Paper prepared for Asian Development Forum

time, interest in publishing was confined mostly to the royal court and foreign groups

of missionaries and traders. No fewer than seven English-language newspapers began

and ceased publication between 1844 and 1877. One royal publication, Ratchakitja or

the Royal Gazette, founded in 1858 by King Mongkut (Rama IV), exists to the present

day as the official medium for acts, decrees, ministerial proclamations, and public

announcements of newly promulgated laws. Daily newspapers came into their own

during King Vajiravudh’s reign (Rama VI) in the early 1910’s when 20 dailies,

including one Chinese and two English-language publications, were printed. King

Vajiravudh, himself a prolific writer, used several pen names to write newspaper

articles commenting on issues of the day.

Today, the Thai media is among the freest in Asia although it is taboo to criticize the

royal institution. Freedom House’s latest survey on press media around the world has

rated Thailand as one of the six free news media countries in Asia along with Japan,

South Korea, Taiwan, Mongolia and the Philippines. Its 2000 annual report described

the press condition in Thailand as follows: “The year started badly with one

Printed media are in private hands and are highly competitive. At present, there are 21

national dailies in three languages (12 in Thai, 6 in Chinese and 3 in English) with

combined circulation of 2 million copies per day. After a three-year lull, the Thai

publishing industry is on the road to recovery assisted by booms in the publishing

business. Leading national Thai-language dailies, including Matichon and Krungthep

Thurakij are popular among well-educated Thais, so are the Bangkok Post and The

Nation. The mass circulation Thai Rath, Khao Sod and Daily News have broader

appeal to the general public . Sin Sian Yit Pao and the Universal Daily are the

country’s two leading Chinese -language newspapers. Outside of Bangkok, 320

provincial newspapers are published. However, only three to four key provinces have

--------------------------------------------------------------------

their newspapers on sales everyday. In addition to domestic dailies, Thais have access

to foreign newspapers that are sold at newsstands and bookstores

More than 14 business newspapers and weekly newsmagazines are on sale every three

days or fortnightly. Throughout Thailand, there are more than 200 magazine titles that

come out weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly and tri-monthly. The time before

the economic crisis in 1997 was considered the golden days of the Thai media--the

number of daily newspapers was double the number this year.

In 1955, a government enterprise put Thailand's first TV station into operation in

Bangkok. Thailand became the first country in Southeast Asia to begin regular TV

transmissions. There are now six terrestrial stations in Bangkok, namely Channels 3,

5, 7, 9, 11 and iTV. All of them are government -owned with their own affiliated

stations in the provinces. However, the Government permits the private sector to run

Channels 3,7 and iTV. The Government Public Relations Department handles the

National Broadcasting Services of Thailand, which operates TV Channel 11 with its

broadcast programs emphasizing education and public services. Channel 11 serves as

the parent station of eight TV station networks in the provinces across the country.

In addition, there is one major cable TV network that operates on a 24-hour basis in

Bangkok--United Broadcasting Company (UBC). At the end of last year, iTV joined

the Nation Channel to offer 24-hour news. The cable network features popular

western programs, such as HBO, Cinemax, and CNN. Television in Thailand is

mostly commercialized and generally appeals to popular taste. Each free television

channel produces its own programs ranging from news to soap operas. Entertainment

broadcasts may be Chinese, Japanese, British, and American but usually with a Thai

soundtrack dubbed in.

Thailand has 523 radio stations nationwide, 212 of them are on AM (Bangkok-38,

provinces-174) while 311 are on FM (Bangkok-40, provinces-271). The biggest

operators are the Government Public Relations Department with 145 radio stations,

followed by the Royal Thai Army with 128 stations and the Mass Communication

Organization of Thailand with 62 stations. AM radio tends to appeal to popular tastes,

especially with rural listeners, while FM radio offers more popular music, as well as

jazz and classical music, English-language newscasts, and original soundtracks of

certain foreign films shown on local television. However, the new constitution

promulgated in 1997 mandated that all airwaves belong to the public and must be

managed through an independent body known as the National Broadcasting

Commission. The commission is one of several new bodies to monitor and regulate

the performance of the government to ensure transparency and accountability.

As a whole, Thai journalists and broadcasters are hard-working people and view

themselves as public watchdogs. Two thirds of the estimated 3,400 working

journalists still lack media skills, they tend to learn on-the-job. Better preparation and

coaching on basic reporting, interviewing and writing is essential to promote press

professionalism. Journalists also need to understand and follow a code of ethics. Since

few receive good salaries, the majority of journalists are not well-off.

