Censorship efforts do more to confuse the public than protect them

Thailand, famed for its magical temples, white sandy beaches, spicy papaya salad and notorious airport taxi drivers, is also creating a huge name for itself in the field of censorship.

Most of us have been completely bewildered at times when trying to figure out just what can and cannot be shown on Thai television, movies and in magazines.

One movie which has created a lot of controversy recently is the award-winning "Syndromes and a Century", which had four scenes cut, including one of a funky modern-age monk strumming his guitar like Eric Clapton and another flying a toy UFO. According to the all-wise golden-oldie censor crew, monks ought only to be portrayed in a positive light. Well how come sordid stories accompanied by sensational photographs of monks getting caught smooching lady disciples, watching dirty movies, drinking alcohol and knocking off drugs make headline news in the Thai press? Other folk to be held only in high esteem and not to be portrayed in any negative way are doctors; scenes censored in "Syndromes of a Century" were of male ones chugging whiskey, kissing and getting an erection in public. But I can perfectly recall a movie from of the past based on the true-life story of a doctor killing his wife! Does this mean that a doctor killing his wives is socially acceptable but drinking whiskey and getting randy is not?

In comparison, the censors over the years have never bothered to complain much about on-screen violence.

Let's have a look at the typical weekend routine of "Bank", a TV watcher in the fourth grade. After taking his morning shower he can tune into some nasty action thriller at 9am. After lunch and a quick nap, he can sit back and enjoy a good old-fashioned horror movie. Even though the special effects may be completely corny in the eyes of a sane adult, Bank will be on the edge of his seat, half-petrified. Next, after dinner and a game of ping-pong on the veranda, he can be awed at some of the violent scenes in Thai soap operas. So, a monk playing with a toy UFO is not allowed to be shown to Bank but he can be stunned at the sizzling scenes of a drunkard father beating his teenage daughter with his leather belt, or a delinquent divorcee shoving a gun into her ex-lover's head. Does that mean that a man beating up his wife and daughter is socially acceptable but for two doctors to kiss is not?

According to the censors, drinking and smoking are dreadful and depictions of them ought never to be screened in public, yet showing real dead bodies is perfectly fine. Pick up a copy of a Thai newspaper and there is often a dead body stuck on the front page with gory headlines along the lines of "Two-year-old mutilated by junkie mother", or "Gay heartbroken farang jumps from 23rd floor in Pattaya". The censors have done their homework, just a little though, and the dead body is slightly blurred out.

The same scenario goes on in TV news too. Reports of murders or suicides are at times accompanied by the cameraman zooming in on the battered corpse. Again, the picture is slightly faded-out. But even a four-year-old knows what it is all about, a technique that is about as effective as the blurring out of scenes of gangsters puffing away on huge cigars in some Hong Kong movie. Other times however, they don't bother censoring any images of corpses at all, as it's just too much hassle, especially when there are just too many dead bodies, like after a horrific bus crash. News of the tsunami was by far the worst I have ever seen in Thailand; live reports with bodies hanging from trees and dangling from roofs used as background. Does that mean therefore that showing dead bodies to youngsters is socially acceptable but images of smoking somehow is not?

Thailand is not exactly famed for its smart criminals, who after robbing a bank decide to flee...home instead of into the jungle. But even a criminal like this, the dumbest of the lot, can get plenty of ideas for future escapades by reading a copy of his local newspaper. He might simply pick it up and be thrilled to see sensational headlines along the lines of "Home of superstar actress burgled". Next, while reading the inside story, he is delighted by the meticulousness of the journalism: "The house of Mrs Somtum, located at 34/75 Soi Namprik, Bang Pa Prat Road, was full of valuables at the time including a set of very rare Burmese rubies, diamond necklaces and antique gold cutlery. Fortunately however, the burglar could not find them".

The reality in Thailand is that once you are arrested you are guilty until proven innocent and the Thai press enjoys nothing more than releasing all of the suspect's personal data. Besides every address they can muster up, they also print his mother's name, brother's girlfriend's name, auntie's name, employer's name and even his dog's name. The same goes for female Grade-7 students who have been the victims of their child-molesting maths teacher. Even though the name of the victim's school is not allowed to be mentioned, they can write "The pretty 12-year-old attends a very well known all girls' school in Dishy district, Nonthaburi province, located just 200 metres north of the boat pier".

