newspapers since now they get a warning to stop before being arrested.

Bottom line is the amendment was shot down and it was not nearly (even remotely) as horrible as the OP Editorial would have people believe. .

[AleG]

There was a link to a Prachatai article about the subject on the other thread about the proposed law (you posted there but must have missed the link)

From the article:

The amendments include 7 points:

1. Any print media, excluding newspapers, printed in the kingdom must identify itself by category according to criteria set by ministerial regulation;

2. The National Police Chief is authorized to ban the printing, distribution or import of any printed media which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals;

3. Publishers must publish within 60 days after receiving permission;

4. Publishers must identify in the printed materials the category and ISBN of each publication as issued by the National Library of Thailand, and must submit two copies to the National Library of Thailand;

5. The name of the publication must not be the same as or similar to any of the name or abbreviation of any state agency;

6. Publishers who do not submit copies of their publication to the National Library of Thailand within a specified timeframe will be fined up to 10,000 baht; and

7. Those who violate a banning order by the National Police Chief will be punished with a jail term of up to three years or a fine of up to 100,000 baht, or both.

Here is the link to the actual news story (thanks as I did miss this) -- I really don't see anything scary here and certainly NOTHING that says the Police Chief can shut down a publication but instead can simply order them to stop distributing an article that is illegal and then arrest any person who ignores that order ... nothing really new here but simply clarification of how things will be administered and accounted for in the future..

http://www.prachatai3.info/english/node/2847

A rating system for printed media will also be introduced in the law because currently newspapers, magazines and journals are found to have violent and pornographic content and pictures which are not appropriate for young readers who might imitate them, she said.

The Ministry of Culture will work out the details of the rating system appropriate to Thai society. The amendments will be vetted by the Council of State before being forwarded to Parliament, the Minister said.

"I really don't see anything scary here and certainly NOTHING that says the Police Chief can shut down a publication"

What!?

You give the same link I gave you. It's right there, I bolded the text and here goes again:

2. The National Police Chief is authorized to ban the printing, distribution or import of any printed media which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals;

That's unambiguous, crystal clear; how can you say that "NOTHING that says the Police Chief can shut down a publication"

[scorecard]

Quote from g'kid:

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

And g'kid, do you add the red rags which publish dozens of outright lies to your list of publications who'se day of reckoning is nigh? If not why not?

And what treatment would you suggest in regard to the doctored tapes etc., under your principles surely they should be jailed for life.

And g'kid perhaps you'd like to share where /how pt got a mandate to limit freedom of speech, and perhaps you'd like to share how this links to the paymasters / jatuporns veeras / etc., loud and numerous claims that they are the champions of democracy? The paymaster has made this claim again and again during his numerous phone ins 'fight for democracy .....'

Love to see some response from g'kid.

[TAWP]

Nisa is given the info that Prachatai had a good article [in English] about it. The info is ignored and the lies that no facts could be found is repeated again in one of Nisa's posts.

The link is given to Prachatai and Nisa goes ahead and makes a bold lie stating that no info to the effect as quoted exists in the article. Even though we can all read it and see the quote.

What do we call this?

And this is how seemingly every debate with Nisa goes.

[tlansford]

There was a link to a Prachatai article about the subject on the other thread about the proposed law (you posted there but must have missed the link)

From the article:

The amendments include 7 points:

1. Any print media, excluding newspapers, printed in the kingdom must identify itself by category according to criteria set by ministerial regulation;

2. The National Police Chief is authorized to ban the printing, distribution or import of any printed media which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals;

3. Publishers must publish within 60 days after receiving permission;

4. Publishers must identify in the printed materials the category and ISBN of each publication as issued by the National Library of Thailand, and must submit two copies to the National Library of Thailand;

5. The name of the publication must not be the same as or similar to any of the name or abbreviation of any state agency;

6. Publishers who do not submit copies of their publication to the National Library of Thailand within a specified timeframe will be fined up to 10,000 baht; and

7. Those who violate a banning order by the National Police Chief will be punished with a jail term of up to three years or a fine of up to 100,000 baht, or both.

Here is the link to the actual news story (thanks as I did miss this) -- I really don't see anything scary here and certainly NOTHING that says the Police Chief can shut down a publication but instead can simply order them to stop distributing an article that is illegal and then arrest any person who ignores that order ... nothing really new here but simply clarification of how things will be administered and accounted for in the future..

