• 
• 

Published on July 18, 2007

I understand that so far in Thai newspapers no specifics have been mentioned and I guess that your readers do not really care or know much about the local dramatic arts scene. In my opinion, it is not a matter of local dramas but a question of unreasonable, unwarranted and uncalled for interference with free speech and expression, and as such it goes well beyond the TV industry.

Is free speech of so little value and importance in Thailand that nobody really cares? Can the government manipulate and interfere with it at will? Do other media outlets not realise that this could just be the thin edge of the wedge? If they get away with it, who will be next? The newspapers and magazines, the local film industry, the writers and artists? Will it be allowed in the future for local painters and sculptors to create works showing nudes and the museums and art galleries to display them? After all, nudity is not part of the Thai culture and the young should be protected from it. Will authors still be allowed to write novels depicting real life, as many television serials in the past have done?

Why don't the children and women's organisations supporting this move concentrate on the "dirty" and violent comics readily available to kids, the children who work under appalling conditions in factories and at road junctions, the children begging at overhead bridges and those forced into prostitution. I do not think that these unfortunates will get much attention as long as everybody is busy saving and protecting other children from seeing parents hugging each other, depictions of ghosts or laughing at jokes that are not grammatically correct. What harm is there in that?

I think it is only fair that I mention my personal interest. My daughter has been, for over 10 years, a leading producer of drama serials and has won many awards. Therefore I am a bit familiar with the local soap-opera scene and I know first-hand how careful she is - without anybody telling her what to do - not to produce any serials which could offend, disgust or frighten. I cannot think of a single episode which would have been unsuitable for children to watch. And most other producers are equally responsible. If there are others, a minority, then let the TV station deal with them after receiving a warning from the government.

Of course my daughter is very upset and concerned because these new rules would make it impossible to produce any interesting, exciting and creative serials in the future. What can be produced with no real and everyday life elements in them?

I hope that you in the interests of freedom of speech and all creative people in Thailand will lend your voice and support to this important cause. I know that TV stations and other producers are trying their best to fight back but there is no guarantee they will succeed.

H Walgis

Bangkok

Write letter to the Editor

Letter a gloomy epistle of 'biblical' proportions

I read Tom Fin's previous letters on subjects as diverse as "Public will not accept isolationist rhetoric", (Letters, June 27) and "Only education can solve Thailand's problems", (Letters, June 26) and was bewildered as to exactly what he was trying to say, why and for exactly what purpose. However these were small fry in comparison to today's gloom-ridden epistle "A litany of problems that could end in 'impossible' disaster for this country". An epistle is what it felt like, as disjointed in its ramblings as some biblical old testament texts.

Its scope was breathtaking as it disgorged limitless despair and despondency in an untrammelled deluge. The basis for all of this projected misery did however not seem to be fixed to any reasonable concept of reality, or to enter the realms of possibility. Rather it was as detached from sense as ordinary people understand it as Mr Fin's apparent belief that a flood has emotions and can be "exasperated by ecologically questionable programmes".

Dr John Patterson

Bangkok

Write letter to the Editor

Onus on Thaksin to prove source of overseas wealth

Re: "Govt must hit Thaksin where it hurts most", Opinion, July 15.

Despite having his assets to the tune of B65 billion frozen by the order of the Assets Examination Committee, it is still widely believed that Thaksin Shinawatra has a lot more stashed in Thailand in the form of bank deposits, stocks and real estate.

Thaksin's spending behaviour in exile has fuelled even more speculation that he has much more than we expect outside the country. Thaksin's acquisition of Manchester City football club, which has cost him B5 billion, has led to many more questions about the man's wealth. How much money does he really have abroad? How did he acquire it? Was it spirited out of the country since he has never declared he has any businesses overseas in his asset declaration upon taking office?

If the answer to the last question is positive, then is it safe to say the said money belongs to the Thai people?

Only when Thaksin comes clean about the source of his enormous wealth abroad - the B5 billion he recently spent on Manchester City FC appears to be just a drop in the ocean - will we believe it is not ours.

Chavalit Van

Chiang Mai

Write letter to the Editor

Security bill would set a dangerous precedent

I salute Thepchai Yong and his insightful (not inciting, I hope) Hard Talk opinion article in Tuesday's The Nation titled "Security bill reads like a list of broken promises". It paints a daunting picture of the direction power politics is heading in Thailand.

Draconian laws are easier to establish than they are to eradicate. It's akin to allowing a gang of toughs to stay at one's house - with the idea that if the house is attacked, the gang will protect the household. If later, the householders realise that the toughies are causing big problems within the house itself, how easy will it be to then evict them? No chance.

Ken Albertsen

Chiang Rai

Write letter to the Editor

Dedication of second-tier athletes a lesson for stars

Underneath the usual hype inseparable from the so-called top international sports stars, do I detect that just under the "champion level" we are beginning to see some refreshing candour?

On July 16 you reported Amir Khan (aged 20) the boxer as "promising to learn from his mistakes" ["Winner Khan admits he has a lot to learn", Sports] - even though he recovered from the canvas to win the Commonwealth Lightweight title after eight rounds! And afterwards he went into quite a lot of detail about his own mistakes.

Just as Grand Prix rookie Lewis Hamilton (never off the podium so far in his first season - a record) admitted he had learned a lot from finishing "only" third at Silverstone last time out. This is the 22-year-old who told the world that he gets round the ultra-narrow Monaco street circuit quickly by deliberately brushing his tyres against the guard rails at over 130 miles per hour.

Congratulations to these gutsy, open-minded sportsmen!

David Hardcastle

Chiang Mai

Write letter to the Editor