Sunday, 21 March 2010

Media under siege in Southeast Asia

Latest rankings for press freedom leave Thailand and all other Asean countries with nothing to shout about.

The annual Press Freedom Index for 2009, released earlier this month by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), makes for disturbing reading for the Asean region. People in Southeast Asia must ask if we're sacrificing long-term democracy and freedom for short-term security and stability.

Aside from a glimmer of hope in Indonesia, ranked at 100 out of 175 nations, the rest of the Asean region increasingly resembles a big rotten basket full of repressive regimes and opponents of press freedom.

Burma, ruled by a notorious military junta, ranked near the bottom, at 171 out of 175, in this latest worldwide index. The country is described by RSF as: "[A] paradise for censors, one of the very few countries where all publications are subjected to prior censorship. After China and Cuba, it is the world's largest prison for journalists and bloggers."

Thirteen journalists and cyber dissidents are currently imprisoned.

Vietnam, ranked at 166 out of 175, is only relatively better: "Aside from underground dissidents and online publications, Vietnam has no independent media. The written press, television and radio are all under the control of Hanoi."

Despite an acknowledgement that some efforts are being made to roll back censorship there, RSF noted that a dozen journalists and cyber dissidents are in jail.

Laos, ranked at 169, is described as being in a "very serious" situation, with one journalist and two media assistants detained.

The Philippines, though still more respectable at 122, and once a bastion of press freedom, has also succumbed. With two journalists killed in the past 12 months, RSF noted: "Media are free but subject to levels of violence that nothing and nobody seems able or willing to stop ... Mindanao Island is currently one of the world's most dangerous regions for journalists."

Thailand, at number 130, has regretfully joined the ranks of Singapore (133) and Malaysia (131), which are traditionally known for their control of the press.

The Kingdom was ranked at number 66 only seven years ago. It has fallen so spectacularly because of the curbing of press freedom by ousted former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his supporters, then by the military junta which ousted Thaksin, and now by the Democrat-led government of Abhisit Vejjajiva, which cracked down mightily on the so-called "red" media in the aftermath of the April riots this year.

Then there is the lese majeste law, used with increased frequency as His Majesty advances in age. As RSF notes: "The Thai media has been buffeted by repeated political crises. Several journalists have been assaulted by demonstrators, and scores of media have been censored for openly supporting the "red shirts".

But it has been the crackdown on Internet users and intellectuals - for alleged crimes of lese-majeste - that poses the greatest threat to free expression in the country: "Most Thai journalists voice the same reverence for King Bhumibol as the vast majority of the population. The others are forced into self-censorship."

Indeed, the Index might do well to rethink the direction Thailand and most of Asean is heading, especially when we can't fall much lower than this.

 

Comments

the Index might do well to

the Index might do well to rethink the direction Thailand and most of Asean is heading, especially when we can't fall much lower than this.

On the contrary, there's still miles and miles for Thailand to fall. North Korea is still waiting at the bottom of the abyss. The only question is, do Thais really want to follow suit? Does it worth to sacrifice the press freedom for the sacred 'national security'? What's more 'sacred' than the vast majority's security, their 'right' to be free?

If Thailand's low ranking is

If Thailand's low ranking is only due to the coup, crackdown on red media after Songkran, and LM prosecution, then it surely misses the big picture.

LM charges, for example, have suddenly become visible only because the offenders have suddenly become bold.

Ten years ago, in golden age for Thai media, no one even thought about photoshopping the King's images and posting them on the Internet, and god knows what would have happened if they did. Were they free to do so? Surely not.

It's not the case of less freedom at all.

Does the index reflect the freedom of mainstream media? I don't think it does.

LM charges, for example, have

LM charges, for example, have suddenly become visible only because the offenders have suddenly become bold.

StanG, are you trying to mislead me? Did Giles' book 'Coup for the rich' deliberately criticise the Institution? If not, then why was he charged with LM? Did 'Da''s speeches deliberately attack the Institution? If not, then why did she get a 18 years term for violating the LM?

Why was Prachatai repeatedly raided by police without any successful conviction?

Do all of these have nothing to do with press freedom? Then your definition of press freedom is surely different from mine and PSF.

sorry, RSF not PSF.

sorry, RSF not PSF.

I think they did.

I think they did.

I don't remember any books

I don't remember any books prior to Giles that accused the King of plotting military coups. I don't remember anyone promising to chop off royal heads from public stages either.

When this kind of stuff didn't exist there was no cause to invoke LM laws, and media freedom index was high. Doesn't mean there was more freedom then, if it was, it was all superficial.

Besides, I don't think I agree with underlying assumptions about media freedom.

With freedom must come responsibility and boundaries, and responsibility means there must be punishment for stepping outside those boundaries. Judging freedom only by the amount of punishment for transgressions doesn't say anything about freedom of the law abiding media at all.

I think that at this moment the Thai media are as free as ever as long as they stay within the bounds. The coup temporarily moved those boundaries, and so did Songkran riots, but most people understood the temporary need and accepted it, and if that is the reason for low index I wouldn't worry too much about it.

I also don't think that there's some absolute line for what is acceptable and what is not. It's up to each particular society to negotiate the rules, and judging media by some absolute standards is misleading, you should take into account the societal environment as well.

Also consider that a huge public backlash could be more intimidating than lawsuits. Is this fear calculated in media freedom index? I honestly don't know.

It's a big topic.

Stan G, I agree with you that

Stan G, I agree with you that "With freedom must come responsibility and boundaries," but I don't see that this leads to the corollary, "responsibility means there must be punishment for stepping outside those boundaries," in this case. All societies have notions of 'good & bad taste.' These act as sanctions, & people make their own decisions as to the boundaries. When someone offends, there may be a lot of noise, demonstrations, debates on television, etc., sometimes leading to an apology or explanation. That is freedom. Jailing people for expressing opinions is not.

RSF has their questionnaire

RSF has their questionnaire online:

http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/quest_en.pdf

Forty questions, most of them unqualified yes or no.

Two assumptions are suspicious there.

First, what they mean by media and what is passing itself as media in Thailand is probably vastly different. It's one thing to have editorial bias, it's another thing to set up a propaganda outlet specifically serving interests of a political group. I mean red "media" here. They were never meant to report, they were meant to communicate from red leadership to red followers, a kind of advertising brochures in a different format.

Second is that Internet media should be exempt from the rules applied to traditional channels in terms of freedom and responsibilities.

I don't care much about Thai rankings specifically, but the values the index is going to reinforce worldwide.

I think the overall media

I think the overall media freemdom has increased in Thailand. MSM is in better shape than Thaksin's time, because this government is not powerful enough to shut them up. Besides, now Thailand have alternative media like ASTV or DTV. They disseminate infromation to which the viewer could not have access 7 years ago.

I'd say they disseminate

I'd say they disseminate information that didn't exist years ago. They disseminate information that doesn't exist now - they create it themselves.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comments are limited to a maximum of 2500 characters.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.