Freedom of the press, rent seeking,
and the Printing Act of 1941
By Jon Fernquest[Introduction|Vocabulary|Article]
[Reading Questions|Answers]
 |
Perfect information and complete information are two of the most important assumptions economists make about perfect competition in markets.
Economic reality, however, often consists more of rent seekers controlling information and extracting excessive economic rents in very imperfect markets.
How did ex-Prime Minister Thaksin rise from civil servant police officer to a leading world business tycoon? Was it purely a matter of business acumen?
Censorship is a tool rent seekers employ to control information and create little shadow areas where it is easy to build up their power and extract economic rents.
Explicit censorship includes such acts as burning books, shutting a printing press down, pulling books from the shelves of bookstores, defamation suits against journalists, throwing journalists in jail or murdering them, as well as removing or inking out pages in books.
When it happens, explicit censorship is usually very visible to the public eye, although who did it may be less clear, the murder of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya this year being a good example.
Self-censorship is less easy to see.
Laws can pose a threat that changes and influences what and how journalists write.
Have you ever wondered why newspaper articles fail to make (or stress) obvious points? Why they avoid certain topics? (for example, what somebody accused of lese majeste actually did) Today's article may be enlightening.
Current media laws in Thailand date back to the 1941 Printing Act.
These laws allow for a discreet but powerful influence to be exerted over what stories are covered by the media and how they are covered.
Moreover, it is not elected officials who exert this influence, but career bureaucrats, police, and military who are rarely held directly accountable to the public via electoral democracy.
The 1997 constitution effectively overrode these laws, but this groundbreaking constitution no longer exists.
It is no surprise that when elected officials directly accountable to the public are no longer present in the post-coup political environment, entrenched interests and these old laws resurface and come to the fore again.
All forms of media (newspapers, magazines, television, radio, internet) are well-developed in Bangkok, but the provinces notably lag far behind.
Are antiquated media laws a factor in the continued dominance of organised crime and the so-called dark influences (ithiphon meud) in provincial politics and life?
Could the transparency created by media freedom make for a more efficient economy?
Was rent seeking and corruption during the Thaksin era effectively covered up by restrictions on press freedom? Problems in this area first started six years ago in the early Thaksin era.
Read the original news article about the media representatives who resigned from the committee drafting new media laws.
Read a recent Chang Noi article on censorship in Thailand.
Also check out the articles, podcasts, and publications on freedom of the press at The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), at Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA), at the International Press Institute (IPI), and at Freedom House.
Reading Questions
Here are some questions to guide your reading (See answers at end):1. Why did media representatives resign from the committee drafting a new press bill?
2. What laws will be used to control the media under the new constitution as proposed?
How old are these laws?
3. What is the basic problem with these old laws?
4. Where must new publications seek permission before starting operations?
5. How is the media controlled once a licence has been issued?
6. Is the old Printing Act of 1941 compatible with press freedom? Why or why not?
7. Why has the old Printing Act of 1941 suddenly come into force now?
8. How do the laws that journalists are promoting ensure the press freedom that the old laws don't ensure?
9. What forms of media control are currently being employed against newspapers, radio stations, and websites?
10. What assessment did the Committee to Protect Journalists give of media freedom in Thailand recently? Does this apply to the Thaksin era or the post-coup era?
11. Has recent post-coup media censorship been more or less severe than during the Thaksin era?
(Express your opinion)
12. How does recent post-coup media censorship differ from Thaksin era censorship?
(Express your opinion)
Bangkok Post Article May 07, 2007
The threat to media freedom
The resignation of four media representatives from the committee drafting a new press bill bodes poorly for the chance of press freedom. The four quit in frustration when it became evident that other committee members intend to hold control of the media by means dating back to the unlamented military dictatorships.
The insistence on keeping the 1941 Printing Act as the media cornerstone of the regime under the new constitution may seem just another disappointment. In fact, the problem is more basic. A process which refuses to recognise freedom of the press is so deeply flawed that it cannot be depended upon to protect any basic rights of citizens. The resignations of the media representatives confirms that the government, police, military and civil service are unwilling even to negotiate the matter of press freedom. Thailand may have gained dozens of newspapers, hundreds of broadcasting stations, thousands of websites but authorities still believe that a 1941 law covers all.
Worse than that, they seem to feel, based on the discussions so far, that the old Printing Act remains relevant, even though it was written before Thailand had TV stations, the Internet, Xerox machines or even Telex. Army officers and civil servants helping with this press law must retire from their positions when they are 60. Still, they believe that a 66-year-old Printing Act should stick around.
The act requires anyone starting a physical publication - newspaper, magazine, newsletter or similar - to grovel for permission, in Bangkok at the office of Special Branch police or up-country at the office of the provincial governor. These appointed officials can grant or withhold a printing licence on a whim. Perhaps even more importantly, they can warn (read: "intimidate") licence holders for any articles, photographs or advertisements and, of course, can cancel the licence. Nor is this legal theory; it has happened many times.
