(ARTICLE 19/IFEX) – The following is a 5 March 2002 ARTICLE 19 press release followed by ARTICLE 19’s letter to Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra: 5 March 2001 Thailand: Government Misuses “National Security” to Undermine Freedom of Expression ARTICLE 19, the Global Campaign for Free Expression, today condemns the Thai government’s misuse of “national security” […]
(ARTICLE 19/IFEX) – The following is a 5 March 2002 ARTICLE 19 press release followed by ARTICLE 19’s letter to Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra:
5 March 2001
Thailand: Government Misuses “National Security” to Undermine Freedom of Expression
ARTICLE 19, the Global Campaign for Free Expression, today condemns the Thai government’s misuse of “national security” to restrict freedom of expression in Thailand.
Since the beginning of 2002, the government has banned the 10 January issue of the Far Eastern Economic Review and 2-8 March issue of the Economist, and has blacklisted and revoked the visas of two FEER journalists. Police, military and government officials have also made intimidating visits to the Abac polling firm. Finally, the government has ordered the discontinuation of broadcasts of radio news programmes produced by the Nation Multimedia Group. The publications and radio programmes all contained critical opinions about Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and the Abac polling firm released a survey which showed that the Prime Minister’s popularity had dropped, but the government has justified most of these actions as necessary to protect national security interests.
Andrew Puddephatt, Executive Director of ARTICLE 19, said:
“Freedom of expression may be subject to restriction to protect national security, but only to protect a legitimate national security interest. For example, protection of national security may require the suppression of sensitive defence information or speech likely to promote violence against the State. However, a restriction is not legitimate if it seeks to protect interests unrelated to national security, such as protecting a government from embarrassment or exposure of wrongdoing.”
In the cases at hand, the police and government have not presented any credible evidence that the expression at issue threatens a legitimate national security interest. There is no threat to Thailand’s existence or its territorial integrity by the use or threat of force, or its capacity to respond to the use or threat of force. Furthermore, even if one accepts that there is some threat, the restrictive measures – the banning of an entire issue of publications, the blacklisting and planned expulsion of foreign journalists, the intimidating visits by police, military and other government officials to a polling firm, and the order to discontinue the broadcast of radio programmes – are not proportional to it.
Thailand has a reputation for being one of the most open and democratic countries in Asia, but ARTICLE 19 is deeply concerned by increasing attacks on freedom of expression since Prime Minister Thaksin took office in February 2001, particularly in the last two months.
The letter to the prime minister follows:
5 March 2002
Pol. Lt. Colonel Thaksin Shinawatra
Prime Minister
Office of the Prime Minister
Government House
Thanon Nakhon Pathom
Bangkok 10300
Thailand
Dear Prime Minister Thaksin,
I am writing to express my deep concern over the serious erosion of the right to freedom of expression in Thailand, particularly in the last two months. The actions taken by the Thai government are incompatible with its domestic and international obligations to protect freedom of expression.
Since the beginning of 2002, the following events have taken place:
* The 10 January 2002 issue of the Far Eastern Economic Review was banned and two FEER journalists based in Thailand, Shawn W. Crispin and Rodney Tasker, have had their visas revoked and face expulsion, following the publication of an article under the headline “A Right Royal Headache”, which referred to tension between King Bhumibol Adulyadej and yourself.
* The 2-8 March 2002 issue of the Economist has also been banned because of references made to the Royal Family.
* The police, military and other government officials have made intimidating visits to the Abac polling firm after its 5-9 February survey showed a drop in your popularity.
* The government has ordered the management of Smart Bomb Co. Ltd., the concessionaire of airtime on FM 90.5, to discontinue the broadcast of news programmes produced by Nation Multimedia Group, following an interview last week with Sqn-Ldr Prasong Soonsri who criticised your handling of the Far Eastern Economic Review affair.
