Freedom of Speech: The Right to Free Expression – Thailand versus Australia
Introduction
The freedom of speech is one of the major branches or rather an indication of the level in which a nation has attained so far when it comes to democratic progress. Freedom of speech is a human right to freely express their thoughts, one of the most important civil liberties. A person's ability to act in accordance with their own interests and objectives, based on knowledge of objective independence, there is freedom. Freedom of expression is closely linked to issues of truth-seeking, self-management, flexibility of the political system, self-realization of the individual, natural rights and their protection. Freedom of speech tends to be one of the most critical activities, which a nation or a country ought to take into consideration to make its citizens feel free and in a fair economy.
Speaking about Thailand, it, like many other countries across the Asian continent, sometimes encounters the challenge of providing an unequal platform for all the people to express their grievances and doubts as per their wish. Sometimes the government may decide to regulate the extent to which an individual can express his or her opinions because many people are suppressed from speaking out their minds. However, such cases are rare in Thailand, and they happen on selected occasions.
On the other hand, Australia is unique in the best cases of freedom of speech and expression in that it offers its citizens higher chances to express their grievances and opinions without any intimidation or threats from the government (Ogle, 2010). Many experts claim that the Australian continent is in a good position in the fight against any form of oppression to individuals concerning freedom of speech (Ramsey, 2010). As compared to Thailand, Australia is more of a good place regarding freedom of speech and the right to free expression. Thus, Australia provides its citizens greater freedom of speech and expression than Thailand, but the two countries in this regard have problems at the constitutional level and need changing, which in the future will ensure the realization of freedom of speech and press.
Freedom of Speech: The Right to Free Expression in Thailand
The Constitution of Thailand provides for freedom of expression to citizens, but the legislation of the country provides for powers of government to limit freedom of speech and expression in order to preserve national security, the protection of the rights of others, to protect public morals, including preventing insults Buddhism. The law on lese majeste is declared offense punishable by up to 15 years in prison for each offense is criticism, insults or threats king, queen, heir or regent royal. Libel is a criminal offense, and those who criticize the government or related activities can be brought to court, forcing people to self-censorship. Censorship has grown significantly since 2003.
Freedom of Speech: The Right to Free Expression in Australia
Australia has no direct securing freedom of speech in any constitutional or ordinary law or declaration, except in the political sphere in which freedom of speech is protected from prosecution in common law in the Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth. However, freedom of speech is recognized according to Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Thus, in 1992 the Supreme Court ruled in Australia Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth, the Constitution of Australia, providing a system of representative and responsible government provides protection to political communication as one of the most important elements of the system. Such freedom of political communication is not exactly the manifestation of the freedom of speech in other countries; it is possible to say that it is aimed to the protection of political freedom. This political freedom of speech is a shield against prosecution by the authorities, but not protected from civil action.
The Main Provisions of Freedom of Speech and Expression in Thailand and Australia
According to statics, the freedom of speech witnessed across the globe and especially in the two countries Thailand and Australia various categories of people (Winston 2012). People have been staging various demonstrations and riots across the two countries especially within Thailand and hence killing many people.
Thailand
The freedom of speech degraded in Thailand due to the military coup, which took place in the year 2007, and this made the political right rating to deteriorate from six to four and consequently the civil liberties declined from five to four.
In addition, Thailand tampered with the freedom of speech as it has been on a constant deterioration due to the increasing number of military coup associated with the country over time. Furthermore, Thailand has even gone a step ahead to implement strict measures, which aimed at eliminating any slight change, which could improve the freedom of speech of its citizens. In 2014 around the month of May, the government closed and blocked a total of 219 websites and blogs that the individuals have been utilizing to communicate with each other (Rowe & Petzold, 2010). Blocking the websites acted as a means of jeopardizing the activities and efforts of the people to express their grievances through sharing it with fellow citizens and the management.
Australia
Similarly, in Australia, the people have better opportunities of enjoying the freedom of expression than been denied and these made the statistics for freedom of expression in Australia less available. People in Australia are better placed regarding the freedom of expression and hence there are minimal cases of demonstrations based on the freedom of speech witnessed (Akdeniz, 2010). Individuals get a platform to express themselves and raise their queries concerning the kind of services they are getting. People or government agencies that dare break the laws and violate human rights as well as suppress the freedom of expression of people will be liable to strict punishment and fines as outlined in the constitution.
Thus, noteworthy is that both Thailand and Australia compare in one way or the other regarding freedom of speech, but unfortunately, Thailand is worse off in the free expression since many of its population do not enjoy the freedom of expressing their grievances as per their wish. On the other hand, Australia is good in the manner in which its citizens are allowed to express themselves and even at their will criticize the government and its activities in general. Therefore comparing the freedom of speech in both Thailand and Australia, it is clear right from the beginning that the two countries differ majorly in the manner of allowing the freedom of expression.
Possible Instances of Discrimination of the Freedom of Expression and Speech
Thailand
Thailand is a nation, in which the freedom of expression is not operational. Certain instances depict an expression whereby some people face discrimination and do not enjoy the freedom of speech (Stiftung, 2016). In Thailand, research shows that the media faced the denial of the freedom of speech. Statistics show that many journalists lost their lives in the line of duty, due to their continued initiatives of making public most mistreatments made by the authorities to the public (Akdeniz, 2010).
As a result, through exposing the issues facing the country for example corruption cases involving government officers, the journalists faced assassination and others could lose their jobs on the grounds that are not realistic (Stiftung, 2016). However, based on research, the main group of people that faced the cases of discrimination involves media. It is evident that the media was the only group that was able to display to the public, the unfair cases that took place within the government, and the opposing parties took the information and used it to criticize the one in power (Chambers & Waitoolkiat, 2016). As a result, the government officials grew weary about the display of such cases because they would show the downside of the government, which will lead citizens to lose trust in the government.
Secondly, there was a form of discrimination in the workplace, especially based on gender. The female workers in Thailand received lower pay compared to their male counterparts (Chambers & Waitoolkiat, 2016). An issue took effect in many parts of the country. In that connection, it was also difficult for females to secure jobs, as well as getting job promotions as opposed to the men who work in the same organizations, and perform the same duties as the women, or have the same credentials as well as the capacity to serve in the various positions (Shirky, 2011).
Although the fifth article of Thai's constitution gives the freedom of expression, practically, article 112 of the Lese Majeste law, as well as the Computer Crimes, Act, denies the citizens the chance to critically assess the institution of the monarchy (De Lang, 2012). As a result, the treatment of most of the people in custody as the prisoners of conscience is not practical. Therefore, it is evident based on such findings that the constitution does not guarantee the freedom of speech.
Australia
On the other hand, the freedom of speech in Australia almost shows the same effects. It is evident that some groups of people in Australia do not enjoy the right to free expression (Thiel, 2016). However, in the most cases, as opposed to the case in Thailand, the legislative arms of the government put measures in place to ensure that everyone has the right to free expression, regardless of the situation, in which they get involved.
Nevertheless, there exists limited freedom of political communication in Australia. In that connection, the High Court stipulates that the freedom of expression is not absolute in the Constitution (Thiel, 2016). Additionally, the freedom was only available when necessary to achieve the efficient operations of the system in question. Therefore, it is evident that there exist some people within the country, who have no freedom of speech because the Constitution does not guarantee the freedom (Thiel, 2016). However, in Australia, the government officials do not target the media because they have the freedom to access information in any place in the country that involves any given official issue that involves the government officials (Mondon, 2016).
In Australia, the freedom of expression is undermined by the culture of secrecy and censorship, complicated laws on freedom of information and manipulation of information by governments and companies, employment of public relations. According to the just because the law allows secrecy about privacy laws, the information may be hiding. At the same time, freedom of information laws do not work when some requests for information take months or even years. In addition, there is insufficient protection for those who reveal wrongdoing within their organizations, and civil servants are intimidated, so they do not merge the information in the mass media. Anti-terrorist laws recently adopted in Australia, do not allow the media to report details of orders for the detention and permit the arrest and interrogation of journalists, which are considered bearers of information about terrorist activities.
In conclusion of the section of the paper, both countries have at least some instances of discrimination, and in both cases, the country, the forms of discrimination affect have effects to the freedom of speech among the citizens (Kolig, 2016).
It is common for people to phase discrimination in various positions within their lives. The forms of discrimination arise from the various occasions that, people find themselves in (Kolig, 2016). Freedom of speech in most parts of the world, especially in Thailand and Australia, is a topic that requires some adequate form of analysis because the cases of discrimination take place on a regular basis (Thiel, 2016). The next section of the paper involves a case study, which exhibits the instances of discrimination in Thailand; because it is where most cases of discrimination appear as compared to Australia.
The following case study involves a man known as Mr. Viks from Thailand. The man underwent a conviction because he carried out a research about the extent of the increase in corruption cases within the public service. Reports were showing that people lost their jobs because of the corrupt government officials who took advantage of having the power to interfere with decisions in the public service. It is common that the police tend to harass people when they try to expose the instances of corruption within the government offices (Chambers & Waitoolkiat, 2016).
The government was reluctant in fighting corruption, and the media was doing its part to expose most of the scandals associated with the government officials. Mr. Viks was a media representative and was doing his professional duty to ensure that the mistreatment is exposed. However, the police considered it unlawful for the journalist to expose the information to the public. As a result, he faced arrest and stayed in court for a long time for trying to expose the increasing cases of corruption in the public sector.
Based on the case with Mr. Viks, the media faced a lot of mistreatment while doing their work. The cases of journalists losing jobs and others losing their lives, due to the government’s reluctance in fighting corruption, and allowing the police to harass whistle-blowers such as the media, is clear evidence that the media does not enjoy the freedom of speech. In this regard, the limited freedom of speech and expression hindered the journalists from executing their roles and duties properly in the society. Thus, it can be assumed that this case can be relevant not only for Thailand, where freedom of speech is often prejudiced, but also in Australia, where there is a lot of interference freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
Conclusion
It is possible to conclude that the two nations assessed in the study demonstrated that the freedom of speech in Thailand and Australia has both the similarities and differences in handling the aspects about the freedom of speech and expression. However, Australia demonstrated a better status of the freedom of speech compared to Thailand. As a result, the citizens as well as the media, do not enjoy the right to free expression in most platforms in Thailand (Stiftung, 2016). Moreover, the Australian government provided the institutions with the freedom of speech and expression in articulating matters about government criticism. The freedom of speech will provide the whistleblowers to publicize the injustices and discriminatory practices that occur in the institutions in both Thailand and Australia.
It is, therefore, imperative that the governments apply the regulations stipulated in their constitutions, and the nation like Australia to ensure that the constitution gives freedom to citizens in regards to the freedom of expression. In particular, the governments of both Australia and Thailand should put the regulations and legislations in place to promote the freedom of speech and expression to the citizens and the media. The constitutions of the two countries should reflect clearly the boundaries and extent of freedom of speech and expression of citizens especially when addressing critical issues about economic, social, and political aspects. Thus, it should be understood that the call for respect for freedom of speech and expression in countries where there is no a fundamental law of the right of freedom, will not lead to real changes until the relevant law does not exist yet officially.
References
Akdeniz, Y. (2010). Freedom of Expression on the Internet: Study of legal provisions and practices related to freedom of expression, the free flow of information and media pluralism on the Internet in OSCE participating States. Yaman Akdeniz, Report of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Faculty of Law, Istanbul Bilgi University.
Akdeniz, Y. (2010). To block or not to block: European approaches to content regulation, and implications for freedom of expression. Computer Law & Security Review, 26(3), 260-272.
Akdeniz, Y. (2010). To block or not to block: European approaches to content regulation, and implications for freedom of expression. Computer Law & Security Review, 26(3), 260-272.
Chambers, P., & Waitoolkiat, N. (2016). The resilience of monarchised military in Thailand. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 46(3), 425-444.
De Lang, N.E., 2012. Establishment and Development of the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission and Its Conformity with International Standards, The. Asia-Pac. J. on Hum. Rts. & L., 13, p.1.
Kolig, E. (2016). Freedom of Speech and Islam. Routledge.
Leyland, P. (2010). The Struggle for Freedom of Expression in Thailand: Media Moguls, the King, Citizen Politics and the Law. Journal of Media Law, 2(1), 115-137.
Mondon, A. (2016). The Mainstreaming of the Extreme Right in France and Australia: A Populist Hegemony?. Routledge.
Ogle, G. (2010). Anti‐SLAPP Law Reform in Australia. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 19(1), 35-44.
Ramsey, L. P. (2010). Free speech and international obligations to protect trademarks. Yale J. Int'l L., 35, 405.
Rowe, D., Gilmour, C., & Petzold, T. (2010). Australia: mediated representation of global politics. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 27(9-10), 1510-1533.
Shirky, C. (2011). The political power of social media: Technology, the public sphere, and political change. Foreign affairs, 28-41.
Stiftung, B. (2016). Transformation Index BTI 2016.
Thiel, M. (Ed.). (2016). The'militant democracy'principle in modern democracies. Routledge.
Winston, B. (2012). A Right to Offend: Free Expression in the Twenty-first Century. A&C Black.