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2847

A rating system for printed media will also be introduced in the law because currently newspapers, magazines and journals are found to have violent and pornographic content and pictures which are not appropriate for young readers who might imitate them, she said.

The Ministry of Culture will work out the details of the rating system appropriate to Thai society. The amendments will be vetted by the Council of State before being forwarded to Parliament, the Minister said.

"I really don't see anything scary here and certainly NOTHING that says the Police Chief can shut down a publication"

What!?

You give the same link I gave you. It's right there, I bolded the text and here goes again:

2. The National Police Chief is authorized to ban the printing, distribution or import of any printed media which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals;

That's unambiguous, crystal clear; how can you say that "NOTHING that says the Police Chief can shut down a publication"

In spite of it seeming crystal clear, It is a question of interpretation - you and Nisa reading the same words and having different conclusions makes that clear.

your reading is reasonable, a publication violates the ban, and the Police chief closes the doors.

Nisa's reading is reasonable, too. The text shown here says "ban the printing ... of any printed media".

so an article is deemed to violate the standards, and the "printing, distribution or import" of that article is banned.

IMO, there is not enough information or informed opinions here to know which would have been closer to the truth.

And in any case, this particular change will not be implemented.

It is more interesting to ask why this was proposed in the first place.

[lannarebirth]

There was a link to a Prachatai article about the subject on the other thread about the proposed law (you posted there but must have missed the link)

From the article:

The amendments include 7 points:

1. Any print media, excluding newspapers, printed in the kingdom must identify itself by category according to criteria set by ministerial regulation;

2. The National Police Chief is authorized to ban the printing, distribution or import of any printed media which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals;

3. Publishers must publish within 60 days after receiving permission;

4. Publishers must identify in the printed materials the category and ISBN of each publication as issued by the National Library of Thailand, and must submit two copies to the National Library of Thailand;

5. The name of the publication must not be the same as or similar to any of the name or abbreviation of any state agency;

6. Publishers who do not submit copies of their publication to the National Library of Thailand within a specified timeframe will be fined up to 10,000 baht; and

7. Those who violate a banning order by the National Police Chief will be punished with a jail term of up to three years or a fine of up to 100,000 baht, or both.

Here is the link to the actual news story (thanks as I did miss this) -- I really don't see anything scary here and certainly NOTHING that says the Police Chief can shut down a publication but instead can simply order them to stop distributing an article that is illegal and then arrest any person who ignores that order ... nothing really new here but simply clarification of how things will be administered and accounted for in the future..

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2847

A rating system for printed media will also be introduced in the law because currently newspapers, magazines and journals are found to have violent and pornographic content and pictures which are not appropriate for young readers who might imitate them, she said.

The Ministry of Culture will work out the details of the rating system appropriate to Thai society. The amendments will be vetted by the Council of State before being forwarded to Parliament, the Minister said.

"I really don't see anything scary here and certainly NOTHING that says the Police Chief can shut down a publication"

What!?

You give the same link I gave you. It's right there, I bolded the text and here goes again:

2. The National Police Chief is authorized to ban the printing, distribution or import of any printed media which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals;

That's unambiguous, crystal clear; how can you say that "NOTHING that says the Police Chief can shut down a publication"

In spite of it seeming crystal clear, It is a question of interpretation - you and Nisa reading the same words and having different conclusions makes that clear.

your reading is reasonable, a publication violates the ban, and the Police chief closes the doors.

Nisa's reading is reasonable, too. The text shown here says "ban the printing ... of any printed media".

so an article is deemed to violate the standards, and the "printing, distribution or import" of that article is banned.

IMO, there is not enough information or informed opinions here to know which would have been closer to the truth.

And in any case, this particular change will not be implemented.

It is more interesting to ask why this was proposed in the first place.

My interpretation is that you have no idea what country you've landed in. It's not just a place that speaks a different language than the place you came from. It is a whole 'nother culture entirely, and not a particularly nice one, once you get past the khantoke's and cultural shows for the benefit of tourists.

