Political Intervention on Thai Press
Freedom of imperativeness does non hold the exact definition. It can be otherwise interpreted harmonizing to the significance of imperativeness and political position. In this instance, the imperativeness refers to “all the media and bureaus that print, broadcast, or gather and transmit intelligence, including newspapers, newsmagazines, wireless and telecasting intelligence agency, and wire services” ( Press, 2009 ) . It means that these media companies have the right to print and air the information without any intervention. In Thailand, the censoring has been described as the protection of national security and monarchy ( Bangkok Pundit, 2006 ) . Since Thai Rak Thai, when Thaksin Shinawatra was the premier curate of Thailand, the freedom of the imperativeness has been limited. The authorities violated the imperativeness freedom by utilizing province power commanding television-radio Stationss and cyberspace. Later, after the putsch in 2006, the imperativeness freedom has been worsened. The imperativeness and media were monitored and censored by the authorities. Every telecasting station was seized ( Ubonrat, 2007 ) . Furthermore, persons ‘ look against the armed forces ‘s putsch was besides illegal. The lese majeste jurisprudence is another thing that is frequently used in assailing the imperativeness and politicians. From the planetary position, Thai imperativeness freedom has aggressively declined since 2001. Harmonizing to Freedom House, Thailand was ranked at the 29th topographic point in 2000, and fallen to 127th in 2007. Furthermore, it was listed as one of the top 10 worse media for the first clip ( The State, 2007 ) .
As many foreign media are interested in the being of Thai imperativeness, the authorities should open the media and acknowledge planetary imperativeness more about their motion, because, the information about censoring is still ill-defined. The exact figure of the out of use web sites is a secret. It is claimed that the blocked informations are inaccurate and inappropriate. It could act upon people and would take the state into public violences. Still, there is no warrant that the authorities ‘s actions toward the imperativeness will assist keep the state in peace. Does it profit Thai society? Is it the right thing? No, it seems non. The authorities should non interfere the imperativeness freedom as it creates nonreversible studies, violates human-rights, and against democracy.
The first ground is nonreversible studies. As people are treated otherwise, nonreversible studies can be seen as an inequality. The authorities who was elected uses their power to command the media and censor the information that criticized them. The imperativeness was pressured to act as the authorities ‘s blessing. When political struggle happens and people are separated in two groups which are Red shirts or Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship ( DAAD ) and Yellow Shirts or People ‘s Alliance for Democracy ( PAD ) , the sentiments and looks toward political relations increased, more harassment occured in effort to get the better of each other. At this clip, during the Abhisit ‘s authorities, all the telecasting and wireless Stationss are under the control of the authorities ( FACT, 2009 ) . The authorities chooses to ban the information that affects their stableness, and show the information from the groups that support their party, largely in the pandemonium clip. For groundss, Abhisit scanned pro-Thaksin media in late April in 2009. The wireless Stationss which support Thaksin in Chaing Mai, Udon Thani, Lampang, Patum Thani, and Bangkok were raided. The transmittal equipment were ripped, and the station directors were arrested ( SEAPA, 2009 ) . The twenty-four hours after the putsch, 300 pro wireless station in North Thailand were closed down ( FACT, 2009 ) . The Ministry of Information and Communication Technology were ordered to keep, destruct, and barricade the information through the communicating web after the putsch ( Bangkok Pundit,2006 ) . CNN and BBC were blocked when they reported about Thaksin. Furthermore, the D station telecasting ( DTV ) which organized by the protagonists of Thaksin Shinawatra, the former premier curate, was blocked by the constabulary during the pandemonium of the protest, and the caput office was earlier raided ( FACT, 2009 ) . When the DTV was all of a sudden blocked, Thais were merely having the information from the public media— under the authorities control. For the Yellow shirts ( PAD ) , they besides had their channel “ASTV” , which was an anti-Thaksin media. Both the PAD and DAAD consume the information from different beginnings which, evidently, have the opposite aim.
