Constitutional drafters have dropped a plan to give the
government
additional powers to censor the media during
political crises following an
outcry from the press.
Constitution Drafting Committee spokesman
Chartchai Na
Chiang Mai said on Wednesday that the panel backed off its
intention to add language to new charter allowing authorities
to block during
"unusual situations", such as during the mass
street protests that led to 2014's military coup.
Mr
Chartchai said panellists decided that the executive or
emergency decrees
issued during such times generally
have included provisions allowing for
government
media censorship.
The military also has the same power under
martial law,
he added. As such, including the censorship language in
the new
constitution would be redundant, Mr Chartchai said.
The CDC, he
added, will simply maintain language included in
the abolished 2007 charter
allowing the state to intervene and
censor the press during times of war.
Media backlash
Media backlash
The National
Press Council of Thailand (NPCT) on Tuesday
had criticised the CDC for its
proposal.
Chavarong Limpattamapanee, chairman of the
NPCT, said the
CDC headed by Meechai Ruchupan had gone too far and its
plan
would affect freedom of the press.
Mr Chavarong said while the press
organisations agreed that
content involving press freedom should go by that in
the
1997 and 2007 versions of the charter which allow
"certain press
restrictions", the CDC's latest was too much.
"When there is an unusual situation, the
media usually cooperates
with the state. And if any media outlets violate the
law,
the government can take action such as banning them in whole
or in
part." "There is no need to add anything or give more
power,"
said Mr Chavarong.
CDC spokesman Udom Rathamarit had said on
Tuesday that
the charter-writing panel had agreed the government should
have such
censorship powers following the imposition of an
emergency decree or under
martial law.
"When the country is facing an abnormal
situation, the mass
media should be cooperative. Otherwise, it can be difficult
to
set rules and disorder can break out," Mr Udom said.
"In normal times, we protect [the media's] work," he said.
According
to Mr Udom, the CDC based its decision on the
political demonstrations of 2013
and 2014.
Some CDC members agreed the political environment
and
tensions resulted partly from the media and some news
outlets provoked
demonstrators while media organisations
failed to intervene, he said.
A big
newspaper quit the NPCT when the council warned
it about its coverage, Mr Udom
pointed out.
"If we look back, we can see we were not
in wartime but
it was chaos. We need to think based on our own context.
The CDC
is thinking about society as a whole," ," he said.
However, Mr Chavarong said the CDC was getting
it wrong.
He pointed out that in a democratic society social measures
are
adopted against media outlets that violate media ethics
or codes of conduct
while legal action can be taken if laws
are violated.
"Giving too much power to a government
that invokes
an emergency situation decree is risky and threatens media
impartiality
and independence . The more intervention,
the more violent the conflict,"
he said.
However, Mr Udom admitted that there was
potential for
abuse of the new censorship powers, saying the panel would
review
criteria for imposing the emergency situation decree
or martial law.
"We need to address concerns that the
decree may be
invoked to gag the media," Mr Udom said.
News,Politics,Bangkok Post. 13 January2016.
In my viewpoint ,media and journalist should
have freedom
to present
the news and article if it base on true fact.
And the opinion give should not violent the
society.
Agree that
Constitutional drafters should dropped a plan
to
give the government additional powers to censor the
media
during political crises.
Sincerely Yours.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น