“The problem with Thai Journalism is that they will report the offical storyline and not the truth. Lies and opinions are often pawned off to the people as ‘truth’.”
Couldn’t this be said of many countries/governments around the world? When all’s said and done, just how free are the media in these countries? For example, journalism in the US has been shackled to the yoke of big business for quite some time now so what people get is a daily diet of entertainment first and the core truth element of the story (a very distant) second.
My point is things are not always as they may appear even in so-called “advanced” countries.
indeed. “What is to be done?” I think this was probably first coined by Nikolay Chernyshevsky in post slavery Russia after the Emancipation of the Serfs in or around the 1860s.
In the Thai context, what is to be done is to wait it out until the ailing king dies and then encourage Thais themselves to usher in the change that the country so desperately needs. Any other way will not succeed IMHO.
Hi Andrew. You seem to be busy with your new blog post ‘sexism and adolescent attitudes at the FCCT’, though I’m not quite sure how that relates to the debate about 112.
Anyway, can we take it that the answer is no, you didn’t write any article setting out in credible detail the monarchy’s central role in Thailand’s political crisis while living in Thailand? In that case, as I’m sure you would not like to be accused of hypocrisy, we’ll await your apology to the FCCT board. Perhaps you would be prepared to come and deliver it in person at the FCCT’s next LM debate where we could hear your views in more detail? Cheers
Curious about your frequent use of the word ‘exile’ because you can only be an exile from your native country, not another, so if you are not a Thai national then you are not an exile from Thailand. Of course if you mean ‘exile’ as a state of mind that is different.
But you also state categorically as a fact, that you are a ”fugitive from Thai justice.” Haven’t seen any reports of this at all, so wonder if you could show us a warrant or summons or subpoena, that would back what you say.
I thought the reason you resigned from Reuters was primarily to do with the terrible treatment both you and David Fox received over some gallows humor comments on the internal chat room after Fukoshima.
That was a highly pricipled and supportable stand.
You also seemed at odds with Reuters’ dealing with the investigation into Hiro’s death and the findings of the report (and what to do with those findings).
The Thai/cablegate/monarchy issue seemed to be icing on the cake, the straw that broke the camel’s back, at least that’s what I remember you writing at the time.
Are you now not coloring in the past and providing a slightly different account of history by saying the following was the main reason why you resigned from your comfortable post.
“after 2008, when I returned to Asia as a senior correspondent and editor after three years running Reuters News in the Middle East, I became increasingly uneasy about the limitations Reuters sought to place on my coverage of Thailand.”
For the record, a lot of your work and comments are very interesting; they certainly stimulate debate in a much needed area of discussion, which is no bad thing.
Hi Andrew. I’m not trying to be offensive. I think I was quite polite. And no I’m not using a fake name. And I agree with you that it is a shame the FCCT did not issue a statement. As a member of the club (but not on the board), I share responsibility for that. My point was though, you have strongly criticised foreign media LIVING IN THAILAND for not exposing the truth about the Thai monarchy’s role in the political crisis. In fact you have launched character assassinations against some board members. But you yourself live in Singapore where you have no fear of arrest for expressing your views on Thailand. Leaving aside the fact that it is very hard to get well connected on-the-record sources here to talk about the Thai monarchy, I would respectfully suggest that you are not in a position to so vehemently criticise foreign media in Thailand until you have done what you ask of them. You asked someone earlier: “Find me one article written by a current member of the FCCT setting out in credible detail the fact that monarchy’s central role in Thailand’s political crisis.” So I would ask you, please show us one of your articles which fits this description published WHILE YOU WERE LIVING IN THAILAND. Otherwise I would respectfully suggest you focus your energies on your own commendable writing rather than trying to publicly humiliate members of the FCCT board, who could quite easily quit their jobs, leave Thailand and write whatever they like, as others have done before you. I completely agree with you that this is an unnecessary distraction from the plight of the 112 prisoners. Best regards
The reason Bhumibol is hiding behind the Lèse Majesté law is that he was the one that gave the thumbs-down to the elected prime minister, who nevertheless retains his extraordinary popularity to this day. Bhumibol’s successor, whoever that may be, does not bear the stigma of that error, which threatens the existence of the monarchy.
The best survival policy for the new monarch would be to insist that the Lèse Majesté law be abolished, endure the resulting flak from both sides, and never again interfere in politics. Such an act of patriotism would result in a European-style Clayton’s monarchy, but it sure beats the bloody instability of despotism.
I’m still a working journalist. And unlike most of the foreign media in Thailand, I report reality and not fairy tales.
