In the run-up to May 3 each year there are always reports and analyses that highlight the “freedom” (or otherwise) of the media in countries around the world. Many are based on the most comprehensive annual effort to rank media “freedom” which is supported by US-based Freedom House. The methodology for their study is available here.
In Freedom House’s 2007 study, the United States is ranked equal 16th, the United Kingdom is equal 31st and Australia is equal 39th. The Scandinavian countries, and Belgium, fill the top spots. The media in all of these countries is considered “free”.
But what about the countries of mainland Southeast Asia that we focus on here at New Mandala? The relevant details are:
- Equal 122nd: Cambodia (alongside Central African Republic, Nepal and Niger)
- Equal 126th: Thailand (alongside Guatemala, Haiti, Kenya and Lebanon)
- Equal 170th: Vietnam (alongside Burundi, Ethiopia and Gambia)
- Equal 176th: Laos (alongside Sudan)
- Equal 191st: Burma (occupying the second lowest rung alongside Cuba, Libya and Turkmenistan).
Of the countries in mainland Southeast Asia only Cambodia and Thailand are rated as “partly free”. A number of other countries that are regularly discussed on New Mandala, including Bhutan, Bangladesh, Singapore, China and North Korea, are classified alongside the other mainland Southeast Asian countries as “not free”.
In terms of these broad categories of “free”, “partly free” and “not free”, Thailand has a particularly interesting trajectory that can be plotted from a series of very useful historical maps (available here).
Thailand’s recent media history of media “freedom” is:
- 1984: “Not free” (as was every country in Asia except India, Bangladesh, Taiwan and Japan)
- 1989: “Partly free” (as was Malaysia)
- 1994: “Partly free” (along with many former Eastern Bloc countries)
- 1999: “Free” (very few other Asian countries were rated in this category at that time)
- 2004: “Partly free”
- 2007: “Partly free”
Now, in 2007, if Thailand’s ranking was to drop only fractionally more it would be back in the category of “not free”. New Mandala readers will have their own opinions about whether this is fair and whether the methodology takes into account the full range of local experiences. Thailand’s current position is, however, one indication that the comparative methodology employed by Freedom House – which uses “universal” standards – has accounted for the many restrictions on freedom of expression, and media freedom in particular, of the Thaksin and post-Thaksin eras.
Thailand’s ongoing movement between the three broad categories that are used by Freedom House make it an important case for anybody hoping to better understand the interaction of politics, “freedom” and the media.
As always, New Mandala reader comments and thoughts on the Freedom House analysis, or on the “freedom” of the media in Thailand more generally, are very welcome.
5 responses so far ↓
1 Pig Latin // May 5, 2007 at 11:44 am
To what extent is press freedom a reflection of freedom within a nation? I would argue that the Freedom House ranking is simply an attempt at judging national liberalism. Doesn’t this in the end create further polarity because those in a liberalised society become judgmental and less understanding of those who are not in the sense that they are supposedly less free?
2 Sawarin // May 7, 2007 at 2:37 pm
The Thai press sinks at its historical record. Voices of dissent were found and heard during previous dictatorships, now what you currently have is a culture of consensus. Journalists don’t even think of their practice as self-censorship, but a form of Thai-rationality or something along that line. Worse is, without being asked, the media people are so keen to please the institutions of power.
3 Amateur // May 8, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Self-censorship is a dangerous game. They are justifying those in power and asserting the view that there is a kind of “right” and “wrong” information in the world. Freedom of expression is one of the elementary values necessary for a democratic society, coming first before the institutional democracy. An authoritarian society allowing everyone freedom of speech is an oxymoron. The opposite of it unfortunately still preveils pretty much in this world.
4 nguyen // May 9, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Communist Vietnamese government officials, scholars or journalists visiting Australia should be asked tough questions about the incarceration of journalists like Nguyen Vu Binh, Tran Khai Thanh Thuy who spoke up to defend the poor people of Vietnam and the integrity of the Vietnamese land. Information about these people can be found at PEN International, Amnesty International, Human Rights Wacth
Australians should ask questions about the current continuing abuses of human rights in Vietnam and extensive corruption and jailing of human rights advocates in Vietnam by the so-called socialist government which pretended to bring independence and happiness to the Vietnamese people.
5 Thailand is now apparently “Partly Free” // Feb 3, 2008 at 3:25 pm
[...] year I highlighted “media freedom” in Southeast Asia using the detailed comparative information provided [...]
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.