Censorship in Thailand
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Freedom of speech in Thailand was guaranteed in the articles 39, 40, 41 in the 1997 Constitution. [4]
According to those articles, censorship may be imposed to preserve national security, maintain public order, preserve the rights of others, protect public morals, and prevent criticism of the royal family and insults to Buddhism. In addition, criticism of the King is banned by the Constitution.
The Thai government has a long history of censorship. This is attributed to a culture of authoritarianism and king-worship predating the 1932 transition to parliamentary democracy. [5] Mechanisms for censorship have included strict lèse majesté laws, direct government/military control over the broadcast media, and the use of economic and political pressure. [6]
Reporters without borders world-wide press freedom index 2005 ranked Thailand 107th out of 167 countries dropped from 59th in 2004. [7]
Following the 2006 Thailand coup d'état that took place on 19 September 2006, further restrictions have been put on the Thai media and freedom of speech.
Contents |
[edit] The press
Under the 1941 Printing and Advertisement Act, the Royal Thai Police Special Branch has the authority to issue warnings to publications for various violations such as disturbing the peace, interfering with public safety, or offending public morals. [8]
Historically, this and other acts have been used to severely restrict press freedom, especially during the military governments of Plaek Phibunsongkhram, Sarit Dhanarajata, and Thanom Kittikachorn (up to 1973). Books on Thai feudalism, the King, and religion that the government viewed as disruptive were banned and their authors imprisoned. [9] A student-led uprising in 1973 led to a brief period of press freedom, until a violent military crackdown in 1976 resulted in a major clamp-down. The 80's saw the gradual thawing of press censorship.
Unless critical of the royal family or the monarchy, foreign and domestic books normally are not censored and circulate freely. Some recently censored books include:
- William Stevenson's , The Revolutionary King, an unauthorized biography of King Bhumibol Adulyadej published by the prestigious Yale University Press. [10]
- Bangkok Inside Out, a tourguide, which, according to the Ministry of Culture, taints the image of Thailand and its people. [11]
- A 2002 issue of The Economist was withheld because it made an inappropriate reference to the monarchy [12]
[edit] Internet
As of September 2006, 34411 Internet web sites are blocked. The top cited reasons are: Pornography 56%, sale of sex equipment 13%, and threats to national security 11%, which includes criticisms of the king, government or military. [13]
Websites censored due to political content (i.e., threats to national security) as of 2006 include:
- The website of a forthcoming biography on King Bhumibol Adulyadej was blocked due to expectations that it would be critical of the King.[14]
- The website of the Patani United Liberation Organization
Several technologies were employed to censor the internet such as caching, blacklisting domain name or IP address, or simply redirection to a government homepage. Blacklisting the website is beneficial for this kind of web censorship as the webmasters would be unaware that their websites are being blocked. This measure is said to be used to make unpleasant websites appear unavailable. [15]
Many censored web sites redirect the user to a site hosted by the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology which states that the requested destination could not be displayed due to improper content. It should also be noted that censorship of the internet in Thailand is currently for website access only. Unlike China's "Great Firewall", which censors all internet traffic including chat conversation via Instant Messaging, Thai internet users are still able to interact with other users without being censored.
[edit] Individual speech
Although freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution, it is limited by several laws. The King may not be spoken ill of. In 1986, Deputy Interior Minister Veera Musikapong was convicted, imprisoned, and banned from politics for a campaign speech in which he noted that if he were born the Crown Prince, he "would be drinking whisky instead of standing here getting pains in my knees."[16]
The judgement of Thai courts may not be criticized. After a controversial ruling in July 2006 in which the Criminal Court jailed three Election Commissioners, the court worked with the police to identify 16 individuals who were captured on TV news footage criticizing the judgement.[17] The Court later found all the individuals guilty and gave jail terms to 4 of them. The maximum jail sentence for the offense is 7 years.[18]
[edit] Broadcast media
[edit] Television
In television broadcasts, scenes displaying nudity, consumption of alcohol, smoking, drug usage and weapons pointed at human beings are commonly censored by blurring out respective areas. Like all media, criticism of the King is not allowed.