Since the economic crisis in 1997, about 3,000 journalists and media -related personal

have been laid off. Newspapers that failed to balance their checkbooks were forced to

shut down--twelve in all, including two English papers, the Asia Times and the

Thailand Times. Those who can weather the economic crisis, either through new

investors, owners or downsizing, have to make their newspapers more attractive to

readers, who are more choosy as they can no longer purchase more than one paper at

one time. In addition, with fewer pages to work with, editors and reporters have to

change their style of writing to maximize the use of space because of expensive

import news-prints. Journalists have to be retrained. They are no longer allowed to

follow one particular beat or specialize on one issue as they now have to become

multi-beat reporters. With few advertising revenues to share due to the economic

crunch, each newspaper has to be creative to ensure its own niche in a tight market.

New media owners and investors are not like their predecessors, who were former

journalists - most are politicians or businessmen. A famous gambler, who used to

operate a series of illegal gambling dens, took over the country’s oldest vernacular

newspaper, Siam Rath. Prior to 1997, almost all Thai papers were hostile to the

government as the publishers, editors and journalists had to fight against anti-press

measures and oppression for over half a century. However, all these papers have now

become mainstream papers. Both pro- and anti- government papers have appeared on

the newsstands.

When it comes to protecting media freedom, freedom of expression and access to

information, the 1997 constitution has been very comprehensive. Apart from the

constitutional provisions guaranteeing media freedom as appearing in section 37, 39,

40, 41 (see annex) , there are additional provisions to ensure the public’s right to know

and access to the government-held information as in section 34, 58 and 59 (see

annex).

As such, the existing 27-related anti-press legislatures enacted in the past that would

restrict media freedom must be abolished. This procedure has proceeded at a snail

pace due to bureaucratic red tape and recalcitrance by conservative lawmakers, who

still think that the Thai media must not be too free. At the very least, the government

must keep some of these laws to monitor the media. In July 1997, the publishers and

editors of all national newspapers decided to set up the National Press Council (NPC),

a self-regulatory body to enforce press ethics and professionalism. The public has

filed more than 100 complaints with the PCT in the past three years on indecent use of

photos, inflammatory publications, and news distortions.

.

About 300 foreign correspondents, cameramen, and photographers representing 128

news organizations are based in Bangkok. These include all major wire agencies, such

as Reuters, Agence France Press and Associated Press. Besides these agencies, many

other publishers are based here, such as Asiaweek, the Asian Wall Street Journal,

Business Asia, Far Eastern Economic Review, Financial Times, The Straits Times,

and the Yomiuri Shimbun. Apart from print media, the world's broadcasting media

organizations are also well represented in Thailand. These include BBC, CNN and

NHK.

Since the Official Information Act (OIA) was promulgated in 1997, more than half a

million Thai people have used the Act one way or another. During the first two years,

the public was not well aware of the new law, what it did and what kinds of impact it

could have on Thai society. But several scandals helped publicize the information

law, especially Sumalee’s quest and the Public Health Ministry’s scandal. Sumalee

Limpa-ovart spent two and a half years struggling with the administrators of Kasetsart

Demonstrative School, who denied her daughter’s admission to its first-grade class, to

find out the reasons why the school did not accept her daughter. As it turned out, she

uncovered that the school admitted children of privileged families and donors. After

several court battles with the school lawyers and administrators, the Council of State

passed the verdict in supporting her and ruled that the school acted unconstitutionally

and in bad faith and ordered the school to abolish the discriminatory system.

Consequently, other state -run demonstrative schools have adopted the same system.

The 1999 Public Health Ministry’s scandal, which involved the procurement of

medical supplies worth US$35 million (1.4 billion baht), led to the resignation of

Deputy Public Health Minister, Rakkiart Sukthana and two senior officials. Relying

on tip-offs and information given by an alliance of non-governmental organizations

and grass-root groups including rural doctors, the National Counter Corruption

Commission (NCCC) was able to dig deep into illegal procurement networks that

jacked up prices of medical supplies to rural health stations. Through the information

act, advocacy groups and journalists successfully obtained the records of the NCCC

investigation after several appeals but the names of eyewitne sses were blackened to

protect their identities.