As is by now widely known, after 2008, when I returned to Asia as a senior correspondent and editor after three years running Reuters News in the Middle East, I became increasingly uneasy about the limitations Reuters sought to place on my coverage of Thailand. I think Reuters had among the best Thai coverage of any foreign media at that time, including regular analysis of the monarchy and the succession such as this article in 2008 [http://in.reuters.com/article/2008/12/05/idINIndia-36890720081205] and this one in 2010 [http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/17/us-thailand-wikileaks-idUSTRE6BG1GD20101217]. I also commented regularly on the Thai royal family on my Reuters blog, which has since been taken down by Reuters. I eventually concluded that the refusal of Reuters to allow more detailed coverage of the Thai monarchy was unacceptable, and I resigned in order to provide honest, unbiased coverage of 21st century Thailand, which I continue to do.
People can make their own judgements about whether my record on this issue is ethical or whether I am just a hypocrite. But whatever they conclude, my own story is really beside the point. The fact is that journalists have a professional obligation to report the truth, and that most journalists in Thailand are failing to do this. Trying to score points against me while hiding behind a pseudonym won’t change that.
Understood. So, as a working journalist you were not in a position to write frankly about the monarchy. Nor, from what I have seen, did you place a “health warning” on your work. I think it would be useful in expanding our understanding of journalists if you explained why. Was it because you were “cling[ing] to the discredited fairytale narrative”? Were you “incompetent”, or “dishonest” or “unethical”? Were you helping to “foster an environment in which Thais are jailed for years.” Would be interesting to hear about what influenced you decisions while you were working as a journalist.
I support Hewison’s condemnation of the treatment, conviction, and sentencing of all Thai citizens who have exercised their right to freedom of expression. The end result of Article 112 is to weaken the institution of the monarchy. The intent behind such an application of the law is contrary to its original aims. If a notion of Buddhist ethics is consequentialist rather than deontological, the application of Article 112 cannot be viewed in line with right intention or right action.
I’ve made it repeatedly clear that I understand the difficult position facing journalists in Thailand, and that not everybody can do what I did – resign and exile themselves.
However, journalists also have a professional obligation to provide their audience with the truth. This cannot just be shirked or ignored because of Article 112.
That is why I have suggested in my recent blog posts that I believe the only practical way for foreign journalists to report on Thai political developments in an ethical way without risking falling foul of Article 112 is to preface reports or broadcasts with a health warning something like this: “This report was compiled under the restrictions imposed by Thailand’s lèse majesté law, which criminalizes open discussion of the monarchy.”
Particularly in the online era, when consumers of news are increasingly demanding full transparency in how reports are compiled, it is basic good practice for stories impacted by censorship to include a disclaimer saying so.
In this way, foreign journalists can remain true to their professional ethics and obligations while also avoiding a possible breach of Article 112. It is also a robust but not unduly provocative way of pressuring the Thai authorities to allow journalists to work unimpeded by overly harsh enforcement of the law of lèse majesté.
I disagree that the Prime Minister’s Facebook page attracted mostly encouraging comments. It is well-known that they (the PAP) are very quick in deleting negative comments and banning those commentors from their pages.
AMM writes: “Welll, when I wrote the study of Thailand that made me an exile from Thai law and forced me to leave my job at Reuters, I had already been promoted beyond bureau chief level in Reuters, and I was a regional editor (based in Singapore) with responsibility for Thailand among other countries. I am sure you will explain where you are going with this argument. I wouldn’t want to jump to the conclusion that you are grasping at straws and trying to obfuscate the story of what happened in support of an unsupportable agenda. Cheers.”
So are you saying, that it was only possible for you to publish about the monarchy in an openly critical way once you resigned as a journalist? But you now expect other journalists to do what you (quite reasonably) were not in a position to do?
Welll, when I wrote the study of Thailand that made me an exile from Thai law and forced me to leave my job at Reuters, I had already been promoted beyond bureau chief level in Reuters, and I was a regional editor (based in Singapore) with responsibility for Thailand among other countries. I am sure you will explain where you are going with this argument. I wouldn’t want to jump to the conclusion that you are grasping at straws and trying to obfuscate the story of what happened in support of an unsupportable agenda. Cheers.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Tolerating intolerance
Maybe, AMM should stop commenting for a while in order to maintain his remaining credibility. It has suffered quite a bit already.
Tolerating intolerance
Observer,
“The problem with Thai Journalism is that they will report the offical storyline and not the truth. Lies and opinions are often pawned off to the people as ‘truth’.”
Couldn’t this be said of many countries/governments around the world? When all’s said and done, just how free are the media in these countries? For example, journalism in the US has been shackled to the yoke of big business for quite some time now so what people get is a daily diet of entertainment first and the core truth element of the story (a very distant) second.
My point is things are not always as they may appear even in so-called “advanced” countries.
Tolerating intolerance
John,
indeed. “What is to be done?” I think this was probably first coined by Nikolay Chernyshevsky in post slavery Russia after the Emancipation of the Serfs in or around the 1860s.
