Soldiers' protest against media a threat to freedom

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation on Sunday

Dozens of soldiers gather in front of the ASTV Manager headquarters yesterday morning calling for the newspaper to apologise to Army chief Prayuth Chan-ocha for its strong criticism. It was a second day in a row that soldiers protested against the newspaper

BANGKOK: -- The show of strength by some 50 disgruntled Army officers on Friday and again yesterday in front of the yellow-shirt mouthpiece ASTV Manager Daily newspaper, after its condemned Army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha as "lousy" over his handling of the Preah Vihear Temple dispute, is another low for freedom of expression in Thailand.

General Prayuth himself initially gave the blessing by saying his men were not defending him but the position of Army chief. He later told his men to restrain themselves.

It is undemocratic for soldiers to be gathering in uniform to pressure anyone, particularly the media, in order to prevent criticism of their boss. For the Army chief to give his blessing means he doesn't know that the military in a democratic country must submit itself to media scrutiny and criticism.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, Thai generals were pretty much untouchable. Things have changed over the decades. The move could be construed as an attempt to again make the position of Army chief beyond 'reproof'.

The Army has its spokesperson. If it is unhappy about a certain media portrayal of its chief, it can resort to defending the Army chief and countering the media through a press conference. In a way, the lack of discipline and awareness about the appropriate role and behaviour of Army officers is not new as some officers still believe the Army has a duty to stage a military coup to "save" the country from corrupt politicians and defend the monarchy.

On the other hand, some red shirts who claim to be fighting for democracy have expressed satisfaction and a sense of "sweet revenge" on social media sites that now ASTV, the media they regard as being full of lies and deception, was on the receiving end of the military's attention.

But what about freedom of expression?

Press freedom and freedom of expression is not something to be applied selectively to those on your side only. If the red shirts take satisfaction from such a military threat against ASTV, they not only fail to defend press freedom, but are unknowingly assisting the revival and strengthening of military power over politics and society. Not that the Army today has no extra-legal clout. As it is, the Army owns two out of six free television stations and 60 per cent of the radio airwaves.

Regardless of whether you agree with ASTV or not, whether you think it's a propaganda tool or not, society cannot defend freedom of the press as well as freedom of expression if its citizens do not defend the right of those with whom they disagree or oppose.

Principles cannot be applied selectively - otherwise they cannot be regarded as principles.

The soldiers' threat to ASTV is another symptom of Army indiscipline. The red shirts' failure to speak out and defend the rights of ASTV is also a proof of how the basic principle of press freedom and freedom of expression cannot be expected to be defended, whatever the political affiliation.

-- The Nation 2013-01-13

"is another low for the freedom of Expression".

From the evidence of that photo it seems to me that the Army are expressing that freedom of expression in a very democratic way...i.e. there are no molotov cocktails, machetes, rocket launchers, assorted rifles and small arms on display that we are priveleged to witness by for example, Thaksin and his Red thugs. Jeez there are not even any arms present with these guys who are supposed to have them.

Granted that it may not be protocol but as it is forgotten on this site many times that Thailand is not a western democracy (and it is also a land of sue and counter sue), and until it can start behaving like a democracy then like it or not the Army is going to have the final say. And that they seem to be doing that pretty well considering what is governing milking the country.

Edited January 13, 201313 yr by Roadman

Soldiers cannot act this way while in uniform. Yes ASTV is a yellow fascist mouthpiece but it is part if the price we all pay for freedom of expression. If it goes beyond the limits of those freedoms and expresses libellous or inflammatory messages it should be brought to book by the law not the army. The sight of even peaceful uniformed soldiers acting this way is sinister and threatening, it carries the message " we are armed and strong, we are powerful and have the potential for violent retribution, don't upset us".

Ahh, what a lovely way to start the day.

It's heartwarming to see the Nation columnist espouse freedom of expression.

Now, where pray tell was he when the army shut down the UDD radio stations?

This Nation chap obviously hasn't been listening to some TVFers who continually offer their repugnant position that only the army can save Thailand and that a coup d'etat must be undertaken.

Edited January 13, 201313 yr by geriatrickid

As a foreigner it is sometime difficult to make sense of some american expression, like ROFL and LMAO.

Today I finally get it.

The same people who yesterday were calling the army to topple the government "in the name of democracy" are now calling the same action of the army, protesting again what they see as an insult against a Thai institution, as a "threat to freedom".

Then follow a lot of BS about press freedom, "It is undemocratic for soldiers to be gathering in uniform to pressure anyone, particularly the media " . And most particularly the media who supported the last coup. So ungreatful !