With Sumalee’s victory, the public started to appreciate the access act. More and

more people know that they have the right to have full access to government

information. In the past, all official data and information were considered confidential

and not for any disclosure, except in exceptional circumstances. Now, the pendulum

has swung back: all official data and information should be released for public perusal

with minimal exceptions. Beyond the right for all citizens to access official

information and the erosion of culture of secrecy, it also has wider implications in

various ways: 1) it supports the right for all citizens to participate effectively in the

decision-making processes of government; 2) it increases the efficiency of the

workings of government by making the various government agencies accountable to

public scrutiny; 3) it reduces the corruption in government by making all dealing

more transparent; 4) it weakens the long tradition of patron-client relations which rely

on connections and nepotism; 5) it lessens the possibility of social conflicts between

groups of citizens and government agencies; 6) it empowers ordinary citizens

especially those in rural areas.

According to the access law, some information are not subject to disclosure,

especially those related to the Royal Institution and those which will jeopardize

national security, international relations, or national economic and financial security.

For those who want to access information related to the Royal Institution, it can be

done under the category of historical data, which takes 75 years to be declassified. If

need be, an additional but final extension of 75 years can be added before a full

disclosure.

Any Thai citizen can request official information, by filing a simple form. In theory,

all requests must be fulfilled within a “reasonable period of time.” Failure to do so

could bring jail terms and fines. In reality, the ambivalence of the law has allowed the

authorities to prolong the requests. There is no specific timeframe for the so-called

reasonable period of time - it could be one week, one month or one year. This has

become one of the biggest loopholes. For instance, a request was made on 25 October

1998 related to paper procurement by the Finance Ministry’s Tobacco Bureau took

two and a half months before an official response was made. In another case, it took

three months to process a request to examine the agreement made by the Bank of

Thailand in selling off a state -owned bank. For the time being, there is a seven-day

time frame. After that, an appeal could be send to the Office of Information

Commission (OIC).

Generally, it does not cost money to ask for information, even though it can involve

thousands and thousands of pages of documents like the request made by a PhD

student doing research on Thailand’s economic crisis. He wanted to scrutinize the

minutes of discussions going back some three decades of the Bank of Thailand to find

the cause of the economic crisis in 1997. It is a time-consuming process that requires

patience. After several months of foot-dragging and bureaucratic red-tape, the student

got the documents he wanted.

According to the latest statistics, during January to October of 2000, a total of 144

complaints and 64 appeals were submitted to the OIC. A large chunk of the

complaints, about 30 cases or 20.83 per cent, were targeted at local government

agencies, while 19 cases or 13.19 per cent were addressed to the Ministry of

Education followed by the Ministry of Finance with 16 cases or 11.11 per cent. In the

case of appeals, 14 cases or 21.88 per cent were filed against the Ministry of

Agriculture with 10 cases or 15.63 per cent belonging to the Prime Minister’s Office.

The Ministry of Education got 8 cases or 12.50 per cent.

In 1999, there were 124 complaints and 81 appeals. Most of the cases were

complaints about the officials who refused to give services and responses. A total of

56 per cent of the appeals were concerned with disciplinary investigation documents

while 23 per cent zeroed in on information about current affairs such as the

corruption probe in the Ministry of Public Heath and the bid for asset sales by the

Financial Sector Restructuring Authority and 21 per cent were asking for informa tion

related to concession, contracts and meeting reports.

In term of location, 143 cases were filled in Bangkok and 62 in the provinces. There

were 10 cases filing against the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration and 18 were

concerned with municipality and other forms of local government bodies throughout

the country. The record last year showed that private citizens use the access law more

than anybody else, followed by government officials and journalists. Only two

politicians utilized the information act.

Most of the requests concerned official information related to concessions, contracts,

projects and the budget. Documents demanded by investigative journalists ranked

second. The statistics provided by the OIC showed that only six of the 100 cases

judged by the five Information Disclosure Tribunals from 1998-2000 were dealing

with economic and financial matters. Five cases were made by the Prachachart

Thurajit newspaper and involved the details of purchasing contract related to the bid

for sales of the financial sector debts. The tribunal ruled that all details must be

disclosed. The sixth case dealt with the disclosure of a series of confidential letters

written by the Bank of Thailand to the International Monetary Fund. The tribunal

rejected the request.

After three years of implementation, some of the problem areas in the implementation

of the information act could be identified as follows:

1. Most people neither understand key elements of the access law nor realize

their rights. Most people do not know how to use the law in compliance with

their demand to have access to state information. Therefore, people cannot

exercise their right, as they do not know the procedures.

2. In government agencies, high-ranking officials do not understand the law and

do not know how to implement the law. Furthermore, they lack adequate

knowledge of the law. Since the whole exercise is new, they have little skill in

exercising discretion.

