In this context, one needs to be critical of The ASEAN Media Directory’s description of the media situations in the 10 ASEAN member-countries.

Brunei: “Literally the Adobe of Peace, it has one privately-owned English newspaper, the 45-year old Borneo Bulletin; one Malay-language weekly newspaper, the three-year old Media Permata (Prime Media); a television channel, one satellite television and five radio stations operated by the government-run Radio Television Brunei; one lifestyle magazine in English, Regal, published every two months. One other English-language lifestyle quarterly Mutiara temporarily ceased publication in March 1998. While foreign advertising is allowed in Bruneian media, materials that run counter to Islamic culture and values are discouraged.” (p. 15)

Burma: “Since 1963 when the military placed Burma under socialist military rule, all media – newspapers, television and radio – are nationalized and strictly controlled by the government under the Ministry of Information. The narrow range of media today in Burma, also known as Myanmar, reflects the political realities: analysis and discussion on current affairs are non-existent.” (p. 69)

Cambodia: “Cambodian politics and the local tri-media cannot, with rare and sporadic exceptions, be separated. Almost all Khmer newspapers – there are 78 titles – have political affiliations. Even though ownership may be private, it is private in concept rather than [in] reality. The biggest newspapers in terms of circulation, income and influence are beholden to the ruling political party, the Cambodian People’s Party (CPP).” (p. 23)

Indonesia: “The last several years have been a robust span of time for the Indonesian media scene, until the regional currency crisis that began in September 1997.” (p. 33) “[T]he fact that there are still new titles coming out amid the crisis indicates that the media industry is poised for rebound once the economy recovers.” (p. 35)

Laos: “The Lao People’s Revolutionary Party (LPRP) that governs Laos exhibits a built-in media contradiction since joining ASEAN. In an (sic) utopian, idealistic manner, it tries its level best to control media, pushing the cause and glory of the Revolution that imposed communism in 1975. On the other hand, membership in ASEAN means opening up national markets. Media is a market. `Bland’ is the word that usually comes to non-Lao minds when describing Lao media. `No life’ are words Laotians use themselves when describing Lao television (two stations), radio (one station) and print media (hardly a dozen newspapers and magazines). Almost all are government-controlled.” (p. 47)

Malaysia: “Media in Malaysia operates essentially under government guidance. Despite the yearly launches of new radio stations and television channels in the past four years, the content remains placid and cautious. Media has grown in volume but its development has not been in quality, restrained as it is by a lot of pressure coming from political as well as religious bodies. This constraint did not prevent it from proliferating due to a booming economy…” (p. 53)

Philippines: “The Philippine media enjoys a distinction of being the freest, most rambunctious and irreverent in Asia. With it goes the downside of being branded irresponsible. The Hong Kong-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy rated the Philippine press lowest in Asia for quality and reliability. Yet the Philippines is one of the few Asian countries where the media operates within a democratic framework which is unique in ASEAN. Media is a business and is a tool to maintain political and economic power of the owners.” (p. 79)

Singapore: “Singapore has an extensive media industry disproportionate to its small three-million population and geographical size. Its location at a crosswords (sic) places the city-state at a vantage point to be the information hub of Southeast Asia. The ratio of newspaper circulation and reach to population is the level of a developed country. Media ownership of print and broadcast is largely in the hands of the Straits Times Group and the Singapore government. Media control through legislation and policing is among the toughest in the region. Even the dominant Straits Times newspaper is continuously surprised by the limits of information flow.” (p. 99)

Thailand: “Thailand has more media choices than most of its Asian neighbors. There are over 40 TV channels (including cable and satellite options), about 500 radio stations, over 80 newspapers and 690 magazines in the country. Deregulation of Thailand’s media industry started in 1992 has enabled it to develop into one of the most exciting in Asia. However, since this growth has not been disciplined by any industry regulations, the market has developed in a highly fragmented and uncontrolled way, with no auditing of circulation figures and no lid on abuses.” (p. 117)

Vietnam: “For a country where political control is central to the government’s philosophy, Vietnam has a surprisingly vibrant media. Newsstands in the commercial hub of Ho Chi Minh City in the south and the capital of Hanoi display a bewildering selection of morning newspapers, competing for attention with glossy weeklies and monthlies covering a range of issues from the latest fashion trends for hip young urbanites to science and the legal system for intellectuals and business for the country’s aspiring entrepreneurs. The past decade of tentative economic reforms – known as `doi moi’ (renovation) – has seen dramatic growth in the number of publications. There are currently around 500, supporting a vast army of editors, reporters, photographers and production personnel. The impetus behind growth came from the reduction – and in some cases complete removal – of state subsidies, which forced newspapers to seek advertising dollars in order to survive.” (pp. 133-134)

While the description of the political and legal environments is appreciated, one needs to know the actual experiences of journalists in each of the 10 member-countries. With regard to the law, it must be kept in mind that what is stated is not necessarily what is implemented. Governments also tend to interpret laws based on how they can suit their interests, making such laws infringe on press freedom even if, in theory, they should not. The laws on libel and national security are examples of how a government can apply laws to suppress freedom, even to the extent of harassing, intimidating or even killing journalists. (Bulatlat.com)

 Save as PDF