As there are different beginnings, the fact has become merely a uncertainty. Each of the sides wants to back up themselves. Hence, the truth has been adapted for their benefits. The facts are distorted. Based on the same event, there can be varies of the studies, besides varies of the inside informations. For illustration, when there was the ASEAN conference in Pattaya, the Red shirts went to protest and close down the meeting, the public violences between the Red shirts and the Blue shirts happened. The “Blue shirts” is another group with the quotation mark of “Protecting the Institution” . It is believed that the armed forces was behind this group, but the authorities denied. It was left dubious that the bluish dissenters were armed with the nines, Fe rods, and sticks ( Sky News, 2009 ) . After the public violences, the public media claimed that two people died, but the D station telecasting said that there were really six. The other organic structures were hauled off by the military ( PPT, 2009 ) . Furthermore, it was said that the Blue shirts was the first 1 who started force by throwing bomb into the opposite group. The study states that the Red shirts carry out force by utilizing bomb, when they were really throwing back the Blue ‘s bomb. On the other manus, the major media reported that the Red started the force without any inquiries ( PTT, 2009 ) . However, there are still no to the full investigations about this issue. In add-on, there was besides a obscure interview between a newsman and Kittisak Prokati, a Thamasart professor of jurisprudence module, about the military putsch d`etat. Kittistak said that the military officers were inquiring him about the putsch. They wanted to cognize how to make the putsch. The newsman asked if he agreed with the military putsch or non. The professor said that there would be no academic support for that, it is illegal. He advised that the armed forces should make things constitutionally. On the other manus, the study came out that Kittasak was discoursing with the military about the putsch, implied in a manner of planning. He said the intelligence was twisted. With all the bombilations in Thai media, it is difficult to believe for both sides ( Mathichon, 2005 ) .
The 2nd ground is it violates human-rights. Since the putsch in 2006, cyberspace censoring has increased more than 500 % ( FACT, 2007 ) . The sites that critic the putsch are blocked. Peoples are non able to critic the authorities and the monarchy through the cyberspace, and any other media. Their words can non be published, and if anyone violated they will be charged ; for illustration, Giles Ji Ungpakorn who wrote a book called “A putsch for Rich” which knocking armed forces ‘s action was charged regard to the lese majeste jurisprudence ( SEAPA, 2009 ) . It is purely stated that they can non critic the monarchy. Lese majeste jurisprudence is the jurisprudence that most of the people were charged when they commented on political relations with mention to the monarchy. Peoples were non allowed to show their sentiments about the putsch through SMS and MMS on telecasting for 12 yearss during the putsch clip ( Bangkok Pundit, 2006 ) . Furthermore, wireless communities were asked to avoid the phone calls that effort to show their sentiment on political relations. If the wireless plans have the telephone interview on political relations, the inquiries that will be asked needed to be sent to the “Council for Democratic Reform under Constitutional Monarchy” or CDRM beforehand. CDRM is a group of military who organized the putsch in 2006. As mentioned, when DTV, CNN, BBC, and other media were blocked during the putsch clip, people were non able to cognize what was really traveling on at that clip. These actions violated human-rights as people have the right to demo their sentiment, receive information through any media.
Last, the 3rd ground is it is against democracy. Thailand is a democratic state, so the administration should be in democratic manner. Equality is the most of import thing for democracy. Everybody should be treated the every bit. Right of free look including giving and having informations is the base of democracy ( HRM, 2007 ) . If people are non able to discourse their ideas freely, how could they be portion of the democratic society. Democratic society is a society that all grownups can easy entree to take part in decision-making of any organisation that the actions or determinations would impact them ( Democracy Watch, 2004 ) . From the mentioned groundss, alternatively of supplying the convenience in accessing all sides of the information, the authorities ‘s attempts make it worse. Before the general election in 2006, 17,793 sites were blocked ( Global Voices, 2008 ) . With nonreversible intelligence, people are non enlightened plenty to do the right determinations. The treatments about the politic on the cyberspace are banned until the current events are left mute. Over 1500 books are ordered non to be published. The publishing houses feel insecure to print the books about modern political relations. Furthermore, the bookshops are non willing to hive away this type of books ( Prachatai, 2007 ) . This is like bordering people ideas under the screened media. These actions keep people off cognition and impact the state in the long tally.
