14 replies to this topic

[Hedda]

One of the most disturbing things about the battles that raged on the streets of Bangkok yesterday was the way in which Thai TV, obviously controlled by the government, treated the affair as a virtual non-event. People in Bangkok, who could hear the sounds of war booming all around them, could find nothing but soap operas and game shows on most of their TV's.

It was as if CBS had insisted on running "The Guiding Light" drama in the middle of the 9-11 attacks in New York, making its viewers wait for the news on the hour to find out the World Trade Center fell down. That's basically the way most of Thai TV stations operated yesterday, leaving one with a sense that a chapter from Orwell's 1984 had come to life. The parallels seemed especially sharp when the same colonel in starched uniform would appear simultaneously on all channels to interrupt programming to give us Big Brother's version of what was going down in the City of Angels.

I suppose anyone who's lived in Thailand for any length of time realizes that TV operates here under the thumb of the government in power. Last night, however, the role of these so-called TV journalists bordered on a conspiracy, mocking what the free press is supposed to be about in a democracy.

If there's any semblance of an independent fourth estate here, it was nowhere to be found last night.The folks who claim to run these "independent" TV stations should take a long hard look in the mirror this morning as ask themselves why they were out fiddling soap operas while Bangkok burned.

[mahjongguy]

Channels 3, 5, 7, and 9 don't do on-the-scene news broadcasts. I don't know why but they've always been like that, so it's hardly a conspiracy or evidence of government oppression.

Surprisingly, the one and only station with a live broadcast was Thai PBS, which is financed solely by government grant.

NBT, the government's PR channel, had a lot of news programs throughout the day but with no live video. I can't say to what extent they were putting spin on their reports.

[mahjongguy]

( Cannot stop thinking about idiot-farangs who compared Abhisit with Obama).

And I can't stop thinking about the similarity in speechmaking styles between Jutaporn and Hitler. Create an enemy, put a face on him, chant the hatred.

For those of you who bemoan the shutting down of the People's Channel as an infringement of free speech:
- Remember that in 2004 it was Thaksin's media censorship that first attracted the ire of the academic community.
- No government on the planet would tolerate the use of its publicly-owned satellites for unveiled urging of the audience to violently overthrow those in power. The red shirts on stage urged those in the provinces to "go to city hall and do what you like". As red shirts roamed the BTS stations putting tape over the CCTV cameras, those on stage urged their followers to destroy the BTS system. That is sedition, and it's in no way an accepted part of free speech.
- And today, after briefly commandeering news trucks belonging to Channel 3 and 9 and Thai PBS, all foreign reporters were forced out of Rachaprasong center for being insufficiently sympathetic to the red shirt cause.

[Kirkland]

Remember that in 2004 it was Thaksin's media censorship that first attracted the ire of the academic community

To which my answer is: so what. You can't justify the bad things one government does by saying that the government before it was just as bad or worse.

Even if you could, can you give us one example of when Station PTV urged the violent overthrow of the government ? Abhisit claims PTV was spreading lies and misinformation, which is a very nebulous charge, but he never provided a single example of any PTV show to prove his claim. How about you ? Where's the evidence of sedition by PTV ?

While you're at it, can you tell us why PAD's ASTV, which repeatedly supports coups, isn't seditious ? Why put PTV off the air and not ASTV ? I smell a double standard. How about you ?

[mahjongguy]

Where's the evidence of sedition by PTV ?

I'm watching PTV. My friend is translating. Jutaporn calls upon the audience to take their provincial government offices by force. He explicitly threatens the life of the Prime Minister. That is sedition, calling for the violent overthrow of the government by the citizenry.

While you're at it, can you tell us why PAD's ASTV, which repeatedly supports coups, isn't seditious ? Why put PTV off the air and not ASTV ?

Did ASTV, prior to the 2006 coup, call for one? Or did they simply say afterwards that they supported it. Are they calling for one now? Not that I've heard. In any case, as far as I can tell, the Thai military isn't answerable to the civilian administration. They do as they please.

[mahjongguy]

You need to wake up and "smell the roses". At some point your views expressed here becoming toally ridiculuos.

Smells more like Seagrams to me. Have a cup of coffee and read again what I wrote. I am not a supporter of the status quo in Thailand, far from it, but I don't think that the situation here warrants the horror of a civil war.

