CNS must let media do its job

CNS must let media do its job.

Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy. In the absence of freedom of expression, which includes a free and independent media, it is impossible to protect all other rights, including the right to life. A government cannot be allowed to hide beneath a shroud of secrecy. Once this happens it will be able to remain unaccountable for its actions, a situation from which massive human rights violations can, and do, take place. The Council for National Security's recent request for all broadcast media to exercise caution in airing the comments of Thaksin Shinawatra or his de facto spokesman Noppadon Pattama is a mistake and must be reversed. Whatever anyone may think of Mr Thaksin, each independent television and radio station must be given the freedom to choose what it will and will not air. Journalistic principles and professional organisations are already in place to ensure a free but responsible media industry in Thailand. Added censorship is unnecessary and counter-productive.

The Thaksin government was often blamed for trying to gag the media and control the press through a number of extra-constitutional means, including threatening journalists and media organisations with expensive criminal and civil libel suits, and using advertising revenues as both a carrot and a stick for media organisations that depend on the income to survive.

Are we to believe that the CNS has come in to protect us from these actions that were trying to weaken our democracy from within? Many people have given the military the benefit of the doubt that this ''interim'' period without a fully functioning democracy is necessary to bring us out stronger and more unified at the other end.

Censoring the media during this crucial time, when people still have many unresolved questions and numerous issues need to be discussed openly and maturely, will not achieve that aim. Rather, it will destroy the very nature of the democracy that the country is trying to rebuild.

Do we want the next constitution to be the last one we need to write? If so, it must be created through open dialogue and public debate _ not under a repressive regime where the media is controlled by the state. For this reason alone the right to freedom of expression, specifically protected in the 1997 Constitution (which will supposedly be used as a basis for a new and stronger charter), must be considered a primary right.

Mr Thaksin's supporters must be allowed to join in the debate. Any suppression of their voice will be counter-productive and could lead to protests and violence.

In a democracy, a ruling power must listen to its detractors. And it must argue back, through the media and other channels that are open to it. Shutting off the voice of Mr Thaksin will not make him or his supporters go away; it will only serve to deepen divisions. It will also take away the fragile trust that the CNS and government currently enjoy among millions of people.

Mr Noppadon has, to a large extent, been defending Mr Thaksin from allegations thrown against him by the CNS. This should be a right respected in a democracy.

If the CNS intends to incarcerate Mr Thaksin without a fair trial, then they should do so. If they want to uphold the rule of law and offer Mr Thaksin the right to defend himself, then they should charge him with the crimes and allow him that right.

What the CNS needs to do is deliver on its promise to stamp out corruption, reinstate the rule of law and bring a full and working democracy back to the people by the end of 2007 _ not control the media, shut down free speech and use fear and intimidation to try and push media organisations, whether they be online, print or broadcast, to use self-censorship in the interests of ''national unity''.These were the arguments of Thaksin Shinawatra; they are among the reasons why he is not in power today.

Bangkok Post
Friday January 12, 2007