THE ECONOMIST AND A PUBLISHING TABOO
The current edition of The Economist (October 11-17) has a report on the recent clashes in Bangkok between anti-Government protesters and the Royal Thai Police. The story, headlined 'Blood on the Streets', briefly touches on one of the media taboos here, the Thai Royal Family.
For a while I thought sales of this week's edition had been banned in Thailand; it took trips to four different shops before I finally found a copy.
There is no way a Thai language magazine (or newspaper) would be allowed to comment as The Economist has done in this story. Frankly speaking I'm not sure any would want to. I'm guessing because the magazine comes from Hong Kong and is in English that no checks are made by anyone regarding content? I believe overseas magazines require no special permission to be sold in the Kingdom whereas all locally-produced titles still need to obtain an official license before commencing publishing.
I will allow comments about this post although please be respectful. Any comments I deem unsuitable will be rejected. Thanks to Bangkok Pundit for the original post.
11 comments:
Haven't we observed a certain loosening of the taboo over the past 1-2 years?
Have things changed? Personally I don't think so.
I feel the English language media outside Thailand is getting away with more than it was previously allowed to, however I think there are still many things that no Thai editor or publisher will cover.
I am certainly not complaining however. We're living in Thailand and we must play by Thai rules. All of this is what makes Thailand unique in so many ways.
Sales of the Economist have been banned here before, so people in offialdom do read it, and when they think it appropriate, ban it from newsstands.
Most Thai editors bend over backwards to pay obeisance to the monarchy, even when unnecessary. I doubt all their readers are so paranoid, or feareful of expressing their own opinion.
Who decides whether it's 'unnecessary'? Surely that's down to culture and law? The penalties for editors and publishers are pretty severe, which is why then 'bend over backwards' as you rightly say.
I wasn't aware of the previous banning, so thanks for enlightening me on that. I'm guessing The Economist isn't too bothered about losing the few hundred sales (at the most) it gets each week here, if indeed it happened again.
The King says he doesn't mind reasoned criticism. But the law and the burghers who enforce it have yet to catch up.
Since Bangkokpost.com allowed its breaking news articles to be commneted by readers beginning some months ago, I've notice some very critical comments about the monarchy being allowed there (despite the fact that comments is moderated).
btw, Prof. Connors wrote a short piece about this Economist article at his blog:
http://sovereignmyth.blogspot.com/2008/10/getting-into-detail.html
I don't think His Majesty has ever been directly quoted on the subject, but I have seen many references to what he is said to think.
Regarding online commenting, yes - I have seen those too. It's amazing that some of the comments have not been removed. In my opinion the editors at The Bangkok Post are asking for trouble by not carefully moderating comments, or imediately removing ones deemed to be offensive or against Thailand's laws.
Bangkok Bugle...you haven't been here long enough. He said as much in a birthday speech a few years ago.
The BP asking for trouble? Why not let them get on with it, and see what happens. I hate all this weak-kneed behaviour re the monarchy.
The more Thais discuss the role of the monarchy in their lives, the better. In my view, it can only make it stronger.
BkkDreamer - I know I've not been here long, but I do know the reporting restrictions placed on the media, and the penalties for breaking them.
Whether we like it or not, and of course you're entitled to your opinion, that's the way it is right now.
I haven't seen the comments, but I would ask whether self-censorship is better, or whether newspapers should test the waters by perhaps just doing nothing with regard to reader comments left on websites.
The Post is scrupulous about what it allows in its print edition. I don't know what penalties it could suffer about comments left on an unmoderated webboard.
It could be 'new territory', though the Post might be also among those websites containing negative views re the monarchy which the state censors want to clean up. A crackdown is pending, according to the Thai media.
FYI, Bangkok Pundit has a good piece up today about Thailand's lese majeste law from the Wall Street Journal. Good quote:
Thailand's strict law against offending the monarchy, therefore, seems almost superfluous. King Bhumibol himself has said he doesn't need it, and he has lodged no charges. But politicians keep the 100-year-old law alive to score points against their enemies as they jostle for power in a period of political turmoil.
Post a Comment