• 
• 

Published on December 1, 2007

Police and military officials have tried to rationalise the illegal detention of the journalists, saying this was all part of the natural course of police work. Ostensibly, the media people were detained pending verification of their identities and affiliations, and to prevent those who are now being portrayed as military mutineers from using fake media credentials to slip through the military gauntlet.

But reports that video footage was confiscated, and that many of those detained for questioning were in fact hauled off in handcuffs, paint a more troubling picture. The fact is that the government of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has consistently shown contempt for media coverage of the frequent crises and cracks befalling the Philippine military. In past coup attempts, the Arroyo administration has threatened journalists covering coup-makers with charges of sedition. In Thursday's developments, media that were covering the press conference of Senator Trillanes at the hotel he had taken over were in fact investigated for "obstruction of justice", government and military officials told the Philippine press.

Such actions are preposterous. The suggestion - in words and in action - that the media can be charged for covering people opposed to the government impinges upon press freedom and the Philippine people's right to know. The Philippine government is sending the message, not for the first time, that coverage of its political opponents is tantamount to sedition and obstruction of justice. Such a chilling message is simply inconsistent with the freedoms enshrined in the Philippine constitution, and contemptuous of the rights of the free press in the Philippines.

SEAPA - composed of the Manila-based Centre for Media Freedom and Responsibility, the Philippine Centre for Investigative Journalism, the Alliance of Independent Journalists in Indonesia, the Jakarta-based Institute for the Study of the Free Flow of Information, and the Thai Journalists Association - demands the return of all journalists' equipment and footage, and an apology to Filipino journalists for this affront to press freedom in the Philippines.

Roby Alampay

SEAPA Executive Director

Bangkok

------------

Intravenous drug-users ignored in Thai HIV fight

Re: "Half of drug-war victims said to be innocent", News, November 28.

The disclosure that more than half of the 2500 suspects killed in 2003 as part of Thailand's war on drugs were not involved in drugs is a damning indictment of the Thai government's ill-advised and ineffective approach to illegal drug use. In addition to the innocent people who were labelled as drug suspects and killed as a result, the abusive drug crackdown undermined humane drug treatment and HIV prevention in a country facing one of the worst injection-drug-driven HIV/Aids epidemics in the world.

In a country that has focused so much effort on keeping HIV transmission in check among sex workers, HIV prevention services for people who use drugs continue to be ignored. While estimates of HIV prevalence among sex workers in Thailand fell significantly from the mid-1980s to 2004, they remained steady at a shocking 35 to 50 per cent among people who inject drugs.

Instead of hindering effective responses to HIV/Aids with its heavy-handed over-reliance on criminal law and law enforcement, Thailand should consider evidence-based interventions that prevent HIV transmission and reduce other harms associated with injection drug use. As outlined in our publication, "Legislating for Health and Human Rights", establishing a clear legal framework for addressing HIV/Aids issues among people who use drugs would be a more effective way to address the spread of HIV through injection drug use — and one that would respect and promote human rights, rather than violate them.

Leon Mar

Director of Communications

Canadian HIV/Aids Legal Network

Toronto, Canada

------------

Privatisation a major boon for PTT investors

Re: "The rock or the hard place?", Business, November 30.

Montree Sornpaisarn's economic and financial reasons for keeping PTT listed are somewhat difficult to argue against. Unfortunately, he missed out on one key legal issue, which is in front of the Supreme Administration Court now. It is not the government of the land but the court that has to decide whether the sale of a stake in PTT (30 per cent) to the public on December 6, 2001 was legally correct and, if not, whether there are ways to amend it without retroactively putting PTT back to its position before December 6, 2001.

Montri's mitigated reasons were well thought out and mightily convincing on the damage to Thailand's credibility if PTT has to be delisted. I would also like to make a few points.

First, since its listing, Thailand's PTT has been lauded as one of Fortune's top-500 companies in the world, placing 207th in 2007 and mentioned as a most trusted brand by Reader's Digest.

Second, the Finance Ministry still holds a majority of PTT's stocks. Any monopolistic benefits are appropriately shared 50/50 by the public and private sectors.

Third, in being listed on the stock market for six years and brushing shoulders with people in the private sector instead of exclusively mixing with the state enterprise society, the value of its stock has risen more than 10-fold, from Bt35 per unit to Bt374. The Finance Ministry and the private sector share this fortune, with 52 per cent and 48 per cent respectively. I dread to think of what PTT's value would be today if the company had not listed on December 6, 2001. Given the examples set by state enterprises in the past, I doubt whether it could double to the value of Bt70.

Songdej Praditsmanont

Bangkok

------------

Expat concerns likely did little to oust Howard

Re: "New Australian PM yet to prove himself", Letters, November 30.

This is a strange letter. There are several principal reasons why, in the midst of unprecedented prosperity, an economic boom, low inflation and almost full employment, a majority of Australians voted to change their government. These include a perception that the Howard government had lost steam, neglected important areas such as education and health and was responsible for controversial industrial-relations laws.

However, no commentator has ever suggested, like your writer, that its policy towards expatriate Australians was an issue in the Howard government's defeat. Indeed, I doubt whether most Australians would even know what this is about. Perhaps Loki Ragnaroekesen could explain just how Howard "denied expatriates their right to jobs and imposed conditions on them", as the writer claims and how this influenced the electoral result.

Rodney Sheaves

Sydney, Australia

------------

Parties not on the same page in Middle East talks

I have two questions regarding the current Israeli-Palestinian "peace" talks.

First I'd like to know if America and Israel believe that Hamas would be willing to live in peace with Israel if offered a fair peace settlement. If so, then why not invite Hamas to the talks? On the other hand, if America and Israel believe that under no circumstances would Hamas agree to live in peace with Israel, then what is the point in the peace conference when no settlement will be workable without Hamas's approval?

Until somebody can answer these questions (as far as I know, no one has even asked them!) how can the peace talks be taken seriously?

Eric Bahrt

Chon Buri

Send us your views in an instant

E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to

the Editor' in the subject box, to:

letters@nationgroup.com

The Nation