During the cloud of confusion, people are fighting to happen the truth. On first the oppositional position, Satit Wonghnongtaey, who is responsible to the authorities ‘s media policy, provinces that they need to close down the anti-government media because it might act upon people to motivate the convulsion. The authorities claimed that the DTV is a tool in mobilisation to promote people to be against Abhisit authorities, and draw people in rural country to fall in the mass meeting ( FACT,2009 ) . Everything has its grounds, the armed forces did non order Ministry of Information and Communication Technology ( MICT ) to barricade and close down web sites for nil. It is because the sites have inaccurate information that would harm the authorities attempts of reformation ( HRM, 2007 ) . They are making this for the secure of state. On the other manus, harmonizing to Adams, an Asiatic manager at Human Right Watch, the authorities and military are evidently disquieted that Thaksin may return power, so they are earnestly commanding media and making censoring. Giving people nonreversible intelligence is like commanding people ‘s ideas. It is more like barricading people from the out-side universe. Barricading inappropriate media which invades human-rights such as erotica is a good thing, but barricading political information and people look is non a good thing. If sharing ideas harms the reformation, so why reforming. Peoples need to cognize both sides to burden if the reformation worth or non. Keeping the peace this manner is non the right thing. Baning merely makes people experience more confuse, dubious, and think that the authorities wants to conceal something. Alternatively of believing the authorities and maintaining in peace, it will increase the figure of people against the authorities. On the other manus, if the authorities opens the media, provides the information on both sides, explains themselves clearly and shows the transparence. It would assist maintaining the state in peace more than what they are making.
Another oppositional position for the 2nd ground, harmonizing to Mr. Kraisorn, the lasting secretary of MICT, is that the actions were made in order to forestall the massage which could make the divisiveness among Tai people. For the freedom of look, the MICT said that they did non halt persons ‘ web site but asked for co-operation in word usage—avoid the massage which might make divisiveness and avoid the mention of the monarchy. Looking closely to human-rights, authorities ‘s act violated both Universal declaration of human-rights and Thai constitutional declaration of the rights and autonomies of Thai people. The U.N. human-rights, article 19, provinces that everybody has the right to freedom of look. They can show their sentiments and have any information through any media ( U.N. , n.d ) . Sector 41 of Thai fundamental law declaration in article 3 said that both official and private workers set abouting the imperativeness and broadcast medium concern should bask their autonomies in showing intelligence and their sentiments under the limitations of the fundamental law, without any intervention from tribunals bureau, tribunals endeavor, the proprietor of such concerns, including the government…etc. ( Press Reference, n.d. ) . These two declarations explicitly mean that citizens have the right to discourse about anything affecting political issues. They have the right to have the information from wherever they want. The authorities should non halt them. The U.N. human rights were declared to be used among the member states. Meanwhile, Thailand is one of them, so they should take it more earnestly. Furthermore, the Thai fundamental law itself declared the regulations to protect people rights on media. Hence, the authorities should non disregard these statements.
On the last oppositional side, the authorities said that they are developing new democratic society. This new democratic society based on people ‘s demands. It aimed on rapprochements, which refers to both political colourss and Southern struggles. Abhisit besides pointed out that the new democracy need to comes with good administration ( The Government, 2009 ) . To reason, the good administration for the democracy are evidently non the administration that has dual criterions. How could handling people unevenly help making a good new democracy? It is non the right start for the democracy. The manner that they govern shows less possibility of rapprochement. They need to be more crystalline about the censoring, open the entree for more information. The free look and the freedom of media hold an of import function of democracy. They are the keys of an election. If the information are reported right and exhaustively, people will do their determinations right. The representatives that are chosen will be the 1s who are genuinely elected, and trusted. With this, people will truly go parts of the democratic society. More people will utilize their rights to vote as they feel that this is the existent election without the interventions. Furthermore, when the books about the putsch and the other events which contain the facts are allowed to be used in academic, it will upgrade the instruction quality, at least, more cognition available. When the instruction improved, civilian will be more civilised, consequently. Students will larn from the errors and develop their ideas to better the state in the hereafter.
Refering to Thai current event, pandemonium after pandemonium, the protests have become the rhythm which shows no mark of the terminal. Thailand already faced the subdued hope of the new democracy. All it could be seen is the authorities are seeking to cover things up, blinding people. Nothing have improved much after the putsch, the claims from the authorities seem to be lone alibis. The quality of lives are worsened, do n’t people hold even the right to talk, or, at least, to cognize? Their words are beautiful, but non for the existent pattern. From whichever positions, the Acts of the Apostless of authorities have perfectly violated human-rights. Are these actions supposed to be made in a democratic county? Democratic citizens deserve better than this. Interfering imperativeness freedom does non do anything better, but raised more issues.