[PeterUK]

I am not a supporter of the status quo in Thailand, far from it, but I don't think that the situation here warrants the horror of a civil war.

I agree. The prevailing view on this board is that the struggle is between the old elite and the forces of democracy. If that were the case I think we'd all be cheering on the same side. I see this as much more of a struggle between two powerful, wealthy cliques, both thoroughly corrupt and both undemocratic by instinct. The rural poor have become pawns in that struggle, shrewdly manipulated by one side. Neither side is worth the shedding of the blood of a single honest citizen. If civil war does come, it's a pound to a penny that what emerges from it all will be more corrupt, elitist government. There have been democratic stirrings during these political struggles, completely contrary to the real wishes of both cliques, and that brings hope for the long-term future, but Thailand will have to undergo a lot of underlying change before anything more than the trappings of democracy exist here.

[B.I.G.]

There is a fundamental difference between autocracy and democracy and it has nothing to do with corruption. All governments have elements of corruption. But all government are not democratic. The Red Shirts clearly have a program that's totally compatible with concepts of universal suffrage and western-style elective democracy. PAD and the Amart (old aristocracy) clearly do not share these goals. The argument that they're both dominated by corrupt elites is nothing but a dead end to nowhere, no change and the status quo. How anyone who says they support democracy in Thailand can support that is beyond me.

[PeterUK]

The argument that they're both dominated by corrupt elites is nothing but a dead end to nowhere, no change and the status quo. How anyone who says they support democracy in Thailand can support that is beyond me.

So it doesn't bother you that the leader and inspiration of the red shirts is a man who has been found guilty of massive corruption (with other cases pending), who has shown himself to be an autocrat by temperament and who should be on trial at the Hague for the murder of over a thousand of his fellow-citizens? Frankly, it's 'beyond me' that anyone can put their hopes for a brighter future for Thailand in someone like that. In my opinion democratic progress worthy of the name only takes place when there are honest, decent, hard-working politicians and others to implement and enforce it. Unfortunately, I see few people in public life in Thailand who fit that description. When I do, I'll start to get excited about Thai politics.

[Hedda]

Unfortunately, Peter is caught in a corruption conundrum. He thinks most Thais with any money or power are corrupt, so that it really doesn't matter if the country is rules by autocrats, plutocrats or democrats. At the same time, he appears to accept the judgment of Thai courts, when it suits his argument, as if they represented truth, ignoring the fact that by his own assessment of Thai society, those rich and powerful judges, and the folks they listen to, are surely just as corrupt as he says everyone else is.

Your guess is as good as mine as to where this kind of logic leads. Maybe 75 more years of endless coups that promise to end corruption.One thing is certain. It's certainly not going to be Thai democracy in anyone's lifetime.

[PeterUK]

Nearly everything I have read about Thaksin's years in office points to the fact that he was corrupt on a massive scale. It's you who has the explaining to do if you are trying to peddle the line that he wasn't so bad really. As for the arrival of genuine democracy in Thailand, I try to be realistic about it, bearing in mind actual social, educational and political conditions, rather than go in for mere feel-good optimism.

[Oliver]

I've nothing good to say about Thaksin.
But I do know that it is the dispossessed and the poor who are on the streets. My guess is that Thaksin is no longer the issue for them; they want a stake in a Thai society that, at present, is organised for the benefit of a rich elite.
Any society in which the disparity between the rich minority and poor majority is so marked is bound to cause anger and perhaps lead to violence. We have seen similar events in South America; I'm amazed it's taken so long for this to happen in Thailand.

[Garcia]

The problem with the kind of thinking like Peter's is that you have to wait for the Messiah to have any hope of creating democratic change. That's what Thailand has been doing for 75 years and it's never going to happen, especially if you accept Peter's position that they're all crooks so what does it matter.

You got to work with what you got. In this case, as flawed a character as Thaksin is, he happens to be an elected leader who was removed by an illegal and unconstitutional coup. If you really are interested in democracy, I'd say restoring the elected leader is a good place to start if you really are interested in promoting democracy. I get the feeling, however, that there are a lot of rich fat cats living in mansions all over Bangkok who have other ideas and who think ideas like Peter's are just dandy to hang onto power.