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

[whybother]

<snip>

Bangkok Post's commentary has been measured. If Vorani Vanijaka's views are anything to go on, he spent most of his opinion column highlighting former PM Abhisit's censorhip activities and the Democrats quest for curtailing freedom of expression. Yes,some commentators at the BP have expressed opposition, but it has been restrained, and constructive. Has Thai Rath even commented? How about Thai Post? They do have most of the market, and yet, not much anger or stomping of the feet as is demonstrated by one media group.

<snip>

I don't really see that "sneak through more and harsher censorship laws deserves strong condemnation and counter-action" is "measured".

[Nisa]

The OP is basically saying "This proposal will curtail freedom of speech. Why aren't the red shirt / PTP / Thaksin supporting media talking about it?"

Why is the media (Nation & Post) not asking them about it or even running news reports but rather using editorials as a means to further their agenda? I also haven't seen anything from the opposition party about this (though it may be out there). I wonder how many, if any, of the opposition voted to pass this amendment.

We will likely never know because much of the press cannot be trusted to do much more than push their own political agenda.

[whybother]

And this government wishes to reduce it.

How are they doing that? By trying to take the power to ban illegal material (listed as illegal under the previous administration) from one entity such as the military and putting the responsibility under the police?

<snip>

The military do not currently have the power to censor media.

[whybother]

The OP is basically saying "This proposal will curtail freedom of speech. Why aren't the red shirt / PTP / Thaksin supporting media talking about it?"

Why is the media (Nation & Post) not asking them about it or even running news reports but rather using editorials as a means to further their agenda? I also haven't seen anything from the opposition party about this (though it may be out there). I wonder how many, if any, of the opposition voted to pass this amendment.

We will likely never know because much of the press cannot be trusted to do much more than push their own political agenda.

The news is the proposed amendment. It's irrelevant what the government say. What is relevant is how the law can be used.

It hasn't even been before the opposition yet. It was approved by the cabinet. They will bring it before parliament, and, with their majority, get it passed.

It's also irrelevant what the opposition think about it. It's whether it's right or wrong.

You obviously support the proposal that media censorship be brought under one person, who happens to be a political appointment.

[longway]

There is still freedom and vigour in the Thai press, much better than any other country in the region.So let's keep this in perspective.

And this government wishes to reduce it.

How are they doing that? By trying to take the power to ban illegal material (listed as illegal under the previous administration) from one entity such as the military and putting the responsibility under the police?

Clearly this was probably a political move for the party to have more control over how and when the censorship laws would be enforced but how is this different than the previous administration(s) that shut down media outlets and where charges of LM against went through the roof. This admin as far as I know has passed no laws to increase censorship but the previous administration approved such vague laws to include the ability to go after anyone if the powers to be deemed material, news or information might effect public moral or public order.

I wish with all my heart Abhisit had won the election but just because I am on his side I am not going to pretend the current government is responsible for censorship laws approved under his watch. If Abhisit was still in power now, I am fairly sure he would have declared an SOE and would be going after some of the media who are using this crisis to spread lies, division and decent among the people. Sadly, I would not have much of a problem with his doing this because of how much i distrust the Thai media and because I trust Abhisit always had the country's interest at heart. However, this is wrong if you truly believe in freedom of the press ... but then again maybe not if you cannot trust the press including a situation like this where they do NO real reporting on this proposed amendment but instead use editorials to report their one sided view in order to attack the current administration during such a crisis while claiming the Administration tried to pass this under the cover of the flood back on the 18th ... had they been real reporters they would have known and been able to report on the proposal a month or two before it came up for vote on the 18th. (it would have needed to be written and distributed long before it came up for a vote).

Its not been voted on, its a proposal from the culture ministry, approved by the cabinet. Its something on which this government wants to approve legislation, and as soon as it came to light, it has been picked up by various media organisations.

