Andrew Marshall makes a good point: academics have been too quiet on this sentencing.
In the past I have organized or been a signatory to several open letters by academics that have condemned or made calls for reform and/or abolition of the lese majeste law.
While this might not be the most appropriate place to do this, I want to state that I condemn the dehumanising treatment meted out to Somyot during his long detention and I condemn the sentence. It is a significant blow to human rights in Thailand.
Perhaps other academics might like to add their views?
I think Jim Pollard’s response has already shot Andrew’s fox(Walker). The FCC’s original silence is now irrelevant. A member of their board has put it in black and white that the FCC decides whether or not to defend any particular journalist on the basis of whether or not they personally agree with his opinions, and / or the political stance of his publisher.
Worth noting that many foreign correspondents in Thailand are not allowed by their employers to express their own views on lese majeste or any other topic, particularly those working for newswires. So their most powerful tool is to report on the lese majeste cases and the plight of the prisoners, which in any case is more moving than the views of a foreign reporter. And they’re too busy to be involved in the FCCT due to ever-increasingly workloads. So the board is not necessarily representative of the general foreign correspondent anymore.
“There is not one of you who would dare to write his honest opinion. The business of a journalist now is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, fall at the feet of Mammon and sell himself for his daily bread. We are tools, vessels of rich men behind the scenes, we are jumping jacks. They pull the strings; we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are the properties of these men. We are intellectual prostitutes.” — John Swainton editor, New York Times told to his staff upon retirement
A highly respected Thai journalist with whom I occasionally correspond, and to whom I directed the initial blog of Andrew Marshall, responded as follows:
“He made good points… but then again, the FCCT would probably like to cotinue its operation in Thaialnd, so you don’t step on too many toes.
To be fair, it’s all the same with established organizations the world over… you have to play the game in order to survive… that’s why we perpetuate the cycle…”
I’ll not publish his name, but assure you he is regularly vocal against Article 112 and its political uses. I was rather disappointed by his response, I’ll admit.
So the FCCT has held more debates than anyone else. However, a proper debate will never be conducted whilst 112 is used to stifle any other thinking than the official line. The three pillars of Thai society cannot stand on two legs. Without a critical debate is there any reason to continue with this facade?
“UNDERSHAFT: ” ….. you will do what pays US.
You will make war when it suits us, and keep peace when it
doesn’t. You will find out that trade requires certain measures
when we have decided on those measures. When I want anything to
keep my dividends up, you will discover that my want is a
national need. When other people want something to keep my
dividends down, you will call out the police and military. And in
return you shall have the support and applause of my NEWSPAPERS,
and the delight of imagining that you are a great statesman.
…._I_ am going back to my counting house to pay the piper…”
Major Barbara; Shaw, 1905
Very few influential people own news media around the world and they always have connection to other influential people in governments and business.
It is instructive no serious study of the thoroughly odious journalistic collusion in the WMD affair to screw the Iraqi people off their oil is ever done.
Journalistic hypocrisy is hardly unique to the LM affair or any club or any single matter.
In current day Burma, all the supposed “dissident” “Media”, as they like to be known, is untiring in toeing the government lines, one does not even need to read them any more. Free press is free to suck up the establishment and support the prevailing system while suppressing real affairs, like corruption (hard to find in Burma), police brutality (hard to find in Burma) (eg. a labour strike leader was beaten to death and the the “media” stayed quiet), lawlessness (people are daily beaten up or killed on the streets in Rangoon now, something not imaginable before but all one sees in papers is the wonderful literary “freedom” festival),and of course the horrible lives of the people shooed out of their own place by the Sit-tut in battle fields as well as other widespread areas.
So in defence of that Thailand whatever Club, they are the mainstream. That is the world today. Shaw would feel right at home.
Malcolm, I’ve made clear that I understand the difficult position the FCCT board find themselves in.
What I find indefensible is not that they adopt stringent self-censorship to avoid violating Article 112, but that they refuse to admit this fact, and refuse to condemn Somyot’s sentence.
Reporting the truth about the monarchy is against the law in Thailand. Being honest about the impact of 112, and criticizing Somyot’s grotesque jail sentence, are not against the law. There is no excuse for the FCCT not to do these things at least.
I like the thrust of some of what you outline here, including the provocative prophecy on the tail. I think the challenge is to find the right stream of analysis so we can see where both the profoundly negative and the (perhaps mildly) positive trajectories intersect, interweave and, sometimes, interlock. It’s not easy.
And in recent weeks I have learned things about the country that I didn’t know — and that are re-shaping some of my own views. That’s good, I think.
[…] Walker, an associate professor at the Australian National University, has written a lengthy blog post entitled “Tolerating intolerance” for the New Mandala website that he co-founded with […]
There is a global trend for all arguments to be polarised. This one is no different. Both sides of this argument are extreme and not giving enough consideration to the stance of the other. In reality; Mr. Marshall is correct in the responsibilities recorded in FCCT’s own website and the FCCT are correct that they have a responsibility to protect their club and its membership during a time of risk of being a convenient scapegoat to instill fear as government policy. Should both sides acknowledge the valid feelings of the other the FCCT would benefit.