Government officials have justified most of these actions as necessary to protect Thailand’s “national security” interests. ARTICLE 19 is concerned that your government is misusing national security to undermine the media and freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression is protected in both the Thai Constitution [1] and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which Thailand has ratified and is therefore legally obliged to follow. Article 19(2) of the ICCPR states:
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
The right to freedom of expression is not absolute. Both the Thai Constitution [2] and the ICCPR recognises that freedom of expression may, in certain prescribed circumstances, be limited. Article 19(3) of the ICCPR states:
The exercise of [the right to freedom of expression] carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputation of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
The word “necessary” requires the government, when protecting a legitimate interest, to restrict freedom of expression as little as possible.
Freedom of expression may therefore be subject to restriction to protect national security, but only to protect a legitimate national security interest. For example, protection of national security may require the suppression of sensitive defence information or speech likely to promote violence against the State. However, a restriction is not legitimate if it seeks to protect interests unrelated to national security, such as protecting a government from embarrassment or exposure of wrongdoing.
The Johannesburg Principles, a document prepared by a group of experts which sets out international standards on freedom of expression and national security, states that a restriction sought to be justified on the ground of national security is not legitimate unless its genuine purpose and demonstrable effect is to protect a country’s existence or its territorial integrity against the use or threat of force, or its capacity to respond to the use or threat of force, whether from an external source, such as a military threat, or an internal source, such as incitement to violent overthrow of the government. [3]
The United Nations Human Rights Committee has also made it clear that when the State seeks to restrict freedom of expression to protect national security, it must establish that: (1) there exists a threat to the nation as a whole; (2) the expression at issue has caused or contributed to that threat; and (3) the restrictive measures are necessary to prevent the threat and are proportional to it.
In the cases at hand, the police and government have not presented any credible evidence that the expression at issue threatens a legitimate national security interest. There is no threat to Thailand’s existence or its territorial integrity by the use or threat of force, or its capacity to respond to the use or threat of force. Furthermore, even if one accepts that there is some threat, the restrictive measures – the banning of an entire issue of publications, the blacklisting and planned expulsion of foreign journalists, the intimidating visits by police, military and other government officials to a polling firm, and the order to discontinue the broadcast of radio programmes – are not proportional to it.
ARTICLE 19 therefore requests that the Thai government follow its domestic and international obligations to protect freedom of expression by ending the ban on the 10 January issue of the Far Eastern Economic Review and 2-8 March issue of the Economist, reinstating the visas and work permits of the blacklisted FEER journalists, ending intimidating visits by police, military and government officials to the Abac polling firm, and rescinding the order cancelling the broadcast of news programmes produced by the Nation Multimedia Group.
Thailand has a well-deserved reputation for being one of the most open and democratic countries in Asia and having one of the most democratic constitutions in the world. I trust that you will take steps to ensure that this reputation remains intact.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Yours truly,
Andrew Puddephatt
Executive Director
[1] Article 39(1) states: “A person shall enjoy the liberty to express his or her opinion, make speeches, write, print, publicise, and make expression by other means.”
[2] Article 39(2) states: “The restriction on liberty under paragraph one shall not be imposed except by virtue of the provisions of the law specifically enacted for the purpose of maintaining the security of the State, safeguarding the rights, liberties, dignity, reputation, family or privacy rights of other person, maintaining public order or good morals or preventing the deterioration of the mind or health of the public.”
[3] The Johannesburg Principles: National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, ARTICLE 19, Media Law and Practice Series, 1996, Principle 2(a). The Principles were submitted to the 1996 session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights by Abid Hussain, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Opinion. They were also recommended by the Commission in the report of Dato Param Cumaraswamy, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judge and Lawyers and referred to by the Commission in its 1996 resolution on freedom of expression.
Recommended Action
Similar appeals can be sent to:
Pol. Lt. Colonel Thaksin Shinawatra
Prime Minister
Office of the Prime Minister
Government House
Thanon Nakhon Pathom
Bangkok 10300
Thailand
Fax: +66 2 282 8587
Please copy appeals to the source if possible.
