Bangkok Post Sacks The Chief Editor

[dkstoney]

It's their paper and they can "revamp" it anytime they want. They could fire the whole damned staff and it wouldn't change a thing. They don't write about anything meaningful anyway. Maybe a few human suffering pieces here and there, but they don't report with any kind of significance and insight. The only thing their worried about is losing the tit that feeds them. If things are so bad--GO START YOUR OWN PAPER AND STOP TRYING TO HOLD PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE TO A VISION THAT THEY LOST MANY YEARS AGO WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF MONEY INTO THEIR LIVES THROUGH ADVERTISING SALES.

[Up2U]

As the only time I read the BKK Post is when I get it free (hotels, Thai Air, some coffee shops) and thenn put it down within ten minutes, maybe I should keep quiet. But I won't.

Yes this is a bland, non-controversial bit of toilet paper. And the editor is ultimately responsible for policy - or why else would he show up for work? The proprietor(s) may dictate the overall strategy, but day-to-day running is down to the editor - which stories to chase, which to publish, how to report them and so on.

I see that the SCMP has a 20% holding. This may account for some of the blandness. They were not known for crusading journalism when I worked in HK. But do we want that sort of thing?

What sells a foreign-language newspaper in a country such as Thailand?

Is it aimed at tourists, expatriates or English-speaking Thais (or any combination thereof)?These are three different markets, needing different strategies and tactics to capture the greater share of the market. Maybe the strategy has changed and Veera just wasn't up to it?

But still, to me, this is an ass-kissing government rag and I still will not buy it.

[MekhongKurt]

Lead editorial in "The Nation" February 23, 2004:

EDITORIAL: Crisis of credibility for the media

Published on Feb 23, 2004

Thailand will be counting the costs of this month for many years to come

February 2004 will be remembered as one of the darkest months in the history of the Thai media. A ruling by an arbitration panel not only favoured compensation for iTV but also allowed the television network alter its news-heavy programming in favour of more entertainment. And then on Friday the board of directors of Post Publishing Co removed Veera Prateepchaikul as editor of the Bangkok Post. The journalists on the English-language daily issued an unprecedented statement seeking editorial independence. But it appears that political interference and business interests have won the day.

The government’s attempts to rein in the media are plain not only to the Thai public but to the entire international community. The Thai press is retreating into the kind of government-controlled creature found in Malaysia and Singapore, places where the media are known as backers of the government’s authority, policies and political continuity.

The cost of the government’s efforts to silence the media are mounting for the Thai people, both rich and poor, young and old, urban and rural. With the ruling party’s majority in the House of Representatives, as well as its stepped-up attempts to dominate the Senate, the independent agencies established to check the government’s power and the police and military establishments, authoritarianism in democratic guise is showing signs of winning the fight for Thailand. So what is the cost?

First and most visible is the use of the government budget. To counter public apprehension of its intention to tighten its grip on the country, the government will increase spending on populist programmes to win public sentiment. This wasteful spending of public money is not for the long-term good of the country but an attempt to confuse the public’s perception of the government’s intentions.

Second, it will be that much easier to sweep under the carpet any mistakes by ministers and those working on behalf of the government. A prime example was the initial handling of the bird-flu crisis. The press was deliberately kept in the dark about the outbreak, resulting in the unnecessary deaths of people who did not know about the threat posed by the disease. To date, no ministers or officials have been punished for failing to issue timely public warnings, nor have any of the people accused of covering up the disease.

Third, direct corruption and policy corruption have been allowed to thrive. People and businesses associated with the government appear to be getting overlooked when it comes to their unscrupulous dealings, some of which relate to lucrative state privatisation projects.

The public is at the point now where conflict of interest is a matter of course, as if this country had no government. The degree of the rule of law has plunged. This is at a time when Malaysia has managed to achieve respectability for the way Kuala Lumpur has started going after corrupt politicians and officials.

Fourth, nepotism is on the rise as people seek out the favour of ministers who can reward them for loyalty. Deals are struck with those who are “for the government”, and outsiders are shunned.

Last but not least is Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s desire to establish himself as Thailand’s unchallenged leader. He says no wrong and does no wrong. People close to him now say the prime minister’s every word is taken to refer to some future action. Personality signals like this have come to dominate every branch of the government.