According to the censors, drinking is an awful sin and ought not to be promoted in any way. On the other hand, let us take a look at gambling. Have a stroll around your neighbourhood on any Saturday evening and you will be able to witness scores of male adults studying very closely the latest edition of some football magazine. If you thought they were admiring some photo of Ronaldo or Rooney then you are wrong, they are indeed studying the latest betting scores for the Man U-Chelsea match. And every publication is full of up-to-date odds! Does that mean that promoting illegal gambling is socially acceptable but alcohol is not?

TV censors have successfully kept randy men from enjoying the sight of women in skimpy bikinis from appearing onscreen. Never mind though, they can simply purchase any soccer, gossip or fun club magazine and they will find it full of adverts for virtually pornographic mobile wallpapers of naughty looking women. Perhaps the censors with their failing eyesight haven't noticed that along with these, which can easily be downloaded, there are clips that would have them hitting the panic button if even a minute of it aired on TV.

Media censorship is full of inconsistencies and double standards. Concerned authorities ought to seriously sit down and consider that most of the adult population does not like to be treated like children. If they wish to continue with their censoring efforts, then it is advised that they get out a pen and paper and write up some respectable standards.

Editorial Opinion by Stephen Cleary - The Nation - 12 May 2007

I agree that the censorship situation in Thailand is most confusing.

Like many countries, sex and nudity is strictly taboo, yet sensational violence is accepted and even promoted !

Take Tony Jaa's recent movies (like Ong Bak and The Protector). 90 minutes of people getting beaten to a pulp in full cinematic glory, yet if he was shown in a scene kissing a girl, it would likely be blurred out !

They can show dead bodies hanging from trees, splattered on streets, decomposing on beds, yet if a movie scene depicts someone actually pointing a weapon at another person, it is blurred out (even though the next or previous scene shows the same person still pointing the weapon, as long as it doesn't appear to be directly aimed at another person, it's OK).

I can understand wanting to set a high moral standard for the people, but who decides what that standard is ? Who censors the censors ? Who makes the decision that violence/death is acceptable, but sex/nudity is bad.

In western countries, we know who the crusaders are that push the standards, is there a Thai version of the "Moral Majority" here ?

Well done that man! That has been one of my main gripes about Thai media. No cigarettes to be shown, but bodies on the front pages of the newspapers, hey, no probs! And as for that old excuse "It educates people so they don't drive drunk/leave their child unsupervised on a balcony/whatever" that is complete b*ll*cks, IMHO. It is sensationalism geared towards ghoulishness. Simple. I've seen my father's body on a front page of a Thai newspaper (suicide) & an accquaintance's (murder). What education value did they have? "Don't kill yourself or get murdered?"

What is the worst, for me, is my little boy's reactions. We buy a lot of old newspapers for the dogs & when I'm putting out fresh paper, he'll often grab a Thai one & show great interest in the pics of bodies or crashes. He's not scared or disgusted, just morbidly fascinated. He's not even 6 yet! When a 5 year old is already desensitised to these images, there's something wrong, IMO. But, hey, I s'pose it's better than him seeing pics of people kissing or drinking

Well written article

This topic features quite regularly in conversations at the ex-pat watering hole. None of understand it, and a few of us have young kids that we are naturally concerned about.

I was staggered one day, to find my wife and daughter (5 at the time) watching 'The Ring' on DVD, I took a browse through their video collection and found horror, war, murder etc sitting next to Tom & Jerry............ and she now wonders why 'little girl' (now 7) doesn't want to sleep in her own room at night.

Dr Who in the 60's used to scare the wits out of me when I was a kid, and it did give me the occasional nightmare. The stuff that is going around is 100 times worse and it can only have one or two effects, traumatised or desensitised.

Not this hoary old chestnut again.

How can we discuss censorship whilst being so heavily censored ?

The law is an ass.

Not this hoary old chestnut again.