After the military coup of September 2006, the junta sents tanks and troops to secure all television stations. Junta leaders demanded the censorship of news reports and opinion polls that might be negative to the military.[1] Thai television broadcasters did not air footage of demonstrations against the coup[2] Local cable broadcasts of CNN, BBC, CNBC, NHK, and several other several other foreign news channels were censored, with any footage involving former Premier Thaksin blacked out.[3]
In November, an interview with Nuamthong Phaiwan, a taxi driver who drove his taxi into a tank to protest the coup was broadcast by iTV. The broadcast came to an abrupt end after the director of Army-owned Channel 5 gave a warning telephone call.[4] Although the station was already occurred by the military, an additional 20 soldiers were dispatched to the station. The junta also sent a letter to the six public TV channels summoning their news editors for instruction on "constructive reporting for peace of the nation."[5]
The nine members of Board of Directors of MCOT, a privatised state-owned media company, resigned on 26 September with effect as of 27 September in order to take responsibility for allowing Thaksin Shinwatra to shortly address the nation on MCOT-controlled Modernine TV (Channel 9).[6]
[edit] Radio
Radio stations in Thailand must be government licensed and have traditionally been operated primarily by the Government and military.[19] Ownership of radio outlets by government, military, and quasi-government entities have often undermined freedom of the media.[20]
In May 1993, the military shut down an army-owned radio station leased to a private news group for 3 days after the station ran a commentary critical of the armed forces.[21] In another incident in February 1993, government-run media attempted to protect a prominent Buddhist monk accused of sexual misconduct by prohibiting interviews with another well-known Buddhist on his views about the allegations and declined to air a video documenting the monk's overseas travels.[citation needed]
More recently, in March 2003 the Independent News Network (INN) radio broadcast was temporarily canceled after the network aired a Cabinet member's criticisms of the government. In response to public protests, the Government restored the broadcast and claimed that INN's failure to renew their broadcast license was the reason for the temporary closure.
Community radio stations - mostly unlicensed - have seen dramatic growth during the Thaksin-government.[22][23] There have been fears that the medium might be censored. Thailand's 2,000-3,000 community radio stations, often operating unlicensed, have been accused of causing interference with air traffic radio and other radio stations. However, limited crackdowns on selected community radio stations have caused critics to accuse the government of political intereference.
[edit] Film
Under the 1930 Film Act, theater owners and broadcasters must submit films that they plan to show to the Film Censorship Board for review.[24] The Board is composed of officials representing the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of University Affairs, the military, the Department of Religious Affairs, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The board may ban films if its requirements that portions of the film be removed are not met. Reasons for censoring films include violating moral and cultural norms and disturbing the public order and national security. Theater owners and broadcasters frequently censor films themselves before submitting them to the board.
The Censorship Board initially banned the film Schindler's List because of a nude scene. However, after a furor in the press, the Board reversed its decision.[25] According to the office of the Film Censorship Board, of the 230 films submitted for review in 2002, 1 was banned. Out of the 282 films submitted for review in 2003, 4 were banned - 3 South Korean and 1 American. Officers at the censorship board cited sexual situations and nudity as the main reasons for banning the four films.[26]
All versions of the story of Anna Leonowens and King Mongkut (Rama IV) have been banned in Thailand, including the 1956 musical The King and I. More recently, the 1999 movie Anna and the King was also banned for "several scenes that distort history and insult the King"[27], despite the fact that a number of changes were made to the script. Censorship Board member Thepmontri Limpayom castigated the film, saying: “The filmmakers have made King Mongkut look like a cowboy who rides on the back of an elephant as if he is in a cowboy movie. In one scene Chow Yun-fat pushes the king's crown and his portrait down to the floor—that's totally unacceptable.” Another board member added: “If we cut all the scenes which we consider mock the monarchy it would only run for about 20 minutes.”
More recently, Thai Christian groups protested the film The Da Vinci Code and called for it to be banned. On May 16, 2006, the Thai Censorship Committee issued a ruling that the film would be shown, but that the last 10 minutes would be cut. Also, some Thai subtitles were to be edited to change their meaning and passages from the Bible would also be quoted at the beginning and end of the film. However, the following day, Sony Pictures appealed the ruling, saying it would pull the film if the decision to cut it was not reversed. The censorship panel then voted 6-5 that the film could be shown uncut, but that a disclaimer would precede and follow the film, saying it was a work of fiction. [28] [29].
[edit] Self-censorship
Self-censorship has a long tradition in Thailand. It is used mostly out of fears of charges of lèse majesté.