Clearly, the old law and freedom of the press cannot both exist. The last constitution of 1997 fully recognised this, and effectively overrode the most odious parts of the 1941 law. Unfortunately, powerful interests prevailed and the Printing Act never was repealed.
Thus, with the 1997 charter now just another historical document, the old law has come back into force. It remains to be seen what sort of press freedom the new constitution will provide, but initial indications are that it will not be as strong as even the 1997 charter. The attempt to keep the tired old Printing Act intact is lamentable, and harms the country.
Journalist associations have drafted a proposal to replace the Printing Act. Called the Notification Bill, it would require any citizen starting up a publication or broadcast entity to file public notice. This would give citizens access to information about media, but remove the anonymous controls and intimidation now wielded by state security and an unelected bureaucracy. The Notification Bill is a proposal, subject to debate. Unfortunately, the unelected constitution writers have been unwilling even to consider the proposal.
That is not to say that freedom of the press should be unrestricted or above the law. Libel, slander and defamation laws already exist.
The media has long agreed to discussions and changing editorial taste, such as photos of crime victims and witnesses. But the authorities continue to insist on using harsh censorship.
Thus, the government has censored thousands of websites, including some of the world's most popular. The military has closed down most community radio stations. Police continue to warn - that is, to threaten - newspapers. The shocking caution given to a student newspaper in Chon Buri province illustrates a government-run media-police system with no obligation towards the rights of citizens.
Last week, on the UN-sponsored World Press Day, the Committee to Protect Journalists declared that the Thai media had gone from free to non-free in six years. The government cried "unfair," but of course TV news, radio commentators and the government-controlled news agencies did not even report the story. Some may argue that the four media representatives should have stayed the course to write a more relevant media law, to protect press freedom, to try to influence its outcome for a longer period. Either way, it is clear that recalcitrant committee members oppose true freedom of the press, and have no plans to allow it to become the law of the land.
Vocabulary (in discussion above)
perfect information - a state of complete knowledge about the actions of other players that is instantaneously updated as new information arises (See Wikipedia and The Economist's glossary on information)
complete information - when everyone knows what everyone else is doing (when knowledge about other market participants is available to all participants, every player knows the payoffs and strategies available to other players) (See Wikipedia)
perfect competition - a market where no producer or consumer has the market power to influence prices (See The Economist's glossary and Wikipedia)
rent seekers, rent seeking - making money by manipulating the economic environment rather than through honest trade and production of wealth, making more money from customers without giving them anything more in exchange (See The Economist's glossary and Wikipedia)
economic rents - the income received by owners of a resource (e.g. land, labour) that is above the minimum income they would require in order to be willing to make the resource available for use by other people, a measure of market power (See The Economist's glossary and Wikipedia)
acumen - ability to make good decisions quickly
explicit - shown clearly and openly without hiding details
self-censorship - changing and censoring one's own writing to conform to norms without an authority directly pressuring you to do this, often done out of fear (See Wikipedia)
the 1941 Printing Act - "under the 1941 Printing and Advertisement Act, the Royal Thai Police Special Branch issued warnings to publications for various violations such as disturbing the peace, interfering with public safety, or offending public morals." (Source: US Department of State; See also Wikipedia on censorship in Thailand)
discreet - behaving quietly without drawing attention to oneself, to maintain privacy
influence - the power to make other people agree with you and do what you want
x is accountable to y for z - x is responsible for z and must explain actions to y, who evaluates their performance
x held directly accountable to y - only y evaluates performance and decides whether they did a good job (for example, town meetings make town councils directly accountable to local residents, local residents voice their complaints directly to the council and not through the intermediary of an elected representative)
electoral democracy - democracy with elections, allows public participation in the public decisionmaking of a country (See Wikipedia's list of the many different kinds of democracy)
the 1997 constitution - Thailand's 1997 Constitution was the first constitution to be drafted by popularly-elected Constitutional Drafting Assembly, hence was popularly called the "People's Constitution" (See Wikipedia)
x overrode y - x replaced older laws or regulations y (but the older laws still remained, so that if the newer x disappeared, the older laws would once again become effective)
entrenched - firmly established and difficult to change
coming to the fore - becoming more important (and prominent or visible)
antiquated - old-fashioned, dated, no longer used
dark influences (ithiphon meud) -
transparency - actions are not hidden or secret, so they can be directly evaluated by the public and/or stakeholders (See Wikipedia)
resignation - a formal statement that you intend to leave your job
drafting a bill - writing the first version of a law to be voted on by the legislature
x bodes poorly for y - x makes you think that that something bad is going to happen to y in the future
lament - express sadness or regret about
unlamented - without expressing any sadness or regret about
the cornerstone of x - the most basic, fundamental, and important part of x
freedom of the press - (See Wikipedia on freedom of the press)
a flaw - a fault, mistake, or undesirable quality
deeply flawed - very faulty, does not function well at all
confirms that - offers evidence and further proof of
to grovel for - showing excessive respect to get something or out of fear
Special Branch police -
do on a whim - do suddenly without reason or purpose
intimidate intimidation - frighten someone to get what you want
odious - extremely unpleasant
interests - people who will gain or lose depending on the outcome of events, therefore they try to influence events (people who have a "stake" in events)
prevailed - gain influence after a struggle
powerful interests prevailed - powerful people who will lose or gain from an event manage to influence the event
repeal a law - the law is officially ended
law x comes into force - law x becomes effective, when the proposed law x becomes an actual law that people must follow
law x comes back into force - law x was not effective or enforced for a while, but it is now
a publication or broadcast entity - a media company such as a TV station, newspaper, or magazine
file public notice - a legal requirement of notifying the public before you can do something like start a business (this requirement is often met by placing a print advertisement in a newspaper)
anonymous - without a name (people cannot know the name or position of the person doing it, and may not even know it is happening, so they cannot protest it)
x wielded by y - some power x used by y
bureaucracy - officials and civil servants working in government ministries (sicne their jobs are protected, often slow to change or be held accountable)
defamation - "a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation" (See Wikipedia on libel and slander)
libel - written defamation, "harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast"
slander - spoken defamation, "harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech," term used in the common law traditions of the United States and England
tastes - the things that someone likes, preferences
editorial taste - the kinds of articles and stories that the editor likes and allows (for example an editor may not like showing photos of dead bodies or crime scene reenactments with suspects who have not been tried and found guilty yet) (See Wikipedia on editing)
community radio stations - local radio stations in provincial towns (See Wikipedia on community radio)
UN-sponsored World Press Day - World Press Freedom Day (See Wikipedia)
commentators - a person who write or discuss publicly about social, political or cultural issues or events (synonyms: pundit, columnist)
radio commentators - radio shows that discuss social, political or cultural issues (for an American example see conservative Michael Savage)
news agencies - a company or organisation that employs journalists to supply news reports to organizations in the news trade: newspapers, magazines, and radio and television broadcasters (synonyms: wire services, news services) (See Wikipedia on news agencies and also a list of news agencies)
stayed the course - be persistent and not change policy or current course of action (here it means that the media representatives should not have resigned)
recalcitrant - stubborn and unwilling to change
the law of the land - the laws in force in a country
Answer Key:
1. Why did media representatives resign from the committee drafting a new press bill?
Entrenched (and unelected) interests such as government bureaucrats, police, and military are "unwilling even to negotiate the matter of press freedom."
("The resignations of the media representatives confirms that the government, police, military and civil service are unwilling even to negotiate the matter of press freedom. Thailand may have gained dozens of newspapers, hundreds of broadcasting stations, thousands of websites but authorities still believe that a 1941 law covers all.")
2. What laws will be used to control the media under the new constitution as proposed?
How old are these laws?
The 1941 Printing Act will be used. These laws date back to World War II and are obviously very old.
3. What is the basic problem with these old laws?
They fail to recognise the freedom of the press to objectively report the news as it sees fit.
Powerful local interests can influence the media in an untransparent fashion.
4. Where must new publications seek permission before starting operations?
New publications must first seek permission "in Bangkok at the office of Special Branch police or up-country at the office of the provincial governor."
A printing licence can be withheld for any reason, making it easier for powerful local interests to exert control over what is printed locally.
5. How is the media controlled once a licence has been issued?
Once a licence has been issued control can be exerted by local authorities over any articles, photographs, or advertisements, by threatening to cancel the printing licence.
6. Is the old Printing Act of 1941 compatible with press freedom? Why or why not?
No, it allows for untransparent influence over what stories the media covers and how they cover them. This is not press freedom.
7. Why has the old Printing Act of 1941 suddenly come into force now?
a. After the 1997 constitution (which overrides it) came into force, the old laws were never repealed.
b. The 1997 constitution is no longer in force, so the old laws are no longer being overridden by the 1997 constitution.
8. How do the laws that journalists are promoting ensure the press freedom that the old laws don't ensure?
These new laws remove "the anonymous controls and intimidation now wielded by state security and an unelected bureaucracy," while requiring that any citizen starting publication give public notice before doing so.
9. What forms of media control are currently being employed against newspapers, radio stations, and websites?
a. Community radio stations have been shut down.
b. Police warn (threaten, intimidate) newspapers.
c. Thousands of websites have been shut down.
10. What assessment did the Committee to Protect Journalists give of media freedom in Thailand recently? Does this apply to the Thaksin era or the post-coup era?
They declared that, "the Thai media had gone from free to non-free in six years.
This assessment applies to both the Thaksin and post-coup eras.
11. Has recent post-coup media censorship been more or less severe than during the Thaksin era?
(Express your opinion)
12. How does recent post-coup media censorship differ from Thaksin era censorship?
(Express your opinion)