How can we discuss censorship whilst being so heavily censored ?

The law is an ass.

Again ?

This was idle and buried for 15 months until you brought it up again !

Not this hoary old chestnut again.

How can we discuss censorship whilst being so heavily censored ?

The law is an ass.

Again ?

This was idle and buried for 15 months until you brought it up again !

But some issues never go away do they KD ...... I'll still stand by the statement I made over a year ago, it isn't soley due to TV (television) but it is the major reason why most kids being raised today think that a husband slapping his wife around is perfectly aceptable (which it isn't)

But some issues never go away do they KD ......

Sad, but true.

I made my last post before I found out that Jai Dee had intentionally moved the thread here (I thought originally that LK had dredged it up from the depths for some reason).

It is still a sad statement on mankind's morality, where the creation of life (i.e. sex) is heavily restricted, while destruction of life (in almost any manner) is virtually glorified. I'm not a porn fan (unless I'm also the star ), but still, to censor even the slightest bit of nudity but not be concerned about horrifying and gory violence just seems pretty screwed up to me.

Take the recent Rambo for example. One of the most violent of the series. Arrows through heads. Limbs blown off. Pigs eating people. Implied rape. People hung. Heads on stakes.

Yet if the female star had of bared her breast(s) and kissed Rambo at the end of the movie, it would have been blurred out (at best) if not censored out entirely.

Any wonder why our societies are getting more and more violent ?

I think it has also been studied (but can't be arsed to look for it right now) about how some societies that are heavily repressed sexually, also tend to be more perverted (there is a better way to phrase that). Like Japan for example.

Then again, places like Denmark and Holland (not as sexually repressed) also have their share of "over the top" perverts. Exceptions to the norm perhaps, or examples of how too much of a good thing can be bad ?

I'll still stand by the statement I made over a year ago, it isn't soley due to TV (television) but it is the major reason why most kids being raised today think that a husband slapping his wife around is perfectly aceptable (which it isn't)

My Wife has two cousins, both under 20 yrs old, both with atleast two kids, both are missing teeth and both are still with the same guys who caused those missing teeth. Nobody seems to mind, least of all the two girls.

During some arguments with my missus she deliberately pushes me and when I don't physically push back rather verbally she tells me I am not a real man. What is a real man then? someone who would deck her? I think that is what she was implying and I have been very tempted to prove I am a "real man" but in reality I am a "real man" and would never hit my wife.

I have never seen her folks fight in 6 years of marriage so where does she get the idea that "real men" beat their wives from?

It is ok to beat the crap out of my wife but heaven forbid if I put my hand on top of her head

It is ok to beat the crap out of my wife but heaven forbid if I put my hand on top of her head

Point your foot at her and see what happens.

(hmmm, on second thought, maybe not a good idea. TV would probably have to recruit a new moderator soon afterwards !)

See the two posts above ..... it's been a long day and I really can't be arsed to do that multi-quote thing that Moss has mastered.

That is my whole point, from birth they are taught to respect their elders (even if they are a total <deleted>) sleep with your head towards sunrise, never point the soles of your feet at anyone, or anything that you are likely to ingest, the Poo Yai Ban is knowledgeable of all things, if it's wearing orange robes and carrying a silver pot, you need to donate some rice (money is better, and much more lucky) helmets only protect you from the police, in a serious accident, the amulet will suffice ....... should I go on ...... I don't think I need to.

All that is perfectly normal..... add the influence of television to a poorly educated society ..... guess what ..... welcome to Thailand.

(should I close this window without posting ...... nah ... this time I think I'll post it)

I wont be making any more statements on this thread as my postings appear to confuse Kerryd.

(I'd like to think the sand is to blame and not my posting )

I wont be making any more statements on this thread as my postings appear to confuse Kerryd.

(I'd like to think the sand is to blame and not my posting )

Nah, I'm home now, so it's probably the Jack Daniels that is confuzzling me !

(as I did mention later on, I didn't realise that JD had dug this up and moved it. All I saw was your response, which did confuse me a bit, until later, when I became unconfuzzled (aka sober maybe ?) and then all was clearish.)