Thai media names British gang-rape victim, raises serious ethical issues
Originally published at Siam Voices on February 20, 2013 The decision to publish the full name and personal documents of a Scottish student who was gang raped in the southern Thai city of Nakhon Si Thammarat raises serious questions about ethics in Thai media when it comes to reporting crimes.
Reports of the incident emerged in the Thai media Monday, with police confirming that the 20-year-old was dragged off the street and assaulted by four suspects after she left a night club the previous evening.
The Daily News website ran a short story on the incident, accompanied by a copy of the victim's university identity card that showed her face and her full name.
Several reader comments below the story strongly criticized the Daily News for fully revealing the woman's identity. The coverage was also condemned on Twitter, though plenty of people included links to the offending article with their tweets. The Daily News editors later removed the image and her name from the article. However, there have been reports that the news channel TNN24 also showed her personal details and photo.
This insensitive coverage comes only a few days after the case of a 12-year-old ethnic Karen girl that was kidnapped and tortured by a couple in Kamphaeng Phet province hit the national headlines.
(READ MORE: Thailand: Plight of tortured Karen girl shocks a nation and Couple jump bail: Thai justice system fails tortured Karen girl by Kaewmala)
In this case, local police have had the girl stripped her almost naked to document her mutilated body after years of torture by the couple in front of members of the media. While the pictures did not show her face, it is still highly questionable - if not un-dignifying - by the local police to parade the girl in front of media and further traumatize the victim.
This prompted a response by the international children rights organization Plan International, which wrote in a column in the Bangkok Post:
As adults and as human beings, we - journalists as well as civil servants and law enforcers - have an obligation to protect children's rights. In the case of this Karen girl, even though her face was obscured and her name was withheld (all positive steps), we failed to protect her dignity and have subjected her to the shame of appearing near naked in a room full of strangers. We've put her under a spotlight, stripped her of her clothes, her humanity and her dignity, and objectified her in the name of raising awareness. (...)
Journalists are the last line of defence for children who have been scarred by their ordeals. In this instance the journalists could have chosen not to take photos, interrogate or otherwise participate in an event that would deepen the harm this girl had already suffered. A female official from the provincial authorities could have photographed the girl's hands, arms or legs in a private room and then shared those pictures with the media to avoid further harm to the child.
"Media needs guidance on reporting of child abuse", Bangkok Post, February 18, 2013
This also applies to the case of the British sexual assault victim and, indeed, all victims of crime in Thailand. The media may have access to sensitive images and identity information, but this does not mean they have to publish them.
While this is not a solely a Thai phenomenon (many European tabloids have done similar), many media professionals here display a total disregard for victims' personal right to privacy, and not even for a misguided belief that the public's right to know trumps personal privacy. It is also the authorities' fault to disclose such details (some of which may be critical to an running investigation and successful prosecution) to the media.
Unfortunately, there is a strong tendency among Thailand's media to take the information provided by the authorities and reproduce it without question or any real context. The reason why so many Thai-language newspaper items read like dry protocols of what has happened is because they mostly actually are unreflected, regurgitated quotes and soundbites by whoever was just talking. A typical introduction to a story in a mainstream Thai newspaper is: “On this date, at that time, at that place, that person, whose rank or position is this, said this,” followed by a couple of more soundbites.
The Thai Journalists' Association was not available for comment at the time of publishing.
Thai media newsrooms really have to ask themselves the following questions: What does it add to coverage to necessitate the publishing of the victim’s full personal details? What more harm and humiliation can be caused to the victim of the crime by revealing the full name and picture? What function do journalists, reporters and editors still serve, if they do not prioritize the information given in order to tell what is really important and thus in the process fail to protect the victims of crimes?
UPDATE 1: The Bangkok-based Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) has responded to our inquiry:
It is unfortunate that this lapse of ethics occurred. Our concern is not only for Thailand but also other countries in the region where colleagues have noted similar lax in observing ethical standards. It is important for the media not to further traumatise the survivor, that the role of the media is to report and expose the issue, but to protect the dignity of the survivors". The media needs to understand that ethical responsibility is part of human rights.