In the Thai context, what is to be done is to wait it out until the ailing king dies and then encourage Thais themselves to usher in the change that the country so desperately needs. Any other way will not succeed IMHO.
Tolerating intolerance
Hi Andrew. You seem to be busy with your new blog post ‘sexism and adolescent attitudes at the FCCT’, though I’m not quite sure how that relates to the debate about 112.
Anyway, can we take it that the answer is no, you didn’t write any article setting out in credible detail the monarchy’s central role in Thailand’s political crisis while living in Thailand? In that case, as I’m sure you would not like to be accused of hypocrisy, we’ll await your apology to the FCCT board. Perhaps you would be prepared to come and deliver it in person at the FCCT’s next LM debate where we could hear your views in more detail? Cheers
Tolerating intolerance
Sorry that last comment I should clarify was addressed to Andrew M Marshall.
Tolerating intolerance
Curious about your frequent use of the word ‘exile’ because you can only be an exile from your native country, not another, so if you are not a Thai national then you are not an exile from Thailand. Of course if you mean ‘exile’ as a state of mind that is different.
But you also state categorically as a fact, that you are a ”fugitive from Thai justice.” Haven’t seen any reports of this at all, so wonder if you could show us a warrant or summons or subpoena, that would back what you say.
Tolerating intolerance
I’m very grateful you shared the articles actually, as they help dispel the claim that I am a virulent anti-royal fundamentalist. Cheers!
Ministers at the Arunachal Pradesh Manau
I don’t like to give any false comment like that of what’s called @Firfox . By any mean, whoever u r, u haven’t d right to say on this site ?
Tolerating intolerance
Dear Andrew
I thought the reason you resigned from Reuters was primarily to do with the terrible treatment both you and David Fox received over some gallows humor comments on the internal chat room after Fukoshima.
That was a highly pricipled and supportable stand.
You also seemed at odds with Reuters’ dealing with the investigation into Hiro’s death and the findings of the report (and what to do with those findings).
The Thai/cablegate/monarchy issue seemed to be icing on the cake, the straw that broke the camel’s back, at least that’s what I remember you writing at the time.
Are you now not coloring in the past and providing a slightly different account of history by saying the following was the main reason why you resigned from your comfortable post.
“after 2008, when I returned to Asia as a senior correspondent and editor after three years running Reuters News in the Middle East, I became increasingly uneasy about the limitations Reuters sought to place on my coverage of Thailand.”
For the record, a lot of your work and comments are very interesting; they certainly stimulate debate in a much needed area of discussion, which is no bad thing.
Hasta luego
Tolerating intolerance
Hi Andrew. I’m not trying to be offensive. I think I was quite polite. And no I’m not using a fake name. And I agree with you that it is a shame the FCCT did not issue a statement. As a member of the club (but not on the board), I share responsibility for that. My point was though, you have strongly criticised foreign media LIVING IN THAILAND for not exposing the truth about the Thai monarchy’s role in the political crisis. In fact you have launched character assassinations against some board members. But you yourself live in Singapore where you have no fear of arrest for expressing your views on Thailand. Leaving aside the fact that it is very hard to get well connected on-the-record sources here to talk about the Thai monarchy, I would respectfully suggest that you are not in a position to so vehemently criticise foreign media in Thailand until you have done what you ask of them. You asked someone earlier: “Find me one article written by a current member of the FCCT setting out in credible detail the fact that monarchy’s central role in Thailand’s political crisis.” So I would ask you, please show us one of your articles which fits this description published WHILE YOU WERE LIVING IN THAILAND. Otherwise I would respectfully suggest you focus your energies on your own commendable writing rather than trying to publicly humiliate members of the FCCT board, who could quite easily quit their jobs, leave Thailand and write whatever they like, as others have done before you. I completely agree with you that this is an unnecessary distraction from the plight of the 112 prisoners. Best regards
Tolerating intolerance
The reason Bhumibol is hiding behind the Lèse Majesté law is that he was the one that gave the thumbs-down to the elected prime minister, who nevertheless retains his extraordinary popularity to this day. Bhumibol’s successor, whoever that may be, does not bear the stigma of that error, which threatens the existence of the monarchy.
The best survival policy for the new monarch would be to insist that the Lèse Majesté law be abolished, endure the resulting flak from both sides, and never again interfere in politics. Such an act of patriotism would result in a European-style Clayton’s monarchy, but it sure beats the bloody instability of despotism.
Singapore’s food security strategy
[…] New Mandala: Singapore’s food security strategy – Expat Bostonians: Haw Par Villa (warning-some images are NSFW) – The Long and Winding […]
Upakhut in Malaysia
Thank you very much for this endearing reminder of the enduring extend of the last Myanmar empire until the British end it all.
