The new media reform bill disturbs me. Drawing much controversy when it was first publicly announced late in January, the bill was immediately opposed by 30 media organisations, who viewed it as an attempt by the government to exert control over the press.
The bill proposes the establishment of a "national media council", which will oversee the issuing and revoking of journalists' licenses based on council-established guidelines. The council, which would include a total of 13 members -- five of them from the media, while the government and other representatives from multiple fields of expertise make up the remaining eight -- opened up the possibility of government interference when it comes to the media, according to statements issued by the media organisations that protested the bill. Their voices were heard in this instant, as the whip committee of the National Reform Streering Assembly (NRSA) rejected the bill in early February, expressing concerns over the composition of the council.
That didn't deter the NRSA, which has re-exerted its determination to push the bill, stressing the need for a more stringent set of regulations to ensure the integrity and professionalism of journalists. The new revisions to the bill, which will add two more members to the council from the press -- bringing the total number of members to 15 -- while the government representatives were decreased to two members, the other two spots going to representatives from the National Human Rights Commission and the Consumer Protection Board. Though certain members of the media still remain sceptical, including Thepchai Yong, president of the Confederation of Thai Journalists, reaffirming the intentions of his organisation to oppose the bill to the bitter end.
What disturbs me isn't so much the bill itself, or the proposed establishment of the council with members from the government, so much as certain groups within the public who seem to think the media deserves to face the consequences of oversight. Citing the vitriolic, politically charged reporting of various organisations, many of which took sides in the conflict between the People's Democracy Reform Committee (PDRC) and the administration of former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, a significant number of comments left on social media as well as various news sites' comments boxes (including the Bangkok Post's) seem to express their indifference toward -- or even agreement with -- the idea of a putting a collar on the media.
I am under no illusions as to the media's culpability in this matter. We were supposed to be the objective voice in the conflict, and in that regard, in that instance, with emotions running high on all sides, we may have strayed from that ideal. Do we deserve to be reined in, after such an infraction? Perhaps. But not by the government, and especially not one dominated by an authoritarian administration that has on many occasions tried to silence reports of its own questionable conduct.
Let's face it. Even with just two official government representatives on the council, it's two too many, since the media is supposed to be the people's eyes and ears when it comes to the government. As such, it's a terrible idea to give the government a conduit by which to influence reporting, no matter how small.
Besides, there is no guarantee that the other representatives from various occupational fields won't have their own agenda when it comes to their intentions for the media. What if a representative worked at a corporation? Would he or she have a bone to pick with the media should they publish a report that is unfavourable towards them?
Make no mistake. Whatever blunders occurred in the past, there is no way toward a democracy without a free press. Even without government oversight, truth-finders exposing the government's unworthy conduct -- like Pornpen Khongkachonkiet, Anchana Heemmina and Somchai Homla-or, the three activists recently prosecuted for defamation after publishing a report detailing the government's use of torture-tactics in the Deep South -- are already being unjustly punished for shining light on an unpleasant truth the army (and, by extension, the government) wants hidden. Giving the government -- or non-press entities with ambiguous agendas -- the authority to get even more directly involved in the regulation of journalism can only mean the erosion of freedom of information.
Kanin Srimaneekulroj is a feature writer of the Life section of the Bangkok Post.