In a sign that self-censorship is alive and well in Thailand, Thai PBS, the public broadcasting news organization, recently ran a controversial article on February 28, regarding how some Thais were nostalgic for military rule, and that these military dictators played an instrumental role in building a modern Thai nation and “economic success”. Former junta leader Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha and Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat, the latter known for ordering alleged arsonists back in the 1960s, to be summarily executed by a firing on spot without going through a justice system, were featured in the article.
Many readers and netizens were outraged. They accuse Thai PBS of being a mouthpiece for military dictatorship. Soon enough, the organization issued a statement, saying the article (which has no byline) “was not sufficiently well-rounded and could lead to inaccurate understanding, leading to debate, and become a political tool without the intention of Thai PBS.”
The statement ended by telling the public that they have removed the article from all of its platforms.
To summarize, a good number of Thais who claim to support democracy do not have a problem with Thai PBS censoring its own content simply because they disapprove or oppose the content. These people would rather read and hear only things that they agree with or approve of.
While the article may be disturbing to these people, it’s an important reminder that there are still Thais who prefer military dictatorship over elected government. Disturbing as it may be, it’s the reality. Forcing Thai PBS to eventually delete its controversial article will not change the mindset of pro-junta people. It will simply sweep the issue under the ideological rug. What was achieved was not changing the minds of supporters, but self-denial and more self-censorship for Thai society.
Thailand already has more than its fair share of self-censorship. The mainstream Thai press routinely self-censor anything deemed mildly critical of the monarchy to the point where many journalists can earnestly say they are for press freedom and do not see the royal defamation laws as a major impediment to press freedom.
Back to Thai PBS. We need to remind ourselves that Thai PBS’ funding comes from the so-called sin tax, the money made by the government from taxing and imposing tariffs on alcohol and tobacco. It is thus only fair that such media organizations would try to represent diverse political views, including those who admire and are nostalgic for a military coup, simply because these people are also among those who indirectly funded Thai PBS when buying booze and cigarettes.
How can we truly understand Thai society, and co-exist with others in peace, if there is no acknowledgement that there are people who think like that and engage in a dialogue, if not deliberation, in hope of finding a common solution, or compromise, for a peaceful co-existence. Are we so feeble intellectually that we have to suppress and delete differing views because we fear that other people are not critical enough to read such content and make their own conclusion? Supporters of such a move have no trust in the intelligence of the general public.
These people think that others will simply believe in what they read verbatim and in toto – be it content from a pro-junta writer, from an ambassador of a country that its leader was declared a war criminal by the International Criminal Court like Israel trying to defend what they did in Gaza, or from the embassy of an illiberal state like China assuring us that all the 40 Uyghurs recently sent back by the Thai government to China are in fact leading a normal life. Sadly, their mentality resembles those who call for the censorship of anything mildly critical of the Thai monarchy.
Some Thais, including those who insist on standing for freedom and democracy, were more than happy to see texts that they disagree with being censored, being deleted.
Clearly, our society still has a long way to go before we would be mature enough to defend the views of those whom we vehemently disagree with.
It’s not just these people that failed, but Thai PBS also failed to defend the freedom of expression of its writer. Thai PBS should have known better.
______
