MEDIA GRAPPLES WITH BLACK MAY CENSORSHIP DRAMA
Blank-space protest in the Bangkok Post reinforces the gravity of crackdown to overseas observers as newsroom opts against toeing the military line, writes Nattaya Chetchotiros
On the morning of May 18, 1992, readers picked up the Bangkok Post and found themselves staring at some unusual blank spaces on the pages. Then, the seriousness of the matter began to sink in. Press freedom was suffering a heavy blow at the height of the political violence, which came to be known as Black May 1992. Many were killed and wounded during the protests.
Truth was the first casualty when censorship was imposed to gag the media during a bloody military crackdown on demonstrators seeking to oust a prime minister widely perceived to be illegitimate between May 17-20 of that year.
At the time, Thais criticised state-controlled media for not telling the truth, presenting distorted or one-sided information in favour of the government. In the face of government censorship, the
Bangkok Post editorial team had to struggle with the dilemma of bowing to pressure or defying restrictions to report on what happened. As it turned out, the newspaper of that morning carried blank spaces on pages 2, 3, 4,and 5, drawing mixed reactions.
Some praised it as an act of bravery, standing up against the curbs on freedom of expression, while others dismissed it as the Post lacking the courage to do its job.
Earlier that year, the pro-military Samakkhi Tham Party won the most House seats in the March 22 general election and joined four other parties to form a coalition government.
The election took place about a year after military generals calling themselves the National Peace-Keeping Council (NPKC) staged a coup to topple the government of Chatichai Choonhavan on Feb 23, 1991.
But Samakkhi Tham leader Narong Wongwan’s hopes of becoming prime minister were shattered when the US State Department announced he was denied an entry visa to the US owing to his alleged links with the drug trade.
The parties then supported Gen Suchinda Kraprayoon, army chief and a key coup leader, to lead the government. Gen Suchinda became the country’s 19th prime minister.
The way Gen Suchinda came to power was criticised as illegitimate and undemocratic, sparking fierce public resistance. Many were upset the general-turned-politician went back on his word that he would not seek any political office after the election.
While the coup-sponsored constitution of 1991 did not prohibit a non-elected outsider from becoming prime minister, Gen Suchinda’s decision to assume the premiership was regarded as an attempt to prolong the military’s grip on power.
The public were also aghast at the make-up of his cabinet. Some of the ministers were politicians forced out of office by the coup makers and investigated by a coup-appointed assets scrutiny panel for being “unusually rich” a year earlier.
The failure of the ruling coalition parties to amend the constitution as promised, to require a prime minister to be an elected MP, fuelled public outrage even more.
Clamours for his resignation grew louder, but Gen Suchinda refused to step down.
Anti-Suchinda rallies began in mid-April 1992 with former Palang Dharma Party leader Maj Gen Chamlong Srimuang among the key protest leaders. Many demonstrators were from Bangkok’s wealthy middle class. Nicknamed mob mue thue (the mobile phone mob), they carried with them their mobile phones, which had been introduced to Thailand only shortly before.
On the night of May 17, demonstrators clashed with anti-riot police at Phan Fa bridge on Ratchadamnoen Avenue as they moved to Government House to submit their demand for Gen Suchinda’s resignation.
Shortly after midnight, the government declared a state of emergency in Bangkok and adjoining provinces, and censorship was imposed.
Publishers were ordered not to run content “detrimental to national security or inciting public unrest” or they would face harsh penalties, according to the order broadcast on television.
Government troops moved in to quell demonstrators before dawn. Violence escalated as soldiers opened fire on the crowds, leaving many civilians dead and hundreds wounded.
On the morning of May 18, most newspapers presented full coverage of what happened the previous day, while the Bangkok Post was published only partially.
Parts of news reports on the clashes on pages 2 and 3, an editorial, the Dateline Bangkok column, a political cartoon on page 4 as well as the Postbag column on page 5 were removed, leaving white spaces in their place.
A note to readers on the front page explained: “The Bangkok Post has no alternative but to edit out sections of news reports (resulting in the white spaces) which could be deemed to violate the order.”
However, the Bangkok Post carried its usual news coverage in the following issues of May 19 and 20 without any blank spaces.
Paisal Sricharatchanya, Bangkok Post editor at the time, recounted the tension-filled moments in the newsroom as he made a decision to respond to the censorship.
He called an urgent meeting of news editors and reporters, and drove home his point by saying: “Anything that can be published will be. Anything that cannot be published will not. That’s the principle.’’
Paisal recalled: “We were sending a very important message. We did it as a sign of protest. As media, we always reminded ourselves that we must maintain balance in all circumstances. It is part of our mindset to realise there are two sides of the same coin.
“I always say the readers who buy our newspapers are the owners of the Bangkok Post. The newspaper is public property and our readers have the right to criticise or question us. We are ready to accept criticism.”
Sanitsuda Ekachai, a former Bangkok Post editorial pages editor and reporter at the time, noted the Thai and foreign media were split on the merits of the newspaper’s blank spaces.
However, the impact on foreign media was widespread, Ms Sanitsuda said. The Bangkok
Post’s decision to run the blank spaces was a message to let the world know about the gravity of the situation, she said.
Banyat Tasaneeyavej, a former Bangkok Post senior reporter and former president of the Thai Journalists Association, said the meeting discussed the idea of replacing news stories with blank spaces intensively. Several editors and reporters agreed this was a way of standing up against government censorship.
Banyat also said several relatives of people killed in the crackdown were upset that reports presented by state-run media did not tell the truth and were influenced by those in power.
“If the freedom to present news is curtailed, it should not be reported at all,” Banyat said.
Ampa Santimatanedol, a former Bangkok Post senior reporter, agreed with the decision to leave the blank spaces in the newspaper, saying the newspaper had to take a stand against restrictions on media freedom.
In fact, the Post was actively carrying out its role during the political crisis by issuing a special afternoon tabloid edition for readers to keep them abreast of the political situation, Ampa said.
“Both the Bangkok Post and its tabloid edition were popular with readers. The protest leaders often mentioned our newspapers when they addressed the crowds on the rally stage,” said Ampa, who covered Maj Gen Chamlong’s five-day hunger strike during the anti-Suchinda rallies.
On May 20, 1992, at 9.30pm, His Majesty the King summoned Gen Suchinda and Maj Gen Chamlong — the two main protagonists in the conflict — and told them to end confrontation and reconcile.
The footage of the pair sitting on the floor and listening to His Majesty admonishing them was shown on television nationwide. The royal advice had an immediate impact. Troops were ordered back to barracks. Protesters returned home. The crisis was defused.
Gen Suchinda resigned four days later on May 24 after only 47 days in power.