The courts should decide FEER case

The Nation Asia News Network Bangkok

It's a very familiar script. After weeks of tension between the Thaksin government and the Far Eastern Economic Review, some drastic action is being taken by the former, while the latter is crying foul. "You breached our national security", say the Thai authorities. "You are trampling upon media freedom", the regional magazine's sympathizers insist. These two arguments have been the focus of a thousand clashes, particularly in this part of the world, where fledgling democracies need the support of a freewheeling media but sometimes have to struggle to come to terms with its values.

The authorities' decision to revoke the visas of the magazine's Bangkok bureau chief and a correspondent, and a plan to put them and two executives of the publication on an immigration blacklist, are ill-advised. But it also has to be said that the Far Eastern Economic Review had put itself in a very difficult situation. The experience of the two Bangkok-based journalists should have made them more careful about releasing that questionable article in the "Intelligence" column. The mentioning of "tension" between the Royal Palace and the prime minister was a highly sensitive thing to say, and to say it without concrete attributions only made it more so.

Yet there are better ways for the government to deal with this kind of situation. Revoking foreign journalists' visas and blacklisting them on vague charges of "threatening national security" reek of a dictatorship and will only further obscure the whole issue. Of course, this is a delicate matter but sometimes delicacy cries out for straightforwardness. So, if the government is sure the magazine has done something legally wrong here, take it to court.

Under the justice system it would be a simple case, in which both sides are able to defend their stands. The government would have to prove that the magazine told lies, and that those lies caused damage. The magazine would have an opportunity to prove that what it did was within the scope of press freedom, that it told the truth and did not break any Thai law.

To use the "national security" law to criminalize two journalists is not fair to them and will put Thailand's hard- earned reputation as a hub of free media in jeopardy. While a lot of Thais may go along with the authorities' action, particularly after the police claimed that at least one of the journalists had shown contempt for Thai law, the watching world will not understand. Does "national security" mean some truths cannot be reported here? And what exactly constitutes a "threat to national security", and who should make a final decision on that?

If this case presents a legal and ethical challenge to both the state and the media, it's even more imperative that it should be handled in a fair and transparent manner. New thinking and approaches are required to find a solution or middle ground. The script is too old. We need to write a new one.