Juryfury.com
Online School for Writing & Activism
Juryfury.com Articles:



Current Topics:

911 & al-Qaeda

 
US-Iraq War

US Congress

US Elections

Bush Administration

Law & Enforcement

Minorities Post-911



International News:

Africa

Canada

East Asia

Europe & EU

Latin America

Palestine-Israel

The Middle East

Communism & China

Russia & Neighbors

South Asian Politics


United Nations

Republic or Democracy?

Leaders & Dictators



Power Politics:


The Pulpit

The Internet

Religion & State

Narcotics & State

Censorship & Media

The Defense Industry

Treaties & Alliances

Foreign Aid or Trap?

Health Care Reform

Lobby Groups & Think Tanks

Corporations & Global Sweatshops

Economics: A Postmortem Necessary

Leaders in Energy & Environment



The World & You:

Your Finances

Legal Advice


Your Health

Human Rights


Immigration

Education


Sports World

Self & Society

Entertainment News

Peaceful Activism




Editorial:

Dear Politician


Venerated Citizen


Letters to Readers



October 15, 2005 Issue                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

East Asia



Press Freedom in Mainland Southeast Asia

by Dr. John C. Walsh



A global survey of press freedoms in 2005 ranked a total of 194 different states in terms of institutional and legal freedoms, as well as the skill of journalists and publishers. In terms of the countries of mainland Southeast Asia, the best ranked was Thailand in joint 72nd position and a ranking of ‘partly free.’ A position of 72nd would be lower than the Kingdom’s aspiration to be a close-to-developed country and a state which is now to become a donor rather than a recipient of overseas development aid. The other countries were all classified as ‘not free,’ in other words countries which do not permit freedom of _expression. These rankings are amongst the lowest in the world. Cambodia was ranked joint 128th, Vietnam joint 177th, Laos joint 179th and Burma joint 191st.


These ratings relate not just to state interference in publishing or censorship but also to the capacity of local journalists to identify and publish important, investigative stories which are accurate and timely. War and persecution forced the dispersal of almost the entire middle class of both Cambodia and Laos and journalists and commentators were among those who are no longer present. From overseas countries, some of those who are part of the Diaspora are able to use greater opportunities and access to technology in western countries to influence strongly the global, Internet-based discourse about events in their erstwhile home countries. Web surfers searching for information on Burma, Laos and Cambodia, in particular, are likely to find sites which are managed by expatriates who have their own particular views and biases. Those sites are frequently better designed and maintained than official ones, since state-based organizations or even non-state indigenous information sources tend to be less well-researched.


Unlike China, which has the ability and the clout with international media service providers, Southeast Asian states are unable effectively either to censor information on the Internet or to force international firms to reveal information about those designated as dissidents. Nevertheless, there is still evidence that intelligence services are able to monitor and intercept modern forms of communications and action against individuals may be effected later.




Education

The education systems in each of the countries involved also fail to provide individuals able and willing to become skilled journalists. In general terms, education focuses too strongly on the teacher-centric model of education in which pupils pay respect to the teacher by listening and memorizing everything he or she tells them. Replication of that information in subsequent examinations is much more highly prized than the ability to question or to think critically about information or the world. Combined with a sense of deference towards persons of authority, it is clear that young journalists are more likely to accept at face value governmental statements and policies instead of conducting them to rigorous examination or seeking triangulation of any figures stated or assertions made. Generally low levels of English language ability have contributed to the fact that reporting by international sources is more respected and quoted than local sources. Duncan McCargo, writing about the Thai press in 2000, observed that relationships between politicians and reporters could become very close. The reporters needed access to their sources, who would often provide them with travel expenses, accommodation and meals in order to use them as unofficial research assistants. This poses an obvious threat to journalistic independence.




Legal Action

In recent months, a new threat to press freedoms has been posed in Thailand by a series of libel suits issued both by the Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and by the Shin Corp which he founded. These have been aimed at individual journalists who have made allegations about the plaintiffs or who have repeated allegations made by other individuals. For example, on October 11th, 2005, Dr Thaksin launched a libel suit against the Manager newspaper after it reprinted a sermon by a venerable monk which effectively accused the Prime minister of being ‘power-hungry.’ Such accusations, irrespective of having any justice or not, would be brushed aside in most western countries (although accusations of criminal or non-spousal sexual activities would not be). Some believe that these libel suits are little more than coincidental and result from the need to control a press that does occasionally make wild accusations. Others point to the long struggle after Shin Corp’s investment in the iTV television station and the eventual, contested, reinstatement of journalists deemed to have overstepped the line. These observers suspect there is a concerted effort to tame the media.


A strong press helps democracy by contributing to making governments and organizations generally more accountable to the public interest. Across the world, investigative journalism is under threat as authoritarianism uses ‘patriotism’ to suffocate genuinely necessary political debate and because of the dumbing down of popular media by over-concentration of power in too few media hands. Lack of accountability can result in corruption, corner-cutting and consequent risks to the safety of the public. As ever, the poor and the weak suffer disproportionately.




References and Further Reading


"PM to Sue Manager Today," Bangkok Post (October 11th, 2005), downloaded from: http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/11Oct2005_news10.php


Karlikar, Karin Deutsch, Freedom of the Press 2005: A Global Survey of Media Independence (New York and Washington, DC.: Freedom House, 2005), downloaded from: http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/pressurvey/fop05.pdf


McCargo, Duncan, Politics and the Press in Thailand (Bangkok: Garuda Press, 2002).





About the Author:   Please see our list of Contributors for details.