Successful dynasties that promoted Buddhism that endure up to this day even though Malaysia is officially a Muslim country.
Tolerating intolerance
I’m still a working journalist. And unlike most of the foreign media in Thailand, I report reality and not fairy tales.
As is by now widely known, after 2008, when I returned to Asia as a senior correspondent and editor after three years running Reuters News in the Middle East, I became increasingly uneasy about the limitations Reuters sought to place on my coverage of Thailand. I think Reuters had among the best Thai coverage of any foreign media at that time, including regular analysis of the monarchy and the succession such as this article in 2008 [http://in.reuters.com/article/2008/12/05/idINIndia-36890720081205] and this one in 2010 [http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/17/us-thailand-wikileaks-idUSTRE6BG1GD20101217]. I also commented regularly on the Thai royal family on my Reuters blog, which has since been taken down by Reuters. I eventually concluded that the refusal of Reuters to allow more detailed coverage of the Thai monarchy was unacceptable, and I resigned in order to provide honest, unbiased coverage of 21st century Thailand, which I continue to do.
People can make their own judgements about whether my record on this issue is ethical or whether I am just a hypocrite. But whatever they conclude, my own story is really beside the point. The fact is that journalists have a professional obligation to report the truth, and that most journalists in Thailand are failing to do this. Trying to score points against me while hiding behind a pseudonym won’t change that.
Tolerating intolerance
Understood. So, as a working journalist you were not in a position to write frankly about the monarchy. Nor, from what I have seen, did you place a “health warning” on your work. I think it would be useful in expanding our understanding of journalists if you explained why. Was it because you were “cling[ing] to the discredited fairytale narrative”? Were you “incompetent”, or “dishonest” or “unethical”? Were you helping to “foster an environment in which Thais are jailed for years.” Would be interesting to hear about what influenced you decisions while you were working as a journalist.
Tolerating intolerance
I support Hewison’s condemnation of the treatment, conviction, and sentencing of all Thai citizens who have exercised their right to freedom of expression. The end result of Article 112 is to weaken the institution of the monarchy. The intent behind such an application of the law is contrary to its original aims. If a notion of Buddhist ethics is consequentialist rather than deontological, the application of Article 112 cannot be viewed in line with right intention or right action.
Tolerating intolerance
I’ve made it repeatedly clear that I understand the difficult position facing journalists in Thailand, and that not everybody can do what I did – resign and exile themselves.
However, journalists also have a professional obligation to provide their audience with the truth. This cannot just be shirked or ignored because of Article 112.
That is why I have suggested in my recent blog posts that I believe the only practical way for foreign journalists to report on Thai political developments in an ethical way without risking falling foul of Article 112 is to preface reports or broadcasts with a health warning something like this: “This report was compiled under the restrictions imposed by Thailand’s lèse majesté law, which criminalizes open discussion of the monarchy.”
Particularly in the online era, when consumers of news are increasingly demanding full transparency in how reports are compiled, it is basic good practice for stories impacted by censorship to include a disclaimer saying so.
In this way, foreign journalists can remain true to their professional ethics and obligations while also avoiding a possible breach of Article 112. It is also a robust but not unduly provocative way of pressuring the Thai authorities to allow journalists to work unimpeded by overly harsh enforcement of the law of lèse majesté.
You can read a more detailed discussion of this subject here: http://www.zenjournalist.org/2013/02/04/the-foreign-media-are-failing-thailand-finding-common-ground/
Managing voice, exit and loyalty in Singapore
I disagree that the Prime Minister’s Facebook page attracted mostly encouraging comments. It is well-known that they (the PAP) are very quick in deleting negative comments and banning those commentors from their pages.
Tolerating intolerance
AMM writes: “Welll, when I wrote the study of Thailand that made me an exile from Thai law and forced me to leave my job at Reuters, I had already been promoted beyond bureau chief level in Reuters, and I was a regional editor (based in Singapore) with responsibility for Thailand among other countries. I am sure you will explain where you are going with this argument. I wouldn’t want to jump to the conclusion that you are grasping at straws and trying to obfuscate the story of what happened in support of an unsupportable agenda. Cheers.”
So are you saying, that it was only possible for you to publish about the monarchy in an openly critical way once you resigned as a journalist? But you now expect other journalists to do what you (quite reasonably) were not in a position to do?
Tolerating intolerance
Welll, when I wrote the study of Thailand that made me an exile from Thai law and forced me to leave my job at Reuters, I had already been promoted beyond bureau chief level in Reuters, and I was a regional editor (based in Singapore) with responsibility for Thailand among other countries. I am sure you will explain where you are going with this argument. I wouldn’t want to jump to the conclusion that you are grasping at straws and trying to obfuscate the story of what happened in support of an unsupportable agenda. Cheers.