In decision, the authorities should give people more freedom. Nonreversible studies raised people intuitions. Alternatively of doing a peaceable society, it will motivate more sentiments against authorities. Peoples need to be able to cognize everything that they have the right to. The authorities actions violated both journalists and citizens ‘ rights, all of them have the right to show their sentiments, and have the information through any media. The journalists themselves have the right to print and air without the intervention of authorities. Furthermore, commanding freedom of look is against democracy. The media conditions right now do non supply the equality which is the base of democracy. When Thailand is a democratic state, the effort of interventions is non the right thing.
Ubonrat Siriyuvasak. ( 2007 ) . International Conference on International Media and Civil Society. Retrieved March 12, 2010 from hypertext transfer protocol: //rspas.anu.edu.au/asiarightsjournal
Imperativeness. ( 2009 ) . Define Imperativeness at dictionary.com. Retrieved March 15, 2010 from hypertext transfer protocol: //dictionary.reference.com/browse/press
Bangkok Pundit. ( 2006 ) . Censoring after the putsch. Retrieved March 16, 2010 from hypertext transfer protocol: //bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/2006/09/censorship-after-coup.html
The State. ( 2007 ) . Recovering Thailand Press Freedom. Retrieved March 16, 2010 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/05/04/opinion/opinion_30033346.php
FACT. ( 2009 ) . Tai authorities moves to stamp down media-IOC. Retrieved March 16, 2010 from hypertext transfer protocol: //facthai.wordpress.com/2009/04/25/thai-government-moves-to-suppress-media-IOC/
SEAPA. ( 2009 ) . Polarizing colourss in Thailand continue to set free look to the trial. Retrieved March 16, 2010 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.seapabkk.org/newdesign/newsdetail.php? No=1211
FACT. ( 2009 ) . Thailand – Annual report2007. Retrieved March 16, 2010 from hypertext transfer protocol: //facthai.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/rsf-thailand-annual-report-2007
Sky News. ( 2009 ) . Colliding Colorss: Guide To Thailand Protests. Retrieved March 16, 2010 from hypertext transfer protocol: //news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Thailand-Guide-To-Different-Protest-Groups-In-The-Country-Including-Red-Shirts-And-Yellow-Shirts/Article/200904215260829
PTT. ( 2009 ) . Violence and the Media. Retrieved March 16, 2010 from hypertext transfer protocol: //thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/violence-and-the-media/
Mathichon. ( 2005 ) . Thai academic opposes military putsch. Retrieved March 16, 2010 from hypertext transfer protocol: //sanpaworn.vissaventure.com/ ? id=229
FACT. ( 2007 ) . Thai website censoring leaps by more than 500 % since putsch! . Retrieved March 16, 2010 from hypertext transfer protocol: //facthai.wordpress.com/2007/01/15/thai-website-censorship-jumps-by-more-than-500-since-coup/
HRM. ( 2007 ) . Siam: Military-Backed Government Censors Internet. Retrieved March 17, 2010 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/05/22/thailand-military-backed-government-censors-internet
Democracy Watch. ( 2004 ) . Definition of a Democratic Society. Retrieved March 17, 2010 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.dwatch.ca/democracy.html
Global Voices. ( 2008 ) . Baning Free address in Thailand. Retrieved March 17, 2010 from hypertext transfer protocol: //advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2008/05/17/censoring-free-speech-in-thailand/
Prachatai. ( 2007 ) . Letter to UNESCO “For Thailand it is still 1945” . Retrieved March 17, 2010 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.prachatai.com/journal/2007/05/12580
Press Reference. ( n.d. ) . Thailand Press, Media, Television, Radio, Newspapers. Retrieved March 17, 2010 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.pressreference.com/Sw-Ur/Thailand.html
The Government Public Relation Department. ( 2009 ) . Constructing Thailand To a New Democratic society. Retrieved March 17, 2010 from hypertext transfer protocol: //thailand.prd.go.th/democracy/view_democracy.php? id=4438
United Nations. ( n.d. ) . The Universal Declaration of Human-Right. Retrieved March 18, 2010 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/