[Known for its adherence to “gross national happiness,” a development indicator that values levels of well-being over economic indicators such as gross domestic product, Bhutan was considered a success story in South Asia when it held peaceful democratic elections in 2008, after a century as an absolute monarchy.]
By Kai Schultz
 |
| By The New York Times |
NEW DELHI — In what rights advocates regard as an
important test case for press freedom in Bhutan, a prominent journalist is
facing a defamation suit for sharing a Facebook post documenting a property
dispute involving a local businessman.
The journalist, Namgay Zam, has been accused of libel by
the businessman, Sonam Phuntsho, in what Prime Minister Tshering Tobgay has
called a landmark case that could shape proposed restrictions on social media
usage in Bhutan, an Asian country in the Himalayas. The post includes allegations
that Mr. Phuntsho had garnered favors from the country’s judiciary, where his
son-in-law is chief justice.
Ms. Zam, a former television presenter with the state-run
Bhutan Broadcasting Service, and the woman who wrote the post, Shacha Wangmo, face
a maximum fine of about $38,000 — around 15 times the country’s annual per
capita income — or up to three years in prison if convicted.
Ms. Zam and Ms. Wangmo presented evidence at a district
court in Thimphu, the capital, on Monday.
Known for its adherence to “gross national happiness,” a
development indicator that values levels of well-being over economic indicators
such as gross domestic product, Bhutan was considered a success story in South
Asia when it held peaceful democratic elections in 2008, after a century as an
absolute monarchy.
But some say the case exposes fault lines in the
country’s record of protecting freedoms of speech and of the press, which are
enshrined in the Constitution. Because many public officials and institutions
have ties to the popular royal family, journalists cite a high level of
self-censorship that deters Bhutanese from criticizing the elite.
A 2014 report from the Journalist Association of Bhutan
found that a majority of the 119 respondents felt “unsafe” covering certain
types of events. Many of the respondents also said it was difficult to gain
access to information in the country, citing few resources and little
institutional support.Ms. Zam said that because of her actions she had been
called “antinational” by some sections of Bhutanese society.
“What’s not coming out in national media comes out in
social media, and oftentimes, it is the truth,” she said in an interview.
“Media freedom is diminishing. We had our high point in 2008, during the first
democratic elections, but it’s just been a downward spiral since then.”
Sarah Repucci, senior director of global publications at
Freedom House, a nonprofit that releases an annual report on press freedom,
said the case could affect Bhutan’s rating on the list, which she said was
“consistently mediocre.”
“We have not in recent years documented cases
specifically against journalists,” she said, noting that certain topics in
Bhutan, including the expulsion of thousands of residents of Nepalese descent
from the country, are still considered taboo.
“If this was a case that created a chilling effect,” she
said, “where other journalists now were starting to self-censor more because
they felt they could also be a target, that’s definitely something that could
cause a decline in our scores.”
Mr. Phuntsho’s son-in-law, Dasho Tshering Wangchuk, the
chief justice of Bhutan, said in an interview that he believed free speech
existed in the country, but that social media “guidelines” were needed, in part
to protect the “sovereignty and security” of a small country like Bhutan, which
is sandwiched between the regional superpowers, China and India.
“This particular social activist is a very popular young
lady and a lot of impressionable young people follow her,” he said of Ms. Zam.
“For them, whatever she writes is the gospel truth. That becomes dangerous.”
“Like in the judiciary, also, you must have your code of
ethics,” he said, referring to the state of journalism in the country. “The
court will not force them to divulge some source. But then we must all remember
that your fundamental rights are not absolute. It’s subject to reasonable
restrictions.”
