Time to 'FEER' get Thailand spat

Time to 'FEER' get Thailand spat

The Nation, Asia News Network, Bangkok

The controversy over the Far Eastern Economic Review has
reached a virtual impasse. The Review on Monday sent a letter to
the Speaker of the House of Representatives to express its regret
over the controversy caused by the article in its Jan. 10
edition. But while the letter apparently falls short of an
unconditional "apology", the Thai government should accept it and
lay the matter to rest. For it will not do anybody any good if
the Review vs Thaksin case is allowed to drag on.

There are far more important matters that the government
should be focusing its effort and energy on than contretemps with
the magazine. Besides, it will hurt the government and the image
of Thailand more if this issue is not settled quickly.

The Review, in a tactical maneuver, apologized to the people
in its letter. Addressing it to Uthai Pimchaichon, the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, the magazine expressed its regret
to the Thai people as a whole. It still insisted on the accuracy
of its brief article, published in the Intelligence column, in
which one palace source suggested tension between Prime Minister
Thaksin Shinawatra and the Royal Palace.

Reading between the lines, the Review is practically saying:
"We are sorry if our article breaks local tradition regarding the
monarchy, and we appreciate that such a report could have
unfavorable consequences." Two things are obvious: the magazine
is not apologizing to the Thaksin government, and it is not
changing its stance regarding the administration's charge that
the report was a lie.

For such a prestigious international magazine, this may be as
good as it can, or will, do. The government should let the issue
lie or proceed through legal channels. The Review correspondents,
Shawn Crispin and Rodney Tasker, as well as publisher Philip
Revzin and editor Michael Vatikiotis, have been threatened with
an immigration blacklist on vague charges of undermining national
security, certainly not a wise way to cope with this kind of
situation.

The episode should give the Review a tough lesson in how to
handle coverage of sensitive affairs which need to be
independently confirmed. In such a weighty affair as the
relationship between the highest institution in the land and the
government, the treatment of hearsay as fact simply fell far
short of the universally accepted journalistic standard.

As for the government, it is not wise either to pursue a
course of litigation or threats of visa revocation. There are
always channels of communication that both sides can work on to
create a better understanding. If there are any policies it
thinks the public might not have a good understanding of, the
government should make an extra effort to keep people informed
through local and foreign media alike.

Fortunately, the problem with The Economist has been brought
under control quite rapidly. The Economist has agreed to refrain
from distributing in Thailand its latest edition, in which it
comments on the role of the monarchy. If that is the case, then
it is not going to violate any Thai laws.

All in all, the government should not wage war against or
appear to be vengeful against the media, foreign or domestic. The
world is looking at us closely. Thailand needs to be a more
mature country, capable of taking criticism and also increasing
the depth, breadth and quality of its own public debates.