|
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
94. Although the State party has in its report outlined its domestic constitutional and regulatory provisions allowing for the freedom of expression, the Asian Legal Resource Centre is concerned that this right as envisaged under article 19 of the Covenant is being increasingly impinged upon in Thailand. It recently raised a number of its concerns before the Commission on Human Rights.[15]
95. Criminal defamation continues to be actively used to sanction persons in Thailand who may be acting or speaking in the public interest. Criminal defamation has in recent years been condemned globally as offensive to free expression. Many countries have recognised that criminal defamation is obsolete, and have removed it from the statute books. Unfortunately, in Thailand it remains as section 328 of the Penal Code, and carries a fine and up to two years?imprisonment as punishment. This is an extremely backward provision entirely out of place in a modern and democratic society, and out of step with developments in international law. It is also contrary to both the letter and spirit of the 1997 Constitution, which guarantees unrestricted freedom of expression.
96. The criminal libel provision has received considerable attention with regards to the case of media-reform activist Ms Supinya Klangnarong and the Thai Post. Shin Corp sued Ms Supinya for criminal and civil defamation after she observed in an article published in the Thai Post on 16 July 2003 that Shin Corp’s profits have increased enormously since its founder Thaksin Shinawatra became Prime Minister. Although Ms Supinya’s allegations were based on sound research and motivated in the public interest, the criminal libel suit is currently pending before the courts. Meanwhile, a civil suit for 400 million Thai Baht (US,370,000) is pending the outcome of the criminal suit. Ms Supinya and the editors of the Thai Post newspaper now face possible jail terms and disproportionate financial sanctions under a backward and unnecessary law that runs contrary to international standards and the national constitution. If they are found guilty, it is likely to have a chilling effect on debate over pressing issues of national concern in the future.
97. The persistent concentration of broadcast media ownership in Thailand is cause for deep concern. The television and radio media in Thailand have been under a government and military monopoly since their introduction to the country. Although the new Constitution of Thailand introduced in 1997 set in place provisions for the democratisation of these media, these provisions have not been realised. Radio stations have been started by local communities, but the government has shut some and threatened others with closure on the grounds they are “illegal? In fact it is the government itself that has failed to introduce a licensing regime in accordance with the 1997 Constitution. In 2004 the Department of Public Relations stated that it would establish a regulatory procedure over these broadcasters despite the fact that the proper legal provisions as stipulated by the Constitution have not been put in place. A new media monopoly is also emerging between the commercial and government sectors, as media concessions are issued to Shin Corp and other businesses close to senior politicians, thereby defeating the purpose of the constitutional reforms. Shin Corp has totally dominated all sectors of the commercial media in Thailand, as it owns 24 companies running telecommunications, television, radio, internet, satellite and other communications throughout the country, and even into neighbouring Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar.
98. Threats against journalists and independent media have increased. Since the 2003 ‘war on drugs? many journalists in Thailand have narrowed their reporting in response to overt and covert government threats. Reporters who criticised the government campaign at that time were accused of being in the payment of drug dealers. Editors of newspapers and magazines have also expressed fears over the loss of millions of dollars of advertising fees from companies connected to the government, particularly the Prime Minister. As a consequence, self-censorship is being practiced more widely. Broadcast media programme managers, producers and hosts are reported threatened against critical reporting of the government, by way of warnings in person and writing to be more ‘cooperative? During late 2004, executives of radio stations were reportedly warned not to say anything negative about the escalating violence in the south. At least one radio host was taken off the air after the Supreme Command, which owns the frequency, told the radio media to exercise extreme caution in reporting security and political issues. Community radio stations have been shut down and are closely monitored. Numerous warnings were also issued, and raids conducted, in relation to distribution of video footage of the killings in Narathiwat in October 2004, which were announced as being a threat to national security, in accordance with section 116 of the Penal Code.
99. The independent broadcast media regulatory body has been wantonly undermined even before inception. As noted by the State party in its report, article 40 of the 1997 Constitution provides for an independent regulatory body to distribute broadcast frequencies and supervise radio and television broadcasting, with regards to utmost public benefit (paras 14?5). The Wavelength Regulator Act 2543 (2000) established article 40 under law and provided that 20 per cent of the media broadcast spectrum be reserved for people’s media. However, the government has dominated the selection process for the regulator, and selected candidates with whom it has connections. Ms Supinya Klangnarong was at the forefront of a legal battle to have the short-listed candidates disqualified for reasons of lack of transparency in the selection process, which was won in the Supreme Court in 2003. But recent media reports have indicated that the government has again stacked the list of prospective regulatory body members with bureaucrats and businesspeople over which it has influence. In the likelihood that the regulator consists of these persons, the result will be further consolidation of broadcast media in the hands of a few state agencies and a few powerful businessmen, which will not contribute to the freedom of expression in Thailand as envisaged by article 19.
____
[15] ALRC Written statement to the Commission on Human Rights, ‘Criminal defamation and growing restrictions to freedom of Expression in Thailand? E/CN.4/2005/NGO/112.
Posted on 2005-03-22
remarks:2 |