Former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has been repeatedly accused of using his political and economic power to silence dissenting voices and curbing freedom of speech based on the fact that he has direct authority over the state-owned TV stations while his family controls the other broadcast TV channels. [30] However, responding to critics, he sold all of his family's interests in the broadcast media in 2006.
The allegations range from the frequent use of libel suits against critics to coercion into self-censorship.
In 2003, the Thai Journalists Association (TJA) rapped the spread of self-censorship as well as the "sophisticated and subversive means" used by the authorities to control the media, fearing it could turn into propaganda mouthpieces of the Thaksin government. [31] On the occasion of the World Press Freedom Day 2006, the TJA’s labeled the situation of press freedom in Thailand as an “era of fear and hatred” [32]
[edit] Libel suits
The threat of libel suits has long been used to silence government critics.[33][34]
The government of Thaksin Shinawatra has filed numerous libel suits against government critics, in what the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) called “Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s continued use of criminal defamation charges to silence media criticism of his government” [35] , while Brad Adams, executive director of Human Rights Watch’s Asia Division, noted that “it’s impossible to distinguish a libel suit from an attempt to silence the prime minister’s critics. Thailand’s once-vigorous free press is being slowly squeezed to death.” [36]
Prominent libel suits filed by Thaksin in this context include:
The suit by Shin Corporation (at the time owned by Thaksin's family) against Supinya Klangnarong, Secretary General of the Campaign for Popular Media Reform. [37] In an article, published in July 2003 in the Thai Post, Supinya had indicated the rise in the Shin Corporation’s profits since Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai party had gained power in 2001 (approximately $US 980mn), might be a result of benefits to Shin Corp from the government's policies, which would amount to a conflict of interest . The charges were dropped in March 2006 [38]
On April 4, 2006, People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) leader and fierce Thaksin critic Sondhi Limthongkul was sued by Thaksin Shinatwatra for allegedly slandered him during an anti-Thaksin rally. [39]. In total, Sondhi has around 40 complaints lodged against him. [40]
[edit] Further ways of censorship
It has been indicated that the removal of critics from their jobs is another means to censor. [41] Bangkok Post editor Veera Prateepchaikul was fired after publishing and later retracting an article that incorrectly alleged that the runway cracks at the new Bangkok airport were in the middle of the runways. [42] [43][44] The same month, Rungruang Preechakul, editor of Siam Rath Weekly News magazine, quit after covering alleged government mishandling of the bird flu crisis.[45][46]
It was rumored that on 1 February 2006, a business news commentary program “Business Focus” was taken off the air from the FM 101 radio station because it devoted time discussing the Shinawatra family’s controversial multi-million dollar share deal with Singapore’s Temasek Holdings. [47]
[edit] 2006 Coup d'état
Following the 2006 Thailand coup d'état that took place on 19 September 2006, further restrictions have been put on the Thai media. The Council for Democratic Reform under Constitutional Monarchy demanded the cooperation of mass media [7] and later asked the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) to control the distribution of all information media deemed harmful to the provisional military council. [8]
On 15 November 2006, a group called Freedom Against Censorship Thailand filed a petition to the Thai Human Rights Commission asking for an end to online censorship.[9]
[edit] References
- ^ The Nation [1], Activists, former MP arrested after staging protest
- ^ First successful anti-coup protest in Thailand
- ^ Associated Press, Thai coup leaders criticize media, 29 September 2006
- ^ The Nation, Taxi driver 'sacrificed himself for democracy', 2 November 2006
- ^ The Nation, iTV rapped for report on driver's final words, 3 November 2006
- ^ The Bangkok Post, Mcot board resigns 'for Thaksin broadcast', 27 September 2006
- ^ The Nation, [2] ARC summons media bosses to toughen controls
- ^ The Bankok Post, Council wants clamps on information, 21 Sep 2006
- ^ Yahoo! News/AFP, [3] Thai group petitions for end to Internet censorship, Wed Nov 15, 12:18 PM ET
[edit] External links
- US State Department Thailand Country Report on Human Rights Practices, released 8 March 2006
- Reporters Without Borders - Thailand Annual report 2006
- Thai Journalists Association
- International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
- Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA)
- Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) - Thailand archive 2006
- Articles on internet censorship in Thailand
- Freedom of expression in Thailand - IFEX
- Freedom of expression and the Media in Thailand, December 2005
- Freedom Against Censorship Thailand - an active group on Internet censorship issues in Thailand
- Website censorship in Thailand - a detailed list of blocked websites in Thailand
- Thai Radio
