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.