3. They do not consider the public requests for information as part of the

government’s service. They view the access act as a burden on them.

4. Lack of coordination among various ministries, making cross-references

almost impossible.

5. Members of disclosure tribunals serve on a voluntary basis which could affect

their decisions because they have other jobs and responsibilities.

6. Lack of serious provisions of punishment. While the persons failed to respond

to information requests with a one-year imprisonment and a fine of 5000 baht

(US$116), it also reprimands those who disclosed information by mistakes

with a one-year imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 baht (US$465). This

contradiction has discouraged the authorities to act promptly as they tend to

drag on with the requests. They prefer to pass the requests to the OIC for

further deliberations.

7. Lack of sufficient staff and money. The current 19-member OIC has to handle

workload submitted by 8,775 state and local agencies around the country.

8. Lack of the structure that will support the access to information act. So far, it

has depended on the goodwill and active support of the personnel involved in

its administration.

9. Lack of independence as it is under the executive branch, the Prime Minister’s

Office. In the future, the OIC should be transferred to the Parliament to get rid

of political interference that has plagued the committee over the scandal in the

past years.

To improve the implementation, the OIC has prepared four -point strategic guidelines

for the future as follows: all states agencies must speed up the strict enforcement of

the information law; agencies concerned should support the budget staff, staff

development to the OIC; representatives from ministries to the OIC must work there

continuously at least two years; management of information and documentary

administration must be more systematic and nation-wide; the promotion of high

ranking officials and the recruitment of new staff as legal officials should be based on

the OIC criteria.

This is easier said than done. Despite the guidelines, almost half of the state agencies

still could not comply. They have cited the lack of funds and personnel as the main

impediments. In some localities, the lack of space is often the cause.

Thailand is the only country in Southeast Asia that has a separate law on access to

information. Although the Philippine constitution guarantees public access to

government-held information in general, there are on-going discussions among

lawmakers, civil society leaders and journalists whether a separate information law is

needed to promote open and accountable government. Indonesia is currently drafting

a similar law, which will be taken up by the Parliament in the near future. The

Indonesia version is more liberal than the Thai version as it has very little limitations,

e.g., foreigners are eligible to use it. Beyond Southeast Asia, India has promulgated an

information law last year. Japan’s national information law is effective beginning

April 2001. South Korea enacted a sim ilar law, known as Act on Information

Disclosure of and by Public Agencies, in 1996. Nepal has its own draft ready to be

vetted by the lawmakers. Since Nepal and Thailand are constitutional monarchies,

their access laws have many similar features.

The Manila-based Philippine Center for Investigative Journalists (PCIJ) has done a

comparative study on access to information of eight countries (Thailand, Malaysia,

Burma, Philippines, Singapore, Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia), which will be

completed in June. The working definition of “access to information” used in this

project is the ability of citizens to obtain information in possession of the state. The

studies did a survey of the availability of over 40 public records such as

macroeconomic data, social data (literacy, poverty, infant mortality rates), data on

government budgets and contracts, information on parliamentary meetings and and

inquiries, court proceedings, official investigations, financial disclosures by officials

and companies. The survey asked two questions whether these records available to the

public. For the yes answer, the Philippines ranks as No. 1 (68 per cent)as the country

which allows access to all these records while Cambodia (50 per cent) and Thailand

ranks second and third (49 per ce nt). Singapore ranks fifth (44 per cent), Malaysia

ranks sixth (36 per cent), Vietnam ranks seventh (21 per cent) followed by Indonesia

(19 per cent). Burma is at the bottom (5 per cent).

For the no answer, Singapore ranks first (56 per cent) followed by Burma (56 per

cent) and Vietnam (49 per cent). Cambodia ranks fourth (43 per cent) with Malaysia

ranks fifth (38 per cent) followed by Indonesia (36 per cent). Thailand and the

Philippines score 18 per cent and 11 per cent, respectively.

These preliminary findings indicate that there is no correlation between level of

development and access to information. The main determinants appear to be:

democratic and pluralistic polity, plurality of media ownership, a culture of

discussion, inquiry and political participation. For instance, although Singapore is

considered an open society, access to certain information is extremely difficult.

According to James Gomez of the Think Center, records concerning government

officials, military personnel, Alien information are difficulty as they deemed too

confidential. Burma ranks the lowest in the region in all categories, while the

Philippines is considered the most accessible country.