[Nisa]

The OP is basically saying "This proposal will curtail freedom of speech. Why aren't the red shirt / PTP / Thaksin supporting media talking about it?"

Why is the media (Nation & Post) not asking them about it or even running news reports but rather using editorials as a means to further their agenda? I also haven't seen anything from the opposition party about this (though it may be out there). I wonder how many, if any, of the opposition voted to pass this amendment.

We will likely never know because much of the press cannot be trusted to do much more than push their own political agenda.

The news is the proposed amendment. It's irrelevant what the government say. What is relevant is how the law can be used.

It hasn't even been before the opposition yet. It was approved by the cabinet. They will bring it before parliament, and, with their majority, get it passed.

It's also irrelevant what the opposition think about it. It's whether it's right or wrong.

You obviously support the proposal that media censorship be brought under one person, who happens to be a political appointment.

Very strange -- not even sure how to respond.

It is not news if you don't provide all the facts. It is not news if you don't get both sides take. It is not news if it is an editorial you are buying into as being the gospel.

The cabinet voted to approve the proposal but it is now dead in the water and will not go before Parliament.

You may not care what the opposition think or what leaders think but I believe any rational person would like to know what leaders are for and against such a change and why.

Interesting you don't question why either paper has not actually done a news report on this but both have run numerous editorials on what they claim to be a huge attempt to infringe on freedom of the press .... interesting it doesn't warrant actual reporting and more interesting some people don't understand what an editorial is or do and like them better because they don't have to think for themselves..

[whybother]

Very strange -- not even sure how to respond.

It is not news if you don't provide all the facts. It is not news if you don't get both sides take. It is not news if it is an editorial you are buying into as being the gospel.

The cabinet voted to approve the proposal but it is now dead in the water and will not go before Parliament.

You may not care what the opposition think or what leaders think but I believe any rational person would like to know what leaders are for and against such a change and why.

Interesting you don't question why either paper has not actually done a news report on this but both have run numerous editorials on what they claim to be a huge attempt to infringe on freedom of the press .... interesting it doesn't warrant actual reporting and more interesting some people don't understand what an editorial is or do and like them better because they don't have to think for themselves..

The facts are there was a proposed amendment. You don't need opinions from everyone to make it news.

It's not dead in the water yet. It is still possible to get it through parliament.

It might be interesting to know what the leaders think, but it doesn't change the facts of the proposed amendment - ie putting the police chief in charge of censorship.

What difference does it make to the facts that have been reported that there isn't a "news article". The details are there to be seen. Do you think that a "news article" from the Nation or BP would provide any more information?

You seem to be dismissing this just because it wasn't "reported".

And you don't seem to have a problem with the police chief having the power to censor media at his will.

[TAWP]

This argument is futile.

Is Nisa trying to say that he supports the proposal or is he just being obtuse to defend someone he likes anyway?

[TAWP]

Latest news: The cabinet asked the Culture Ministry to withdraw the bill for further review [and send it back later].

[farangnahrak]

To those implying anyone who voted for the current government were bought, here is some evidence to the contrary . . .

Look at every single election polling - both before and after the election - and see who they predicted will win. They all said PTP, even the ones directly funded by the Democrat Party. You will have a hard time convincing me people were paid to vote PTP in the pre and especially after-election polls.

Was PTP populist policies a form of vote buying? If you look at the election promises as written on the Democrat Party website, you'll see very similar populist policies promised. So clearly it wasn't the populist policies that made the difference.

I don't think the anti-Dems posting here were paid for their commentary, either.

In other news, this article shows that the proposed Printing Act amendments aren't needed for the police to control the media:

http://www.prachatai3.info/english/node/2038

You'll see the DSI was clearly involved, and so was the Cultural Ministry, and that "the penalty is imprisonment for up to 6 months." I'd be willing to bet the person(s) who made the proposed amendments were still in office during the Democrat administration.

[whybother]

To those implying anyone who voted for the current government were bought, here is some evidence to the contrary . . .

