THAILAND: Interior Minister bans magazine for publishing articles on Thai monarchy 

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information that a Thai magazine has been accused of causing “public disorder and affecting moral standards” by publishing articles about the monarchy. The action appears to be an attempt at silencing the publishers of the magazine, who are known for their forthright opinions. However, it is in violation of the freedom of expression as set down in the Constitution of Thailand, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The manner in which it has been conducted also appears to violate Thai administrative law. 

The magazine, Fah Diew Kan, published several articles in its Oct-Dec 2005 edition on the Thai monarchy. Subsequently, on 30 March 2006, a notice was sent to the magazine editor, Thanapol Eawsakul, signed by the chief of police, Pol. Gen. Kovit, demanding that Mr. Thanapol stop selling his magazine because it “may upset public order or morality”.

According to news reports, the articles were read out to some members of the public who had gathered in support of the embattled prime minister, which triggered ‘disorderliness’. Therefore the order to ban the magazine’s distribution was issued in accordance with article 9 of the Publication Act BE 2484 (1941), which states that the police have the right to prohibit the distribution of the magazine and seize existing copies.

However, there are numerous problems with the order to ban the magazine.

First, section 39 of the 1997 Constitution of Thailand guarantees freedom of speech. The magazine was merely expressing an opinion in accordance with this section of the constitution, and was not aimed at causing disorderliness.

Secondly, the action taken by Pol. Gen. Kovit was under instruction of the Ministry of Interior, and therefore is an administrative order. Under articles 30 and 37 of the Administrative Procedure Act BE 2539 (1996), before a state officer gives notice an opportunity must be given to the other party to access the facts and present their own evidence in their defence. However, the caretaker Minister of Interior never gave the editor of Fah Diew Kan an opportunity to contest the allegation.

Thirdly, the order is non-specific. It does not indicate which part of the magazine is offensive or critical of the Thai monarchy.

According to Mr. Thanapol, the magazine’s aim was never to be offensive but to offer the public an alternative perspective on the monarchy. He is planning an appeal against the order. He has seven days in which to do this. The basis of this appeal will be that the notice was not in line with procedures laid down by the Administrative Procedure Act and is in violation of the freedom of opinion and expression under domestic and international law.

ADDITIONAL REMARKS

This is not the first time that the magazine has come under attack. In 2004 the publishers faced down possible legal action after distributing a VCD of security forces attacking unarmed crowds in the south of Thailand (see AHRC-PL-110-2004).

In recent years, independent media in Thailand have been targeted through legal action, defamation and libel charges. Recently, media reform campaigner Supinya Klangnarong won a criminal defamation case lodged against her by the corporation formerly owned by the family of the prime minister (UP-046-2006). Community radio stations have come under increasing attack, and a farmer lost a case against his station on the ground that it breached antiquated broadcast regulations (UP-024-2006). The sister organisation of the AHRC, the Asian Legal Resource Centre, raised his case as one of special concern in a written submission to the UN this year (E/CN.4/2006/NGO/63). The UN Human Rights Committee also raised its concerns about declining freedom of expression in Thailand in its concluding observations to the country’s report under the ICCPR last year:

“The Committee is concerned about reports of intimidation and harassment against local and foreign journalists and media personnel as well as of defamation suits against them, originating at the highest political level… The State party [Thailand] should take adequate measures to prevent further erosion of freedom of expression, in particular, threats to and harassment of media personnel and journalists, and ensure that such cases are investigated promptly and that suitable action is taken against those responsible, regardless of rank or status.” [CCPR/CO/84/THA, 28 July 2005, para. 18]

______________________________

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please ask the caretaker Minister of Interior to withdraw the administrative action against the publishers of Fah Diew Kan. If the government persists with its action, it must clarify which part of the magazine is considered to be in violation of the law, and do so without violating the principles of international law to which it has subscribed.

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER