라디오천국[팀블로그]

본문

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: supinya klangnarong

Date: 22 Oct 2007 14:36

Subject: Appeal Verdict  for  community radio is scheduled on 8th Novermber 2007

To: cpmr

  Dear All,

  Hope this mail finds you well.

  Just an update for criminal lawsuit against Mr.Sathien Janthorn, farmer and community radio producer. He was convicted by first court last year for not having license to operate community radio in Angthong province. Eventhough, there are many thousands of unlicensed community radios since 2002 but Mr.Satien was prosecuted as a test case for the status of community radio in Thailand. After the verdict in Feb 7, 2006, he was given a suspended sentence of four months imprisonment and a fine of 40,000 baht (USD 1000).  He was sentenced on the basis of a law that appears to conflict with the 1997 Constitution. (please read background from UP by AHRC in link below)

  He appealed the case and now the verdict is scheduled on 8th November 2007. Since community radios in Thialnd still facing illegal status, so the verdict on this case will be significant for all CR stations especially the critical ones. And we have to consider if this case shall be brought to supreme court if he lost the case in this court again. We will be gathering to give moral support to Mr.Satien Janthorn on 8th November 2007, 9 am. onwards at provincial Court in Angthong province. Please feel free to circulate this news, convey any support or take action as necessary. Thank you very much and best regards, supinya.

UP-024-2006: THAILAND: Community radio thrown into doubt after farmer convicted of illegal broadcasting

THAILAND: Declining freedom of speech; media concentration

  Dear friends,

  The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received updated information regarding the case of a farmer who was running a community radio station in accordance with provisions of the 1997 Constitution of Thailand but was subsequently taken to court on charges of illegal broadcasting under a law that predates the constitution. The verdict on the case was given on 7 February 2006 and the farmer was given a suspended sentence of four months imprisonment and a fine of 40,000 baht (USD 1000). However, the farmer was sentenced on the basis of a law that appears to conflict with the 1997 Constitution. As the conviction of this farmer amounts to yet another attack on the fragile right of freedom on expression in Thailand, please support further action against the decision.

  Sathien was charged under the Radio Telecommunications Act BE 2498 (1955), with "possessing and operating a radio transmitter without permission" and of "setting up a radio station without permission". During the trial, in his defence, Sathien argued that the station operated in line with section 40 of the 1997 Constitution, which states that radio and television transmission frequencies are national resources for use in the public interest. But the court ruled that although this maybe the case as of yet there is no independent regulatory body in operation to distribute the frequencies, and therefore the constitution cannot be enforced. According to a court observer, the judge stated in his decision that:

"The defendant claims to enjoy the rights under the constitution, but it shall be seen that such rights can only be applicable under specific laws. That means there shall be laws to enforce rights."

  But such laws do not currently exist. Therefore, the court based its judgment on the outdated Radio Telecommunications Act. The court is quoted as having said that under section 80 of the Wavelength Regulator Act BE 2453 (2000), which was set up to enforce the 1997 Constitution, "The government is not allowed to allocate any new frequency or issue any new permit for radio broadcasting. Therefore, the defendant shall not be allowed to set up community radio." The court found the defendant guilty because he knew the Radio Telecommunications Act prohibited the setting up of radio broadcasting and still knowingly committed an illegal act.

  Sathien was sentenced to six months imprisonment and a fine of 60,000 baht. This was reduced to a four-month imprisonment and a fine of 40,000 baht. His jail term was suspended for two years and his radio transmitter confiscated.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

  According to section 40 of the 1997 Constitution of Thailand, radio broadcasting in encouraged for the public interest. Sathien Janthorn set up his community radio with the help of government funding from the  Ministry of Finance under the Social Investment Fund provided by the World Bank in May 2002. He was given

training by staff of the Public Relations Department on how to run a radio station. Ironically, this is the same agency that subsequently took legal action against him, apparently initiated by his broadcasts alleging provincial government corruption (see further UA-197-2005.)

  In principle, Sathien should have grounds to appeal that the fault for not being registered as a community radio station lies not with him but with the government. The regulatory body envisaged under section 40 of the constitution should have been set up. Instead, the government of Thailand has failed to introduce a licensing regime in accordance with the constitution, and by default has kept community radio stations in an ambiguous legal position. (For further comments, see AS-021-2006.)

  The judgment in this case has serious implications for hundreds of community radio stations in Thailand which have been created thinking that they were legal on the basis of the 1997 Constitution. If they are considered 'illegal' then the only source of radio broadcasting would be radios controlled by the government. Freedom of expression in radio broadcasting would be severely jeopardized.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

  Please write to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders urging them to closely monitor this case as a matter of special concern. Please also call for the Thai government to ensure that there are no further violations on the freedom of speech and to ensure that the Wavelength Regulator Act is fully implemented, in view of Thailand's obligations under international law.

Suggested letter:

Dear Mr. Ligabo

THAILAND: Serious concerns over sentencing of farmer Sathien Janthorn by Angthong Provincial Court for illegal broadcasting

Name of victim: Sathien Janthorn, 55, farmer residing in Baan Bornam, Twearat sub-district, Chaiyo district,

Angthong province, Thailand

Charges: Illegal possession and operation of a radio transmitter, and broadcasting without a licence under

articles 4, 6 and 11 of the Radio Telecommunication

Act BE 2498 (1955); carrying a maximum penalty of 100,000 Thai baht fine and/or five years' imprisonment.

  I am writing to voice my dismay regarding the verdict in the case of Sathien Janthorn who was accused of illegally possessing and operating a radio transmitter. The judgment was based on the Radio Telecommunication Act BE 2498 (1955) which is outdated and appears to conflict with the 1997 Constitution of Thailand.

  Sathien Janthorn is a farmer who set up his own community radio in his home. In 2001, he received funding from the Finance Ministry, through a World Bank programme which enabled him to buy a community  radio transmitter. Sathien was trained by the government Public Relations Department on how to run his radio station. However, this same department subsequently took legal action against Sathien, apparently initiated by his broadcasts alleging provincial government corruption.

  During the trial, in his defence, Sathien argued that his community radio station was legally set up in accordance with section 40 of the 1997 Constitution. But the court ruled that due to the fact that no  independent regulatory body has been created then this constitutional right cannot be enforced. The court based its judgment on the outdated Radio Telecommunication Act and found the defendant guilty because he knowingly infringed that law. Mr. Sathien was sentenced to six months imprisonment and a fine of 60,000 baht. This was reduced to a suspended term of four months and a fine of 40,000 baht.

  This case highlights a major problem with the 1997 Constitution of Thailand. While the constitution exists on paper, citizens are subjected to old laws until they are revised through new organic laws and institutions. There is at present no practical way for a person in Thailand to make a complaint or defend their rights under the constitution directly through the courts. Nor is there any way that the constitutional provisions can be invoked directly in a court and a judgment made on the basis of the constitution.

  In principle, Mr. Sathien should have grounds to appeal that the fault for not being registered as a community radio station lies not with him but with the government. The non-existence of a regulator is the  fault of the Government of Thailand. Mr. Sathien's action was deemed illegal due to the negligence of the government, not because of any actions or omissions on his part.

  I therefore urge you to closely monitor this case as a matter of special concern, and communicate your concerns directly to the Government of Thailand. Please urge it to ensure that the Wavelength Regulator Act BE 2543 (2000), which was introduced to enforce the provisions of the 1997 Constitution, is properly  introduced without delay, and with regard to Thailand's obligations under international law.

  In this regard I would remind you of the recent comments of the UN Human Rights Committee in assessing Thailand's compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that [Thailand] "should take adequate measures to prevent further erosion of freedom of expression, in particular, threats to and harassment of media personnel and journalists"

[CCPR/CO/84/THA, para. 18].

(본 내용은 이메일 내용을 무작위로 나열한 것이라, 중복된 내용도 있는 관계로 핵심내용만을 번역해드립니다.)

Sathien Janthorn씨의 법정투쟁

  Sathien씨는 농부이자 라디오 방송제작자이다. 그는 Angthong 지역에서 미면허로 라디오 방송국을 운영하고 제작하였다는 행위로 1심에서 유죄를 판정받았다. 하지만 2002년도 이래로 태국은 수 천개의 인가되지 않은 공동체 라디오 방송국이 존재한다. 2006년 2월 7일, Sathien씨는 4개월 형에, 40,000바트(1,000$)의 벌금형을 선고받았다. 그는 1997년 제정된 태국헌법에 대립되는 한 법률에 의해 그런 판결이 내려졌다.

  그는 2007년 11월 8일 항소했다. 태국의 공동체 라디오는 아직도 비합법적으로 운영되고 있으며, 특히 비판적인 메시지를 방송하는 방송국은 특히 그 사건이 중요한 사안이였다. 그래서 항소가 있었던 2007년 11월 8일 아침 9시 이들 방송국들은 Sathien씨에게 정신적인 지원을 주기 위해 Angthong 지방법원 앞에 모였다. 아시아 인권 위원회(AHRC; The Asian Human Rights Commission)는 Sathien씨에 대한 사건의 진행된 다른 정보를 보내왔지만 그 이후에도 그는 유죄로 판결되었다고 한다. Sathien씨의 유죄판결은 아직도 태국에서의 표현의 자유가 부족하다는 것을 보여준다. 그 판결에 대한 좀 더 다른 지원이 필요하다.

공동체 라디오 법령과 태국헌법

  Sathien씨는 1955년 제정된 라디오 원격통신 법령(The Radio Telecommunications Act)에 있는 문구인 “라디오 전달자는 허가없이 소유와 운영”과 “허가 없이 라디오 방송국을 설립”에 의거하여 고소당했다. 그는 재판에서 변호하는 중에, 1997년 제정된 태국헌법 40절에는 ‘라디오나 TV 방송국 방송 주파수는 공익을 위해 국가자원으로 사용할 수 있다고 나와있다고 주장하였다. 그러나 법정은 주파수를 분배하여 운영하는 것에 대해 규정하는 본문이 아직 없기 때문에 헌법의 내용을 집행할 수 없다고 규정지었다. 이에 대해 적용할 수 있는 특별법이 있어야만 라디오 방송국을 설립하고 송출할 수 있는 권리를 누릴 수 있다는 것이다. 따라서 관련법이 제정되어야 한다. 그러나 현재까지 그 법은 존재하고 있지 않다. 결국엔 시대에 뒤떨어진 라디오 원객통신 법령을 따를 수 밖에 없다. 이 판결로 인해 1997년 헌법을 기초로 합법적이라 생각하면서 설립했던 수 백개의 공동체 라디오 방송국은 심각한 고민에 빠지게 되었다.

어떤 라디오 방송국일까.

  Sathien씨는 공익을 위해 라디오 방송을 장려한다는 1997년 제정된 헌법에 따라, 2002년 5월 세계은행에서 주관하는 사회투자기금이란 정부펀드의 도움으로 공동체 라디오를 설립하였다. 그는 국가홍보부 직원들에게 라디오 운영에 관한 교육을 받았다. 아이러니하게도, 그 이후 Sathien씨는 지방정부의 부패를 증언하는 방송으로 시작했다. 

제안점

  이 사건은 Sathien씨가 고의적으로 불법을 자행한 것이 아니라 정부의 법제정에 대한 무관심에서 빚어진 점이라는 점을 숙지해야 한다. 때문에 표현의 자유를 쇠퇴시키는 기존의 공동체 라디오 법령을 수정 혹은 새로 만들어야 한다. 헌법의 기본법과 법령과의 충돌을 없애고 태국과 협정한 국제법의 시각으로 주파수 관련 법령을 개정해야 한다.