The mass media panel at the National Reform Steering Assembly (NRSA), is proposing a revised bill on media reform where reporters operating without a license could face two years in jail or a fine of not more than 60,000 baht. Currently, no such license exists.

 

Pol Maj Gen Pisit Pao-in, deputy chairman of the mass media panel, was quoted in the Bangkok Post saying: "We don't intend to punish anyone but we're concerned about enforcement. What if someone refuses to apply for the licence? We then looked into similar laws. We found providing a traditional massage service without a licence is punishable by two years in jail even though the impacts the media have is much more extensive."

 

There is a difference between media and massages. The Thai constitution enshrines the right to free speech, as does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Neither one of those documents mentions a fundamental right to give out traditional Thai massages.

 

Thailand’s constitutionally guaranteed free speech is critical to preserving a check-and-balance system in Thailand. The media reform bill would further erode it by imposing government control (complete with fines and prison time) on an industry that was previously self-regulated.

 

Even before this media reform bill, free speech was seriously jeopardized in Thailand. The country has strict lese majeste laws and libel laws. Defamation is a crime which comes with fines of up to B200,000 and prison sentences of up to two years. Simply suing a journalist can be punishment enough, no matter the verdict. For example, a journalist embroiled in a defamation lawsuit cannot leave the country—and these lawsuits can drag on for years. The latest victim is BBC's Jonathan Head whose passport has been seized pending his trial. The UN has consistently pushed for decriminalizing libel, which it considers incompatible with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), of which Thailand is a signatory.

 

Exorbitant damage claims are another way to silence the media. Picnic Corporation sued Matichon for B10 billion in 2005. While courts may not award damages that high, it’s a big enough risk to keep the media very docile.

 

Then there is the government ownership of the airwaves, the Computer Crimes Act and Sect. 44 of the interim constitution. All these restrictions on free speech combine to make Thailand one of the least free countries in the world. We are ranked 142nd out of 180 countries in the 2017 World Press Freedom Index which was released today. That is six spots lower than last year.

 

We agree with part of the government’s assessment: The Thai media isn’t doing a great job. The really important stories of the past decade were broken by AP, AFP or Reuters. It was Reuters, for example, who denounced the modern slavery taking place on our fishing trawlers. More recently, it was AP who detailed the Red Bull Heir’s jet-setting lifestyle, an investigation conducted simply by looking at his instagram feed. Every media outlet here, from Khao Sod to Bangkok Post, ran the story. But why did we have to wait for AP to do it? The answer lies above: the fear of defamation lawsuits.

 

The government’s claim that the media is too important to be unregulated is therefore completely spurious. There are already heavy penalties for reporting fake news in Thailand. Adding more penalties is not an attempt to bring higher professional standards to the industry. It is an attempt to impose more limits on free speech in Thailand.

 

There are now only 38 spots left for Thailand to reach the very bottom of the World Press Freedom Index, where Eritrea, Turkmenistan and North Korea languish. The licensing of reporters will surely get us closer to them and further from the ideals espoused in the Thai constitution. It states:

 

Section 34. A person shall enjoy the liberty to express his opinion, make speech, write, print, publicize, and make expression by other means. Restriction on such liberty shall not be permitted, except by virtue of the provisions of the law specifically enacted for the purpose of maintaining the security of the State, protecting the rights or liberties of other persons, maintaining public order or good morals of people, or safeguarding the health of the people. 

 

Section 35. A person of mass media profession shall enjoy the liberty to report news or express opinion in compliance with professional ethics. The closure of newspaper or other mass media business in deprivation of the liberty under Paragraph One shall not be permitted. The direction to forward news or statements written by mass media professionals for censorship by a competent official prior to their publication in a newspaper or any form of media shall not be permitted, except during when the country is in a state of war. The owner of a newspaper or other mass media business shall be of Thai nationality.

 

The proposed bill on media reform will be submitted to the National Reform Steering Assembly for a vote on May 8 or 9 according to Matichon.