 |
 |
|
|
Today's Thailand English language newspapers and several Thai language newspapers featured front page photos of Far Eastern Economic Review journalists Rodney Tasker and Shawn Crispin in full "wai" poses as they fronted up at the immigration office yesterday. The "wai" is a traditional Thai greeting consisting of raising your hands with palms together in a "praying gesture" to face level and bowing your head and sometimes the body. Like the Western handshake it symbolizes that you are carrying no "hidden weapons" and respect for the other party. The "wai" goes further in imparting a strong message of modesty and humility, the extent of which is evidenced, as in Japan, by how low you bow... Tasker, a Brit and 20 year Bangkok veteran, seemed to provide the more comfortable and correct wai, the hidden complexities of which often make the gesture seem foolish when delivered by a foreigner. We give Crispin a lower score with a more uncomfortable wai. A creditable wai none-the-less. Even US top honcho Bush has seen it fit to comment on the current tussle between the FEER and the immigration police, who have revoked the visas of the two journalists on the grounds of an article relating to a perceived gentle and vague though unprecedented criticism by the King of the current PM Thaksin Shinawatra made several months back. The journalists are allowed to stay in Thailand for another 30 days pending their appeal, though they cannot practice their profession. Thaksin has invoked one of his now familiar brusque and angry reactions to criticism to that of Bush's. And to be fair, Bush is probably not the best person to pontificate on human rights and press freedom right now. The US media oligarchy has interestingly played down the political dimension and claimed that it is an immigration affair only. The affair however is not inconsistent with Thaksin's series of attacks over the freedom of the Thai press since his installation. His aim is, of course, the creation of a compliant press similar to that in Malaysia and Singapore, which has kept the ruling political élite in power for decades, compared to the constant shuffling of political power in Thailand. This issue also touches a soft spot in Thaksin's legitimacy. We have argued before that Thaksin's popular legitimacy rests almost solely on his wealth. We argue there that it's a powerful motivator not only for the middle class, but even more so for the poor of Thailand. ...But not anywhere as powerful as respect for the King and the monarchy. Thais are not getting even close to standing up erect in cinemas when they see the image of Thaksin on the big screen. Coverage of the modest and subtle call for Thaksin to "slow down" from the King himself was played down by the local rags at the time. In fact it was BIG news, if only because it was so unprecedented. Then again, Thai people didn't really need the newspapers to interpret it for them. Thaksin could not turn his familiar red face onto the King's face. The best he could hope for was the matter to die a quick death. That the FEER, with a history of not-so-friendly coverage of the Thaksin administration brought it up yet again, was their deadliest sin. Thaksin and his henchmen have insisted that the issue is not related to press freedom but to the laws of the country. Over the past day however, Thaksin has stated that "..he will not give in.." to foreign pressure, backed up by the highly respected Interior minister Purachai. And he has publicly identified (obliquely but fairly evidently to most Bangkok insiders) the FEER's "source" for the story as a "pipe-smoker". Now Thaksin himself is a pipe smoker, but most commentators take it that he is referring to one of Thailand's most well-known pipe-smokers - Prasong Soonsiri, director of the Naew Na Thai language newspaper and a former foreign minister. And to add to the train of surprises the Bangkok Post today quoted immigration department figures today as saying that it will be unlikely that the ban will be enforced, as it is not the Thai way... The immigration coppers' demands for the re-issuance of the visas are that a full apology be extended, and the "source" be identified. The government has also stepped in and demanded an apology to Thaksin as well as the Thai people. The plight of foreign journalism in Asian countries has certainly not been evident only in Thailand as of late. According to the Malaysian Star, "...The Home Ministry has delayed the distribution of several issues of three international magazines for "inaccurate and untrue reporting of the situation in Malaysia". The approval for circulation of six issues of the Far Eastern Economic Review for January and February had been delayed...". Copies of a FEER issue which included an image of the Prophet Mohammad have also been banned in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Bangladesh. Issues of Time and the Economist have been "put on review" by Malaysian censors, mainly for reports on the current decision to ban Indonesian workers. Late last year Asia Week, a