Today will be the day I finally got the meaning of ROFL

Since when do gutter insults equate to "media scrutiny and criticism"?

Nation reports... "But what about freedom of expression?" And 50 soldiers hardly constitutes the 300,000+ soldiers opinions. Storm in a teacup comes to mind and be forgotten in a week.

Nation reports... "But what about freedom of exp<b></b>ression?" And 50 soldiers hardly constitutes the 300,000+ soldiers opinions. Storm in a teacup comes to mind and be forgotten in a week.

Let us hope so.

Dozens? So what is the official number, 36, 48 soldiers?

Edited January 13, 201313 yr by chooka

How misguided and utterly embarasing . Too many Batman movies.

As a foreigner it is sometime difficult to make sense of some american expression, like ROFL and LMAO.

Today I finally get it.

The same people who yesterday were calling the army to topple the government "in the name of democracy" are now calling the same action of the army, protesting again what they see as an insult against a Thai institution, as a "threat to freedom".

Then follow a lot of BS about press freedom, "It is undemocratic for soldiers to be gathering in uniform to pressure anyone, particularly the media " . And most particularly the media who supported the last coup. So ungreatful !

Today will be the day I finally got the meaning of ROFL

I do it every time I read one of your posts.

Soldiers cannot act this way while in uniform. Yes ASTV is a yellow fascist mouthpiece but it is part if the price we all pay for freedom of expression. If it goes beyond the limits of those freedoms and expresses libellous or inflammatory messages it should be brought to book by the law not the army. The sight of even peaceful uniformed soldiers acting this way is sinister and threatening, it carries the message " we are armed and strong, we are powerful and have the potential for violent retribution, don't upset us".

I agree there is no freedom without freedom of speech, it is the corner stone of a nations freedom.

Nation reports... "But what about freedom of expression?" And 50 soldiers hardly constitutes the 300,000+ soldiers opinions. Storm in a teacup comes to mind and be forgotten in a week.

You are missing the point, what these solders are really saying is don’t do it again or we will take action.

Depends on if they chose to protest or if they were ordered to

This case is very clear cut. Either the soldiers were ordered to stage the protest (most likely explanation), in which case there should be an enquiry to determine who gave the orders, so that they can be court martialled and dishonororably discharged, or they genuinely acted of their own volition (very unlikely), in which case they should all be court martialled and dishonorably discharged.

As a foreigner it is sometime difficult to make sense of some american expression, like ROFL and LMAO.

Today I finally get it.

The same people who yesterday were calling the army to topple the government "in the name of democracy" are now calling the same action of the army, protesting again what they see as an insult against a Thai institution, as a "threat to freedom".

Then follow a lot of BS about press freedom, "It is undemocratic for soldiers to be gathering in uniform to pressure anyone, particularly the media " . And most particularly the media who supported the last coup. So ungreatful !

Today will be the day I finally got the meaning of ROFL

I have to admit that I needed to google ROFL and LMAO now I get it too.

But I guess when you take a position that is so far to the right, as to even make Sarah Palin blush at the hypocrisy, makes it hard be hard to be consistent.

Freedom of speech is a pain in the a** for some, but necessary for the democracy.

One or two red-shirt supporter posts here demonstrate the inability to understand that others can judge an action on its merits & not in a closed-mind manner.

This protest has nothing to do with phantom calls for a coup 'yesterday' but is an act of intimidation against a media outlet. I agree with one poster that they should be disciplined &, if ordered to protest, the officers giving the order should be severely punished.

I wonder why the red-shirt leaders have remained silent. Probably difficult for them to support either side & they can hardly condemn intimidation.

As had been pointed out on another forum in the USA on joining the army soldiers relinquish their right to free speech and have to follow army code of conduct.

Here we see the consequences of "freedom of expression."

Clearly prayuth got his nickers in a twist over this article. Period.

As had been pointed out on another forum in the USA on joining the army soldiers relinquish their right to free speech and have to follow army code of conduct.

Here we see the consequences of "freedom of expression."

Clearly prayuth got his nickers in a twist over this article. Period.

This is not the USA, and not everybody agrees that the US is always right. From another current thread, the protesters sought permission from a very senior officer to make a protest and it was granted, so I can only assume that the army code of conduct was not breached.

In fact, other protesters might do well to emulate the peaceful nature of this and yesterday's event. If you can get over the nature of the protester's employment, you might well agree.

Freedom of speech is a pain in the a** for some, but necessary for the democracy.

Would that be freedom of speech for uniformed soldiers to make a peaceful protest, or for ASTV to breach their code of conduct?

Freedom of speech is a pain in the a** for some, but necessary for the democracy.

Would that be freedom of speech for uniformed soldiers to make a peaceful protest, or for ASTV to breach their code of conduct?

I'm surprised after your long discussion yesterday with Payboy, that you still think that uniformed soldiers are, or have a, right to protest. They don't if they are in uniform. I also don't think ASTV breached anything by giving their opinion & neither do the TJA.

Freedom of speech is a pain in the a** for some, but necessary for the democracy.

Would that be freedom of speech for uniformed soldiers to make a peaceful protest, or for ASTV to breach their code of conduct?

Does this not make this a private army then?

The c in c is criticized

The soldiers wear no insignia to disguise their units. Are they then representative of the whole army or just a small clique hence the jibe about a private army?

We all know how the army is run here and of the thousands of generals with their outside "interests."

He got the "smarts."

Astv is a joke of course. Sondhi must be bankrupt all over again with his low subscriber numbers etc.

Freedom of speech is a pain in the a** for some, but necessary for the democracy.

Would that be freedom of speech for uniformed soldiers to make a peaceful protest, or for ASTV to breach their code of conduct?

I'm surprised after your long discussion yesterday with Payboy, that you still think that uniformed soldiers are, or have a, right to protest. They don't if they are in uniform. I also don't think ASTV breached anything by giving their opinion & neither do the TJA.

You think describing a respected officer as a "woman with periods" is within the journalistic code of conduct? Do you understand the level of insult this conveys in this society? When does opinion and criticism stop and gutter insults start - how low should the press be allowed to go?

Discussions with anybody will not change my opinion that soldiers as individuals retain their rights of citizenship, including the right to protest. As they sought high level permission, there is no breach of RTA military regulations, despite the frantic reaching for other countries rules. I also see no problem with protesting in their "work clothes" as a means to indicate who they are.

Had they decided to protest in "mufti" the claim would have been that "soldiers disguised as civilians" tried to muzzle the press, or some other similar BS.

I also seem the claims of intimidation as rubbish. Intimidation is in the eye of the beholder, and personally I find myself much more comfortable in the presence of fully armed RTA soldiers than some drugged red thug waving a machete in my face. ASTV choose to be intimidated by polite protest because it makes them look good

Edited January 13, 201313 yr by OzMick

Freedom of speech is a pain in the a** for some, but necessary for the democracy.

Would that be freedom of speech for uniformed soldiers to make a peaceful protest, or for ASTV to breach their code of conduct?

Does this not make this a private army then?

The c in c is criticized

The soldiers wear no insignia to disguise their units. Are they then representative of the whole army or just a small clique hence the jibe about a private army?

We all know how the army is run here and of the thousands of generals with their outside "interests."

He got the "smarts."

Astv is a joke of course. Sondhi must be bankrupt all over again with his low subscriber numbers etc.

Do we have to go over this continually on different threads. Their commander identified their unit.

Do you realise that if they removed unit flashes they are out of uniform, which seems to be the biggest hang-up re the their protest?

In the OP's photo, I count 24 military personnel. Seven are in DPM fatigues, the rest in what I would class as No. 2 dress. All of them have badges on their berets, which should be enough to distinguish their unit. Those in No. 2's have collar badges, which could either denote their unit or their rank (not sure how the Thai Army use that badge position). All of their epaulettes are bare, which implies they have removed their rank insignia. All of their shirts still have their ribbons and badges giving their surname and initials. That same badge on those in the No. 2 uniforms will also state their rank.

It appears they are all unarmed, although the guy in the centre with the orange sunglasses has his thumbs tucked into a webbing belt. Whether he has a weapon attached to it or not, that can (through a convoluted interpretation of regulations) classify him as armed as he is wearing an item of combat equipment - equipment as opposed to clothing.

Conveniently their is a Starbucks sign behind them, and in the event of an enquiry they would no doubt say they all just met for a coffee and decided spontaneously to make a protest

During my tenure in the British Forces, it was quite clear that when in uniform in the home country you are a representative of the service anytime you're outside the camp. If in a foreign country, you are a representative of the home country at all times, in or out of uniform. It was also prohibited, without written authorisation, to wear any uniform at any civilian function including family funerals and weddings, let alone at protests etc. In fact, it was prohibited to engage in protests - permission was never granted to join one, in or out of uniform.

If Thai soldiers were to don civilian clothes and protest, I doubt much would be said of it. By doing it in uniform, the police wont move them on, and it gets a much bigger media play. Doesn't make it right, but it's something the organisers were likely aware of.

The one point that the op article makes that no-one else seems to have spotted is that it says they were all officers. It specifically stated that. With the exception of the two older guys to the left of the "mob" (the orange sunglasses guy and the one with a FSD cap at extreme left of group) they all look quite young and could be classmates from one of the infamous Thai officer schools' "Class of 25xx". If they're still trainee officers, they could be under orders to form this protest, and as trainees they would not have the guts to object to the order (or suggestion), they would obey so as not to blot their record.

Freedom of speech is a pain in the a** for some, but necessary for the democracy.

Would that be freedom of speech for uniformed soldiers to make a peaceful protest, or for ASTV to breach their code of conduct?

I'm surprised after your long discussion yesterday with Payboy, that you still think that uniformed soldiers are, or have a, right to protest. They don't if they are in uniform. I also don't think ASTV breached anything by giving their opinion & neither do the TJA.

You think describing a respected officer as a "woman with periods" is within the journalistic code of conduct? Do you understand the level of insult this conveys in this society? When does opinion and criticism stop and gutter insults start - how low should the press be allowed to go?

Discussions with anybody will not change my opinion that soldiers as individuals retain their rights of citizenship, including the right to protest. As they sought high level permission, there is no breach of RTA military regulations, despite the frantic reaching for other countries rules. I also see no problem with protesting in their "work clothes" as a means to indicate who they are.

Had they decided to protest in "mufti" the claim would have been that "soldiers disguised as civilians" tried to muzzle the press, or some other similar BS.

I also seem the claims of intimidation as rubbish. Intimidation is in the eye of the beholder, and personally I find myself much more comfortable in the presence of fully armed RTA soldiers than some drugged red thug waving a machete in my face. ASTV choose to be intimidated by polite protest because it makes them look good

I don't really want to get into a lengthy discussion with you on this topic as I respect your opinion.

But, IMO an insult is no more than words (sticks & stones etc) and if the army chief is upset enough he can file a defamation suit against ASTV. There have been worse insults written about prominent politicians in the media & here on TV.

Soldiers take orders, they do not do as they please. It is obvious that there is an organiser behind this protest & if the army has any idea of the message that this protest sends, they would court martial the organiser. Your comment about soldiers in plain clothes is just speculation & would at least have shown that they respect their uniform which would have reduced the intimidation factor.

I too would be less comfortable with thugs with machetes than these army protestors but that doesn't make either protest right. They whole idea was wrong from the start & just gives the government & red-shirts more 'ammunition' in using the coup as an excuse to change the constitution & whitewash you know who.

In the OP's photo, I count 24 military personnel. Seven are in DPM fatigues, the rest in what I would class as No. 2 dress. All of them have badges on their berets, which should be enough to distinguish their unit. Those in No. 2's have collar badges, which could either denote their unit or their rank (not sure how the Thai Army use that badge position). All of their epaulettes are bare, which implies they have removed their rank insignia. All of their shirts still have their ribbons and badges giving their surname and initials. That same badge on those in the No. 2 uniforms will also state their rank.

It appears they are all unarmed, although the guy in the centre with the orange sunglasses has his thumbs tucked into a webbing belt. Whether he has a weapon attached to it or not, that can (through a convoluted interpretation of regulations) classify him as armed as he is wearing an item of combat equipment - equipment as opposed to clothing.

Conveniently their is a Starbucks sign behind them, and in the event of an enquiry they would no doubt say they all just met for a coffee and decided spontaneously to make a protest

During my tenure in the British Forces, it was quite clear that when in uniform in the home country you are a representative of the service anytime you're outside the camp. If in a foreign country, you are a representative of the home country at all times, in or out of uniform. It was also prohibited, without written authorisation, to wear any uniform at any civilian function including family funerals and weddings, let alone at protests etc. In fact, it was prohibited to engage in protests - permission was never granted to join one, in or out of uniform.

If Thai soldiers were to don civilian clothes and protest, I doubt much would be said of it. By doing it in uniform, the police wont move them on, and it gets a much bigger media play. Doesn't make it right, but it's something the organisers were likely aware of.

The one point that the op article makes that no-one else seems to have spotted is that it says they were all officers. It specifically stated that. With the exception of the two older guys to the left of the "mob" (the orange sunglasses guy and the one with a FSD cap at extreme left of group) they all look quite young and could be classmates from one of the infamous Thai officer schools' "Class of 25xx". If they're still trainee officers, they could be under orders to form this protest, and as trainees they would not have the guts to object to the order (or suggestion), they would obey so as not to blot their record.