I refer to Andrew Walker of course, not the other one.
At the recent EU Seminar on Reconciliation and Freedom of Expression held in Bangkok, one of the speakers was Chavarong Limpattamapanee, President of the Thai Journalists Association.
In the report back from his discussion group he was quoted as saying that the editor’s job is very difficult because if a story is acceptable to one side it is going to anger the other.
Such disrespect for the truth coming from such a prominent person surely goes against the very spirit of journalism. Has he never heard of the motto: “Publish and be damned!”
This kind of cowardice (to put the best possible gloss on it) is ubiquitous in press coverage of Thailand, and it does tend to engender strong reactions. Compare these two responses, both within the last ten days.
When bullets were put through the windows of a few parked cars outside ASTV: ‘The Thai Journalists Association and the Thai Broadcast Journalists Association yesterday issued a joint statement condemning the shooting as “a flagrant act of intimidation against the media’s freedom to perform their duty”.’
When a Thai editor was sentenced to 11 years in prison for articles he didn’t write, and which don’t directly mention the royal family: “Thai Journalists Association president Chavarong Limpattamapanee [said] the court’s ruling in Somyos’s case should not be linked with the issue of freedom of expression”.
Those of us who live in Thailand know better than to expect fairness, or balance, or concern for truth, or ‘tolerance’ in the political discourse. And the problem certainly isn’t the ‘anti-royalist’ side. To single out Marshall as a problem is eccentric to an almost unimaginable degree.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Sihanouk’s revenge
Thanks very much for this interview Susan. Milton Osbourne is the man.
Tolerating intolerance
It can’t be said enough: the FCCT’s response centers around press freedom and protecting journalists, not the ridiculous LM laws.
They could have put out a statement protesting vigorously against the sentence without even mentioning LM had they half a brain (or spine).
Tolerating intolerance
[…] debate on the FCCT continues at New Mandala and at ZenJournalist, where even PPT is chastised for recalling that “the FCCT bravely put on […]
Tolerating intolerance
[…] debate on the FCCT continues at New Mandala and at ZenJournalist, where even PPT is chastised for recalling that “the FCCT bravely put on […]
Tolerating intolerance
Andrew Marshall makes a good point: academics have been too quiet on this sentencing.
In the past I have organized or been a signatory to several open letters by academics that have condemned or made calls for reform and/or abolition of the lese majeste law.
While this might not be the most appropriate place to do this, I want to state that I condemn the dehumanising treatment meted out to Somyot during his long detention and I condemn the sentence. It is a significant blow to human rights in Thailand.
Perhaps other academics might like to add their views?
Tolerating intolerance
On a different note:
I think Jim Pollard’s response has already shot Andrew’s fox(Walker). The FCC’s original silence is now irrelevant. A member of their board has put it in black and white that the FCC decides whether or not to defend any particular journalist on the basis of whether or not they personally agree with his opinions, and / or the political stance of his publisher.
The debate is over, I think.
Tolerating intolerance
Worth noting that many foreign correspondents in Thailand are not allowed by their employers to express their own views on lese majeste or any other topic, particularly those working for newswires. So their most powerful tool is to report on the lese majeste cases and the plight of the prisoners, which in any case is more moving than the views of a foreign reporter. And they’re too busy to be involved in the FCCT due to ever-increasingly workloads. So the board is not necessarily representative of the general foreign correspondent anymore.
Tolerating intolerance
“There is not one of you who would dare to write his honest opinion. The business of a journalist now is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, fall at the feet of Mammon and sell himself for his daily bread. We are tools, vessels of rich men behind the scenes, we are jumping jacks. They pull the strings; we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are the properties of these men. We are intellectual prostitutes.” — John Swainton editor, New York Times told to his staff upon retirement
The Kachin and war
Appreciate that.
Tolerating intolerance
A highly respected Thai journalist with whom I occasionally correspond, and to whom I directed the initial blog of Andrew Marshall, responded as follows:
“He made good points… but then again, the FCCT would probably like to cotinue its operation in Thaialnd, so you don’t step on too many toes.
To be fair, it’s all the same with established organizations the world over… you have to play the game in order to survive… that’s why we perpetuate the cycle…”
I’ll not publish his name, but assure you he is regularly vocal against Article 112 and its political uses. I was rather disappointed by his response, I’ll admit.
Tolerating intolerance
So the FCCT has held more debates than anyone else. However, a proper debate will never be conducted whilst 112 is used to stifle any other thinking than the official line. The three pillars of Thai society cannot stand on two legs. Without a critical debate is there any reason to continue with this facade?
Tolerating intolerance
“UNDERSHAFT: ” ….. you will do what pays US.
