Difficulties in reporting under the junta

WHAT DID YOU FEEL WHEN THE POLICE SUDDENLY SHOWED UP TO SEARCH PRACHATAI’S OFFICE ON TUESDAY AND WHAT DO YOU THINK WAS THE REASON BEHIND IT?

It was expected. My reporter [Taweesak Kerdpoka] was charged with allegedly breaching a ban on campaigning against the draft charter on Sunday, while he was covering an anti-junta activists’ event at Ban Pong Police Station in Ratchaburi. Since then, I had expected the police to show up over suspicion of Prachatai being involved in the campaign. As for the reason, I think the search was part of the investigation process concerning my reporter’s case. I have no evidence to think otherwise or believe the authorities are targeting us. 

The authorities were reportedly told to search the office by Ban Pong Police Station officers, and they came armed with a search warrant and some plainclothes military officers. 

 

THE AUTHORITIES SAY TAWEESAK WAS ARRESTED BECAUSE HIS ACTIONS LOOKED LIKE HE WAS PARTICIPATING IN AN ANTI-DRAFT CAMPAIGN. HE WAS ALLEGEDLY NOT ARRESTED BECAUSE HE WAS GATHERING FACTS OF THE EVENT LIKE A JOURNALIST. YOUR THOUGHTS?

This remark sounds quite unreasonable really. The police should have contacted Prachatai to find out if Taweesak was indeed a reporter. He was not involved in the activists’ activity. He had gone there to cover the event and had been assigned to follow up on the student activists. He rode along with the activists in the pick-up truck, which is normal practice among journalists. He also identified himself as a reporter, but the police still insisted on arresting him. I believe this was either because the authorities were biased or pressured by their bosses to do so. 

 

DO YOU THINK THE AUTHORITIES ARE TARGETING TAWEESAK OR PRACHATAI?

Neither, I think. The problem lies in Article 61 of the Referendum Act. The law is written vaguely and needs to be clearer – it should identify what people can or cannot do – in order to encourage freedom of speech. The charter drafters and the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) do not allow opponents to voice their opinions, which has triggered a massive crackdown on anti-draft activists. 

The general public is becoming fearful and the media has started to censor itself by not reporting anti-draft activities or campaigns. This climate of fear should not exist during the run-up to the August plebiscite, when people should get both sides of the information. 

 

JUDGING BY THE CASE OF PRACHATAI, DO YOU THINK THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO CONTROL THE MEDIA?

Yes, I would say so. Opponents hardly dare to voice their opinions, and if they do, the media may not cover it, as it is risky. 

 

DO YOU THINK THE MEDIA UNDER THE REGIME NEEDS TO CENSOR ITS COVERAGE MORE STRICTLY?

Each media organisation has different limitations. Broadcast media is regulated by state agencies. Online media and newspapers are likely to be affected by the Computer Crime Act, the NCPO orders and Article 61 under the Referendum Act, which is ambiguous.

 

IN YOUR OPINION, WHY HAVEN’T ANY “DOS AND DON’TS” BEEN CLEARLY INTRODUCED TO THE PUBLIC?

I think if the state does make it clear, then it would say “do not criticise or verbally attack the draft”, but it cannot say this. This is why it has written such a broad clause in the Act, so the authorities can broadly interpret it and charge the opponents. 

Article 61 bans the dissemination of “false”, “rude”, “inciting”, and “intimidating” information about the referendum. Under such a vague law, the media cannot report on critical subjects. There are no reports comparing the draft’s pros and cons, or the consequences the referendum may have in different scenarios. So far, the public still does not know what would happen if the draft is rejected. It seems people have no choice but to accept the draft. 

 

WHAT CAN FIX THIS?

I want to see a clear guideline on the “dos and don’ts”. The defenders of media’s rights should also be active and call on concerned authorities to not restrict or interfere with the media and allow inclusive debates.

 

FOR PRACHATAI, HAS FEAR AFFECTED ITS FUNCTIONS AS A MEDIA OUTLET?

We are a little fearful, but I have been trying to keep the working team calm. We do not let fear interfere with our work quality. We still cover subjects that matter to the public and I talk to my team often enough to ease their tension.

 

WHAT SETS PRACHATAI APART FROM MAINSTREAM MEDIA?

We cover news on a small scale, as we have limited manpower – just 20 people. We report on what the mainstream media does not, and provide a space for ordinary people to speak up. 

 

SINCE PRACHATAI WAS FOUNDED IN 2004, WHAT HAS BEEN CHANGED SO FAR AND HOW?

Prachatai has been under high pressure since the 2014 coup, while human-rights infringement issues and the state’s abuse of power occurs on a daily basis. These matters are our focus. Our reporters are hard working.

 

WHAT DID PRACHATAI FOCUS ON BEFORE THE COUP?

We have witnessed two coups – 2006 and 2014 – since Prachatai was established in 2004. Also there have been four major demonstrations – the People’s Alliance for Democracy in 2006 and 2008, United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship in 2010 and People’s Democratic Reform Committee in 2013-2014. We have followed up on political turmoil. But the latest coup has given rise to the most threatening situations. Only a few sources dare to speak up or frankly criticise the political situation. The sources are also censoring themselves. 

 

WHAT IS THE DIRECTION PRACHATAI WILL TAKE AND WILL ITS FRAMEWORK EXPAND?

I don’t think it will change that much. Though we have not considered that matter at the moment, and just want to focus on what we are doing right now.