Thaksin may claim to have no direct involvement in the iTV ruling or the shake-up at the Bangkok Post. But that is not enough.

It would be in the interest of any good, respectable and tolerant leader to ensure that a station like iTV kept to its original mission as a news station and that the credibility of the Bangkok Post, one of the country’s windows to the outside world, not be impaired.

Yet Thaksin remains above these decisive moments in modern Thai history. His belief that democracy is less important than the people’s happiness is an illusion of power. He is not rebuilding or reforming Thailand. He is merely re-branding it in the worst possible way.

The Nation

This is an interesting thread, particularly the dissenting views that perhaps government interference was not behind Veera's removal and the input from an insider.

As we all know, perception matters more than reality. And the current perception certainly is that the government did demand Veera's removal -- whether that perception is fair to the government or not.

If the government is indeed innocent, I don't see what members of it can do, easily, to convince people of their innocence, because of the history of press-bashing that dogs some members of the government. Further, should politicians take the stand the the paper was wrong to fire Veera, isn't it possible -- even likely -- that some people would view *that* as government interference in a private business as well?

The past few months have been unkind to the ruling party. First there were the controversial moves made to try to project Bangkok in the best possible light during the APEC summit. Next came Thaksin's business empire getting involved in the aviation industry and all the hue and cry that caused. Then the iTV brouhaha arose. Perhaps worst of all has been the bird flu crisis and the continuing allegations of a deliberate cover-up by government officials. And now this case of being linked to Veera's dismissal. Separate from all those issues is the hotly-debated bar-closing times set to go into effect next month.

Government members, from Prime Minister Thaksin right on down the line, sure have their plates full if they plan to try to improve their public images.

[The_Moog]

The Bangkok Post is owned by a company - Post Publishing. This company is publicly traded and you are all free to buy shares in it.

Whilst the control freakery of the Government is undeniable, lets not lose sight of the fact that newspapers reflect the political views of their owners - who are there ultimately to make money.

If Thaksin's friends want to exercise their right to buy shares in any media company, then this is a free country and nothing stops them from doing so.

[wilgus]

I think it's only charitable to point out that the Post is Thai company, and they (we?) generally do things the Thai way -- which is non-confrontational, subtle, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

The Post has remained in business for 58 years, not for fearlessly telling the truth, but from walking a fine line between various opposing forces and factions.

It may not have told the whole, complete truth, but it certainly told much more that it seems to be getting credit for in this discussion. The Post has raised numerous issues -- Aids, orphans, gas pipelines, troubles in the South, corruption, etc., etc., etc. This is usually done in a gentle manner, not the in-your-face type journalism that Westerners enjoy.

What has gone on this past week is deeply troubling, espeically since Veera is also the president of the Thai Journalists Association. His sacking was a message to the Thai media industry, in general, and to the Post in particular.

One can only hope that supporters of press freedom will rally around the Post. If they don't, I have the feeling that press freedom in Thailand might well be a thing of the past, even more so than it is right now.

[wilgus]

And another thing ... !

Newspapers depend on advertisers. If you offend your advertisers, they will go elsewhere. Without their revenue, the business will collapse. Not a pretty reality, but that's how it is.

What happens when major advertisers are friends of the Prime Minister? What if he gets mad at your coverage and suggests to his friends that they stop advertising?

What happens when your major shareholder is the owner, oh, say, the Central Group?

What if one of your biggest customers is a phone company owed by, oh, say, the prime minister's family?

Are we free to speak our minds? Are you kidding?

If you were the editor, how would you walk this minefield?

[george]

Editor quits over censorship

BANGKOK: Rungruang Preechakul’s unceremonious resignation as editor of the longestablished Siamrath Weekly News magazine earlier this month might have seemed a lowkey affair, but yesterday he finally broke his silence and told The Nation things were not quite as they seemed.

The 48yearold exeditor of the country’s third largest weekly news magazine said his publication had been subjected to censorship on “every page” since the beginning of this month.

Without his knowledge, 30,000 copies of the 90page issue covering February 6 to 12, which was critical of the Thaksin administration’s handling of the bird flu outbreak, was recalled by the owner just hours before it was due to be distributed on February 5.

A heavily revised edition was then released on the newsstands a day late without anyone knowing what had transpired.

The content was changed from a report strongly critical of the government to a simple explanation of what the government had been doing to deal with the outbreak.

“All the existing reports had been removed and the lead story of that edition was rewritten ... My only choice was to resign so the company might survive,” said Rungruang, referring directly to political pressure emanating from the Thaksin administration.

The following day – February 6 – Rungruang, who had been at the helm of the magazine for the past seven years, decided to get out. During his last days as caretaker editor of the next edition, he stayed away from national politics completely.

Its cover story dealt with ethnic fighting in Burma.

But the censors hounded him into the wee hours.

“The management told me they wanted to censor every page. Even at three in the morning, while I was writing my editorial, they came to see me to ensure I was not intending to drop a bomb [thing thuan] before I left. So I wrote about ethnic rifts in Burma instead.”

Twenty other columnists – including wellknown journalistcumwriter Chatcharin Chaiwat and SeaWritepoet laureate Praiwarin Khaongarm, along with four of the six fulltime editorial staff – also quietly left, or simply stopped writing for the magazine.

Chatchawan Kongudom, a Bangkok senator and owner and chairman of Siamrath Weekly News, was unavailable for comment.

Rungruang said it all began during last October’s Apec summit, when the government went into serious imagemanagement mode.

Siamrath stood out as one of the Thaksin administration’s most critical voices in the Thailanguage press. “We tried to inform the public that the government’s measures, be it rounding up the poor [homeless] people or dogs, were facile. We also questioned who was truly benefiting from any [governmentproposed] free trade agreement.

“I don’t know when it happened exactly, but the government eventually brought pressure to bear on Siamrath’s owner. From then on any reports had to be carefully written and, if deemed negative towards the government, censored by the owner.”

Rungruang suggested Thailand was moving towards autocratic rule.

“It’s already autocratic today,” he said from his home province of Kanchanaburi. The loss of a free press in this country would make any future conflicts in society volatile, because no independent media would be left to bring it to the public’s attention, he said.

“Without a whistle or some form of outlet, water in a boiling kettle will simply explode,” Rungruang said. And that is how he believes conflicts in society will pan out under Thaksin.

He insisted, however, that his departure was amicable.

“I have discussed the matter with the [magazine’s] owner and he understood I wanted to stand fast by my journalistic principles. The owner thinks the magazine is not strong enough to withstand [pressure from the government]. And if we resist it further, then more pressure will befall us,” he said.

“Thus the only way [it can survive] is to change the style of the magazine, as you see it now, as a variety, soft [news] publication which praises the government when it can. Whatever we [once] might have stood and fought for will now be avoided … I don’t feel sorry this day has come. I have worked according to my heart and I am satisfied.”

“I won’t be doing anything now,” said Rungruang, who intends to lead a quiet life in Kanchanaburi.

“I know the storm is harsh and I would rather evade it … I have also risked much by talking to you. Someone might come and hit [kill] me.”

--The Nation 2004-02-25

[stumonster]

“Without a whistle or some form of outlet, water in a boiling kettle will simply explode,” Rungruang said. And that is how he believes conflicts in society will pan out under Thaksin.

nice

I think the Post should be more concerned with sacking its proof readers, every edition I have read has spelling, grammar and logic mistakes somewhere in it.

I usually only buy wednesdays edition for the database section, The international review normally brings a smile to my face.

[mrentoul]

I think the Post should be more concerned with sacking its proof readers, every edition I have read has spelling, grammar and logic mistakes somewhere in it.

There's an expert born every minute.

Some helpful person at the Post has copied off pages from this thread and posted them on the newsroom noticeboard under the heading ''what people on the internet are saying about us'' (or words to that effect).

Can't tell you how many ''hits'' the noticeboard has had but it seems to be attracting a fair few readers. Whoever culled the stuff was considerate enough to remove the poster's names, I am pleased to say.

Articles from various newspapers about the censorship row have also been posted.

[ChiangMaiThai]

And the 'Why I hate Dear Leader and Thai Yet Thai' list becomes a little bit longer.

