Sunday was Press Freedom Day, with no celebrations in Thailand for obvious reasons. Some 50 weeks ago, the first orders of the military coup-makers were aimed at the media. Local and foreign broadcasts were initially banned. Editors were ordered to report to military headquarters, where they received strict instructions to avoid divisive issues. Last week, the satellite station Peace TV was ordered off the air.
Peace TV was operated by the executives of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship — the red shirts. It was available on an internet stream as well as some pay-TV systems. As was the case with other politically charged stations, Peace TV changed its broadcast schedule and moderated its opinions after it restarted operations under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission. But NBTC authorities said it had to be closed because it continued to broadcast divisive commentary and opinions.
The ban on all broadcasts by Peace TV is a questionable order that raises several important issues, starting with whether the order to shut down a media outlet is a good example for the country. The answer to that is clear: No.
The annual Press Freedom Index ranks Thailand as the 134th most-free media host - worse than its 2014 position.
Freedom House - a US NGO - puts Thailand at No.141 on its list.
But harm to the country's image abroad is hardly the most important consequence of the Peace TV ban. Other issues directly affect the lives and freedom of citizens. For example, the authorities have refused to say what Peace TV was saying that was so divisive it had to be muzzled.
The only reason given was an innocuous broadcast. It was an interview in which former prime minister Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh denied any involvement in the Koh Samui car bombing.
Peace TV is off the air because of an order from the NBTC. This sets a very dangerous precedent.
This is not the first time the NBTC has claimed the right to censor content and opinion. Under normal political circumstances, the NBTC can issue warnings and impose fines on contentious content, but not ban. Its authority to revoke licences mainly covers breaches of technical requirements.
The NBTC was never supposed to judge the content of radio, TV, internet or other public broadcasters. From the moment the 1997 "people's constitution" ordered its establishment, the primary duty of the NBTC has been to regulate the airwaves to the benefit of the public. Yet, over the past three years especially, the NBTC has continually claimed the right and power to warn, censor and close broadcasters.
It is unfortunate that the military regime has allowed the NBTC to broaden its powers. Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha denied having any role in the ban, but he backed the NBTC's right to revoke Peace TV's licence.
On the first day it seized power, the military announced it might suspend or close media outlets. Subsequent emergency orders and the interim constitution gave the regime a legal basis to do so. Such unpleasant powers should be restricted to the military's direct orders only. The NBTC should stay true to its original mandate.
By allowing the NBTC to close down media outlets, the military faces criticism of avoiding responsibility. More importantly, the move has poisoned the well of press freedom by approving official media censorship by the NBTC, which will be around long after the soldiers have gone.