Thaksin hits back at US 'concern'

Feb 27, 2002
Source: The Nation

'Review' editor says magazine may apologise 'if they can show us what we've done wrong'

Prime Minister Thak-sin Shinawatra yesterday reacted strongly to an official statement from the Bush administration expressing concern over press freedom in Thailand, saying: "Thailand's sovereignty is our business."

Visibly tense after reporters asked for a reaction to the statement from Washington, the prime minister responded: "Don't be concerned who the power of sovereignty belongs to. The US's is the US's. It is unrelated to our's."

Thaksin said his government did not have to explain to the US the Thai police decision to expel two foreign journalists from the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) on grounds that their article threatened Thailand's national security.

Thaksin also reiterated that the government had not been involved in the police decision to take action against the FEER journalists.

US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said yesterday in Washington that US ambassador to Thailand Darryl Johnson had raised the issue of the threat to deport the foreign journalists, one of whom is an American, in a meeting in Bangkok with Thaksin last Friday.

Thai police blacklisted the FEER journalists following a column in the January 10 edition reporting tension between the prime minister and the Royal Palace.

"We are concerned about the prospect that Thailand may bar certain journalists from working in or entering the country for publishing reports that were critical of the government," Boucher said.

On Friday FEER's Bangkok bureau chief Shawn Crispin, 33, an American citizen, and correspondent Rodney Tasker, 56, a British national, appealed the police order that asked them to leave the country. Police said their working visas had already been revoked.

The order has sparked an outcry from local and foreign media as well as non-government groups over press freedom. Several Thai senators also said the move destroyed the country's reputation as a strong supporter of free speech.

Thai police have called on the magazine to either apologise or correct the article to prevent the two journalists being expelled.

In a telephone interview with The Nation yesterday, FEER editor Michael Vatikiotis said he was willing to apologise or correct any errors if Thai authorities explicitly indicated what the publication had done wrong.

"There have been no specifics from the government on why it is a threat, and most of what we have learned came from media reports and a single letter from the police," he said.

Vatikiotis repeatedly said that FEER had had a presence in Thailand for over half a century.

"At least one of the reporters being deported has been in Thailand for more than 20 years," he said.

"No, it's not that we are not going to apologise, but we haven't been told anything," Vatikiotis said. He added that FEER was a responsible publication and if there were mistakes, the publication usually admitted to them and made corrections.

"We seek to tell the truth in an honest way," he said.

There were even signs that FEER was willing to talk the matter over when Vatikiotis said that he "regretted the misunderstandings".

"We have no intention to harm anybody. We're not out to cause trouble," he said.

Vatikiotis flatly denied allegations that FEER might have written the January 10, 2002 article in its Intelligence section as a favour to someone, possibly an opposition member out to sabotage the government.

"We're not covering the news on behalf of anyone," he declared.

The editor of the Hong Kong-based publication said he was still optimistic the issue would be resolved without further problems. He refused to comment on what might happen to FEER's Bangkok office if its two journalists were deported.

A FEER spokeswoman in Hong Kong said the duo would meet immigration police today to discuss the issue.

Meanwhile, Royal Thai Police spokesman Maj-General Pongsathat Pongcharoen said that at today's meeting Thai police would verbally explain to the journalists the facts about how the article affected national security and who was affected by it.

"They may not understand how the article affected the feelings of Thais. If they meet us, we will explain to them face to face. In the past we contacted each other by letter and document. Maybe this caused a misunderstanding," the spokesman said.

"We hope that after the meeting they will understand the impact of the article on the country and better understand the police move," Pongsathat said.

He recounted that police had notified FEER in Bangkok by letter that the January 10 column affected national security and asked for a correction and revelation of the news source.

The Review replied that the information in the column was correct and refused to answer the questions, Pongsathat said, so the police had last Friday notified the journalists that their visas were revoked.

----------------------------------------------

Editor's reply

Letter from Michael Vatikiotis, editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review, addressed to Police Major-General Tritos Ranaridhvichai at the Commission of Print and Printed Matter Supervision Division.

10 January, 2002

Dear General Ranaridvichai

I am writing in response to your 8 January 2002 letter addressed to our Bangkok office concerning a brief item published under the headline "A Right Royal Headache" in the edition of the Far Eastern Economic Review dated 10 January, 2002. Your letter raises the possibility that this article was published in violation of the Print Act of 1941 (2484 BE). Specifically, your letter cites Article 9 of the Print Act because you express a concern that the story could harm social discipline and the good morals of the Thai people in that it includes untrue information that could cause confusion and misunderstandings in the minds of readers.

Please understand that it is never the intention of the Review to publish any information that could harm social discipline or the morals of the Thai people. The Review is fully cognisant of and sensitive to the protocol surrounding reporting on the Royal family to Thailand. By no means did the article in question intend to be critical of the Royal institution, but rather was commentary on Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's government.

We understand that the edition of 10 January 2002 has been formally banned in Thailand. Indeed, even as this letter is being delivered, the new issue of the Review, with the cover date 17 January 2002, is replacing the last edition on the new-stands.

Your letter seeks the identity of the author of the article and the source or sources for the article. A number of people were involved in the preparation of the article but, ultimately, it is a product of, and published by, the Far Eastern Economic Review as an organisation. The sources for the article spoke in confidence to the Review. Confidential sources always must be handled with great care, and this is especially so where no particular statement by any particular source is alleged to be inaccurate.

I hope this letter clarifies our position and acts as a meaningful step in resolving our misunderstanding.

Very truly yours,

[signed]

Michael Vatikiotis

Editor

-------------------------------------------

Police demands

Official translation:

The Commission of Print and Printed Matter Supervision Division, Police Special Branch Bureau 2, sent the following letter to Shawn W Crispin and Rodney Tasker of the Far Eastern Economic Review on January 8.

Re: Article: "A Right Royal Headache" published in FEER on page 8, dated Jan 10, 2002.

[The magazine usually comes out a week before the published date].

According to Jan 10, 2002 edition of the FEER page 8 story on "A Right Royal Headache", which the screening committee of the Commission of Print and Printed Matter Supervision Division has jointly considered. The content points to a possible threat to peace and morality of the people. This is contrary to the Publishing Act BE2484 (AD1941) article 9. The meeting agreed to instruct the commander of the Special Branch Bureau 2, as the Commission of Print and Printed Matter Supervision Division, to ban the sale and distribution of the magazine as the article may cause confusion and disorder in society. You are asked to proceed as folows:

1. As the article is false and could lead to confusion and misunderstanding among the readers once it appears in public, please consider publishing a denial for the public to see.

2. We would like to know who has written the article.

3. We would like to know who was the source of the news.

Please respond to the letter by Jan 15, 2002, and follow order 1-3 of the Commission of Print and Printed Matter Supervision Division strictly.

Signed

Pol Maj Gen Tritos Ranaridhvichai,

Commander of the Special Branch Bureau 2

Bangkok Publishing Officer