As the one-year anniversary marking the coup approaches, plans for a referendum on the new draft constitution is underway and an election is predicted for December. But the military junta governing the country continues to pass laws that contradict their promises for democratic change.

Report from Jami Oetting from Index on Censorship

On 22 July, 5,000 protestors, led by the United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), called for the resignation of Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda, accusing him of being a driving force behind the 19 September 2006 coup. The demonstration ended in the first violent protest in Bangkok since the coup, exposing a country in political turmoil. 

The Bangkok Post, a leading English language newspaper, reported on 26 July that ‘contrary to the UDD´s claim that it was the police who first provoked the unrest by attacking protesters, the outnumbered police were very patient and lenient. Except for the plastic shields, they did not even carry batons.? This contradicts reports from BBC and other sources, which claimed that police attempted to arrest protest leaders and ‘charged? at them ‘with clubs, pepper spray and tear gas?. Demonstrators retaliated ‘with fists, rocks, sticks, bottles and anything else they could find?, according to the Asia Sentinel on 23 July. Video clips posted on YouTube by witnesses show protestors hurling objects but also reveal the police using batons to brutally beat protestors, preventing them from approaching the Privy Council’s residence. 

?Cheerleaders? for the new regime?
Media censorship and control existed under former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, but it was of a more subtle variety than the type introduced over the course of the last year. Under Thaksin, Thailand continued to be one of the only countries to prosecute under lèse majest? , a law making it a criminal offence to insult the monarchy and carrying a possible sentence of 15 years? imprisonment. During his time in office, Thaksin filed numerous criminal defamation charges against editors and used his financial power to prosecute those critical of his regime.
 
Historically, the government has controlled television stations, making print publications the only independent news source in the country. After bearing the brunt of government attempts to control the media, leading newspapers papers ‘decided to make a stand against the interventionism of the Thaksin government?, according to Reporters sans Frontières? 2007 Annual Report. In May 2006, each of the papers published a ‘collective editorial in which they stressed their commitment to public service journalism?.  Papers such as the Nation , highly critical of Thaksin, were said to have been extremely supportive of the military junta instated after the coup, and were even described as being ‘cheerleaders? for the new regime. Since then, they have continued their support by practising self-censorship or remaining cautious when publishing critical reports of the regime. It has only been recently that criticism has begun creeping into these publications.

Immediately following the takeover, military officials targeted the media, including the Internet, blocking both negative views of the coup and the views of Thaksin supporters.  They pressured media organisations to self-censor and publish only positive reports of the coup. The Midnight University website, an academic forum critical of the junta, was among those blocked, along with pro-Thaksin websites, and BBC and CNN television broadcasts. Broadcasts of nearly 300 radio stations were suspended. Since the initial crackdown, the interim government has relaxed some of the restrictions, but at the same time has pushed for legislative measures to censor the Internet, culminating in the Cyber Crime Act.

The Cyber Crime Act
The Cyber Crime Act, the first law passed into law by the interim government, came into effect on 18 July. The law was promoted as a regulation measure to encourage safe online transactions and gives the government the power to prosecute cyber criminals such as hackers. But the law also allows the government to appoint a ‘competent official? who has the authority to confiscate, search, and copy computer data from individual users who can be charged with up to 20 years? imprisonment for possession of illegal material. Section 14 of the Act states that a person may be imprisoned for and/or charged a 100,000 baht fine if they are in possession of data ‘that is likely to damage the country’s security or cause a public panic?. The Act also requires that Internet Service Providers store users? records for 90 days and allows officials to access this information for prosecution purposes. Nick Cheesman of the Asian Human Rights Commission says the wording of the Act ‘has been specifically designed to benefit the current regime? and that it can ‘be used to any purpose they like?. It would appear the interim government is attempting to regulate information available to Internet users, while at the same time cracking down on the freedoms of Thaksin supporters, of which there are still many in the country.

Internet use in Thailand has increased six-fold in the last five years and more people are turning to online sources for news and information. Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT), an organisation formed in November 2006 to advocate against Internet censorship, claims the interim government has blocked nearly 18,000 websites, a 500 per cent increase since the coup.  Information and Communication Technology Minister (MICT) Sitthichai Pokaiyaudom claims he has only blocked 200, most of which are pornographic sites or violate lèse majest? laws.  Pokaiyaudom’s order to block the video sharing website YouTube on 3 April gained national and international coverage, highlighting the existence of the country’s lèse majest? laws ? and drawing attention to the enforcement of them. The offending video featured King Bhumibol Adulyade with feet placed on his face, an image regarded as offensive in Thai culture.  After the Google-owned site refused to remove the video or provide the government with information about the user who uploaded it, the entire site was blocked.  

Political apathy
This type of censorship is just a small part of a bigger trend. The current government led by the military junta is reverting back to the type of control that existed before the 1997 constitution, which was the first in the country to be drafted by an assembly elected by popular vote. Soon after the 2006 coup, the constitution was dissolved.  The real concern for free expression advocates is not whether the amount of information censored is the same since the coup, but  over the way the interim government has passed laws without an elected parliament in place or public debate on major issues.  For the average Thai, the lack of stability in the country, the fact that there have been 17 constitutions since 1932, and the constant shifts in governmental control have created a passive attitude about politics. ‘People know what is going on from prior experience and are sick of it,? Cheesman says.  ‘There is a lot of sympathy for the regime still and they just don’t want things to get out of hand.?