[Nisa]

There was a link to a Prachatai article about the subject on the other thread about the proposed law (you posted there but must have missed the link)

From the article:

The amendments include 7 points:

1. Any print media, excluding newspapers, printed in the kingdom must identify itself by category according to criteria set by ministerial regulation;

2. The National Police Chief is authorized to ban the printing, distribution or import of any printed media which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals;

3. Publishers must publish within 60 days after receiving permission;

4. Publishers must identify in the printed materials the category and ISBN of each publication as issued by the National Library of Thailand, and must submit two copies to the National Library of Thailand;

5. The name of the publication must not be the same as or similar to any of the name or abbreviation of any state agency;

6. Publishers who do not submit copies of their publication to the National Library of Thailand within a specified timeframe will be fined up to 10,000 baht; and

7. Those who violate a banning order by the National Police Chief will be punished with a jail term of up to three years or a fine of up to 100,000 baht, or both.

Here is the link to the actual news story (thanks as I did miss this) -- I really don't see anything scary here and certainly NOTHING that says the Police Chief can shut down a publication but instead can simply order them to stop distributing an article that is illegal and then arrest any person who ignores that order ... nothing really new here but simply clarification of how things will be administered and accounted for in the future..

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2847

A rating system for printed media will also be introduced in the law because currently newspapers, magazines and journals are found to have violent and pornographic content and pictures which are not appropriate for young readers who might imitate them, she said.

The Ministry of Culture will work out the details of the rating system appropriate to Thai society. The amendments will be vetted by the Council of State before being forwarded to Parliament, the Minister said.

"I really don't see anything scary here and certainly NOTHING that says the Police Chief can shut down a publication"

What!?

You give the same link I gave you. It's right there, I bolded the text and here goes again:

2. The National Police Chief is authorized to ban the printing, distribution or import of any printed media which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals;

That's unambiguous, crystal clear; how can you say that "NOTHING that says the Police Chief can shut down a publication"

In spite of it seeming crystal clear, It is a question of interpretation - you and Nisa reading the same words and having different conclusions makes that clear.

your reading is reasonable, a publication violates the ban, and the Police chief closes the doors.

Nisa's reading is reasonable, too. The text shown here says "ban the printing ... of any printed media".

so an article is deemed to violate the standards, and the "printing, distribution or import" of that article is banned.

IMO, there is not enough information or informed opinions here to know which would have been closer to the truth.

And in any case, this particular change will not be implemented.

It is more interesting to ask why this was proposed in the first place.

Good impartial comments. I too wonder why it was proposed and more am curious to know why this newspaper hasn't run an actual news report on this item that their editorial suggests is a huge story of attempts by the government to seize complete control over what the newspapers can and cannot print and allow the police to shut down entire newspapers on a whim if they don't like what the paper is reporting. Had they actually carried a real "news" account of this then it would include statements from those proposing such changes and their reasons for the proposal.

Instead here we are 3-weeks after the proposal was voted on (surely it was written, being passed around and debated about long before this) and we have no clue (only guesses that are mostly paranoid) as to the reason for the proposal. Again, I really don't see anything new here, except the rating system, as there is no new law in terms of what they can and cannot print but simply either clarification or designations of who is responsible for monitoring and how current laws would be enforced.

Articles "which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals" has always been subject to censorship and prosecution. And there is nothing here that hints at shutting down a newspaper but even if you wanted believe this is what is being said, it is only saying this if they continued, after being warned, to stop printing items which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals. Does anybody really believe that this would not happen now, even though the proposal has been shot down? Again, my guess is this was more about clarifying how current laws would be enforced and monitored for violation.

Bottom line is news reporting has gone to sh@t around the globe as it is a for profit venture run by large companies with an interest in public policies. Thailand without a doubt lacks press freedoms that other countries enjoy but the big problem with the media here is not that they are controlled but they simply refuse to do any real investigative journalism but have no problem printing non-fact based info that inflames and divides the public ... one would think they are getting their lessons from Fox.

Edited November 6, 2011 by Nisa

[Nisa]

Having a second look at the 7 items, one has to wonder if this was even geared at newspapers ...

1. Any print media,

excluding newspapers

, printed in the kingdom must identify itself by category according to criteria set by ministerial regulation;

[TAWP]

Having a second look at the 7 items, one has to wonder if this was even geared at newspapers ...

1. Any print media,

excluding newspapers

, printed in the kingdom must identify itself by category according to criteria set by ministerial regulation;

Yes, mix lines and pretend they encompass each-other...

Edited November 6, 2011 by TAWP

[Nisa]

Having a second look at the 7 items, one has to wonder if this was even geared at newspapers ...