Time-Warner publication which focused on regional politics, economy, and culture folded, ending an illustrious career as Asia's leading regional news magazine after the Far Eastern Economic Review. Asia Week, with its often fearless though sometimes over-enthusiastic analysis of Asian power élites was a favourite target of Mohammad Mahathir who in the most recent criticism took them to task for "photographing his wrong side", and "making him look like an idiot".. Unfortunately an editorial change of direction to focus more on the safer ground of yuppie interests and lifestyle (possibly initiated in part to shield them from frequent bans in Malaysia and elsewhere) not only lost them credibility, but came too late to save them from the plummeting ad revenue which caused their demise. The basic problem is a clash not of values, but of pragmatics. To developing countries, the press and popular media is seen as an arm of government - in Mahathir's own words - a way to "get the government's message across" which was the phrase he used when rejecting an application for more television licenses and extended broadcasting hours. To be fair, the good doctor also added that broadcasting after midnight was a bit silly because "...people should be in bed by then.." Stated like a true pro-population proponent for sure... To developed countries with a high level of education the press is somewhat less powerful as a tool of the government simply because their population has been trained by critical and logical analysis not to believe everything (or even anything) they read. It is a less powerful media for government propaganda, and there are more efficient channels. Nothing to do with values really. More to do with pragmatics. The foreign press therefore, with bases in highly-educated and democratic countries, is caught in the middle. Almost all employ local journalists, with foreigners making sweeps into the country when something newsworthy is bubbling. And usually the story is something negative - because that, sadly, is what has always sold newspapers. Two factors therefore underlie the freedom of the press in almost all countries worldwide. Firstly, the level of education and development, and secondly the level of government control and democracy. In countries like Vietnam, China, Myanmar, Laos and Malaysia the majority of the popular press, in varying degrees, is purely a PR mouthpiece for the ruling administration. The press in Singapore, due to the high level of education, is slowly and surely becoming more independent. Taiwan and the Philippines, the first with both high levels of education and a democratic government and the Philippines with the latter, are two of the three Asian countries with a relatively free press. The other one up to now at least, and possibly for much longer, has been Thailand. But observers wonder how much Thaksin agrees with the statement made by Piyanat Watcharaporn, a minister 6 years ago in Barnham's reign, that "...Thailand's development has lagged far behind that of Singapore and Malaysia because its press has too much freedom...". We also wonder what this talk of "sovereignty" and "security" really means in Thailand now. Does it mean the security of the government - or the people? And does it mean "sovereignty" over the control of news delivered to the people? Is Thailand really at the stage where "national security" and "Thaksin security" are synonymous? Yes, according to Thaksin's henchmen during his corruption trial who insisted that a guilty verdict would be the end of Thailand, as there was nobody else who could save it.. A free press is not just motherhood. Neither is it a "universal value". It's a natural consequence of being a developed, educated country. In these cases, a press article, except in extreme cases or in a time of war, can never become a threat to national security as an educated population and committed journalists will ferret out the truth. The extent to which a free press exists mirrors the level of development of any country. I for one trust indices of press freedom more than many other accepted indices of development. The current debate on the revoking of the FEER journalist's visas in Thailand is at once a specific case, but also significant on a regional scale. Matters relating to royalty are always a delicate subject in Thailand. Yet the almost blanket coverage of the Tasker/Crispin wais front-paged on many Thailand newspapers today reinforced a subtle message from the scribe trenches to a Thai government increasingly seen as going beyond their mandate... Email the Chao Phraya River Rat
|
 |
© Asian Business Strategy & Street Intelligence Ezine 2002
The views expressed here may not necessarily reflect those of partners, publishers, editorial board nor sponsors of the Asia Pacific Management Forum
| email updates | email this page | discuss | search | today's asian business strategy news | advertise | about |
| daily asian news, research & commentary for the international business strategy, market research & strategic management professional |