This week's Economist has been banned in Thailand

Khor tose started a thread about an editorial in the Economist - http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/fo ... 16615.html (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/please-read-the-economist-12-4-t16615.html) .

The Bankok Post reports that the Thai distributor has "voluntarily" banned distribution of this week's copy of the magazine - http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_new ... ?id=135271 (http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=135271) - however the article reporting the ban is sufficiently informative about its content to make anyone who missed it to go rushing off to the online version.

...the article reporting the ban is sufficiently informative about its content ....

Very much my first thought on reading it, too. Things seem to be either changing or preparing for a change, one way or another.

Not the first time for them, I recall this publication being banned during Chavelets reign when Chalerm started arresting fax machines.

Khor tose started a thread about an editorial in the Economist - http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/fo ... 16615.html (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/please-read-the-economist-12-4-t16615.html) .

The Bankok Post reports that the Thai distributor has "voluntarily" banned distribution of this week's copy of the magazine - http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_new ... ?id=135271 (http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=135271) - however the article reporting the ban is sufficiently informative about its content to make anyone who missed it to go rushing off to the online version.

The article in question: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.c ... d=12724832 (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12724832)

The official letter of complain:

Sir:

I am deeply dismayed by The Economist's narrow views and condescending attitude. In trying to justify presupposed contentions, your double pieces ("The king and them" and "A right royal mess", 4 December 2008) choose to give credence to writing by one American journalist about the King of Thailand and interpret events to suit his unfounded conspiracyprone speculations, while discarding important facts that prove otherwise. More fundamentally, the articles ignores the very fact that each country evolves from background specific to itself, and that the bonds between Thai people and their kings are deeply rooted in the kingdom's centurieslong history.

Throughout his reign, the King has clearly demonstrated that he is above and not involved in politics, strictly adhering to the roles prescribed by law. His steadfast political neutrality adds to the weight of his words - his moral authority, not political power. His intervention has been few and, when made, was meant to prevent further bloodsheds among Thais as in 1992, not to side with any groups.

Nevertheless, political groups and analysts alike seem to have taken pains to get him involved. Prior to the military intervention on 19 September 2006, when Thailand's political system seemed to have grinded to a halt, a call was made for a royally conferred government.

The King, in his address to the judges in April that year, refused and said clearly that the problems must be resolved democratically and through constitutional means. Had he no faith in democracy, he could have done otherwise and Thais would have obliged. There is no need, as there never has been, for any behindthescene intrigue, as alleged.

The affection and reverence that Thais feel towards him is genuine and shown voluntarily, stemming as much from their appreciation for his lifelong devotion and hard work for the wellbeing of all Thais as for his commitment to democracy.

Yet, due to this, some groups have sought to make claims of royal support or interpret his action or silence for their own political ends. Indeed, the King said in 2005 that he is not beyond criticism. But his position as being above politics does not allow him to respond to any political claims or allegations against him (unfortunately, including those made by the Economist) - thus the raison d etre for Thais to call for the socalled lesemajeste law to protect their King.

Here is another omitted fact: in Thailand as in other democracies, laws are enacted by parliamentarians who respond to the will of the people they represent. By neglecting facts and simple logics like these, your articles blatantly make wrongful accusations regarding the Thai King and inexcusably offend Thais. They deserve our protest in strongest terms.

Tharit Charungvat
Director General, Department of Information and
Spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand