Thailand's Press Freedom and Democracy Comes Under Siege as Magazine Forced to 'Apologise'by Phairath Khampha 19 March 2002 A Hong Kong-based magazine was forced to apologise to Thailand over an article which led to the authorities ordering the expulsion of two of its journalists. The Far East Economic Review (FEER) said a 10 January article, which reported on the tension between Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej and Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, had never been intended to "generate any adverse commentary concerning Thailand's highest institution". The latest move against the Far Eastern Economic Review, under the orders of the country's Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra for fear of his public and political image, only damaged Thailand's reputation. More than any other institution, the press in Thailand has served as that country's vanguard in monitoring corruption and promoting greater economic transparency. Indeed, Thailand hasdshown that a free and responsible press can play an integral role in strengthening civil society and fostering democratic development. Although Thailand is regarded as having one of the freest presses in all of Asia, recent actions by Thai Prime Minister Thaksin illustrated that media freedom is far from guaranteed. In the end, however, Thailand reinstated the visas of two foreign journalists which were revoked in February on grounds of national security.
The information for the article was based on a December 5 speech given by King on the occasion of his 74th birthday. The Thai press interpreted King Bhumipol's remarks as a criticism of Prime Minister Thaksin's corrupt performance and his intolerance of criticism. They were correct and rather perceptive. The written apology from FEER [see Text of Letter] came as police ordered another magazine, The Economist, to remove an article which contained a section dealing with the monarchy from its website. The monarchy is still revered in Thailand, and local reporting of the royal family is always restrained and respectful. But the authorities came under criticism over the dispute with the FEER amid fears it was using this as a pretext to try to bar journalists critical of the government. When confiscating the Far Eastern Economic Review, police officials cited the Publishing Act which allows authorities to censor statements or articles that "might lead to social or national disorder". The Publishing Act was passed in 1941 by a military dictatorship and used periodically by successive military governments against the press for 50 years when Thai generals found it opportune. On February 22, again citing national security concerns, the Thai government revoked the visas of the foreign journalists responsible for writing the article and they may face criminal prosecution. In addition, the Thaksin government recently announced a plan for the creation of the Centre to Improve Public Understanding, which would set guidelines for news coverage at more than 500 state-run radio and television stations throughout the country. In effect, it is something similar to Nazi Germany's Ministry of Information. Most Thais have said this new centre would stifle media liberty and allow the government to dictate and control news coverage, and freedom of speech in the country. Prime Minister Thaksin believes this criticism is unwarranted, saying that the purpose of the centre is to "keep the public abreast of current affairs". The two FEER journalists, Rodney Tasker from the UK, and US citizen Shawn Crispin, were placed on an immigration blacklist, accused of posing a threat to national security. The move followed the publication of an article on 10 January headlined "A Right Royal Headache". The letter of apology, addressed to the president of Thailand's National Assembly, Uthia Pimchaichon did not say the story was inaccurate. Thai police spokesman Major General Pongsapat Pongcharoen said on March 4: "We are very pleased with the apology but the legal processes have to continue." The Review's sister daily publication, the Asian Wall Street Journal (AWSJ), carried an excerpt from the letter by Review Editor Michael Vatikiotis apologising for causing 'any adverse commentary concerning Thailand's highest institution'. "The King commands our admiration as a symbol of Thai sovereignty and for his many good works and exemplary leadership of the Thai people," the AWSJ said. But, in a strongly-worded editorial, the daily also hit out at the Thai government for its action against the magazine, saying it had picked a fight with the foreign press "to deflect attention from its own troubles". "This is a familiar if dreary political tactic, used in Asia by the late Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos and Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad," it said. Malaysia has delayed the distribution of several international magazines to counter stories it deemed unfairly critical. Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra had "a thin skin and is quick to blame others, especially foreigners, for his own mistakes", it said, adding that the government's dealings with foreign investors had sent "foreign investment into a tailspin". Police chief Sant said that no legal action would be taken against a Thai senator, Somkiat Onwimon, who translated the controversial article and distributed it to others against the wishes of the premier. But the police chief said more copies should not be distributed due to the "unsuitability" of its content. Meanwhile, Somkiat said that his intention in translating the article had been to let others have an opportunity to read it themselves before making comment. "If one reads it carefully, one will find that the article does no harm to the monarchy, but simply reflects the poor performance of the premier," he said. Internet demand The Economist magazine also fell foul of Thai sensitivities with its March 2 edition, which contained a special survey on Thailand. The magazine agreed that same day not to distribute the issue in Thailand after police told them it would be banned and seized. But The Economist's Asia circulation director, Peter Bakker, said the offending survey would be made available free on the company's website. Major General Pongsapat said the Thai authorities would check the website and if the article was found, the police would ask for it to be removed. Mr Bakker said he doubted the magazine would comply with such a request. The so-called offensive article printed by The Economist actually protrays are rather accurate view of the state that Thailand is in. No wonder Thailand's King commented on Thaksin's governance of the nation. [read Economist article and survey deemed 'offensive' by Thaksin's government here: A New Order] "The web is a world-wide institution, available to everyone," he said. "We have refrained from circulating the hard copy, but The Economist will continue to stand by its independent, objective and free reporting." Since 1997, Thailand has demonstrated, for the most part, a serious commitment to press freedom and open government. When Chuan Leekpai became prime minister in November 1997, one of his first acts was to dismantle the office housed in the Interior Ministry which monitored negative press reports about government policies. However, the recent use of the 1941 Publishing Act and the creation of the Centre to Improve Public Understanding appear out of step with the press freedom guarantees that are embodied in the 1997 Constitution, the most democratic in Thailand's history. The Constitution prohibits censorship except during in times of "war or armed conflict". Despite Thailand's economic difficulties, few Thais believe the country is in a state of "social or national disorder". If civil society is to flourish in Thailand, open discussion and expression of opinion through a media that represents a broad spectrum of political opinion is imperative. A free and independent media allows citizens to be informed about issues pertaining to their daily lives and to have a voice in how public officials should govern. The Publications Act of 1941 and the Centre to Improve Public Understanding make the voices of the Thai people more distant to their government's ears. Moreover, Thai authorities need to understand that attempts to curb press freedom only serve to damage the international image and integrity of their nation. Although there may be honest differences of opinion between the government and the media in Thailand, Prime Minister Thaksin should recognise that the media's efforts to push for political and economic reform is a process worth celebrating. As surrounding countries in Southeast Asia struggle with separatist sentiments, harsh military rule and other forms of political and economic instability, the Thai people should take pride in their country's efforts to move in a stable political direction by consolidating democratic reforms. The press has been an important catalyst in this effort. Current efforts to try to keep diverse view points out of the Thai media are counterproductive. 'Review' legal action dropped Police decided on March 3 not to pursue legal action against the FEER after its lawyer handed over a letter of apology, in which it said it never had an intention "to generate any adverse commentary" on the Thai monarchy. Police Commissioner-General Sant Sarutanond said police would also consider today the magazine's appeal against the revocation of its journalists' visas. "A meeting of senior police unanimously agreed that no legal action would be taken against the four Far Eastern Economic Review journalists. We will use the letter of apology when we consider their appeal," Sant said. A representative of National Assembly President Uthai Pimchaichon received the letter of apology from David Lyman, the Review's lawyer. Sant told reporters that he could not say whether the controversy over the January 10 article had now ended with the Reviewon March 3 's letter of apology. Lyman told reporters he thought that the letter of apology would assist in police consideration of the Review's appeal to re-issue visas and work permits for its journalists, allowing them to return to work. Thailand lets reporters stay Thailand reinstated the visas of two foreign journalists which were revoked in February on grounds of national security. The pair could now remain in the country until their visas expired. Yongyuth Vichaidit, chairman of an interior ministry appeals panel, on March 7 said the panel had voted unanimously to reinstate the visas of American Shawn Crispin and British journalist Rodney Tasker. "Under Thai culture, those who have ignorantly done something wrong and have apologised to the Thai public can be forgiven," Mr Yongyuth said. What security is at stake? The Police Special Branch might have got itself into a bind over the blacklisting of the two Bangkok-based correspondents of the Far Eastern Economic Review. At first, the police said an article in the January 10 edition of FEER constituted a "threat to national security". Then, the police chief made a vague reference to "improper reference to a high institution". And almost in the same breath, he suggested that if the two correspondents came forward to apologise, a settlement could be reached somehow. What, then, have these two reporters - or their editor and publisher in Hong Kong - done to have raised such an uproar among law-enforcement officials in the first place? The correspondents are asking: What have we done wrong? And the only response from the police is: Apologise or leave. Even if the FEER reporters were to issue an apology, it was not quite sure how they would phrase it. What is the apology about in the first place? If it's the undermining of Thailand's national security that was the crux of the issue, could that serious charge be dropped just with an apology? Seems ludicrous. Or was it the "causing of confusion and disorder in society" that was the real concern of the Thai police? Then, the correspondents should be charged in court and the due process of law should be pursued. The police's prompt action to revoke the reporters' visas before any formal charge was delivered came as a rather curious move in the first place. If the police were intent upon "protecting the sacred institution" which they claim to be doing with all the public enthusiasm they could muster, then they should have prosecuted the FEER reporters through legitimate means provided for in the Constitution. The threat of expulsion could only be seen to confirm most sceptics' theory: It was only a matter of time before Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, upset over the generally negative coverage by the foreign media of his rather hypocritical and corrupt one-year performance in office, took his revenge on Bangkok-based foreign newsmen. Thaksin insisted that he had nothing to do with this case - and that it had nothing to do with press freedom. In fact, as of February 28, he was still saying that the matter had not reached the government level just yet. But then he had no hesitation in suggesting that the article represented a threat to national security. His initial hands-off stance did not hold. The possibility of him intervening in the case to effect "damage control" effectively went down the drain. Suddenly, the Prime Minister, whether deliberately or not, put himself right in the middle of the case from which disentanglement, which might have been his original plan, was rendered impossible. The police could no longer serve as his "political buffer". A political climb-down from a confrontation over the press freedom issue was therefore thwarted. It could have been just a "technical issue" involving the police asking the FEER reporters to "correct a mistaken sentence or two" in the January 10 Intelligence column. Now that the case has been politicised (with the Prime Minister saying the police were only doing their duty and that the government hadn't been handed an official report on the matter and with nobody believing this version of the story), the government has just provided critics with more ammunition: If it's such a serious offence (national security and what not), how can just an "apology" bring this controversy to a close? If it's a political vendetta, this is tantamount of exploiting "national security" to fit the CEO's personal whims. Either way, press freedom has become the victim of political manipulation. The Special Branch officer who signed the first warning letter to FEER urged the public not to confuse national security with press freedom. He did not, however, tell us whether the Special Branch appreciates the distinction between national security and the PM's personal political security. One of the main reasons why the Constitution provides for the guarantee of press freedom is to ensure that national security takes precedence over a political leader's own sense of security. In the end Thaksin, despite his enormous wealth, has shown himself to be a small man with the same bullying tendencies that come from all morally weak people. One wonders what Thailand's King thinks about all this. One doubts that he feels maligned by the article because, after all, it speaks of the the same issues that he uttered in his birthday speech.
|