1. Any print media,

excluding newspapers

, printed in the kingdom must identify itself by category according to criteria set by ministerial regulation;

Yes, mix lines and pretend they encompass each-other...

If a newspaper doesn't have to identify themselves, as is stated in the first line, then the process for identifying/registering described in the following lines wouldn't apply to newspapers. A logic assumption would be that newspapers are registered and classified and fall under a different process and existing laws.

Try using some thought process and logic in terms of the limited information provided as opposed to getting yourself worked up and emotional. Making educated guesses based on the translated information provided surely is a better way to trying to understand this then getting yourself worked up and emotional to the point you need to continually make yourself look silly by attacking other people's (my) non-emotional comments.

Edited November 6, 2011 by Nisa

[mrfarang]

TheNation must be scared to death that they won't be able to post bullsh** anymore...

[tlansford]

- snip -

Here is the link to the actual news story (thanks as I did miss this) -- I really don't see anything scary here and certainly NOTHING that says the Police Chief can shut down a publication but instead can simply order them to stop distributing an article that is illegal and then arrest any person who ignores that order ... nothing really new here but simply clarification of how things will be administered and accounted for in the future..

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2847

A rating system for printed media will also be introduced in the law because currently newspapers, magazines and journals are found to have violent and pornographic content and pictures which are not appropriate for young readers who might imitate them, she said.

The Ministry of Culture will work out the details of the rating system appropriate to Thai society. The amendments will be vetted by the Council of State before being forwarded to Parliament, the Minister said.

"I really don't see anything scary here and certainly NOTHING that says the Police Chief can shut down a publication"

What!?

You give the same link I gave you. It's right there, I bolded the text and here goes again:

2. The National Police Chief is authorized to ban the printing, distribution or import of any printed media which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals;

That's unambiguous, crystal clear; how can you say that "NOTHING that says the Police Chief can shut down a publication"

In spite of it seeming crystal clear, It is a question of interpretation - you and Nisa reading the same words and having different conclusions makes that clear.

your reading is reasonable, a publication violates the ban, and the Police chief closes the doors.

Nisa's reading is reasonable, too. The text shown here says "ban the printing ... of any printed media".

so an article is deemed to violate the standards, and the "printing, distribution or import" of that article is banned.

IMO, there is not enough information or informed opinions here to know which would have been closer to the truth.

And in any case, this particular change will not be implemented.

It is more interesting to ask why this was proposed in the first place.

My interpretation is that you have no idea what country you've landed in. It's not just a place that speaks a different language than the place you came from. It is a whole 'nother culture entirely, and not a particularly nice one, once you get past the khantoke's and cultural shows for the benefit of tourists.

OK, so what I deleted out of my other post is that we would have needed to see how it was enforced by this gov't to have a peek into the intentions of the gov't. I also did not make any statement as to which end of the enforcement spectrum I thought this would fall. It's not implemented, so for the moment, that won't happen.

As to your interpretation, I know Thailand for only 3 years. Having lived abroad for 20 years, I recognize that 3 years is not a long time. That said, I am very familiar with 3 cultures, other than my own and Thailand, and have a certain sensibility to differences in culture that go deeper than language.

[tlansford]

TheNation must be scared to death that they won't be able to post bullsh** anymore...

jeeez - stop ! I almost spit my drink all over the keyboard.

[Nisa]

TheNation must be scared to death that they won't be able to post bullsh** anymore...

[tlansford]

Here is the link to the actual news story (thanks as I did miss this) -- I really don't see anything scary here and certainly NOTHING that says the Police Chief can shut down a publication but instead can simply order them to stop distributing an article that is illegal and then arrest any person who ignores that order ... nothing really new here but simply clarification of how things will be administered and accounted for in the future..

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2847

A rating system for printed media will also be introduced in the law because currently newspapers, magazines and journals are found to have violent and pornographic content and pictures which are not appropriate for young readers who might imitate them, she said.

The Ministry of Culture will work out the details of the rating system appropriate to Thai society. The amendments will be vetted by the Council of State before being forwarded to Parliament, the Minister said.

"I really don't see anything scary here and certainly NOTHING that says the Police Chief can shut down a publication"

What!?