You will make war when it suits us, and keep peace when it
doesn’t. You will find out that trade requires certain measures
when we have decided on those measures. When I want anything to
keep my dividends up, you will discover that my want is a
national need. When other people want something to keep my
dividends down, you will call out the police and military. And in
return you shall have the support and applause of my NEWSPAPERS,
and the delight of imagining that you are a great statesman.
…._I_ am going back to my counting house to pay the piper…”
Major Barbara; Shaw, 1905
Very few influential people own news media around the world and they always have connection to other influential people in governments and business.
It is instructive no serious study of the thoroughly odious journalistic collusion in the WMD affair to screw the Iraqi people off their oil is ever done.
Journalistic hypocrisy is hardly unique to the LM affair or any club or any single matter.
In current day Burma, all the supposed “dissident” “Media”, as they like to be known, is untiring in toeing the government lines, one does not even need to read them any more. Free press is free to suck up the establishment and support the prevailing system while suppressing real affairs, like corruption (hard to find in Burma), police brutality (hard to find in Burma) (eg. a labour strike leader was beaten to death and the the “media” stayed quiet), lawlessness (people are daily beaten up or killed on the streets in Rangoon now, something not imaginable before but all one sees in papers is the wonderful literary “freedom” festival),and of course the horrible lives of the people shooed out of their own place by the Sit-tut in battle fields as well as other widespread areas.
So in defence of that Thailand whatever Club, they are the mainstream. That is the world today. Shaw would feel right at home.
Tolerating intolerance
Malcolm, I’ve made clear that I understand the difficult position the FCCT board find themselves in.
What I find indefensible is not that they adopt stringent self-censorship to avoid violating Article 112, but that they refuse to admit this fact, and refuse to condemn Somyot’s sentence.
Reporting the truth about the monarchy is against the law in Thailand. Being honest about the impact of 112, and criticizing Somyot’s grotesque jail sentence, are not against the law. There is no excuse for the FCCT not to do these things at least.
The Kachin and war
Thanks Ohn,
I like the thrust of some of what you outline here, including the provocative prophecy on the tail. I think the challenge is to find the right stream of analysis so we can see where both the profoundly negative and the (perhaps mildly) positive trajectories intersect, interweave and, sometimes, interlock. It’s not easy.
And in recent weeks I have learned things about the country that I didn’t know — and that are re-shaping some of my own views. That’s good, I think.
Happy to keep learning.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Tolerating intolerance
I’ve written a new blog post with a more detailed response to Andrew’s views.
You can read it here: http://www.zenjournalist.org/2013/02/04/the-foreign-media-are-failing-thailand-a-professor-responds/
Tolerating intolerance
[…] Walker, an associate professor at the Australian National University, has written a lengthy blog post entitled “Tolerating intolerance” for the New Mandala website that he co-founded with […]
Tolerating intolerance
There is a global trend for all arguments to be polarised. This one is no different. Both sides of this argument are extreme and not giving enough consideration to the stance of the other. In reality; Mr. Marshall is correct in the responsibilities recorded in FCCT’s own website and the FCCT are correct that they have a responsibility to protect their club and its membership during a time of risk of being a convenient scapegoat to instill fear as government policy. Should both sides acknowledge the valid feelings of the other the FCCT would benefit.
Tolerating intolerance
Has any group (Thai or otherwise) held as many public forums on LM as the Foreign Correspondents Club?
Or routinely invited Thais who’ve run afoul of 112 to speak at their venue … inside Thailand?
Not sure it makes any sense for this anti-112 activist to target the club.
Tolerating intolerance
I refer to Andrew Walker of course, not the other one.
At the recent EU Seminar on Reconciliation and Freedom of Expression held in Bangkok, one of the speakers was Chavarong Limpattamapanee, President of the Thai Journalists Association.
In the report back from his discussion group he was quoted as saying that the editor’s job is very difficult because if a story is acceptable to one side it is going to anger the other.
Such disrespect for the truth coming from such a prominent person surely goes against the very spirit of journalism. Has he never heard of the motto: “Publish and be damned!”
Tolerating intolerance
This kind of cowardice (to put the best possible gloss on it) is ubiquitous in press coverage of Thailand, and it does tend to engender strong reactions. Compare these two responses, both within the last ten days.
When bullets were put through the windows of a few parked cars outside ASTV: ‘The Thai Journalists Association and the Thai Broadcast Journalists Association yesterday issued a joint statement condemning the shooting as “a flagrant act of intimidation against the media’s freedom to perform their duty”.’
When a Thai editor was sentenced to 11 years in prison for articles he didn’t write, and which don’t directly mention the royal family: “Thai Journalists Association president Chavarong Limpattamapanee [said] the court’s ruling in Somyos’s case should not be linked with the issue of freedom of expression”.
Those of us who live in Thailand know better than to expect fairness, or balance, or concern for truth, or ‘tolerance’ in the political discourse. And the problem certainly isn’t the ‘anti-royalist’ side. To single out Marshall as a problem is eccentric to an almost unimaginable degree.