According to one anonymous blogger

"Clearly, this protest is not a bunch of soldiers acting politically and independently, for Major General Apirat Kongsompong, commander of the 11th Infantry Division, and a man with considerable political lineage and recent history has again defended his boss by attacking the media, again stating that “he and other troops would not tolerate their superior being insulted and were acting to protect the dignity of the army chief.” This is Army bullying and intimidation, yet again. Also confirming the support for this action is Deputy army commander General Dapong Rattanasuwan who “urged soldiers to show restraint in their protest.”

The soldiers actions are throwbacks to earlier decades when soldiers also protested against civilian politicians and other critics. The Yingluck Shinawatra government, timid in dealing with opponents, and its supporters may be tempted to cheer the Army boss for his quite reasonable support of the government on Preah Vihear.

However, that act of “reasonableness” is also wrong. Prayuth shouldn’t comment on political events at all. Comments should be from the Minister of Defense. The Yingluck government should be aware that this politicized Army must be brought under civilian control and professionalized/depoliticized if democratic government is to be embedded in Thailand. Just getting the military on its side is an act of politicization that will have negative and long-term consequences."

In the OP's photo, I count 24 military personnel. Seven are in DPM fatigues, the rest in what I would class as No. 2 dress. All of them have badges on their berets, which should be enough to distinguish their unit. Those in No. 2's have collar badges, which could either denote their unit or their rank (not sure how the Thai Army use that badge position). All of their epaulettes are bare, which implies they have removed their rank insignia. All of their shirts still have their ribbons and badges giving their surname and initials. That same badge on those in the No. 2 uniforms will also state their rank.

It appears they are all unarmed, although the guy in the centre with the orange sunglasses has his thumbs tucked into a webbing belt. Whether he has a weapon attached to it or not, that can (through a convoluted interpretation of regulations) classify him as armed as he is wearing an item of combat equipment - equipment as opposed to clothing.

Conveniently their is a Starbucks sign behind them, and in the event of an enquiry they would no doubt say they all just met for a coffee and decided spontaneously to make a protest

During my tenure in the British Forces, it was quite clear that when in uniform in the home country you are a representative of the service anytime you're outside the camp. If in a foreign country, you are a representative of the home country at all times, in or out of uniform. It was also prohibited, without written authorisation, to wear any uniform at any civilian function including family funerals and weddings, let alone at protests etc. In fact, it was prohibited to engage in protests - permission was never granted to join one, in or out of uniform.

If Thai soldiers were to don civilian clothes and protest, I doubt much would be said of it. By doing it in uniform, the police wont move them on, and it gets a much bigger media play. Doesn't make it right, but it's something the organisers were likely aware of.

The one point that the op article makes that no-one else seems to have spotted is that it says they were all officers. It specifically stated that. With the exception of the two older guys to the left of the "mob" (the orange sunglasses guy and the one with a FSD cap at extreme left of group) they all look quite young and could be classmates from one of the infamous Thai officer schools' "Class of 25xx". If they're still trainee officers, they could be under orders to form this protest, and as trainees they would not have the guts to object to the order (or suggestion), they would obey so as not to blot their record.

I'd like to correct a few of your mistakes.

The article referred to "officers" but it was quite clear in other references that they were mostly non-commissioned. I did observe one with multiple pip epaulette insignia, possibly a lieutenant (far left in OP picture, wearing a forage cap). Your claim that they have removed rank insignia is wrong.

The claim that someone is armed because they wear a webbing belt is ludicrous. It is a method for carrying water bottles, a glorified backpack.

Your quoting of UK regs is irrelevant. TIT and it appears the RTA regulations are quite different. It gets a bigger media play - well yes, that is the point of a protest.

They are NOT all officers. You have confused a generic term for servicemen with its specific usage. Which makes the rest of the paragraph plain silly.

Nation reports... "But what about freedom of expression?" And 50 soldiers hardly constitutes the 300,000+ soldiers opinions. Storm in a teacup comes to mind and be forgotten in a week.

You are missing the point, what these solders are really saying is don’t do it again or we will take action.

These soldiers are not saying anything other than what they are told. They are cleary following orders that should not have been given to them in these circumstances. Someone at the very top will enevntually say"Stop this foolishness, and act like "soldiers, not lawmakers"?

Edited January 14, 201313 yr by stoli