Pravit in The Nation:

In Thailand, media reform activist Supinya Klangnarong, speaking on behalf of the Thai Netizen Network argued that though the Thai press were “institutionalised by censorship”, social media such as Twitter as well as blogs were being used to challenge the traditional media’s role as a gatekeeper of news and information.

As the second speaker from Thailand, I spoke about how the lese majeste is making any meaningful discussion about the monarchy impossible, which I believe can be detrimental to the future of Thai society and democracy. Further arrests under this law are likely, even though at least 11 people are already under detention over lese majeste charges in Bangkok alone. What’s more, the ultra-royalists’ fear about the institution’s future is increasing due to His Majesty’s advancing age and frail health.

BP: On the institutionalization of self-censorship, see Pravit in 2008 (PDF). Key excerpt:

Newspaper editors are the gate keeper who decides what is fit for print and what is not. The issue of the monarchy institution requires them to exercise their authority carefully to protect not just the monarchy institution but the security of their career and their organisations.

One executive editor of a quality Thai-language newspaper (to hence be called Editor A) said during an interview with the writer that at times concerned news editors may hold an editorial meeting to discuss the suitability of a particular news item to determine whether it is deemed as too sensitive to the monarchy institution and too risky to the papers or not. Editor A says if required, the media owner’s opinion will be seek out but over the three-decade working experience of Editor A, this has not occurred and the editors themselves were able to decide what can be publish or what must not. It should be noted that Editor A stated that as journalists gain more years in working experience, they tend to develop similar attitude and view on where self-censorship begins. “There are boundaries that we know and I learnt it from my [working] experience,” said the editor. “If the years of working experience is similar, they tend to not to see things differently.”

This suggests that an internal organization-based learning process about what they consider as taboo take place. Another editor, hence to be called Editor B, who works for three decades in the trade and is currently a senior editor of an English-language daily based in Bangkok thinks that actually all journalists, reporters included, act as their own primary gate keeper of what is suitable for publication or not although at the end it’s the editor who will decide what is permissible or not. Editor B said “care” must be exercised to avoid being sued for lese majeste. But each editor of different newspapers has to interpret by themselves where the border of self-censorship begins and the result is arbitrary at best.

Newspaper editors are the gate keeper who decides what is fit for print and what is not. The issue of the monarchy institution requires them to exercise their authority carefully to protect not just the monarchy institution but the security of their career and their organisations.

BP: Read the whole thing. Now, BP would actually say there is still self-censorship, but there is also more discussion of lese majeste and some issues surrounding the monarchy. What BP means is to think back in 2007, 2008, and for part of 2009 where there was little discussion of the lese majeste law. Actually, in 2007, when there was some pushback on amending the lese majeste law to make it tougher, BP was a little surprised. Now, discussion of lese majeste law and other related factors is becoming more mainstream. You have Prawit in The Nation and Achara in the Bangkok Post. You have the front page of Nation Weekend featuring Somsak J and also opinion pieces in Nation Weekend from a group of law professors discussing lese majeste. Ditto Khao Sod, Matichon Daily, and Matichon Weekly. This was unthinkable a few years ago. There are more voices concerned that the current application of lese majeste law is not actually helping the situation.

Even during the current election campaign, at the start of the campaign, you had frequent implicit accusations that Puea Thai were anti-monarchy. On April 10, the military deemed some statements made by red shirt leaders at a rally on April 10 to be seditious and verging on lese majeste. A subordinate to the Army C-in-C filed charges against 19 red shirt leaders and the military raided and closed 13 red community radio stations for rebroadcasting the speeches. A further 800 community stations were also now under threat. Painting the red shirts as being anti-monarchy was likely done to hurt Puea Thai at the election. There were public shows of force by troops on multiple occasions in late April across Bangkok – officially to show their loyalty to the Army C-in-C, and the monarchy, tacitly suggesting that it was under threat. Following the military response, former Army C-in-C Chavalit Yongchaiyudh resigned as chairman of the party. However, then there was discussion that the monarchy should not be mentioned in the election campaign. This was not just negatively mentioning the monarchy, which was already illegal, but also included political parties from campaigning saying they would protect the monarchy. Abhisit was a big proponent of this ban. If BP was to make an educated guess, the idea for this went beyond Abhisit… It is easy to see why because if you allege that one party is anti-monarchy and that party win 40+% of the vote, what are the implications of this? In the end, Puea Thai won closer to 48% of the party vote of votes cast for political parties and this was even with the Army C-in-C going on TV to tell people to vote for good people to keep the institution safe. Accusing your opponents of being anti-monarchy is not as effective as in the past…

Btw, this anecdote from just after the coup on self-censorship from one of the US cables:

Pana Janviroj, president of the Nation Multimedia Group, said no troops have entered the Nation newsroom or its Thai-language sister papers: Kom Chad Luek and Krungthep Turakit. When asked about self-censorship, Pana said, ”We sympathize with the CDRM, so there is (no need for) self-censorship.”

BP: Indeed, although that is not quite so true. As Pravit wrote in 2008 (PDF) on the shutdown on Samesky webboard:

Postscript: This writer wrote a news article for The Nation about the shutting down of the site. It appeared on Sunday January 6 edition. Two days later, he received a phone call from the office saying such an article is not needed any longer. “Don’t do this type of story any more,” the polite voice on the phone from the editorial management said.

BP: Having said that, strident anti-Thaksinism has actually diminished at The Nation over the time of the Abhisit government although one wonders how long that will last…