Kulachada Chaipipat Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA)
UPDATE 2: Mark Kent, the British Ambassador to Thailand has issued this short statement to Siam Voices:
I and other Ambassadors have on several occasions set out our view to media and authorities about the need to respect victim confidentiality, especially for serious crimes and incidents. This includes protection of personal data and images
Mark Kent British Ambassador to Thailand
Indeed, he has raised this issue before with his Canadian counterpart Philip Calvert during a visit to Phuket earlier this year. It is also worth noting that the ambassador met with senior editors of the largest mass circulation newspaper Thai Rath yesterday afternoon and has certainly raised that issue with them as well:
British Ambassador visits Thai Rath newspaper today and discusses media scene in Thailand with senior editors. twitter.com/ukinthailand/s…
— UK in Thailand (@ukinthailand) February 19, 2013
Thai Culture Minister slams SNL 'Rosetta Stone' sketch
Originally published at Siam Voices on February 5, 2013 About two weeks ago, the long-running US-American TV-show "Saturday Night Live" on NBC* had a skit lampooning the language-learning software Rosetta Stone (see embedded video below). In the parody commercial, some of the testimonials claim to use the software to learn Thai, order "to go to Thailand - for a thing...!" Of course, given that these are sketchy-looking white male - that 'thing' could mean only one thing: these men are learning (surprisingly accurate) Thai phrases to engage with prostitutes - including the groan-inducing ping-pong reference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZCXy8XIIfk
Now, since the show is hardly shown anywhere but the United States and the 'meh'-sketch of course is tailored to an American audience by a comedy show that had its best days - you would think that this would go away very quickly, right? Not really: a bootleg was put on YouTube for the whole world to see until it eventually made its way to Thailand. And that's how the story kicked off.
While this doesn't qualify as 'viral' (that video only had slightly more than 120,000 views), the sketch sparked outrage and heated debate online among Thais. Most of the comments cannot be reproduced here, but you can read some of them (mostly in Thai) here. This story was quickly picked up by local mainstream media outlets like Channel 3, ThaiPBS and Thai Rath. While it is understandable that some Thais would take offense, some of the reactions were perhaps over the top.
And then the Thai Culture Minister chimed in...
Culture Minister Sonthaya Khunploem** said on Monday that the Culture Watch Centre is working with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in an effort to have the video removed from the world's most popular video sharing website.
The government will also inform the United States embassy that the commercial spoof is tarnishing Thailand's image and will ask the embassy to explain the situation to the producer of Saturday Night Live, Mr Sonthaya said.
"Government to demand takedown of sex-trade spoof", Bangkok Post, February 4, 2013
Yes, the self-proclaimed cultural heralds of everything “Thai”-ness that we like to call the "ThaiMiniCult" are back and they inadvertently caused the Streisand effect to take place. While the YouTube video was removed, most likely because it too many people flagged it as spam (and not as Thai officials would like to think that YouTube has granted their request), more copies have popped up elsewhere, including the one embedded above.
And by moaning complaining to the US Embassy, it reveals the misguided conception by Thai officials that foreign officials can wield the same influence in their country as they do (or like to think they still can) here in Thailand, as the recent controversy over a cancelled soap opera and rumors about political interference has shown.
In general, Thailand tends to be very sensitive by negative perceptions of the country, especially if there are being pointed out by foreigners: Last summer upon her arrival in Bangkok, pop artist Lady Gaga tweeted her desire to buy a fake Rolex watch. The comment sparked outrage that climaxed with the Commerce Minister's official complaint at the US Embassy.
It is understandable that Thailand wants to protect its image, given the value of its booming tourism industry. However, there is no real attempt to address real and serious issues like the sex industry and in general, many inconvenient truths are being swept under the carpet for the sake of the Kingdom's image. It is an image (whether it is accurate or real is the topic for another debate) that Thais are strongly defending - while at the same time much of Thai entertainment promotes stereotypes about its neighboring countries and even about their own people - why else are people from the rural Northeast still being called 'water buffaloes'?
May be Thais can counter the SNL sketch. Global Post's Patrick Winn has a good suggestion:
So here's an idea for any Thais intent on a rebuttal. Film a Rosetta Stone parody of misfit Thais learning English. Why English? So they can fly to America and purchase assault rifles.
"Thai government aghast at SNL's "Rosetta Stone" sketch", by Patrick Winn, GlobalPost.com, February 4, 2013
*What a shame that the comedy series "30 Rock" has wrapped up its run - would have loved to see how they would have handled it!
**By the way: The current culture minister Sonthaya took the post not too long ago after his five-year ban from politics ended, during which time his wife kept this seat warm for him. Also, his father is currently in some serious trouble...!
Debates rages over Thailand's lèse majesté law
Originally published at Siam Voices on February 4, 2013 After the verdict against veteran labor activist Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, discussions about lèse majesté have been reignited on many levels and also in many forms. Somyot was recently sentenced to 11 years in prison, 10 of them for publishing articles (which he didn't write himself) in a magazine that were deemed insulting to the monarchy - after being previously held in detention for 21 months and denied bail 12 times (read our report as it happened here).