You give the same link I gave you. It's right there, I bolded the text and here goes again:

2. The National Police Chief is authorized to ban the printing, distribution or import of any printed media which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals;

That's unambiguous, crystal clear; how can you say that "NOTHING that says the Police Chief can shut down a publication"

In spite of it seeming crystal clear, It is a question of interpretation - you and Nisa reading the same words and having different conclusions makes that clear.

your reading is reasonable, a publication violates the ban, and the Police chief closes the doors.

Nisa's reading is reasonable, too. The text shown here says "ban the printing ... of any printed media".

so an article is deemed to violate the standards, and the "printing, distribution or import" of that article is banned.

IMO, there is not enough information or informed opinions here to know which would have been closer to the truth.

And in any case, this particular change will not be implemented.

It is more interesting to ask why this was proposed in the first place.

Good impartial comments. I too wonder why it was proposed and more am curious to know why this newspaper hasn't run an actual news report on this item that their editorial suggests is a huge story of attempts by the government to seize complete control over what the newspapers can and cannot print and allow the police to shut down entire newspapers on a whim if they don't like what the paper is reporting. Had they actually carried a real "news" account of this then it would include statements from those proposing such changes and their reasons for the proposal.

Instead here we are 3-weeks after the proposal was voted on (surely it was written, being passed around and debated about long before this) and we have no clue (only guesses that are mostly paranoid) as to the reason for the proposal. Again, I really don't see anything new here, except the rating system, as there is no new law in terms of what they can and cannot print but simply either clarification or designations of who is responsible for monitoring and how current laws would be enforced.

Articles "which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals" has always been subject to censorship and prosecution. And there is nothing here that hints at shutting down a newspaper but even if you wanted believe this is what is being said, it is only saying this if they continued, after being warned, to stop printing items which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals. Does anybody really believe that this would not happen now, even though the proposal has been shot down? Again, my guess is this was more about clarifying how current laws would be enforced and monitored for violation.

Bottom line is news reporting has gone to sh@t around the globe as it is a for profit venture run by large companies with an interest in public policies. Thailand without a doubt lacks press freedoms that other countries enjoy but the big problem with the media here is not that they are controlled but they simply refuse to do any real investigative journalism but have no problem printing non-fact based info that inflames and divides the public ... one would think they are getting their lessons from Fox.

More to the point of it being proposed and the reaction of The Nation to the proposal, I have a couple of thoughts and I'm pretty sure some of our TVF posters could share their perspectives and information.

First in The Nation's allergic reaction / editorial, they make it sound like the changes regarding censorship in 2007 under the military junta were a dream of freedom of expression. If that struck anyone else as a bit odd, then I'm not alone. I acknowledge not knowing and not having the time at the moment to look for information on how media regulations changed right after the coup. But I never had the impression that the military junta loosened the rules... So I would be interested to know how things changed in 2006/2007 - which is the basis for any changes to be proposed now.

Second, why the change in the first place. I recall rather vividly that the last gov't had no problems closing media outlets. And it certainly seems that Thaksin was able to control the media reasonably well, too. So why do this? Many people could immediate insinuate (as they have already) that it is just to gain more control. Possible - no doubt. But is that perhaps too easy? One of the criticisms of the PTP before the elections and often an implied criticism after they won, is that the PTP would not be a strong supporter of LM and the nation. People here on TV made a big deal out of the LM "war room". It seems at least remotely possible that this gov't is motivated to have an LM "war room" and pass measures like this related to LM in order to appear "strong" on LM. (the added benefit of abusing it for political gain is also present, isn't it?).

I am really curious about other perspectives on this point.

Finally, it "seems" clear why this proposal would have put the power in the police chief - he gets appointed by the government - not only convenient, but keeps the enforcement within the control of the government.

In any case, as long as there are LM laws, there will be no free press/speech. It is a huge hammer to beat political opponents over the head with.

[TAWP]

I find it interesting that some of the above posters clearly disagree with Prachatai on this issue, but try to suggest that it is infact posters here that doesn't understand the issue or are reading a improper translation.

Perhaps they should address Prachatai and tell them that they are wrong.

[Nisa]

Looks like nobody clicked on the related story link at the bottom of the Prachatai article. It is from 2010 (well before this amendment was proposed)

See: http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2034

On 13 Sept (2010), Wilawan Sapphansan, Director of the National Library of Thailand, notified the Police Special Branch to take legal action against the magazine (Same Sky Magazine) for not having been registered under the 2007 Print Registration Act and for its content....