[plachon]

I think the Post should be more concerned with sacking its proof readers, every edition I have read has spelling, grammar and logic mistakes somewhere in it.

There's an expert born every minute.

Some helpful person at the Post has copied off pages from this thread and posted them on the newsroom noticeboard under the heading ''what people on the internet are saying about us'' (or words to that effect).

Can't tell you how many ''hits'' the noticeboard has had but it seems to be attracting a fair few readers. Whoever culled the stuff was considerate enough to remove the poster's names, I am pleased to say.

Articles from various newspapers about the censorship row have also been posted.

I'm glad that this semi-free speech website is where the Post staffers now go for their "what the public think" about their newspaper. It shows that the newspaper itself is in danger of nearing the end of its days in Thailand as a media source of choice for readers concerned about free speech, democracy and human rights issues. There are many fine people I'm sure at the Post, who've tried hard to present factual news without interference and under difficult circumstances, but the previous era of press freedom is now coming to a close. I applaud those staff making their silent protest by wearing black and I sincerely hope things turn a corner soon, but I fear "going to live a quiet life in Kanchanaburi" is not the solution that is required just now.

[cdnvic]

And another thing ... !

Newspapers depend on advertisers. If you offend your advertisers, they will go elsewhere. Without their revenue, the business will collapse. Not a pretty reality, but that's how it is.

What happens when major advertisers are friends of the Prime Minister? What if he gets mad at your coverage and suggests to his friends that they stop advertising?

What happens when your major shareholder is the owner, oh, say, the Central Group?

What if one of your biggest customers is a phone company owed by, oh, say, the prime minister's family?

Are we free to speak our minds? Are you kidding?

If you were the editor, how would you walk this minefield?

That's true to a point, and believe me, after writing a column that leads to a big advertising contract being cancelled a writer learns all about it. I was fortunate to have an editor that looked at it from a different angle. If your readers lose faith and stop reading then you have real troubles. Fancy advertisments in an unread paper don't do anyone much good.

cv

[The Quill]

----

[george]

Follow-up:

PRESS FREEDOM: Foreign journalists alarmed by situation

Goings-on at 'Post'and 'Siamrath' bode ill for

Bangkok-based foreign journalists have expressed alarm over the loss of press freedom in Thailand, following recent censorship rows at the Bangkok Post and Siamrath weekly news magazine.

"It's a tragedy. A free and vibrant press is a cornerstone of any democratic society," said Time magazine reporter Robert Horn.

"But Thailand has a leader who places no value on democracy. And in the long run, Thai society will suffer for the lack of a free press," he added.

Bangkok Post editor Veera Prateepchaikul was removed on February 20, allegedly because reports in the newspaper had criticised the government of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Siamrath editor Rungruang Preechakul resigned earlier this month after an issue of the weekly magazine was censored by its owner to remove a report critical of the government.

"I'm surprised that Veera has not spoken out on the issue, to clarify whether there was any injustice in his removal or not," said the Asia-Pacific correspondent for Inter Press Service, Marwaan Macan-Markar.

"That silence hurts Thai journalism," he said.

A Western journalist who requested anonymity said: "The attempt to pressure and influence the media is in fact very dangerous to Thailand in the long run."

"If newspapers do not feel they can report accurately and honesty this removes a very important information-gathering mechanism.

"It means they [politicians] are increasingly reliant on their officials to give an assessment of what's going on," the journalist said.

This puts Thaksin and his government in a situation where they are making decisions without having all the facts, the journalist added.

"This is one of the crucial weaknesses of authoritarianism. They are increasingly out of touch with reality," the journalist said.

Another foreign correspondent said that if political interference was behind Veera's removal it was "a cause of concern".

"Thailand has been known as a free society with a free press, and that's why we're here," said the correspondent, who also asked not to be named.

Meanwhile, Pitaya Wongkul, vice chairman of the Campaign for Media Reform, said there were now few differences between the Thaksin administration and the dictatorial regime of P Pibulsongkram decades ago when it came to freedom of the mass media.

"Back then, the elections were corrupt, marked by a lot of vote-buying, so Pibulsongkram had to shut down the critical press. Today, the reality is that when certain political and business groups have become all too powerful, they are tempted to threaten the press in various forms, including the acquisition of critical media outlets," he told a seminar organised yesterday by the Newspaper Reporters Association of Thailand.

"I think the [Thaksin] government is wrong in presuming that it could do anything once the mass media are under its control. In the end, the public will know the truth. No politicians could lie to the people forever," he said.

--The Nation 2004-02-29

[dkstoney]

Well, I hope that while he's retiring to a nice, quiet life in Kanchanaburi, he's writes rabidly and creates some real criticism; starts his own press/publication; speaks out.

[parryhandy]

Well, I hope that while he's retiring to a nice, quiet life in Kanchanaburi, he's writes rabidly and creates some real criticism; starts his own press/publication; speaks out.

really dont think people can comprehend what great risk these people take by speaking out not just to themselves but their families as well . I rember reading a tiny piece in the Bangkok post about a year ago about the ex- Thai VAT employee who had testified to a senator about massive vat fraud by a certain well known corporation.Ayear later before his testamony ever came before a comittee he was mysteriously shot and killed by a motorcyle gunman and nothing has been followed up since.

Would you put your life and more importantly the life of your innocent family on the line when most of soceity seem too greedy to care ? There are only a few people left who can afford to speak out sadly.

[The Quill]

I mentioned above that the chairman has a son-in-law working for the paper.

He was the guy who would get into the computer, find out what was going in the paper the next day, and phone the editor asking for changes.

No one knows to what extent he was acting on his own or at the behest of his father-in-law. He is head of a management unit at the paper, but this would not normally justify his taking a work computer home, as he did, or the high level of access he enjoyed to the production system.

Anyway, in the aftermath of the editor losing his job a group of senior editorial people met this guy (the son-in-law) for lunch and told him his interfering in the editorial process was unacceptable. They asked him to return the computer, which he has now done.

Apparently the censorship crowd was shocked when the affair made it into the New York Times (among other overseas papers) and are feeling rather embarrassed and stupid.

[..::LegalAlien::..]

Probably have to book a flight out of Thailand now... oh hum!

[Guest IT Manager]

And the 'Why I hate Dear Leader and Thai Yet Thai' list becomes a little bit longer.

My erudite off-spring coined the following, specifically for members of the forum:

Taksin yed Thailand

Taksin rakh Taksin

Thailand is Tdollay

IT

[The Quill]

Published on Mar 5, 2004

The Nation

Editors and reporters alike should use Reporter’s Day to consider the state of the country’s freedom of the press

March 5 is the day celebrated by journalists in this country as Reporter's Day. Traditionally, it is supposed to be a day during which journalists are allowed the luxury of taking time out to reflect on the state of their profession. There is little need for too much reflection this year. That the Thai press is in very bad shape is apparent to nearly everyone in the industry. Considering what has happened to the Thai media in the past few weeks, not to mention in the past three years under Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, one can only conclude that the press has been cowed and co-opted by the powers-that-be to an unprecedented degree.

Thaksin continues to pretend that he does not know what is going on. He knows only one thing: If the economy is good, there will be enough advertising revenue circulating to keep all newspapers and media outlets alive. In a way, he is correct. But only half so.

What he has not said is that advertising, especially from state enterprises and companies affiliated with his family's Shin Corp, seems only to go to pro-government newspapers. Just flip through Thailand's dailies and it should be clear where the advertising money is going. It is also clear how dailies that enjoy extra ad revenue report each day's events.

Unfortunately, not everybody can read all of the roughly 20 dailies in the country in the interest of comparing content and editorial stance. No wonder some publishers and editors have so shamelessly become government cheerleaders.

Governments in other countries might have to control their media with an iron fist, but here it is not necessary as many media outlets seem more than willing to prostitute themselves. It is amazing that some publishers and editors would lie about the pressure and other strong-arm tactics that affect their editorial integrity. Thai journalists have repeatedly had to do their jobs in hostile environments during the more than 70 years since the country reverted from an absolute monarchy to a parliamentary system. They have fought many battles against military dictators who tried to limit their freedom to monitor the government's performance. They invariably persisted and have always prevailed. When the government, no matter which one, tried to limit their freedom, they stayed united and fought back because the publishers and editors valued professional ethics above all else.

They were not politicians or businessmen, they were journalists and they all fought for press freedom. An onslaught on one paper or editor was considered an attack on all Thai media.

What is happening now is a different ball-game. Every media outlet seems to be in it for itself. Those in power are aware of this weakness and have exploited it to their advantage. The results are obvious. The Thai media community is divided.

Ad agencies have cleverly manipulated their accounts to please the government by focussing on pro-government media outlets. Obviously, the government's strategy is to polarise the media and break down their traditional camaraderie and solidarity.

In addition, Thaksin himself seeks to discredit newspapers that refuse to sell their souls. He has lashed out at dissenting media for not relying solely on information and propaganda provided by his government.

Let's not forget that it is the Thaksin administration that has lied about or unsuccessfully tried to cover up several issues, including the bird-flu epidemic. The government's way of communicating with the public is through bluff and spin. Unfortunately, many editors and journalists will likely be content to stay on the government payroll, and many members of the public will continue to be lulled into a state of ignorant complacency by the state's propaganda.

In honour of Reporter's Day, all self-respecting journalists must take stock of what is happening and think about how the erosion of the freedom of the press has affected them professionally and personally and, above all, how they can work together to restore their hard-won freedom for it is a prerequisite for any functioning democracy.

[The Quill]

HARD TALK: 'Friend' - you've got to say it with meaning

The Nation

Published on Mar 2, 2004

Less than six months ago, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra believed he was on top of the world. The Apec summit he was hosting had his approval rating soaring in a way no political leader before him had ever seen.

His ambition to be recognised as a regional leader seemed to be within reach. Thaksin could even proudly count US President George W Bush as a friend. After all, the "major non-Nato ally" status accorded Thailand by Washington was probably the best deal Thaksin could bargain for in standing side by side with the US in its war against terrorism.

But that was October 2003, and Thaksin today might already be missing those "good old days". A succession of events, including the violence in the South, the bird flu, the iTV scandal, the humiliating loss in the Songkhla by-election, and the ongoing face-off with the Egat union, have somehow brought him back to earth.

Even his "friend" George seems to be deserting him. The damning report on the human rights situation in Thailand issued by the US State Department last week had Thaksin fuming. The Thai leader, of course, never expected his good friend in Washington to treat him this way.

Thaksin and Bush probably have different definitions of the word "friend". As a superpower, the US considers countries to be friends only when they serve its economic and political interests. And Thaksin certainly is not naive enough not to know that.

But Thaksin's outburst over the US rights report is a good indication of how he interpreted his friendship with the US. And that it was definitely not the way he thought it should be.

Thaksin apparently believed that from the day he shook hands with his friend George during the Apec summit in Bangkok, there would be only backslapping and sweet words between them. After all, didn't Thailand uphold her part of the bargain by giving Washington her wholehearted support to the war on terror?

It was certainly beyond the prime minister's comprehension why President Bush would allow such a critical report of Thailand's human rights record to come out. Apparently forgetting all the handshakes and the new-found friendship, Thaksin was swift to denounce Bush as a "useless" and "annoying" friend.

Well, it seems rather unfair for Thaksin to vent his anger on his old friend this way. The Thai prime minister probably has only himself to blame for not having made clear to Bush the meaning of "friend".

Thaksin should have told Bush that once they became friends, nothing that would stir up bad feeling should be said about each other. Even if your friend is in the wrong, you are supposed to turn a blind eye to it.

Therefore, as a friend of Thailand, Bush was not supposed to take any notice of the 2,000 cases of murder and extrajudicial killings in the name of a war on drugs - much less make a noise about it.

And if Thaksin was accused of attempting to roll back press freedom in Thailand, his friend George was supposed to be oblivious to it. He was also supposed to plead ignorance to the problem of corruption and all other forms of human rights violations in Thailand that were pointed out in the report.

After all, at least by Thaksin's definition, that's what "friends" are for. The only problem was that he somehow thought that his friend Bush shared this understanding.

The latest US State Department report on human rights practices in Thailand, therefore, came as a rude awakening for Thaksin. All of a sudden, it dawned on him that he has been wrong all along in his assumptions about friendship with Washington.

But Thaksin is not a leader who is readily apologetic about mistakes he makes. He would rather put the blame on someone else. And in this particular case, if there is to be a culprit, it has to be Bush.

Now that the American president has been relegated to the status of "useless" and "annoying" friend, it should be interesting to see how he makes it up to the Thai leader. Bush should know better than to think that one can cross paths with Thaksin and get away unscathed.

Bush mustn't forget that Thaksin is not someone who is ready to kow-tow to anyone.

Even the United Nations earned his ire for criticising his government's war on drugs.

Here is a little tip for the American leader on how he can atone for his offence. When Thaksin is unhappy with a newspaper, he would have its owner fire the editor.

Bush should know what to do with his secretary of state if he still wants Thaksin to consider him a "friend".

THEPCHAI YONG

[The Quill]

EDITORIAL: Senate in a state of steep decline

Published on Mar 2, 2004

The writing is on the wall: the upper chamber of Parliament has succumbed to political interference and can no longer be relied upon to spearhead political reform

It would be a gross understatement to say that the elected Senate will have little to celebrate when it marks its fourth anniversary this week. What precious little the upper chamber may have achieved since its inception has been overwhelmed and cancelled out by a virtually unbroken string of scandals that culminated in the wholesale buyout of its supposedly politically-neutral members.| The 200 members of the Senate born of the 1997 "People's Constitution" were directly elected for the first time in Thailand's history in 2000 in a poll marred by widespread vote-buying and other electoral fraud.

Giving the Senate the benefit of the doubt, the public kept hoping that its members would somehow come to their senses and try to live up to high expectations that they would move forward badly-needed political reform.

The Senate, in a burst of youthful energy, offered a momentary glimmer of hope as many of its members appeared to be taking their job seriously by vetting legislation with rational debate and an apparent high degree of independence. For a time, the Senate even disagreed on certain key pieces of legislation with the ruling Thai Rak Thai-led coalition government, which commands an overwhelming majority in the House of Representatives.

Armed with enhanced powers, the new Senate is tasked with vitally important roles, including the hiring and firing of members of the various independent organisations set up to ensure checks-and-balances between the administrative, legislative and judicial branches of government, as well as transparency in governance.

In hindsight, the public should have known better, given the fact that most senators are political old-timers - including former MPs - and retired government officials, plus a sprinkling of academics, social workers and independent thinkers.

Little surprise, then, that a Senate composed of so many people with doubtful credentials should turn out to have questionable integrity. Self-respecting senators who perform their duty honestly are few and far between and thus have little if any impact on the working of the Senate as a whole.

As a political institution, the new Senate's precipitous decline was remarkable for its speed and the depths to which it has sunk. From an institution entrusted with the mandate to clean up Thailand's dirty politics, the Senate has been manipulated and then co-opted by the powers-that-be to become an active partner in corruption, the very crime that it was meant to eliminate.

The majority of senators have since abandoned any pretence of upholding the constitutionally-required impartiality. Many of them have been persuaded by the enormous power of patronage while others have been intimidated or blackmailed into submission.

Last month's election of the new Senate speaker was marred by alleged rampant vote-buying, blackmail and intimidation to get a senator with close ties to the Thaksin administration installed. This was in addition to the alleged rigging of appointments of many people closely associated with the ruling party to key positions in independent organisations, such as the Constitution Court, the Election Commission and the National Counter Corruption Commission.

The most vicious elements of Thai politics that have kept Thailand weak, backward and poorly-governed seem to have succeeded in consolidating their power to perpetuate their evil designs - the corruption of all aspects of Thai political, economic and social life.

Thailand's hard-won political reform now lies in tatters as the Senate is now dominated by unprincipled and ethically-challenged members.

It's time for freedom-loving individual members of the public, political action groups and civil society organisations not only to be vigilant but also to build a united front to ensure effective opposition against the insidious corruption that is undermining the country's democracy.

The Nation

The Nation

[mrentoul]

Traditionally, it is supposed to be a day during which journalists are allowed the luxury of taking time out to reflect on the state of their profession

The luxury of time out?

The reporters I know are always taking ''time out''.

They never do any work.