We begin with more reactions condemning the decision by the Criminal Court, after the numerous statements by international NGOs e.g. Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch and including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, saying “the conviction and extremely harsh sentencing of Somyot sends the wrong signals on freedom of expression in Thailand. Also, the United States State Department issued a short statement during a press briefing last week, expressing "deep concern" and that "no one should be jailed for expressing peacefully their views".
One of the first foreign reactions came from the European Delegation in Thailand, that sees press freedom and freedom of expression "undermined" by the verdict. It was just a matter of time until the statement was met with very extreme (but unsurprising) responses:
In response to the EU, an anonymous message was sent out on Facebook that went on to be shared by a large number of Thai royalists’ online social networks. In the highly politicised context of the ongoing Red-Yellow paradigm, politicking remains a key dynamic of course, in almost any social-political equation.
Nevertheless, it read: “Preserving our beloved Monarchy is the right of the Thai people - not the business of the EU... we have our own distinct culture, much of which has evolved around our beloved monarchy…This may be difficult for Europeans to understand: It is our long-held tradition to pay the utmost respect to our King, with a type of respect that is unique to Asian cultures.”
"Is our debate over freedom forever in conflict with Thai culture", by Titipol Phakdeewanich, Prachatai, January 30, 2013
There was initially noticeable silence by Thai organizations such as the toothless National Human Rights Commission or similar domestic institutions. On Sunday, Prachatai reported on the reaction by the Thai Journalists' Association (TJA):
Chavarong Limpatthamapanee, President of the TJA, has been forced to admit that they do ‘support and protect freedom of expression of the media’. But they then ring-fence this support and protection with as many caveats as they hope will protect them from the ultra-royalists. First they circumscribe the right to freedom of expression within Thai law. (...)
The TJA then decides that freedom of expression does not belong to everyone, but only ‘media’ and says there is a debate going on within the TJA over a definition of what does and does not constitute media.
Khun Chavarong offers a novel definition: “What we protect is media that reports objectively, but if any media tries to have a political agenda for certain political groups, then we cannot protect them.”
"To Be Media or Not To Be Media", Prachatai, February 3, 2013
On the heels of the verdict, the Foreign Correspondent's Club of Thailand (FCCT) hosted a panel discussion on lèse majesté with Somyot's wife Sukanya Pruksakasemsuk, Prachatai webmaster Chiranuch Premchaiporn, prolific academic and lèse majesté expert Dr. David Streckfuss and Dr. Tul Sittisomwong, self-proclaimed leader of the ultra-royalist "multicolored-shirt group" and apparently the only one who is regularly willing to stand in a public debate to defend the draconian law (and also in English).
There's been some controversy that the FCCT did not issue a statement on the Somyot verdict - understandable, since the club board has been targeted with a lèse majesté complaint in the past that was utterly politically motivated. However, the club itself defended their decision on the night of the panel discussion by saying that the FCCT is a club and not a journalist's association. Furthermore, (and I am paraphrasing here) the club is there to foster a debate and argument about the issues in Thailand - preferably by Thais themselves and that evening's debate was a good example (as they have done that in the past many, many times).
Whether or not this is enough is another question (for some it is not, but then again never will be) - but it also begs the question that if a statement by the FCCT was made, it would be doubtful how effective it would have been, considering how ferocious hardcore proponents of lèse majesté reject and attack any criticism, especially from abroad (see above).
The debate itself did not bring anything revolutionary to the discourse, but that was not to be expected. However, it was important that debate still exists and also the incomprehensible mess by Dr. Tul was yet again exposed the weak arguments the proponents of LM have. (See a recap of my live-tweeting of the panel discussion here)
And finally, before a football match between the universities of Thammasat and Chulalongkorn on Saturday, students (including Somyot's son) from both sides were seen showing a large banner in the stands saying "FREE SOMYOT" and protesting around the stadium. The public protest happened in the opening ceremony - from which they were forbidden to participate - where giant paper-mache figures lampoon political figures, which was obviously this year prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra.
This is quite remarkable, since students (or young people in general) are not really publicly perceived as being politically interested and active (unlike in the past). And Thammasat University struggling with itself over their stance towards LM - leading to one of the most bizarre sights as journalism students (!) were protesting against the reform of the law.
While the chances for an actual legal change of the lèse majesté law are still unlikely thanks to an unwilling government - despite their red shirt voter base - all these stories show that the public discourse over lèse majesté is very much still alive and ongoing.