Again, it is seeming more clear that this proposed amendment was largely a clarification and/or update of the registration and enforcement process of the 2007 law.

Edited November 6, 2011 by Nisa

[phannawadee33]

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.

exellent comment totaly agree

[kimamey]

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)

You're right of course. Nobody is likely to vote for someone who they think is going to make things worse in general but that's different than voting for someone who pays them directly for their vote or offers them something which is obviously not financially viable.

As an example in the UK this year the Conservatives where voted in albeit without a majority even though their policies were likely to hit peoples finances more, in the short term at least, than the other parties. The thinking behind this was that the country needs to tackle its deficit quickly against a slower less painful settling of our debts. The sort of policies seen in Thailand this year would be unlikely to attract many votes at all in the UK or most other western countries as they would be seen as unaffordable and badly thought out.

[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)

You're right of course. Nobody is likely to vote for someone who they think is going to make things worse in general but that's different than voting for someone who pays them directly for their vote or offers them something which is obviously not financially viable.

As an example in the UK this year the Conservatives where voted in albeit without a majority even though their policies were likely to hit peoples finances more, in the short term at least, than the other parties. The thinking behind this was that the country needs to tackle its deficit quickly against a slower less painful settling of our debts. The sort of policies seen in Thailand this year would be unlikely to attract many votes at all in the UK or most other western countries as they would be seen as unaffordable and badly thought out.

I understand what you are saying but this is two different cultures. Most Thais when it comes to money don't have a problem being direct where we in the west see an obvious bribe as very wrong but have no problem if a candidate promises to give rebates (cash back) or lower taxes in your bracket. The only difference is in the west we want a larger bribe and often have to wait until tax filing to get our cash.

I also believe the whole thing about buying votes (directly) is a lot of hype. The number of folks who support Thaksin and his group are vast and nobody needs to give them 200 or 1000 baht to vote for his party. At least this election there were so many promises (same like in the west) made that there was no reason for direct bribes. Guaranteed Loans, Slashing Fees to buy a taxi, free government credit cards, laptop to every student, radically raising minimum wage .....

Also consider in the US right now they cannot even agree to have the top 1% of earners pay slightly more in tax to bring down the deficit. There is also a reason why this deficit is where it is and that is because of people only thinking about themselves. There is also little current hope of changing things because people continue to think of themselves. The wealthy want to cut out programs that assist those in need while those in need want the rich to pay more in taxes. The US went (and wanted) to war in two countries but the people in the US felt their taxes should be lowered and not raised to cover the cost of war.

I don't want to get too off topic but the point I was simply making is I think the majority of people around the globe are selfish and only care about what benefits them. The capitalist system and democracy itself is designed this way. Politicians feed into this greed because it benefits them in terms of staying in office and maintaining their power.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Nisa

[whybother]

Having a second look at the 7 items, one has to wonder if this was even geared at newspapers ...

1. Any print media,

excluding newspapers

, printed in the kingdom must identify itself by category according to criteria set by ministerial regulation;

That ONE rule ("identify itself by category") is the only one that doesn't apply to newspapers. All the other rules apply, given that this one is the only one that says "excluding newspapers".

[whybother]

Looks like nobody clicked on the related story link at the bottom of the Prachatai article. It is from 2010 (well before this amendment was proposed)

See: http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2034

On 13 Sept (2010), Wilawan Sapphansan, Director of the National Library of Thailand, notified the Police Special Branch to take legal action against the magazine (Same Sky Magazine) for not having been registered under the 2007 Print Registration Act and for its content....

Again, it is seeming more clear that this proposed amendment was largely a clarification and/or update of the registration and enforcement process of the 2007 law.

Under the 2007 law, a magazine and newspaper has to be registered.

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.

This magazine has had legal action taken against it because it didn't register.

Under the new proposal, (which hasn't been debated, but only discussed and proposed by the cabinet):

The National Police Chief is authorized to ban the printing, distribution or import of any printed media which affects the monarchy, national security or public order and morals;

Which basically means he can ban the publishing of any print media as HE likes.

[Buchholz]

I also believe the whole thing about buying votes (directly) is a lot of hype. The number of folks who support Thaksin and his group are vast and nobody needs to give them 200 or 1000 baht to vote for his party.

And yet, even when fairly certain of sure victory, they continue to bribe voters... resulting in multiple MP's being banned and his various Party versions being dissolved because of it.

.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Buchholz