JC Thammasat organized an academic discussion on the Emergency Decree No. 27

The Faculty of Journalism and Mass Communication, Thammasat University organized an academic discussion on the Emergency Decree No. 27 “When people’s fear is a threat for government’s eyes” to provide knowledge on media and communication on issues related to news presentations in accordance with the Emergency Decree, No. 27, Section 9. Assoc.Prof. Kalyakorn Worakullattanee, Dean of the Faculty of Journalism and Mass Communication gave an opening speech. The attending lecturers and specialists consist of Asst. Prof. Dr. Wilaiwan Chongwilaikasem from the Faculty of Journalism Thammasat University, Assoc. Prof. Ruj Komolbut from the Faculty of Journalism Thammasat University, Yingcheep Atchanon, representative from iLaw, Ajarn Surasak Bunyanukunkit from the Faculty of Law Thammasat University and Ms. Supinya Klangnarong, co-founder of Cofact Thailand.

Assoc. Prof. Ruj Komolbut, Lecturer at Faculty of Journalism and Mass Communication, Thammasat University said that the Covid-19 situation urged the government to enforce the Royal Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situations which 28 measures had been announced. The Regulation No. 1 and 27 mention the prohibition of dissemination of information, which brought up this discussion. In summary, the main point of the Regulation No. 1 is the dissemination of false news that incite fear in the public and misunderstanding in emergency situations. Authorities have the power to give a warning, suspend and adjust information and can be prosecuted under the Computer Crime Act if such news is not true and causes fear and the authorities can order to suspend and can take legal action. Regulation No. 27 contains different condition from No. 1 which is if the information is true but contains statement that may cause fear, it could be considered a violation.

“Based on the timeline, on July 10, 2021, Regulation No. 27 was announced. Two days later, the Deputy Prime Minister said that if the information is a fact, it can be presented. Three days later, the professional media organizations issued a statement to review these regulations because there was a discretionary issue, e.g. fear. Subsequently, Regulation No. 28 was announced then most people called out. After that the government issued the statement that the movement of artists and influencers is illegal. Thus, this meeting discussed how the regulations had the social and communicative effects.”

Ajarn Surasak Bunyanukunkit, Lecturer at Faculty of Law, Thammasat University stated that he would like to point out the Regulation No. 27, item 11, the restriction of freedom of expression and freedom of mass communication. The enforcement of the Royal Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situations authorized the Prime Minister special powers in issuing requirements to deal with problematic situations. Regulation No. 1 and 27 had caused the issue on right and freedom restriction. The provision of Regulation No. 27 is too broad and may cause problems in interpretation because due to the vague provision, the terms can be applied to matters not directly related to the COVID-19 situation. This is to prohibit comments on government administration. Technically, the issuance of requirements should be adapted to the situation but such requirements are copied from the Emergency Decree which is too broad and can be interpreted in many ways. The provision has not yet clearly defined the scope, channels of dissemination, which refers to disseminate in “any other media” that may include social or digital media. The main point and issue is the term “contains message that incite fear” without specifying that such statement is a false or a true.

“Words with a broad meaning can mean true or false statement. The legislation for emergency situations should not contain broad wording which could lead to more distortion of the law. Such measures may be used to create a monopoly on information or to block information that the government would not like to reveal. The effect of the provisions shows that the government has chosen criminal measures to deal with personal opinions about the situation.”

Asst. Prof. Dr. Wilaiwan Chongwilaikasem, Lecturer of the Faculty of Journalism and Mass Communication Thammasat University said that in the current situation, government should explain and make people understand the situation. During the past 2 weeks, the Prime Minister has made fewer clarifications to the public. After clarification, the people felt that it was not clear at all. Instead, government tried to censor the public opinions. The regulation enforced by the government which had constantly threatening people. It can be defined that this situation is about how government managed their fear by regulating the law of media in the digital age. For the Regulation No. 28, although the media has not had any comment yet, but I believed that the editorial might proceed with the content censorship to avoid such issue. “The regulations enforced by the government have frightened both the media and the public reflects that the voice of people is also loud and powerful. Three days ago, people called out with fake news issue. We could tell that the government’s act was unsuccessful. In the past, when the revolution was about to happen, the media were invited to listen the guidelines of news presentation. Recently. Influencers were also invited to participate after the issuance of the Regulation No. 28.”