N.B. – This was published in The Lobbyist (July 5) where I write a column (Subtext).

JAKARTA, Indonesia – Fourteen journalists from Cambodia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Philippines, Timor Leste and Vietnam started their two-week training last July 4 (Monday) at the Hotel Gran Mahakam in this city.

Titled “Reporting on Regional Integration in Southeast Asia: History, Institutions and Policies of ASEAN,” this is the ninth batch of journalists from the member-countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) who participated in this seminar-workshop which seeks to improve coverage of the ASEAN not only by providing a working knowledge of the ASEAN but also by conducting writing exercises on reporting various issues related to the region.

Since the International Institute for Journalism (IIJ) of GIZ in Germany started the training in 2008, I have met more than 100 journalists from the 10 member-countries of the ASEAN (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam), as well as from Timor Leste which currently has observer status and is applying for full membership in the ASEAN.

Their media are as diverse as the culture and history of the member-countries. How can the ASEAN press be properly assessed? There are various indicators to analyze the press in the ASEAN.

The US-based organization Freedom House (freedomhouse.org), for example, comes out yearly with an assessment of freedom of the press in 196 countries and territories where they are ranked and classified as free, partly free or not free based on an analysis of their respective political environment, legal environment and economic environment.

According to its 2011 study, only the Philippines and Indonesia are classified as “partly free.” All the rest of the ASEAN member-countries are deemed “not free.” This means that, on the average, the ASEAN media are “not free” based on the assessment of Freedom House.

What proves to be interesting in Freedom House’s latest installment of the state of press freedom is Thailand’s classification from “partly free” to “not free.” According to Freedom House, Thailand is in the company of Egypt, Honduras, Hungary, Mexico, South Korea and Ukraine which have “significant declines in press freedom.”

Another useful indicator is the harassment and intimidation experienced by journalists as they go about their work. The US-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has monitored work-related and nonwork-related killings of journalists and media workers since 1992.

Based on its database, it appears that 100 journalists from the ASEAN member-countries have been killed in the line of work from 1992 to early 2011. It is ironic that the Philippines and Indonesia that are said to have a “partly free” press have had their share of killings of journalists. On the other hand, Brunei, Laos, Malaysia and Singapore have zero killings.

It must be stressed that this figure is “skewed” in the sense that the Philippines accounts for 71 out of the 100 journalists killed, followed by Indonesia with nine. Looking at the global data, the Philippines holds the distinction of being second in terms of incidences of killing of journlaists globally. For those who are interested, Iraq ranks first worldwide with 150 journalists killed; Algeria, third with 60; Russia, fourth with 52; and Colombia, fifth with 43.

These indicators show the dismal state of press freedom in the ASEAN, as well as the culture of impunity that happens in selected countries in the ASEAN as shown in the killings of journalists. Much work needs to be done to ensure that all member-countries enjoy freedom of the press. Whether or not the ASEAN can pressure its member-countries to create an atmosphere conducive to press freedom remains to be seen.

For the time being, a basic challenge for journalists covering the ASEAN remains. They should continue to monitor the media situation in the ASEAN region. They should also continue to report incidences of harassment and intimidation being experienced by their colleagues in the profession.

Indeed, violations of press freedom should be duly exposed. But the actions should not stop there: Journalists should try their best to make their voices heard as such transgressions need to be also opposed.