Quite a few newspapers, including Prachachart Thurakit and Krungthep Thurakit,

have set up investigative report desks. Those follow new topics as well as going

through old headlines to uncover further information. These desks will also prepare

letters and other necessary steps to use the information act. Universities and colleges

throughout Thailand are now teaching a course on information act. Workshops are

also geared towards the Thai journalists to improve their reporting and investigative

skills. Judging from the articles submitted to be considered for top journalism prizes

(Thai version of Putlizer Prizes) administrated by Thai Journalists Association (TJA)

in the past four decades, most of the winning articles focused on scandals and

corruption, which were revealed by political opponents or whistleblowers. However,

after the information act was put in place, the investigative reports have gained the top

slot three years in a row (1998-2000). The article which exposed Prime Minister

Thaksin Shinawatra’s fraudulent asset declaration leading to his indictment last year

won the best report of the year 2000. The paper uncovered evidence that Thaksin,

who was serving as a deputy prime minister in 1996, had illegally hidden US$53

million worth of shares in his telecommunications company through a false stock

transfer to one of his maids and a family driver.

In its annual accounting of press freedom conditions in Thailand, the Committee to

Protection Journalists has this to say about the Thai press and the impacts of

information act: “The Thaksin case showed how aggressive local journalists have

1. Official Information Act, B.E. 2540

2. Constitution of Kingdom of Thailand, B.E. 2540

3. Nakorn Serirak, Challenges of Thailand Information Act, February 2001

4. Public Relations Department, Prime Minister’s Office

5. Prasong Lertrattanavisut, Problem in the use of the Official Information Act in

Examining the State’s Functions, working paper in Thai,Thai Development

Research Institute, February 2001.

6. Kavi Chongkittavorn, Access to Information Act of Thailand, the Asian

Journalism Reviews, Manila, March 2001.

7. Louise William, Rich Roland (editors), “Out of Control, Freedom of the Press

in Asia,” Asia Pacific Press, 2000.

states: A person shall enjoy the liberty of communication by lawful means. The

censorship, detention or disclosure of communication between persons including

any other act disclosing a statement in the communication between persons shall

not be made except by virtue of the provisions of the law specifically enacted for

security of the State or maintaining public order or good morals.

Section 38: A person shall enjoy full liberty to profess a religion, a religious

sect or creed, and observe religious precepts or exercise a form of worship in

accordance with his or her belief; provided that it is not contrary to his or her civic

duties, public order or good morals. In exercising the liberty referred to in

paragraph one, a person is protected from any act of the State, which is derogatory

to his and her rights or detrimental to his or her due benefits on the grounds of

professing a religion, a religious sect or creed or observing religious precepts or

exercising a form of worship in accordance with his or her different belief from

that of others.

Section 39: A person shall enjoy the liberty to express his or her opinion,

make speeches, write, print, publicize, and make expression by other names. 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 determination of the mind or healthy of the public. The closure of a

pressing house or a radio or television station in deprivation of the liberty under

this section shall not be made. The censorship by a competent official of news or

articles before their publication in a newspapers, printed matter or radio or

televisions broadcasting shall be not be made except during the time when the

country is in a state of war or armed conflicts; provided that it must be made by

virtue of the law enacted under the provisions of paragraph two. The owner of a

newspaper or other mass media business shall be a Thai national as provided by

law. The States as subsidies shall make no grant of money or other properties to

private newspapers or the mass media.

Section 40: Transmission frequencies for radio or television broadcasting and

radio telecommunication are national communication resources for public interest.

There shall be an independent regulatory body having the duty to distribute the

frequencies under paragraph one and supervise radio or television broadcasting

and telecommunication business as provided by law. In carrying out the act under

paragraph two, regard shall be had to utmost public benefit at national and local

levels in education, culture, State security, and other public interest interests

including fair and free competition.

Section 41: Officials or employees in a private sector undertaking newspaper

or radio or television broadcasting businesses shall enjoy their liberties to present

news and express their pinions under the constitutional restrictions without the

mandate of any State agency, State enterprise or the owners of such businesses;

provided that it is not contrary to their profession ethics. Government officials,

officials or employees of a State agency or State enterprise engaging in the radio

or television broadcasting business enjoy the same liberties as those enjoyed by

officials or employees under paragraph one.

Section 58 of the Constitution of Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2540 (1997)

states: “A person has right to know data and public information under the control

of the governmental organizations, state enterprises or provincial authorities

except in the case that the disclosure will affect the security of the state, safety of

people or the interest that associates with lose of protection of other persons as

states in the law.”