Look at every single election polling - both before and after the election - and see who they predicted will win. They all said PTP, even the ones directly funded by the Democrat Party. You will have a hard time convincing me people were paid to vote PTP in the pre and especially after-election polls.

Was PTP populist policies a form of vote buying? If you look at the election promises as written on the Democrat Party website, you'll see very similar populist policies promised. So clearly it wasn't the populist policies that made the difference.

I don't think the anti-Dems posting here were paid for their commentary, either.

You don't think it's possible that some of the people were paid before they were polled? Quite a few of the polls didn't give PTP a majority, just a clear lead. Could that mean that mean the payments pushed the PTP into a majority?

There is no doubt that people were paid to vote, and it's pretty clear that all parties were culprits. It's also clear that some people took the money and voted how they wanted, but you would be naive to suggest that there weren't people that voted for a particular party ONLY because they were paid (the most) by that party. How much of a difference that made, NO ONE would know.

In other news, this article shows that the proposed Printing Act amendments aren't needed for the police to control the media:

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2038

You'll see the DSI was clearly involved, and so was the Cultural Ministry, and that "the penalty is imprisonment for up to 6 months." I'd be willing to bet the person(s) who made the proposed amendments were still in office during the Democrat administration.

Police do the investigation. The courts decide on the verdict and the punishment (if required).

With this proposal, the police chief is judge, jury and executioner.

[hammered]

Good it has been delayed and hopefully stopped.

It is nice to see the Thai English Language media defending freedom of speech after spending a few years ignoring it when those of their politcial persuasion were in power suppressing anyone they felt like mostly without declaring a reason and with a few exceptions doing so under draconian laws that circumvented due process which the Thai English language media also didnt seem to mind. Now a mea culpa for their previous willingness to see the full scale suppression of multiple media networks, mostly listened to or read by those up country and in far far far bigger numbers than any citizens reading or listening to any of the local Thai English language media, would be welcome to show this isnt just a we support freedom of speech for us and our tiny minority niche but not you and your masses sort of shout.

[Buchholz]

To those implying anyone who voted for the current government were bought, here is some evidence to the contrary . . .

Look at every single election polling - both before and after the election - and see who they predicted will win. They all said PTP, even the ones directly funded by the Democrat Party. You will have a hard time convincing me people were paid to vote PTP in the pre and especially after-election polls.

History says otherwise. In prior elections with TRT and PPP both projected to win, those parties STILL bribed voters which led to many MP's being banned and both parties being dissolved for electoral fraud.

.

[Buchholz]

Latest news: The cabinet asked the Culture Ministry to withdraw the bill for further review [and send it back later].

It'd be good if the Culture Minister could review the whereabouts of her fugitive father-in-law also.

.

[cdnvic]

Posts discussing the Monarchy removed, as well as a link to the Post.

[Tywais]

A post quoting the Bangkok post has been removed and a mod removed a link to the same article previously. Continuing attempts to post links or quotes to BP will result in a warning and/or suspension.

Forum rule:

31) Members are not allowed to quote news articles or material from Bangkokpost.com or Phuketwan inside topics on Thaivisa.com. Posts from members containing quotes will be deleted from the forum. Members posting links referring back to the sites is also not allowed and will be deleted.

[lannarebirth]

It certainly seems an issue for Bangkok Post, as well.

Bangkok Post's commentary has been measured. If Vorani Vanijaka's views are anything to go on

Yes,some commentators at the BP have expressed opposition, but it has been restrained, and constructive.

At the time of my post, I was referring to an editorial on the 6th.

If you consider that and today's article as being "measured", you have a different definition of the word than I.

Both editorials were written by Vorani.

Who are these other commentators at BP that you mention and when were their articles written?

.

Only this week did K. Voranai seem to find his voice again. It seems like he's been looking over his shoulder and hearing footsteps for weeks now.